Corey Hirsch, the former Canucks goaltender and current Canucks colour commentator for Sportsnet 650, wrote an article that raised a ruckus among Canucks fans on Friday.
“Why the Vancouver Canucks are an example of a model rebuild,” reads the headline, and you can likely already see the problem. The Canucks are not, in any way, an example of a model rebuild. In order to be a model rebuild, something would need to have been built to some sort of completion; the Canucks have barely begun.
The Canucks have yet to provide a model for any other team to follow. Frankly, why would any team want to follow in the Canucks current footsteps? It’s a path that currently leads to the bottom of the NHL standings.
If, in a few years, the Canucks rise up the ranks and become a Stanley Cup contender, then, perhaps, we could start calling them a model rebuild and suggest that other teams follow their path. Until then, let’s hold off on that particular label. Heck, the Canucks just recently got over their reticence to even use the word “rebuild.”
Most of the uproar to Hirsch’s article is in reaction to the headline, which does not accurately reflect the contents of the article itself. It’s a headline designed to provoke, rather than inform. To wit, the phrase “model rebuild” is never once uttered in the article itself.
Most headlines are not written by the author of the article, but by an editor who is trying to get you, the reader, to click on and read the article. The best headlines are clever, informative, and provocative, but usually editors have to settle for just one or two of the above. Headline writing is a lot harder than you might expect.
All of my headlines, on the other hand, are artisanal, handcrafted, farm-to-table headlines, so if you want to blame me for any of the headlines on Pass it to Bulis articles, feel free.
Hirsch’s article isn’t outrageous, even if it does unnecessarily reference the previous regime. It’s overly optimistic, perhaps, but it’s not as unreasonable as the “model rebuild” claim in the headline would suggest.
Well, except for one part, and it’s an important element: the lede.
The “lede” of an article is the introductory paragraph. It is a vitally important part of an article, as it is the first thing, after the headline, that someone will read. A bad lede can kill an article before it really starts, while a good lede can make a mediocre article seem a lot better than it really is. My lede up at the top of this article is merely okay. It’s informative, but maybe lacks a little sizzle.
Hirsch’s lede is baffling.
“Take a good look, Pittsburgh Penguins and Chicago Blackhawks. The Vancouver Canucks today are what you get seven years after taking a run at a Stanley Cup.”
Here’s the issue: the Penguins took a run at the Stanley Cup in 2009. They won the Cup, in fact. Seven years later? They won another Stanley Cup. And another the year after that.
Using a seven-year timeline with the Penguins could not be a worse example of what Hirsch is trying to demonstrate, but the Blackhawks aren’t much better.
The Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup the year after the Penguins, in 2010. Seven years later, they still made the playoffs, even if they got swept in the first round by the Predators, on their own run to the Stanley Cup Final. But within those seven years, they won two more Stanley Cups.
The bigger issue is that the Blackhawks have provided a great model for retooling on the fly, rather than rebuilding. While they’ve made mistakes and are finally starting to get rundown, they have been excellent at identifying their core players, then selling high on any players who are not part of that core.
That tactic has allowed the Blackhawks to continue to build around their core of Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews, Duncan Keith, and Corey Crawford, bringing in new injections of youth because of their willingness to trade other pieces. The Canucks got old and they had no young prospects to reinvigorate the team; the Blackhawks continually renewed themselves.
Without that lede, the article holds up pretty well. It’s simply an argument in favour of the work Jim Benning and Trevor Linden have done since being hired, and that argument can be judged on its own merits.
There’s nothing wrong with being optimistic about the Canucks. There’s also nothing wrong with liking the prospects the Canucks’ have in the cupboard, while still being pessimistic about the team’s overall future.
Let’s just never say the words “model rebuild” in reference to the Canucks until they’ve actually built something.
