The Rebuild - What it should look like

[UWSaint]

Thus the waffling by Allvin to call it a hybrid rebuild. I think they will try to move a few more players, grab another first if they can, maybe another young roster player/prospect and few few later round picks and call it done.

A true rebuild takes time as we all know. 3-5 years before you start to see blue sky. 3-5 years of drafting high and turning over vets on a yearly basis to bolster getting younger. Not all in one season. FA does not have the patience for a 3-5 year rebuild and development plan. He just doesn't.

I wonder how much of the semantics is for the owner and how much of it telegraphs something will be done that is incomplete. I share your fear about the owner's impatience, and of course I fear these two (JR and PA) have disqualified themselves from being the one's to run the rebuild. They failed at what they were hired to do, they failed at plan B, not sure why they'd be given the keys to this.

Its also possible that what Allvin means by hybrid rebuild is that fact that the Canucks targeted prospects over picks with some of their recent moves, and that advanced the timeline. It wasn't just guys that had been prospects/young players long enough to show they wouldn't hit their draft day ceiling but could be serviceable (that was Baerstchi et al), but guys who hadn't yet had a concerning bump in their development (Ohgren; Zeev) or were having a more successful-than-draft-day projection development (Mancini) to go along with the Canucks picks who were similar as not-yet-diminished prospects (Sushi, TW) or rising with a bullet non-elite prospects (DEP, even KK (compared to projections).

[UWSaint]

The problem I fear with this, or any rebuild this team will do, is that once they think oh we are close, if everything goes right, to being competitive and making the playoffs then they begin to be buyers. I didn't mind the Zadorov addition but Lindholm was disaster written all over it.

I don't mind striking when the iron was hot and I never mind when a playoff bound team chucks a 3rd and 5th for a 4-5D. From my perspective, the problem with Lindholm was less that the Canucks traded a first at a time when they were leading a division (that they won) and more what it said about the direction of the team that Tochett couldn't figure out how to free Kuzmenko. In other words, the Lindholm move was almost necessitated by limitations; it was "required" because "everyone must play hockey like I did," it didn't really address a problem, and it created a new one once it was clear neither Petey nor Lindholm was a shotgun to the other -- and why pay a premium for a pivot and not play him at center?

[Aaronp18]

The hybrid rebuild may have been a term Patty used thinking they could move some of the Canucks assets for younger players/prospects already in the 19-22 year old group. That doesn't seem to be the option anymore.

The Sherwood deal shows we are likely getting picks back which means the rebuild is going to take a couple more years, no more hybrid.

Stockpile as many pics as we possibly can and move up for the next couple drafts. Or simply increase our dart odds by throwing more at the board. Better yet turf the GM asap and find someone who can play darts!

The Canucks are simply going to have to bite the bullet and realize to get fans back in the seats long term then need to work from the ground up, play the long game. In the next 2-3 drafts there is some serious talent, and if we get lucky enough to grab one or two serious gamechangers that can easily expedite the rebuild.

But finding already drafted prospects that teams are willing to move isn't going to be as easy as the brass thinks, which should come as no surprise to anyone else really! These two have continually thought they are smarter than everyone yet continue to show their ineptitude.

[Ronning's Ghost]

what it said about the direction of the team that Tochett couldn't figure out how to free Kuzmenko. In other words, the Lindholm move was almost necessitated by limitations; it was "required" because "everyone must play hockey like I did,"

It seems to me that this is a common flaw for NHL coaches. This, or a related, less pronounced version: giving a lot more development opportunities to seemingly marginal players who play like they did, in preference to developing other players with a different style.

But everyone on this board knows more about hockey than I do. Is this real, or just my imagination ?

[Meds]

what it said about the direction of the team that Tochett couldn't figure out how to free Kuzmenko. In other words, the Lindholm move was almost necessitated by limitations; it was "required" because "everyone must play hockey like I did,"

It seems to me that this is a common flaw for NHL coaches. This, or a related, less pronounced version: giving a lot more development opportunities to seemingly marginal players who play like they did, in preference to developing other players with a different style.

But everyone on this board knows more about hockey than I do. Is this real, or just my imagination ?

Is this flaw simply due to a coach having success with the style he thinks works and then staying with that style because it worked in the past, it becomes his brand of hockey? I agree that there does seem to be a fairly rigid doctrine that each coach has and adheres to. Unfortunately the success of said doctrine is dependent upon the players to both buy-in and execute, so what worked with one roster won't work with another.

Few are the guys like Cooper who manage to stay in one place as long as he has with Tampa. Maurice was another one who was perhaps versatile enough?

Knoblauch in Edmonton also strikes me as a guy that could be a very good coach. Watching him adjust Edmonton's attack in the playoffs against us a couple of years ago, you don't see that often. Usually it's the "just have to play our game and stick to what we know" ad nauseam.....the very definition of insanity at times. Two trips to the finals, coming up short both times, though I don't attribute that to the coach's plan at all. Edmonton is just two weakly constructed to beat a team like Florida without massive hockey god interference.

Ultimately, a gameplan can overcome the weaknesses in a roster, but the chances of it being effective enough to win in the playoffs is heavily impacted by the calibre of roster on the opposing bench.

How many coaches are axed within 3 years of winning a Stanley Cup, and then hired by a team that thinks he can take a completely different roster to the dance using what worked for him before?