They didn't need a ton of prospects at the time, they could have had guys coming up every year and rebuilt organically without blowing it all up, just moving certain players. We've traded away so many draft picks since 2012 it's ridiculous.
- golfingsince

I disagree. I think that the organization was so bare outside their aging roster, it would have taken a blowup in order to stabilize and round out the rest of the organizational depth and prospect depth.

I disagree. I think that the organization was so bare outside their aging roster, it would have taken a blowup in order to stabilize and round out the rest of the organizational depth and prospect depth.
- Codes1087

You have to be rational. Nobody is going to blow up a team that lost in the SCF game 7. They could have retooled at that point, had a down year or two and rebounded stronger than ever. There's absolutely no way ownership would have allowed it though.

Barzal is having a great year?

He's about .02 PPG more than Petey right now. 2 years older, contract up one year sooner.
- manvanfan

But he is Center

Yes, I would have welcomed it. The canucks had spent all their picks and prospects on making the 2011 run. That roster was filled with players acquired and players in their mid to late 20s. The only young player/prospect was hodgeson. Everyone saw the direction the team would be in after Gillis spent every currency available to make the run. The cupboards were bare of both picks and prospects. This franchise should have cut their losses after the 2011, said "we gave it our all", and used whatever leverage they had in trying to start over. If the canucks had prospects and picks in the system after 2011, it's a completely different story.
- Codes1087

That still would have left sedins, edler, tanev as a "core".


- Codes1087

Having Tanev in there is a sure sign this argument is all hindsight. Tanev was an undrafted player whose rookie season was their SCF season. No one in hell had him as a "core" player.

And a team full of players in their mid to late 20s is literally in their prime hockey years. So you blow up a team of in-their-prime players because they lost the last game of the SCF? Nah. I totally understand the argument after one or both of the next playoff exits, something had to happen that didn't, but saying anyone would blow that team up because they didn't have prospects and picks is crazy. They pushed their chips in, but they were there for more than one season – the rosters were pretty much the same from 2011 to 2012. Just because you don't have some prospects for the next 3-4 years doesn't mean you give up the chance to win a cup with a team that showed they can get there.

IMO, leadership starts and ends behind the bench. If players don’t trust and respect the coaching staff then all is lost regardless of player talent or experience.
- bloatedmosquito

It starts way higher up than that.

You have to be rational. Nobody is going to blow up a team that lost in the SCF game 7. They could have retooled at that point, had a down year or two and rebounded stronger than ever. There's absolutely no way ownership would have allowed it though.
- golfingsince

Like I said before though, I dont think most teams would ever blow things up after reaching the Stanley cup finals, but most teams don't sell the farm and every ounce of currency they have to go all in and are left with a roster that is on the wrong side of their primes.

I don't know of too many players that come out that quickly in their career's and fade into darkness.
- manvanfan

Barry Pederson

Having Tanev in there is a sure sign this argument is all hindsight. Tanev was an undrafted player whose rookie season was their SCF season. No one in hell had him as a "core" player.

And a team full of players in their mid to late 20s is literally in their prime hockey years. So you blow up a team of in-their-prime players because they lost the last game of the SCF? Nah. I totally understand the argument after one or both of the next playoff exits, something had to happen that didn't, but saying anyone would blow that team up because they didn't have prospects and picks is crazy. They pushed their chips in, but they were there for more than one season – the rosters were pretty much the same from 2011 to 2012. Just because you don't have some prospects for the next 3-4 years doesn't mean you give up the chance to win a cup with a team that showed they can get there.
- NewYorkNuck

It isn't hindsight at all. No one is paying a hefty price for tanev who played bottom pairing and sparce minutes. Trading the franchise players in the sedins after the 2011 finals would have never happened. Edler was blossoming as a good two way defenseman but didn't have the same value as the other players I listed. I think my main point is, is that I don't believe 90% of teams should blow things up after a cup run, but I also don't think 90% of teams who make the cup finals sell everything they have at the expense of not only the next 3-4 years, but 5-6 years and beyond. Gillis went all in with everything available to him and flopped, it was time to call it a valiant effort and do right by not only the franchise, but the players too.

It isn't hindsight at all. No one is paying a hefty price for tanev who played bottom pairing and sparce minutes. Trading the franchise players in the sedins after the 2011 finals would have never happened. Edler was blossoming as a good two way defenseman but didn't have the same value as the other players I listed. I think my main point is, is that I don't believe 90% of teams should blow things up after a cup run, but I also don't think 90% of teams who make the cup finals sell everything they have at the expense of not only the next 3-4 years, but 5-6 years and beyond. Gillis went all in with everything available to him and flopped, it was time to call it a valiant effort and do right by not only the franchise, but the players too.
- Codes1087

Having Tanev in there as a "core" player is 100% hindsight. Back then if they blew it up and rebuilt, Tanev wouldn't have been considered "core" because as you said, he was a bottom pairing guy who played sparse minutes. So they couldn't have rebuilt around a "core" of Sedins, Edler, and Tanev. Sure, he could have emerged as they "rebuilt", but he wouldn't have been seen as a central piece moving forward.

And while the Canucks didn't have a super deep farm team and they chose a lot of players that didn't pan out (again, hindsight), they did have: Hodgson, Sauve, Schroeder, Rodin, Jensen.. basically all their first and second round picks aside from 2010. Their picks didn't pan out – which is why it would have been crazy to blow up a Pres Trophy SCF team for a bunch of lottery tickets that might not have panned out either.

Like I said before though, I dont think most teams would ever blow things up after reaching the Stanley cup finals, but most teams don't sell the farm and every ounce of currency they have to go all in and are left with a roster that is on the wrong side of their primes.
- Codes1087

A lot of teams go all in while they're in their window, the reason being is the roster is fairly set. The problem is that in 2016 we were acting like it was still our window.

Having Tanev in there as a "core" player is 100% hindsight. Back then if they blew it up and rebuilt, Tanev wouldn't have been considered "core" because as you said, he was a bottom pairing guy who played sparse minutes. So they couldn't have rebuilt around a "core" of Sedins, Edler, and Tanev. Sure, he could have emerged as they "rebuilt", but he wouldn't have been seen as a central piece moving forward.

And while the Canucks didn't have a super deep farm team and they chose a lot of players that didn't pan out (again, hindsight), they did have: Hodgson, Sauve, Schroeder, Rodin, Jensen.. basically all their first and second round picks aside from 2010. Their picks didn't pan out – which is why it would have been crazy to blow up a Pres Trophy SCF team for a bunch of lottery tickets that might not have panned out either.
- NewYorkNuck

Ok, but even if I concede that it was too premature to call him core, he still wouldn't have fetched a high return, and it was the players who would fetch those returns that I would have personally wanted dealt in order to get back the prospects and picks needed.

Drafting (because of the players listed above) Is a whole different story, but even in 2011, I don't think anyone held any of those prospects to any sort of high regard in terms of being promising players. It was more reason to blow it up imo lol. Hodgson was the only player I remember who I thought had a chance at being a roster player.

A lot of teams go all in while they're in their window, the reason being is the roster is fairly set. The problem is that in 2016 we were acting like it was still our window.
- golfingsince

I dont remember a time where the franchise had ever felt like it wasn't in a winning window since Linden was traded. They have been trying + failing miserably since (minus 2011)

Ok, but even if I concede that it was too premature to call him core, he still wouldn't have fetched a high return, and it was the players who would fetch those returns that I would have personally wanted dealt in order to get back the prospects and picks needed.

Drafting (because of the players listed above) Is a whole different story, but even in 2011, I don't think anyone held any of those prospects to any sort of high regard in terms of being promising players. It was more reason to blow it up imo lol. Hodgson was the only player I remember who I thought had a chance at being a roster player.
- Codes1087

Like I've said, I understand where people are coming from about retooling/rebuilding after 2012 or 2013. There were flaws in the team and they were coming down after their first round exits. But there is absolutely no good reason to blow up a team that was in their prime that had just gone to game 7 of the SCF. The team that came back from 2011 was basically the same team, so there was little doubt they were contenders again. You don't blow up a legit contender just because you want some future picks and prospects that might get you back to the position you are at at that exact moment.

Would it have negated some of the lean years the team has faced? Sure, potentially. But giving up the chance to legitimately compete for the Cup (not a JB type of compete) just so that they may not be as bad in the future is backwards. A franchise/city that has never won a cup is going to blow up their legitimate best shot at winning it one year after they made the finals? Nah.

Like I've said, I understand where people are coming from about retooling/rebuilding after 2012 or 2013. There were flaws in the team and they were coming down after their first round exits. But there is absolutely no good reason to blow up a team that was in their prime that had just gone to game 7 of the SCF. The team that came back from 2011 was basically the same team, so there was little doubt they were contenders again. You don't blow up a legit contender just because you want some future picks and prospects that might get you back to the position you are at at that exact moment.

Would it have negated some of the lean years the team has faced? Sure, potentially. But giving up the chance to legitimately compete for the Cup (not a JB type of compete) just so that they may not be as bad in the future is backwards. A franchise/city that has never won a cup is going to blow up their legitimate best shot at winning it one year after they made the finals? Nah.
- NewYorkNuck

They couldn't replace Malholtra, which allowed Kesler to play less in his own end. After 2012 they could have dealt Kes amongst others and retooled rather quickly with vet leadership.

They couldn't replace Malholtra, which allowed Kesler to play less in his own end. After 2012 they could have dealt Kes amongst others and retooled rather quickly with vet leadership.
- golfingsince

Ya, totally understand the reasoning behind after 2012+. Re-tool, re-whatever. There's no logic in blowing up a Cup contender so you can get some potential futures.