https://canuckscorner.com/forums/
Credible or otherwise, HF is a legitimate 3rd party observer, i.e., not just a bunch more Canucks fans.ESQ wrote:Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004
On the other hand, the Canuck's weakness may allow prospects to "graduate" to the NHL sooner than normal, thus not contributing to the ranking anymore and eroding the usefulness of this measure.Ronning's Ghost wrote:Credible or otherwise, HF is a legitimate 3rd party observer, i.e., not just a bunch more Canucks fans.ESQ wrote:Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004
Since it's only reasonable to expect a weak performance from the on-ice product during a rebuild, I submit that one useful measure of the job Benning is doing will be whether the general assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool continues to rise.
I agree this is a possibility. However, I would argue that one of the other things a successful rebuilding GM should be doing is signing veterans to short-term contracts (to be flipped at the deadline), and these veterans should keep prospects from graduating before they are ready.5thhorseman wrote:On the other hand, the Canuck's weakness may allow prospects to "graduate" to the NHL sooner than normal, thus not contributing to the ranking anymore and eroding the usefulness of this measure.Ronning's Ghost wrote:Credible or otherwise, HF is a legitimate 3rd party observer, i.e., not just a bunch more Canucks fans.ESQ wrote:Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004
Since it's only reasonable to expect a weak performance from the on-ice product during a rebuild, I submit that one useful measure of the job Benning is doing will be whether the general assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool continues to rise.
If Benning had done none of the deck chair shuffling, or trading younger assets for "age gap" players, just moved out vets, played the waiver wire, and stockpiled picks/prospects, you could still say the same thing, and I'd be satisfied that this was an actual rebuild. You are right, we'd still have the pain, but we'd be following a coherent plan. For a team that has been relatively putrid since he got here, you'd expect a better and deeper prospect pool, and some of that has to do with his willingness to move picks for (very poor) short-term results.ESQ wrote:Again, in three years - 75% roster turned over, 5 rookies becoming roster players, plus Boeser, Goldobin, and Virtanen with sniffs at the NHL, 2 lottery-picks, made the playoffs once.
After year 4, there's a pretty good chance that only one D-man will remain from the team Benning inherited, 3 more rookies are developed, only 1 or 2 players over 30, and the team still has Gaudette, Juolevi, Demko, and Dahlen in the pipeline.
That's a rebuild.
I'd say Eriksson, Sutter, Miller are all much better than Baron, Cassels and Essensa. I don't remember Baron's contract, but he was on the Canucks for a really bad 5-year stretch. Cassels was for sure a great pick-up, better than the comparable Demitra and better than Eriksson's no doubt. That was quite a different era though when it comes to contract length.Blob Mckenzie wrote:Brian Burke used to bring in veterans on two and three year contracts. Guys like Baron, Cassels, Essensa etc. These five and six year deals for average players is stupid to say the least and yes there are some damn good forwards who will be available in the 2018 and 2019.
Its looked pretty coherent to me - every season he's made drastic changes to the lineup by trading vets and bringing along prospects, only in 15-16 did he let the vets walk as UFAs.Island Nucklehead wrote:
If Benning had done none of the deck chair shuffling, or trading younger assets for "age gap" players, just moved out vets, played the waiver wire, and stockpiled picks/prospects, you could still say the same thing, and I'd be satisfied that this was an actual rebuild. You are right, we'd still have the pain, but we'd be following a coherent plan. For a team that has been relatively putrid since he got here, you'd expect a better and deeper prospect pool, and some of that has to do with his willingness to move picks for (very poor) short-term results.
We'll have to agree to disagree ESQ, but if your definition of "rebuild" is acceptable, why has Linden refused to acknowledge the rebuild by using the word "rebuild"? Does he believe it has negative connotations?
Well, were the Oilers successful at rebuilding? Is that what a rebuild is to you? They got their lottery pick, they're back in the playoffs, their future is bright thanks solely to McDavid, and its taken them 10 years to get to that point.I suspect your definition is closer to Lindening's "transition" (roster turnover), but without the "remaining competitive bit". By your definition, the Oilers were extremely successful at rebuilding, as they seemed to do it 2-3 times over the past 10 years...
Yup some of the best teams today Penguins and Blackhawks had to tank to get a 1st overall pick, along with some key trades, good picks later in draft, the right UFA's.ESQ wrote: Well, were the Oilers successful at rebuilding? Is that what a rebuild is to you? They got their lottery pick, they're back in the playoffs, their future is bright thanks solely to McDavid, and its taken them 10 years to get to that point.
What is a successful rebuild? Chicago had to win a lottery to do it. Pittsburgh won the ultimate lottery. If those are your successful re-builds, you should bear in mind that they were in the toilet far longer than the Canucks have been thus far. Pittsburgh had 5 years in the wilderness and had 2 first-overalls and 2 second-overalls. Chicago had a decade with one playoff appearance, and got Toews at 3rd and Kane at 1st.
We're 2 years in the toilet. If Benning does it in 5, without drafting a Crosby, Kane or McDavid at 1st overall, he is truly a genius.
ESQ wrote:
But now, I suppose we can take solace in the fact that we have one more playoff win in the past 3 seasons than the Kings do
Helped Lombardi targeted the right players that can score goals (carter/williams/richards (gagne 2012, gaborik 2014) after they had a big solid top 6 defense and a goalie in the zone, their defense had unreal synergy that perfectly worked together to help Quick, who had mindfucked all the teams/fans with his stellar performances.ESQ wrote:The Kings are an outlier in many respects - which is why I was so shocked that they were able to repeat!
Two cups, and haven't won the Division since 1990/91! Won the Cup as 8th-seed!
Their window was similar to the Canucks, though it came after missing the playoffs for 7 years. The obvious difference is they won it all in their window, where we came oh-so-close.
One thing LA had in both its championships was unreal health/durability. They went on deep playoff runs with a full, healthy roster and managed to not lose anyone to injury.
But now, I suppose we can take solace in the fact that we have one more playoff win in the past 3 seasons than the Kings do
, so it's no wonder this team gets injured a lot.Pretty balanced response there BM. I should probably lay off being so hard on Benning; I just get a little tired of the rediculous 'genious' mindset.Blob Mckenzie wrote:I don't think Elmer is quite as bad as the piss posse at hfboards makes him out , but he's definitely one of the poorer managers in the league that's for sure. He made a couple decent moves but he needs to continue this trend and not resort back to the constant blunders we have seen for most of his tenure.
