Fogghorn wrote:
Sedins and perhaps Bieksa, need players like that to teach the youngin's but after that they can all go.
Add one more name to this list - and that's your old school core still in tact. Maybe Kesler, maybe Hamhuis - but that's about it. Any transition will take 3-5 years minimum if all goes exceedingly well and it's not just rebuild or bust. I might be in the minority, but I am actually excited about the changes going on within the organization. From what I got today was that Benning means business and won't mess around if the team isn't successful in the short/ midterm. That's about all we can ask for as fans at this point.
At the end of the day, this is a business and the Canucks need to sell hope to their fan base. Not only will a full fledged rebuild not fly in this market, Linden/ Benning (L/B) couldn't even do it even if they wanted to (no trade clauses). They need to build a winning culture again and sell it to a waning fan base. Yes there were empty seats last year - lots of empty seats. But L/B also need to be pragmatic given the limitations from which they have to work. The scouting staff and management need to do a better job of surrounding the so called "core" with a more skilled and talented supporting cast. My sense from today is that they will do this through Benning's drafting experience (a weakness of GMMG) and trades and stronger player development and though building more accountability from the bottom to the top of the roster.
Unfortunately, conventional media rhetoric in a situation such as the Canucks are facing is very polarizing. It's either the Chicago model or the Calgary model, or the Edmonton model with no inbetween. Yet look at Boston, LA, SJ, Anaheim. Sure they all sucked for a couple of years but they had strong drafting and solid player development. Very few teams fit into one particalar "model". It's a constantly evolving process between experience/ youth, mentoring/ apprencticeship and being aware of how the game is changing from year to year given rule changes and player safety. We always try to characterize a team as "such and such" in order to rationalize their shortcomings - "if the Canucks keep the core and don't move Kesler, they are they are botching it precisely like Calgary did with Iginla." But in reality, how symmetrical are these situations? We tend to extrapolate generalizations based on unconnected circumstances between teams, with team personel and cultures that are completelely unique -- then try to draw comparisons in order to make sense of what needs to be done based on conflated circumstances.
Do the Canucks need to get younger, bigger, faster and tougher? Yes - but all teams do. They need to build a vision that all the players will buy into and play for each other for provided by stronger direction and support from within management.
Benning won't put up with any shit and will do what's best for building a winning culture again. That's all we can ask for. And change is good. I believe he has strong drafting pedigree and solid foundations for player development background.
At the very least, Benning has earned the right to run this team the way he sees fit and I am willing ot give him a chance.
At least he open to using advanced stats and analytics as one component in their organizational analysis having never really adopted that before.