The “results” one wants to see in a successful rebuild is a good crop of prospects coming in.Diehard1 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pmHey Rikster,
Been a while, hope everything is good with you! I'm going to disagree with a few things you said, though I also agree with a number of them. I don't really care what word they use, rebuild, retool, re-whatever, as long as the results are there. So far the results couldn't have been much worse
So yeah… the “results” have been great thus far.
7 to 10 years?Diehard1 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pmFor a 7 to 10 year rebuild, has there been a successful rebuild in the post salary cap era that has taken that long? Pittsburgh, LA, Washington, Chicago, Winnipeg, Tampa Bay, Toronto, Philly, New Jersey, Colorado, Dallas all took less time than that, and most quite a bit less. SJ, Nashville, Boston, Minny, Anaheim, St. Louis, Detroit, Ottawa all haven't rebuilt yet, though Detroit and Ottawa are starting. Edmonton, Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Buffalo, all have sucked for a while and have been examples of unsuccessful rebuilds. Even the the Islanders under Milbury barely sucked enough to miss the playoffs 7 straight seasons, so my opinion if is it takes you 7 to 10 years to rebuild you're definitely doing it wrong.
Canucks are anywhere from 1 to 4 years into a rebuild… depending on who you listen to.
(the Blobytes say 1 year)
Just some perspective, yes I get that you’re discussing how long theoretically this rebuild should/should-not take
You started that paragraph with concern about the contracts of vetsDiehard1 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pmI agree that it's better to focus on finding elite players rather than supporting players, I just hope that the salaries of supporting players won't hinder paying those elite players in the future. I figure there's always a way to get out of the contracts so I'm not too concerned overall. A rising salary cap and player movement means it's relatively unlikely it will hurt and if it does it won't be too much.
… then you went on to address those concerns to your own satisfaction.
It’s very interesting to observe you debating yourself.
The only reason Rikster brought up the Leaves was to show those vet contracts aren’t a problemDiehard1 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pmThe example you gave of the Leaves though - since 2012 they've drafted 5th (Morgan Rielly), 21st (Frederik Gauthier), 8th (William Nylander), 4th (Mitch Marner), 1st (Austin Matthews), 17th (Liljegren) and 29th this year (Rasmus Sandin). The Canucks over that same period have drafted 26th (Gaunce), 9th (Horvat) and 24th (Shinkaruk) in 2013, 6th (Virtanen), 23rd (Boeser), 5th (Juolevi), 5th (Pettersson) and 7th (Hughes). Overall we've had higher picks than they have had, though as you said they did get the lottery luck one season. I'm hopeful our last 3 picks turn out to be very good players, but remember it's taken 3 horrible seasons to get there so we should get something for having to watch the hockey we've had to the past few seasons.
… and you’ve already debated yourself into believing he’s right, remember?
Yet in those “past 5 drafts” Leaves have only drafted 3 proven NHL difference-makers.Diehard1 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pmFor me though, the big difference between the Nucks and the Leaves over the past 5 drafts (since Benning started) is we've drafted 34 players while the Leaves have drafted 42. That's a lot more draft picks to play with, and the Leaves have turned them into some good prospects and a deep system that just won them the AHL championship. They should be good for a number of years to follow - and it pains me to say that.
(Matthews, Nylander, Marner)
Those extra eight draft picks of which you speak of had nothing to do with those guys.
And the only players from those “past 5 drafts” who played a regular shift in that AHL championship:
Engvall, Timashov, Grundstrom, Brooks, Dermott, and Liljegren.
Liljegren was horrible and Dermott only played 14 games.
Grundstrom was the best of those forwards point-wise and he was only 5th (14 points in 20 games).
Point is: Players from those “past 5 drafts” had next to nothing to do with winning that AHL championship.
But why are we talking about players/prospects on the Leaves/Marlies again?
Wanna bet?Diehard1 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pmOver the past 13 months or so, since Pettersson was drafted, I've become a lot more hopeful that the team is on the right track, but I do believe that they'll have another bad season this year and Benning may not be around after it. I just don't see ownership sticking with him if he has 4 out of 5 seasons in the bottom 7 of the league.
I’m pretty sure that, unlike you, the owners judge the rebuild on the new core Jimmy is assembling.
What on Earth does winning games have to do with the rebuilding process? (that comes later)
Guess what Diehard, teams that win a lot of games aren’t "rebuilding"
… yeahno, a team like dat dere? ... they are "retooling" buddy!