kanucks25

Members
  • Content Count

    3,120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

kanucks25 last won the day on November 2 2011

kanucks25 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

996 Esteemed

About kanucks25

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line
  • Birthday 05/25/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    John's short house
  • Interests
    I like stuff.

Recent Profile Visitors

42,676 profile views
  1. He didn't say anything about winning the Cup. Hyperbole doesn't help you make a point. In the big picture it's not a big deal that he barely played in the 3rd period that game, doesn't mean that it wasn't the wrong decision.
  2. If we were one of the luckier teams in the league instead of one of the unluckiest (leading the lead in goal posts, decimated by injuries constantly) I wouldn't be surprised if we made the playoffs. However, the team isn't deep/good enough to fight through injuries and not deep/good enough to make noise in the playoffs if they were lucky enough to get in. Would have made for some valuable experience for the young players though (not to mention Aquaman's wallet getting fatter).
  3. Really confused by this post. Are you expecting fans to wait almost 15 years for us to become truly competitive? What does Yzerman and what happened with his teams in the 80's and 90's have anything to do with today's climate? The salary cap, players making an impact at a much younger age, and the "prime" years of players skewing younger on average has changed things immensely.
  4. Markstrom for MVP but it's a toss-up between him and EP, we'd be totally boned this year without either of them. Voted Stecher for top D-man because he's played almost all the games and has had to play against the other team's best quite often with Tanev missing so much time. He's been consistently good all season with no prolonged streaks of bad play, just a few bad games here and there that every player has.
  5. Depth players on horrendous teams usually don't get credit for being good, and rightfully so. The on-ice contributions of 3 of the 4 names you listed have been controversial at best and it's impossible to say what kind of impact they've had off the ice, and if that impact was more significant than another option, and by how much. Again, not just going to assume the guys Benning got were the right ones for the job.
  6. The Eriksson signing and the Gudbranson trade were in no way universally accepted as good moves. Again, only a small portion of the hockey world thought that way, and that was heavily-biased Canucks fans and a few analysts who are still stuck in the 80's (not discounting the value of team toughness and leadership, just that this wasn't the way to address it). The idea that these moves only look bad in hindsight is a complete fallacy because they were controversial from day 1.
  7. Sure, but it goes both way. Just because a player didn't sign here, doesn't mean he didn't want to. Perhaps he wasn't a part of Benning's plan, or perhaps Benning did not offer him a fair contract or one that beat out another team's offer. The issue I have is that people just assume that whatever happened was something in between the good and best-case-scenario just 'cause we did it. Frankly this management team hasn't shown me enough to convince me there weren't better alternatives.
  8. The list of players available in free-agency and on the waivers every year is long. The list of quality veterans Benning inherited was long. There was no shortage.
  9. What makes them so special? Why couldn't other / cheaper veterans provide the same thing? I'm told Vanek was a great signing / trade at the deadline. "He sheltered and mentored the kids and was flipped for an asset". 1 year @ small money then flipped. Why not more of these?
  10. Waivers / cheap free-agency / we already had a ton of veterans, some of whom are still playing.
  11. As I stated earlier: Fact 1: Benning said he thought he could turn the team around quicker than what most others thought Fact 2: He made the age-gap acquisitions to support that notion (cutting out the development phase by bringing in "NHL ready" players) "You're being presumptuous that moves were only (or at all) for that one, singular reason" So tell me, what was the other reason? And if you're going back to the "placeholder" argument, it's a terrible one. Thanks Freud.
  12. Never said rebuilding as a whole was, but when you break it down and discuss specific aspects of it, it's a lot more simple. Certain moves and transactions surely can be analyzed in a vacuum, because rarely is something like that negative in a vacuum but positive with all context considered. Sorry, but surrounding everything Benning has done with a hazy cloud isn't going to fly. Much easier to see through than you might think.
  13. And you try very hard to make simple concepts/events very vague and complicated in an effort to mask clear mistakes.
  14. Because assets incorrectly used in one place could be better used in other places. Or assets could be saved, and your owner isn't pissed for example, about paying a player millions to play on another team's farm. Although this idea is hard to explain to anyone who doesn't consider cap space an asset in a hard salary cap league, even during a rebuild.
  15. In this context it does matter which were inherited and which weren't because you jumped into a discussion about the value/worth/necessity of Benning's "age-gap" acquisitions. It's true we needed to get younger, and we did, but it's also true that this is just the natural progression of a veteran team full of players that are closer to retirement than their primes. Us getting younger, being bad and picking high isn't an accomplishment. You or I could have been GM and achieved the same thing.