nuck luck

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

366 Excellent

About nuck luck

  • Rank
    Comets Star
  1. Keslerplayslikeacanadian - you still think cap space is irrelevant and not an issue for a team that is close to the limit? You still believe that Vey is a foundational player and will be around for decades? Baggins - You still think a 2nd for Vey is good? You still think a 2nd round pick is useless and well worth tossing away for a prospect who is waiver eligible? oh....and you still loving the Miller contract, still a great deal? Mattrek - You still believe benning is a good negotiator and always gets market value? Junkyard dog - You said Miller's contract would never be an issue? thoughts now... You said I was short sighted and you could see benning/linden's plan and the big still see things clearly? You still think the percentage of success with 2nd round picks are so dismal that we should toss them away for castaways that are waiver eligible? Sorry....I couldn't resist I got into some heated arguments with you guys in another thread..."Canucks four biggest non-mistakes over the last year"
  2. Most of you said you stopped reading after I called benning/linden rookies at their new positions or I was upset with the firing of MG... In the future, maybe we should consider all points of view before we jump on any bandwagons. And for those of you who were open to listening to another opinion, I give you credit for being able to go through all this for the last few hair would be ghostly white if I stayed on this site or followed this team (closely) with this group leading the way. Posted July 2, 2014 · Report post I'm happy to see that some members have finally started to question Benning/Linden instead of granting him unwarranted/unfathomable support for accomplishing nil... mediocrity. I know that both these guys are well thought of and have a long tenure in professional hockey, but they are still rookies in their new positions...I think it's better to see some results before boarding their "hooray" train. I was never happy with MG's firing and I think it was too early, considering the main person at fault was the owners for last years debacle....However, I did support Benning/Linden (cautiously) and wanted to give them a chance because they deserved that at the very least. I doubt anyone noticed, but I haven't posted on CDC much cause I really didn't have anything positive to say and, like I mentioned above, I wanted to give the new brass a chance... One thing I know for certain... and any Canuck fan should as well, is that MG can definitely have a vision and has shown proven that he knows what steps are necessary to obtain it. In quick fashion, he turned the Canucks around when he arrived, turned us into a powerhouse in the NHL and got us to the finals... no ifs, ands or buts here. FACT! MG did a great job and should be praised for what he's accomplished. To the many posters here who think they're being witty with snide derogatory comments ending with **cough (Gillis)**, you have no clue. I really feel that GMMG was fired prematurely and wished he was given at least 1 more year. At least until after the draft.... Back to Benning/Linden. After a new coach, the draft, a buyout, trades and FA signings.... Here's my breakdown and the way I see things thus far. Coach I like the hiring. However, I think these two put their eggs in one basket and wanted to wait on one guy since the beginning.... if WD decided to decline, we would be up sh!t creek without a paddle. I would have been just as happy with one or two other coaches that were available at the time... it was a huge gamble or B & L are far too indecisive. I just wish the owners would have let MG pick the coach last year... The Draft 6th, I like the first pick. I don't mind going for a player with big potential that at worst....might fall to the 3rd line, he's a local boy so that's also a bonus. A solid pick from what was available. However, some of the following picks afterwards are the ones I question... 24, Jared McCann - looks very promising and is a solid pick I think, for a team that need a 200 player with skills to center a line. But, this pick seems redundant to me since we have plenty of players like this as prospects already... and I'm pretty confident that a few of these prospects will play in the NHL. What we needed with this pick was somebody who has shown some potential to be an elite player with high-end skills....a boom or bust kinda guy, we need potential 1st line players. This is what our prospects are my eyes, we have Shink (so happy he wasn't traded) and Jensen. Unless, B & L and have some secret plan to nab the 1st pick next year....I think we would be better off going for picks that have 1st line potential since we are loaded for the second line. 36, Thatcher Demco - Great goalie. Again....good pick for a team who is short on goalie prospects. We had an early pick in the second round and we use it to pick up ANOTHER goalie? We are up to our ears in great goalie prospects and I think this pick was wasted, now we're drowning and we only have options to throw a great prospect overboard. We got a great coach who is proven, but goalies take years and they are high-risk.... and isn't one player who needed surgery enough? 66, Nikita Tryamkin - Huge guy. If this pick turns out as planned than we made the steal of the draft... However, he was passed over twice and I don't think he was on too many GM's radar, couldn't we have picked him up a little later in the draft? I don't mind this pick but I think it was done too early... 126, 156 and 186 - a small D man with skills...but we have someone similar with higher potential (Subban). A huge C who had surgery and needs developing...but we have someone similar with Lain (minus the surgery). A huge D man...don't know much about the guy except that he's HUGE. I think the picks were OK....but only that. I would have preferred GMMG to make this years selection since he hit a homerun with it last year.... He had a vision and he was following through with it and might have picked up players that he envisioned we were lacking. Players with elite skills and potential... I thought that size & skill was already addressed when he picked up Kass, Lain, Bo, Gaunce, etc....and he would have been determined to address the combo of speed & elite skills this year (yes, we have JV now....but we still come up short in this area). Buyout From my point of view.... we had a fast player with size that played great with Kass on the 3rd! Sure, he was paid too much, but with the cap space that we had have had (now after Miller) he would have been fine for another year... Instead, we bought him out and replaced Booth with some players that we picked up trading a 2nd round pick for? Or was it to bring in Miller? (hate this signing). Why not just keep Booth... have him play with Kass and let Kass build some more confidence with Booth and sign him next year at a reasonable price? This way, we could have kept the pick that we traded and used it for the promising Dman that the Kings picked up....or any other players with potential? Leaving us with a promising big 3rd line pairing with past chemistry and a great prospect D man... Instead, we replaced Booth with a player we picked up in a trade.... and have no prospects to show for it? The 50th pick seems a little high to me seeing how Gagne was worth a 6th round pick? Maybe it's not the 50th pick to replace Booth but... Couldn't we have picked up a guy in FA? Don't like this move at all....not my money I know. Booth was fine for the 3rd line....we had the cap space so why buy him out? We seem to be back-logging ourselves with middle-line players... Trades I am on the fence with the trades.... nothing great and nothing bad. Just ho-hum with them... It seems that B & L were a little hasty though....trying to make their mark on this team with some big moves and focusing on that alone. This is not always a good thing... if done without perspective. Yes, the NM or NT clauses effected them, but for any person in the "KNOW"... and you only need to google search to be in the "KNOW", the Canucks were on par with most teams that had NT or NM clauses. I am absolutely against trading any high picks away for prospects/players who are gonna play on our second or 3rd lines! We are giving our current prospects no chance to actually play if we keep picking up similar players through trades of our valued picks in the draft... WE NEED TO FOCUS ON TOP LINE PLAYERS, FORWARDS OR DMEN. The ONE thing that I am absolutely positive about is that if GMMG made the exact same deals, CDC would be bytch'n and crying over every single one of them....Fact. I thought Garrison was worth much more than what we traded him for... RFA Signings Miller??? WTF! - do we need another distraction in net? And don't talk about mentoring Lack cause he doesn't like to mentor. For 3 years? WTF! - two years would have been ideal. 33 years old and ranked 22nd out of 43 goal tenders over the last 4 years....1st round loss to Chicago last year playing for St. Louis. At 6 million per year? WTF! - 5 million cap per year would be acceptable for an aging goalie who underperformed....and/or who Lack outperformed. Cap space gone.... With an amended NM contract? WTF! - Was this really necessary to sign Miller and could we have negotiated a better contract instead of him giving us a list of only 5 teams? Maybe 10 or 15 teams? Maybe no clause? Did B & L not go through a similar scenario with Kesler this week? This was the first and only offer Miller saw? WTF! - Was this just a nostalgia thing for Benning? He is so adamant on signing Miller that he just thought he would offer him everything that Miller would have asked for? I don't think GMMG ever made a move like this with such haste and abandonment... Here's one for all you Gillis haters out there....I hope you don't blindly let this slide and make your immense disappointment known that your beloved MG replacements offered a NM contract to an aging player who is in decline. AND, I am a little concerned with B & L ability to negotiate a fair contract now... do these two know anything about lowballing on the first offer and negotiating to an agreeable settlement? Calgary got Hiller for 2 years at 9 million? I'd be ok with this... And to me it seems the Canucks needed to address the top 6 positions....goal scoring. At the moment, all the big names seemed to have signed elsewhere since our focus was on signing Miller. After all is said and done.... it is still too early to judge B & L up till now. I hope that they are not human and have some sort of super human powers at play that will transform this team into a power house in the next few years! From what I've witnessed so far... they make mistakes like the rest of us and let feelings/emotions get in the way of their decision making. And to me it seems the Canucks needed to address the top 6 positions....goal scoring. At the moment, all the big names seemed to have signed elsewhere since our focus was on signing a goalie... One area that I hope B & L are exceptional at is FA signings cause GMMG was boss.... if not, so far not so good. 13
  3.     He will still be deployed in a shut down roll against the other teams top players....his production should be fairly similar and not go higher right? Nobody is questioning his defensive game and I don't mind him being here......I DON'T LIKE WHAT WE PAID FOR HIM.
  4.     First you try and ridicule me about my lengthy posts... it wasn't very difficult for me to manipulate you into replying with a wall of text Hehe funny. I explained to you already about the reason why I used the "younger goalie tandem" .... nobody cares if you're interested in it or not. It's especially puzzling why you keep bringing it up after I explained the reasons behind it? Sure, keep taking things out of context...but how can you expect me not to get frustrated if you fail to understand the obvious? I have no problems with people responding.... I have problems with people who misquote me or completely misunderstand the conversation. Personal attacks? Nothing personal....just stating the obvious and replying to you in the same manner that you started with in your post to me. You come at me aggressively after you misinterpreted my post and you think I won't do the same? You think it's "off bounds" to comment on how you misinterpreted my post? hehe Had you replied respectfully than I would have done the same to you. I understand you disagree with YOU understand that I disagree with you? Stop holding yourself so high and mighty and expecting some sort of respect when you don't do the same in return. Comprehension You quoted me with, "What I am asking for is ANY evidence that shows that Sutter can improve his game now that he is a vet and has played in the NHL for many years." This is EXACTLY my interpret this as me asking for future evidence? Looking into a crystal ball? **shaking head** Give me any evidence from Sutters past that shows he can improve his game now.....this is another way to word it. DO YOU COMPREHEND NOW? Both have the same meaning....just worded slightly different. Nothing personal....but you mocked me for your misinterpretation and I just pointed out your error I mentioned his history playing in the NHL so there should be enough examples from his past to show that there is still room for improvement. But, you are still arguing that your interpretation is correct...... right, OK than. Why would I need to back peddle when you argued my point for me? However, I appreciate it. Again, YOU may not care about the difference in positions Vey and Baertsch play, but I do... I think that the C position is much more important and there is a need to factor size, speed, FO abilities and style of play to be successful. I should also add that you failed to mention the reason we traded for Vey? Was it to learn his game in the NHL....or was it to replace Santorelli at C? didn't work out and now we have a waiver eligible prospect who still isn't ready and he is no longer in our long-term plans. It was a poor move. You fault me for not commenting on an ignorant point you make? You make it seem like there's some relevance with your statement, and I choose to ignore it because it works both ways and there's no point in going back and forth over it....but just to prove it so, you said, "VEY WAS A ROOKIE> ROOKIES HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO IMPROVE." Can I argue with this? haha How about, VEY WAS A ROOKIE> ROOKIES HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO FAIL OR BE STAGNANT. Any answer for this? Such a stupid argument, THIS is why I ignored it. So you admit that Vey wasn't good at FO....and Santos was better. This is a start.... However, FO's were only a small portion of my argument for Santorelli over Vey, but you want to make the argument ONLY about FOs?....what about Vey's size? Speed? Defensive game? Physical game? or that he's waiver eligible? Santorelli is proven, Vey will not match him in any of these other areas in his second year....if ever. Vey cost us a 2nd round pick and we could have signed Santorelli for cheap....but you want to ignore this too. also prefer to ignore that Vey wasn't ready, he's doesn't factor into a position other than a 4th line player. Why is it so hard to admit that the trade didn't work out? At the moment.....every line proposal I've seen has forgotten about Vey, has him listed at C on the 4th line or a Winger in the bottom 6 with a question mark beside it. This seems to be the consensus. Basically, we gave up a 2nd round pick for a 4th liner (maybe)....and you don't see any faults here? OH....and you brought up M. Raymond, how did things work out for him? Lesson should have been learned. At least he has speed and was defensively responsible. You're gonna post random stats to help your argument? What's the point... Where does the stat show the differences in style of game? size being a factor? Defensive reliability? At this point in Vey's career....where he was picked in the draft doesn't factor in. What matters is how he has performed thus far and if he has the necessary tools to make it in the NHL NOW...why? BECAUSE HE IS WAIVER ELIGIBLE... Or are you insinuating that we don't want draft picks anymore because the odds of success are so low? This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard argued on CDC.... I don't even remember people suggesting this prior to benning. benning says the odds are low so 2nd round picks are not worthy of anything and now you believe this to be true? And benning supposed to be a scout monster isn't he? Or does he just specialize in 1st round picks and he isn't very good at the rest of them? AND I NEVER SAID BAERTSCH WAS A BAD MOVE.... It amazes you that we gave up on PF just as he was getting close to development? Yeah....nothing like this ever happened in Canucks history right? hehe You accuse me of being impatient and I suggest there's no future for him here..... Please tell me where you think he will fit in our, or in the future? Also, how do you feel about a prospect who isn't ready for the NHL playing for the Canucks? Being gifted ice time over other deserving prospects or players? How do you not see the risk involved with waiver eligible players? Stop drinking the BS coming out of benning! He says picks are risky...have a low percentage of success, yet he loves picks? Picks are essential for any teams future.....even the 5th rounds and higher. And you failed to address the main points I made..... Why is it that people like you defend benning when he makes an awful trade? You claim that he isn't to blame because he was at a disadvantage due to NTC, cap, or everything else. However, why are other GMs able to get great deals or, at the least, respectable deals when they are in the same situation? Maybe cause they have someone like benning on their speed dial... The Ducks are FORCED to trade Vey and benning gives them EXACTLY what they want? Is their GM savvy or is ours inept? Obviously they wouldn't ask for a they're asking price must have been a 2nd right? OR!!!!!! Maybe benning thought he got a great deal? The Ducks possibly asked for two 1st round picks and "savvy" benning countered with our 2nd?
  5. Crab I understand what you and some others are saying....I'm not arguing with the players that benning brought in. Well, most of them anyways... I still don't like some moves, but I also didn't like all of MG's moves either. TBH, I think Sutter will perform better than Bonino, maybe not points-wise, but I'm hoping Bo can handle that area.... I'm not upset with the Sutter acquisition. Wasn't he the initial player benning was targeting in the Kes trade? I wouldn't have been upset if that had happened either instead of trading with the Ducks.... But, considering that Pitts were forced to trade Sutter because of their cap situation....they should have paid extra to acquire a 2nd line C with a low cap hit. Instead we paid extra by giving them a top4D prospect (benning's words) and swapped picks? This is why I'm so pissed....not with the players, but the deal benning made to acquire the player. I'm not sure if the years has much of an issue, but it's not a problem for me regarding prospects and what you mentioned... I just don't like swapping a 2nd for waiver eligible ones. I gave many reasons why so there's no need to go over this again. I honestly don't know if benning is great at scouting or not, obviously it's too early to make that call with what he's done here....but he should be focusing on his strengths. To me, that means acquire as many draft picks as possible and keep them.... or trade up for a better draft pick. But, if a player is waiver eligible and the other team is obviously forced to trade him... lowball them and pass on the deal if they don't bite. Don't give them what they wanted.... (I'm sure the Ducks weren't asking for a 1st... so 2nd round pick must have been their initial offer). boils down to what we paid. I might be able to swallow a 3rd for Vey, but a 4th or 5th and I have no problem... I COMPLETELY agree with what you said about benning's abilities and bringing in a "negotiator"...but that'll never happen. benning is good at some things and he is just awful at others...unfortunately, no team can have a GM who doesn't have negotiating skills. And I can't see them hiring someone to negotiate deals for them...tbh, I'm not sure.... has this been done before? But, benning isn't the only one to blame... don't get me wrong here...I'm a fan of Linden! I watched him since he started with the Canucks and I was at the games during the SCF with a player I still heart him. As President.... not so much. I think he needs to get involved a little more and he can't just keep excusing benning for all these trade deals....have a talk with benning, maybe Linden should be there during negotiations or just take over the negotiations himself? As President he cannot let this continue, he needs to fix this quick.
  6. I'm not your teacher, parent or guardian.... NOBODY is forcing you to read anything on CDC. If something is too long and gives you a headache just click away, ignore it, scroll down or whatever else you want to do. Yes.... I wish all of CDC didn't write their thoughts on this forum and just stood by and made snide comments on matters that are way above them. How great would CDC be with characters all like yourself! Just one liners and nothing of substance on CDC.... Oh, I forgot to include that all members of CDC must agree on the subject too... Don't bother replying or reading....I absolve (this is not some gimmick to improve your abs) you from any further anxiety due to my extensive posts. I will ignore your comments.
  7. Poor Baggins.... did I upset you with logic? 1) You don't have anything valid to say so you defend it with "I don't care..." hehe Great response! I explained the context as it was only relevant to Junkyard dogs why are YOU bringing it up? Funny. 2) Obviously you have issues with comprehension...coupled with whatever else. Somebody's opinion doesn't jive with yours or somebody writes an argument that stumps you so you make idiotic comments? Take the ring off Frodo. Here's an example of your comprehension issues... I stated that there is no evidence that shows Sutter will perform better with the Canucks.... he's played in the league for years and hasn't shown that he can regularly produce points effectively. He also played against easier matchups while in Pitts and he still didn't produce. So, I asked for evidence of any previous years where he did produce....but the wording probably fooled you... if I substituted "examples" or "previous history" you might understand. You want to fault others because your comprehension levels are low? I'm not asking him to tell the future.... haha 3) AGAIN.... I give you a solid argument and you have nothing to reply with. So you resort (I'm not talking about a place to relax and holiday here.... resort = fall back to/final option) to "I don't care.... wah". Childish. There is a big difference between playing C and W....especially if the player is defensively irresponsible and can't take faceoffs. But, your "I DON'T CARE....WAH" argument is good enough! Point taken. 8 year old kids have the same argument.... 4) I'm passing judgement too quickly? We traded for Vey because he was supposed to center our 3rd line, he was supposed to be NHL ready...... ONE YEAR LATER and what? We found out that Vey isn't good enough to center any lines and he isn't NHL ready! Now we're stuck with him in the HOPES that he develops and becomes a NHL player and we can't find a place for him in the lineup....and to top it off, we can't send him down to the Comets. You want us to be patient with Vey? Is that why we signed him? We didn't trade for Vey so that we could let a prospect, who isn't NHL ready, to develop his game with the Canucks.... We have enough centers now and we have a ton in our prospects pool so benning and WD are not considering Vey at C anymore. It was a bad trade. Bad trades happen and I understand benning the only GM that made a bad trade? NO.... but must CDC ignore the fact because it doesn't fit your image of benning?'s not all about you.
  8.     Crab... some good points and I don't disagree with it all. I'm not fully onboard with all the acquisitions, but, as I've said numerous times, I don't like the risks we are taking and I absolutely can't ignore what we have given up for some of these players and what we signed the others for. Most of my conversations have been with Kesiscanadian, Junkyard, you and a couple others on a smaller scale..... the funny thing is that we agree on most things. Where the problems arise is that everyone gets sidetracked and wants to ignore overpayments, salary contracts, and some risks....instead we are focusing the discussion on minor details or, in some cases (I am not referring to you in your reply here), just trying to belittle each other. I understand that there is a slight gap, but I really don't see a lot of players retiring before we see more of our prospects in the NHL....I should point out that I'm thinking of the Sedins mostly. I think these guys will have a long career here and they have stated that they are happy in any role management wants...which, to me, seems like it would be a 3rd line role eventually. I hope we can agree on this and I won't have to explain my reasons.... I'll go over the players you listed: Miller - I don't have issues with him, just his contract mainly. He played a full year for us, but was injured and out of it for 2 months. Lack played tremendously well and equal to Miller last year and I thought he was tremendous while playing with Torts....if this rookie had a backup that year, we might not have even needed to contemplate signing Miller and only needed a backup. I think Lack proved himself and we should have signed a reliable backup for much less or Miller, Hiller or anyone else at a reasonable price that would allow us to focus on our goal scoring needs. Signing Miller at 6 million for 3 years and a NTC when there was no other GM even taking a whiff at him is extremely high.... I don't see how this can't be argued. You know that there is leverage being used in all negotiations, benning doesn't seem to use any. This is my issue with benning. Now that the year has transpired, Lack proved himself again and we had offers on Miller.... I don't understand how management would stick with MIller when he is accident prone, older, would give us a higher return in a trade, and he isn't in any long term plans. The risk alone with an accident prone goalie and Markstrom scares the crap out of me... At some point in time, backup goalies have to be put in the spotlight and given the #1 role if they have proved that they are capable. Vrbata - I loved this signing from the beginning. Wrote it in my thread immediately after we signed him and I haven't wavered....wished he could produce a little more in the Playoffs, but it hasn't changed my thoughts. My thinking is that we will get some good picks or a good pick out of him. Dorset - We paid a bit much for and this is for a 4th line player... and his contract is too high for what he brings to the Organization. Prust - I can't believe we payed this much for another 4th line player.... it's ridiculous. We gave up a promising PF with good skills for an aging player, one year before he turns into a rfa, and low skills. Tell me the truth, when you heard, afterwards, that there was a 5th round pick involved in the trade.... you must have thought that we were getting Montreals 5th right? These slight "bonuses" that benning gives to other GMs is fu@king ridiculous...asinine in fact. Let's just agree to disagree on Kass and try not to derail the main points on this trade....I think PF need more time to adjust and we traded Kass too early. And Kass did more than hold his own with the Sedins....why didn't we just play him on the 1st (fu@k the whole develop his game argument or earn it attitude) and increase his numbers? And than trade the guy as there are a lot of teams that would have paid a lot more if Kass's numbers were higher... it's all about strategy here. What management did was complain about Kass publicly, paired him with low-skilled players who couldn't optimize the opportunities Kass gave them, tell the fans that Kass needs to develop the right way, give him minimal PP opportunities, harp on Kass while Vey is gifted with ice time and PP, and try to change him from a "Thornton-type player to Lucic-type". Finally, they decide to trade a promising young player for an older one and pay extra.... this is horrible asset management. I would gladly take a player like Prust on this team....but it's the costs associated that pisses me off. Sutter - Also another player I don't mind having. But was this trade absolutely necessary? Didn't Bonino do well enough and bring more scoring/points to this team? You add his cap and the Sutter deal doesn't look so good to me. Not to mention the pick-swap and Clendening. Another bonus we gave the opposition. Sbisa - I don't blame benning for the Kes trade. But, why would he want a player with Sbisa's history involved with the trade? he thought he would play well, but after what he could he come to the conclusion that Sbisa is worth that much? Just because benning thinks he's a top 4Dman, it doesn't mean we have to pay him now for when (if) he actually becomes one. Vey - I have discussed with many people. Too small for Center, too easy to play against in our conference, too slow, defensive issue and faceoff issues....lots of problems and is not a solution for us even if it was short-term. We could have signed Santorelli for minimal amounts at 2 years and kept that 2nd round pick. We would be a better team. Waiver eligible players are high risk if they have not proven anything in the NHL.... Baerstchi - Mentioned Baerstchi in my comment to Deniro. I don't mind this trade. Clendening - one of our rare potential top 4 Dmen that we traded away for Sutter.... Think about that. We traded Forsling who showed promise for Clendening.... We traded a 2C, a top 4D prospect and gave our 2nd pick for a 3C and their 3rd???? There's more...but I think you get my point. I haven't even mentioned what we received for our players.... These are my issues, not the players...maybe 1 or 2 of them. I don't know how pro benning fans can say that I'm full of crap when the evidence is right there in their face? How do we keep our future intact or improve on it when we keep trading away our picks or give away our players for peanuts? I completely understand what you, junkyarddog and some others are saying.... I just don't understand how you can't see my point of how we are getting fleeced in trades and overpaying players. When you look at each deal individually, you can say....'meh', at least we improved here and there. However, when you start adding up these deals and looking at them altogether, than you start seeing a pattern and the issues have merit.
  9.     1) I applaud you for doing what everyone else does on CDC to sound like a smart-tush! quoting a portion of a reply without understanding what it is referring to and using it for an argument to make a smart-tush comment. **slow clap** I stated that there is a movement towards a younger goalie tandem now as opposed to having an older goalie paired with a younger one.....IN REFERENCE to an earlier comment regarding what benning said. He is saying that we need an older goalie to mentor or bring more stability to the net and I'm saying that it's not necessary and it's not the norm in the NHL anymore, hence, there is a movement towards a younger goalie tandem. Probably because they understand that this whole "mentoring" crap bares little fruit on actual game performance.... there are areas where the more experienced player can help them out, but these are in areas like dealing with the media, being a professional athlete, etc. That's what! 2) Again.... if you want to be involved in discussion than I suggest you understand and go back and read the comments first. I have said from the beginning that Miller was signed for too much and we should have gone with Lack and a reliable backup! I never suggested that Markstrom was good enough to be a backup last year! get it? In no way have I ever inclined that we should go with Lack and Markstrom last year.... I suggested a reliable backup for Lack for much less money. Your comments are ridiculous and avoidable if you only understood what the discussions were about... I don't mind discussing the Canucks with people on CDC. I just don't respect posters who make snide remarks without understanding the context of the discussions. And....I won't go over the same things again with posters who want to play, but are too lazy to do the necessary work involved and catch up with the current conversation. If you care to read the previous discussions.... you will understand that MY BIGGEST ISSUES WITH BENNING ARE THE TRADE DEALS HE'S MADE WITH OTHER GMs, FOCUSING ON THE CANUCKS BIGGEST AREAS OF NEED, AND NEGOTIATIONS WITH AGENTS FOR CONTRACTS. I've stated this numerous times, but smart-tush people like yourself will sidetrack the conversation with idiotic comments like you gave that really have nothing to do with the point....and the main issue gets lost. I don't give a FU@K about us having a younger goalie tandem or not....I care about having a reliable goaltending tandem and improving our scoring and defense. You think fans complain when the GM does what they want? BRAVO! you earned yourself another slow clap!'re a genius to come up with this theory! This is a board to discuss the Canucks whether the fans agree or disagree with management....yes, at the moment I do disagree with the management, but this is obvious. Personally, I don't often complain or "rant and rave" about the Canucks when the management does what I want... Do you complain about management when you agree with their moves? Well....thanks for pointing this out! well thought through... 3) One of the dumbest things huh? I guess I can say the same about you on this comment...but it's tied with what you mentioned in the first paragraph. AGAIN... if you read, you will understand that the person I was replying to has been using the same tactics with me in our conversations, so I am doing the same in return. He stated that Sutter can improve, blah blah blah....and I'm asking him to provide evidence or to back it up that Sutter will improve, otherwise, it is all "speculation". He has said my entire argument thus far has been based on speculation and I called him a hypocrite because he does it more than I. Nobody is saying a player can't improve, but provide something or give some insight as to why you think he will improve? You think he will improve with better linemates and in better situations.... that's fine. I'll accept that. However, I can also argue that he was playing against easier opponents with Pitts since the top 2 lines would be getting the tougher opponents. In Vancouver, he will be played against tougher opponents, so I don't think there will be much of an improvement in production. Fair analysis I think. I don't know too much about Sutter either and I'm not sure exactly who he has been paired with, but I did read that his linemates weren't so bad all the time.... however, I didn't hear about any particular years where he had a big increase in production with these linemates. So, I am doubtful that we see improvement here.... fair enough? If you or anyone else knows something different, than please provide evidence where you know about an increase in production from him with better linemates. Don't just jump in with your "holy" attitude and put some insight into the conversation please. AND, as I said many time previously, I am not anti-Sutter. I don't mind him being here, I just don't like what we gave up for a 3rd line C.... Just because we intend to play him on our 2nd line and benning thinks he is a cornerstone player, it doesn't mean we need to pay extra to Pitts right? If pitts believes Sutter is a 3rd line C than we should be paying accordingly....and getting a better deal due to Boninos cap hit that Pitts needs much more than we do. Baerstch has an issue with management and he is not the type of player to be on the 4th line.... yes, there were variables here that make the trade a little more intriguing. Vey.... not so much. Another big difference between the two players are that one plays C and the other is on the W.... do you get the difference? One must be defensively responsible, take faceoffs, play tougher due to our opponents, etc. The other can get by on his speed and skills alone and his defensive game, faceoffs, physical play will not be scrutinized as much.... get it? The different positions they play makes a difference due to their size and style of game....poor utilization by management is also a factor. Do you get this now? I thought this was a given and I didn't have to spell it out for people... I don't mind your comments or you joining in....but lets try and refrain from going over the same points again. Unless you provide something worthy that can add to our discussions, please mention that. I don't have patience for someone who just wants to be a smart-tush...
  10.     - How can you argue my arguments are in hindsight when they were said immediately after I heard about the trade? Another example of you using these defensive techniques to argue your point.... - If Markstrom was to become a #1, than it wouldn't matter if Miller or Lack was here correct? Markstrom would move them out. So you are arguing that Miller is here because of veteran presence (benning's line again) when the majority of teams in the NHL go with a younger goalie tandem. Earlier, you argued that Santorelli missed most of the season due to injury so he wasn't worthy of being resigned.... Miller is much older and also had an injury that left him out for 2 months, why is he worthy of keeping if he's injury prone? What happens when Miller gets injured... this is EXTREMELY risky. Why not go with the younger, healthier goalie with the lower cap space that played equally as good last year. Do you not want to see our own prospects to be given a chance to perform or do you prefer we just trade them away for older veterans? - I am not downplaying anything. I'm going by what I saw and stats. I saw a "backup" given much harder opponents to play against and still come up with equal stats to Miller, I saw Miller give up more goals per game than our "backup", I see a huge difference in salaries, I see a goalie with no future for this team and I see a young goalie that we developed with a ton of potential, etc. What are you watching? - All you have to say is that Sbisa's contract is "iffy"?????!!!! Get serious. I know a few benning supporters and they admit that this deal was absolute crap! Iffy.... that's a hilarious way to explain it. Again, I'll bring up bennings negotiation skills..... he had all the leverage, he had all the cards, he could take this to arbitration and there's no way Sbisa would earn this much, and he still gave Sbisa this much? Funny thing, it's not based on his actual play, but based on speculation that Sbisa will play like a typical top 4 Dman. I'll take any Dman that can play defense and move the puck out of our end....Sbisa's attributes are not that rare and his deficiencies can't be ignored. I hope Sbisa pans out....Like I said, it's not personal, but until Sbisa proves himself, he should be getting paid similar dollars to other Dmen with the same capabilities. - In the NHL, if you do not handle the cap space properly and you don't have prospects to develop than you are not doing your team any favors. When you overpay and give away picks than you have less prospects to develop, when you sign bottom six players to large contracts than you hinder your teams abilities to acquire top FA or get involved in potential trade deals. What part of the above isn't right? Please explain clearly... - Regarding Sbisa, Dorset and Prust.... you know why it was done? and you can't say if it's right or wrong? Why is that I wonder....oh, because we have to wait and see how these players pan out? So the contracts are good if they pan out.....and wrong if they don't? So you agree that the contracts were based on speculation! It is very easy to answer the question regarding the contracts these players have now... Is their current performance worthy of the contracts benning gave them? - benning has only been here for 1 year and you still give him credit? I'm quite confident that MG would have brought in the right pieces to make the Comets competitive too.... benning has been here for 1 year!!!!! And yes Markstrom was a key part of the Comets....but YOU admitted that benning was forced into this trade due to NTCs, so he sort of "stumbled" upon this move...basically, he got lucky. - I recall WD using all 4 lines... and I don't remember the Sedins having extra shifts out there. Maybe I'm wrong on this? but it seems we both agree on WD. - You never stated Sutter was a rookie, but I stated to show that he has many years experience in the NHL so I said, "he's not a rookie". I said this to argue that he doesn't have a history of being a "foundational" player.... Sutter obviously thinks highly of Sutter and expects him to play here for many years, but this is speculation again! What I am asking for is ANY evidence that shows that Sutter can improve his game now that he is a vet and has played in the NHL for many years. Sutter needs to greatly improve his stats if he is to be on our 2nd line.... and I have a lot more faith in Bo than you do, I think Bo will replace Sutter at 2nd and Sutter will be our 3rd C a lot earlier than his contract expires. benning also said that Sutter was a good player because we could match him up against our opponents.... do you see the double talk here? WD rolls 4 lines and doesn't like to match lines, but benning said..... - if Sutter doesn't improve than we lost this trade heavily because Bonino brought similar attributes and scores more. I shouldn't have to mention that Bonino's cap hit is also valuable, but you don't care about cap space. We have problems with scoring....this is a MAJOR ISSUE! - Please don't speculate about what benning can get in the 2nd round. Sutter might be better for our team in certain areas, but there's negatives too. I'm not arguing about Sutter....I'm arguing what we paid to acquire him. Since when is one of our top D prospects expendable???? This is a glaring hole in our prospects pool.... This is the exact crap excuse benning supporters always make..... "draft picks are risky and have no guarantee".... "we have plenty of D prospects who are close, he's expendable"? Just exactly which players make Clendening expendable? If there isn't a difference between a late 2nd and early 3rd than why do it? There's obviously enough of an advantage to stick to your guns for this extra bit right? Our GM is oblivious to how all these "extras" are advantageous and you don't get upset? - You think we can't critique a trade deal for the deal alone??? You prefer to use speculation here and wait for results....oblivious to what it cost us to acquire this player? "PANNED OUT" seems to be another tool you use as an argument. AT the time of the trade, did you feel we paid too much or did you feel it was fair? hehe this is simple and you know it.... you don't need to pan and wait for any results. Based on performance thus far alone.... you think it was a good deal? - You were the one who said that these guys can see Sbisa's game and learn from him. I just pointed out that there are other things that these kids can learn from Sbisa too and it's not good. I like Hamuis so we have no argument here. This makes two points in the same thread....not bad from where we started Burrows and Hansen don't play C so it's not a big deal if they are good at faceoffs.... but they play a hell of a defensive game and I would be thoroughly pleased if some of our prospects could emulate and play close to what Burrows and Hansen brings night in and night out. I don't mind Sutter, I just don't like what were paying him and what we gave up to acquire him. He's faster than Bonino and plays better defensively, but he doesn't play with grit and doesn't use his size. His faceoffs will be an advantage.... but does that equate to the points Bonino produced and his cap savings? Plus Clendening and the pick? - Baertschi and Grenier deserved a look and Gaunce did too....some others, but these guys should have had a small taste anyways. So Vey took that away from them because he's waiver eligible. We added a pick in almost every trade bennings made so far.... how can you not think we are throwing them away? - We don't need prospects based upon age.... we need them based upon abilities, performance and readiness. If they have the former two, but lack readiness and he is waiver eligible, than it is a high risk maneuver. - I disagree with you about these necessary risks to take a waiver eligible player...we don't have to take the risk and choosing our own pick in the draft give us better odds pro-benning supporters say....benning is the drafting wiz. However, I am not adamant that all waiver eligible trades should be ignored. I like the Baertschi trade because I thought there were other factors for his low performance.... Vey, should have been ignored and just signed Santorelli. I also agree with you on Pedan and Baertsch....but Pedan hasn't really shown much due to his concussion and will need more time. Hope he recovers and they both do become regulars...Vey, Yes...I"m sure a lot of us will be watching Vey and I'm not rooting against him. I hope he proves me wrong and becomes good enough to be an NHL regular.....I just can't see him playing C. - I have patience, I had it with MG when he first arrived because he wasn't making a 'statement' trade immediately and understood the players and what they brought prior to doing anything. He wasn't getting fleeced in deals and he wasn't giving away picks. I have repeatedly said, I don't mind the players acquired, I just don't like what we gave up to get these players and the contracts we are giving them. Benning's plan The guidelines you mentioned are the same for every team. Every team wants the new core to succeed the old core and they want to make the transition the right way with proper development. Utica did well because of MG's moves and the players he put in place....benning added some pieces, but he should not be given so much credit. Bo...he would have done well with MG here or with anybody not named Torts. I credit Bo for everything he's done to get himself to where he is now.... I'll credit benning, for giving bo the opportunity, but Bo gets credit for staying with the Canucks and his improvement. Work ethic, skills, size, etc... he either learned at an early age from good parenting or peers and the others are God given. Nothing benning or anyone else in management did to help Bo get to where he's at....other than give him a fair opportunity. Agree we appear to be a different team...harder working maybe, character-wise....we didn't have a problem before. Are we a better team? Not sure....we replaced a lot of skilled players for these new guys and we still haven't addressed scoring. Your plan doesn't excuse what benning has done thus far..... where does overpaying for players come into the plan? Where does giving draft picks or better draft positions come into the plan? Where does trading our younger players for older players come into the plan? Where does overpaying our 4th line come into the plan? Where does overpaying a 6/7 dman come into the plan? I have no problem with the plan....that every GM has. I just have a problem with bennings execution of the plan! How do we improve our prospects if we have less prospects to develop due to giving away draft picks? benning needs to improve his negotiation skills and stop giving away our picks when it's not necessary. Stop trading away our youth for older players! If benning values these vets so much, trade away one of our vets instead of our youth. How does spending any available cap space on our bottom players going to help us? Automatically, we are ruled out of any possible future trade acquisitions because we don't have cap space or draft picks to make the trade. How do we keep the youth in a competitive and winning environment when we are replacing skill with players that don't have a history of scoring goals? Meat and potatoes were fine during that time against Boston.....but I don't see "meat & potatoes" in the SCFs anymore. Looks more like skill and speed are the requisite now. Are we getting to this overall plan in the best manner possible? Definitely not. And this is why I have an issue because we seem to be taking one step forwards and two steps back....or just standing still. I can respect your positive vibes and I don't mind our long discussions on this.... but you have to admit that there were better options available and better choices could have been made and we would be a little closer to "the goal". Honestly, if we had another GM with experience and negotiating skills.... everyone would be a lot more optimistic of where were at. Even if we had the same players that benning acquired because it wouldn't have cost us so much.... and our cap space would allow us to target FA for positions that we must address.
  11.     - If we didn't overpay Miller we wouldn't have needed to get rid of Garrison.... do you get this? How come you conveniently ignored my comment about Sbisa's contract? THIS IS MY ISSUE! Stop skirting around this issue.... you either agree with the contract or you don't. If you don't than you agree with what I've said. - We had all summer....and we wouldn't be in this position without overpaying and "upgrading" an area on the team that wasn't our biggest issue. How do you not blame benning? He is the one who signed Miller and overpaid! He is the one who spent our cap space to try and improve goaltending when there were much bigger problems with this team. Double-standards here AGAIN. MG is at fault because he was forced to trade Lou or Schneids when the league changed the rules on him (unprofessionally and without precedence). But, benning is not at fault for having to get rid of a top 4 Dman (for peanuts) when benning was the sole reason we were on the wrong side of the cap and benning gets a free ride because Garrison had a NTC due to his discount salary? So benning is allowed to trade our quality players for minimal returns because he is forced to....BUT, nobody has a problem with benning playing top dollar to other GMs when they are also forced to trade a player? You did not answer any questions and only gave excuses and this seems to be the theme here. THIS IS MY ISSUE WITH GARRISONS TRADE. He receives minimal in return for our top 4Dmen and we give up maximum in return for prospects that aren't proven or ready. Do you see the problem here? - I can't prove Lack would do any better in a starting role, nor can you prove that we needed Miller and that he was a necessity. I can prove that Lack played tremendously well for a rookie in the #1 position the year prior...until fatigue set in due to not having a backup. I can also prove that Lack's numbers were equal to or better than Millers last year, and that Lack is not accident prone and young and healthy. - Another excuse. What team that spends to the max each year can afford to ignore the cap? You are ignoring the ENTIRE point here. It's our OPPORTUNITY COSTS that is pissing me off! If we spent that money unwisely, we cannot afford to spend the money on other areas of the team that needs to be improved. THIS is why draft picks are equally important to us and we can't afford to give them away or request minimum in return for top 4 Dmen.... WHY DO YOU THINK WE COULDN'T GET IN ON THE HAMILTON DEAL? We didn't maximize our deals previously.... the same thing will happen if we don't maximize our cap space wisely. Stop making excuses. You know that it's absurd to say that we don't have to worry about cap space....EVERY team needs to address it. Teams that spend to the max must be more careful. If we have cap space, it doesn't mean we should just spend it on our 4th line....nobody knows what can happen next week, next month or next year. What happens when an opportunity comes up where we can get a young, stud top 4Dman or young top 6 forward, but we don't have the cap space because we used it up on our 4th line? This could happen at any time.... so cap space is important ALL THE TIME. Example: A young, proven top 4 Dman is available on the market and the team isn't asking for much, however, we are not able to make an offer because we don't have the adequate picks to make the trade. Up until this point, draft picks are not reliable because they have a low probability rate so we gave them away and we didn't ask for more/better picks in return for our top 4Dmen. Do you see where your argument is flawed about draft picks not being reliable? THIS WAS ANOTHER BS LINE FROM BENNING TO COMPENSATE FOR HIS POOR DECISION AGAIN. CAP space works the same.... if we waste cap space on our goaltending (when scoring and defense is a bigger issue) and 4th line players or players like Sbisa, we are not able to acquire a good player when one becomes available. - If you can't see the problems that I've pointed out above, than you are not looking at the whole picture like you claim. These are some of the future implications that I'm talking about and they are a very BIG significance because our GM is too shortsighted to see this. This does not stop us from getting better, faster, stronger, etc...but it sure slows the process down and doesn't make the outcome as effective. Benning is headed in the right direction, but he is on the wrong path. - I'm trying to give Vey some credit.... yes it is speculation that Vey would do better in the East because they aren't as strong as the West and they're game style is more suited for Vey. The point still is that Vey isn't big enough or responsible enough to play against our rivals in the West and this is fact. No speculation that Vey did not perform well last year. I'm gonna reply to what your response will be: Why should we give him ice time with the Canucks? We need to be patient? We should give him a chance? Since when does Vey get special coddling and why should we give him a nipple when our other prospects are working hard everyday trying to get just a slight glimpse of NHL action.... oh, because Vey is waiver eligible and a risky acquisition, so he gets special attention... - HE IS NOT NHL READY. Vey proved it last year! We traded a valuable 2nd round pick for this player that is supposedly NHL ready! He wasn't. Of course someone is to blame.... Double standards again! MG picks up a proven top4 Dman in Ballard and he doesn't perform well due to various circumstances and everyone harps on MG.... benning trades away our 2nd round pick for an unproven prospect that is waiver eligible and benning is not at fault when we can all clearly see that Vey isn't ready? - Again... we needed the cap space because benning is wasting the cap space on areas that are not necessary. - You accuse me of speculation and you actually do it more than I do? Did Lack put up equal numbers or better numbers than Miller last year? If so, than my calculations are fairly close that he could have done the job like he did the year prior. The only thing Lack needs is a reliable backup and we would have the same outcome without Miller. - Hypocritical??? that's a laugh. You use speculation all the time and you claim that I'm speculating. You use double-standards all the time and you claim I'm being hypocritical? The comments you said that I was using in hindsight are exactly the same things I was saying before the deals were made last year and this year. As far as speculation accusations that your throwing as some sort of argument... it's quite funny if you look at your posts, it's all about speculation. I always wanted and stated: - to sign Santorelli - Lack as our #1 or sign a reliable backup or give Miller a contract equal to his performance and not his history or speculated performance. - I always knew Miller was not an elite goalie. A goalie who had one elite year. He's old, declining and a distraction to the team (Lucic). What part of the above is hindsight if I discussed this last year prior to the trades or at the time of the trade? I'm just repeating what I said...and many others, this is not something I made up afterwards. But, you don't have another argument or anything else to say so you claim it's "speculation" ....give an argument instead of claiming "speculation" as your "goto" defense. - WD IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. WD can make a comment or request... but the FINAL decision ALWAYS falls on the GM. ANY argument you make otherwise just shows how much your love for benning is blinding you.... - AGAIN... we needed cap space because benning wasted it. - Look at his performance when Miller was out for 2 months with an injury! Look at their stats before Miller's age effected his ability to stay healthy! The odds are that I am closer to the truth than you are.... You make another comment about me speculating on whether Lack can put up 30+ wins, but you feel it's reliable that you speculate about Miller putting up the 30+ wins? I'm a hypocrite? Please. Fine, my evidence isn't strong and neither is yours. However, in my case we aren't spending $6 million of our cap space on speculation and we are spending $6 million of cap space a NTC and 3 years on complete speculation of Miller's capabilities. This actually goes perfectly with bennings thought process in negotiating contracts with employees.... Sbisa "could" be a top 4 Dman, so we should pay him more! Dorsett has intangibles and should score more, pay him more! Miller had an elite year once and he should do it again, pay him more! - This is another defensive mechanism you have, "you cannot prove whether or not Lack would of done better in a starting role"....Did Lack not play like a #1 after Lou was traded? Was fatigue an issue when Torts wouldn't play Markstrom to relieve Lack? Did Lack not play exceptional least equal to Miller and help us get to the Playoffs when Miller's age caused his injury? Yes, there is slight speculation here, but there is evidence that backs what I say...that you fail to recognize or admit to. Can you prove that Miller would have gotten us to the Playoffs if he didn't get injured? Of course you will say Yes....because you believe that you are the only one who can speculate. - Vey is a stop gap!!!! He's not a corner stone piece of the team! The expectations were that he was ready and that he would take over the 3rd C role on this team last year. He failed and now we need to rack our brains to figure out a role that he can fit into. This is a fail. Give him time???? How much time should we give this "prospect" that isn't ready for the NHL? 2 more years or maybe 3? What a joke, we could easily acquire a player that is ready NOW in FA or acquire a better player in a trade than Vey.... Vey has skills granted, but they are not unique and his flaws greatly hinder his abilities to play the role that we acquired him for. - I lack the patience to see whether or not these moves pan out???? Can you stop with the BS because I'm not so naive. A poor trade deal can be judged and analyzed immediately. Waiting is not necessary for matters like this. This is your problem, you seem to think along the same lines as benning! A smart GM does not pay extra for a player because the GM believes he will play better... or on speculations. You pay for what the player is worth at the time....and at the time, the trades were not in our favor and we have every right to criticize! Your argument is laughable: - If Sbisa improves his game SIGNIFICANTLY than we win the trade deal or contract negotiations? - If Sutter becomes a cornerstone player and turns into a Kes type player than benning wins the deal? - If Prust, somehow, puts up significant points for the first time in his long career than we win the trade? No wonder GM's love trading with benning and nobody understands what he's doing....DO YOU SEE WHAT YOUR DOING HERE, SPECULATING THAT THE DEAL WAS GOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE. At the time of the deals, we overpaid. period. Be honest, as an example, at the time of the Kass trade.... nobody knew about the 5th round pick until a little afterwards. Did you believe that we were the team that acquired the 5th round pick in this trade? Or did you believe that we had to give them this pick to trade for a 4th liner? All of your points have been used in hindsight, speculations, double standards or argued with "you can't prove it".... I'll agree that we need to use some of these methods sometimes, but don't call me out on it if you do the same.
  12.     Seriously? You should try arguing with something that could be back up....and if you're gonna put Lack in a scenario with Markstrom as his backup than it would only be fair to put Miller in the same situation right? You claim that there is no way that a combo of Lack and Markstrom would have made the Playoffs last year and I'll agree because Markstrom wasn't ready. Had the GM signed a reliable backup for a reasonable cap than I would disagree... NOW, how far do you think a combo of Miller and Markstrom would have gotten last year? I GUARANTEE you that Lack and Markstrom would have gotten us further than Miller and Markstrom! We would have been stuck with Markstrom as our #1 for 2 + months last year because of Millers injury. NOW DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH AN AGING, INJURY PRONE GOALTENDER COUPLED WITH MARKSTROM WHO IS STILL FRAGILE AND NEEDS TO BUILD CONFIDENCE? I can't believe you had the audacity to put Miller in conversation with Roy and Brodeur??!! This just negates your whole point. Being a typical benning fan, I'm sure you have double-standards here too.... Lou is too old and will hinder us when he's 4, but Miller will be fine when he's 40. Your saying that Burrows knows that this management doesn't want controversies? So this proves what part of your argument? THIS management is the one who went out and hired an aging, accident prone goalie to a contract that does not match his recent performance history... THIS management is the one who is stirring up the sh!t again. Goaltending WAS NOT our issue and this management needed to focus on goal scoring and our defense....but they went out and signed Miller instead to improve our goaltending. I will be surprised to see Lack's number plummet, but I won't be surprised if Miller's numbers plummet far greater and to see him injured again. I also will expect Markstrom to be thrust into the #1 role and falter because of the undue pressure of being Millers backup. How much do you think Miller can teach Markstrom? Everyone talks about these guys like their in their teens. These guys are adults....they don't need tutoring, at most, they may need someone to show them the ropes on how to deal with the media, the goaltending coach will teach Markstrom what he needs to know. The majority of teams in the NHL (stronger teams) have a tandem of younger goalies as opposed to the older + younger combination.... Obviously your theory is old and a MAJORITY of the GMs in the league disagree with you.
  13.     - opinion or foresight, call it what you will. I was surprised that any GM would offer that much to an aging goalie, coming off a sh!t performance on a good team the season prior, no other GM's interested, and a goalie who is in decline and aging. I called benning out on this last year and almost everyone flamed me for it because I wasn't on board the "benning is god" train. I'm still not and there's obviously some still clinging onto the skirts. - Markstrom's play is not a huge relevance to Lack or Miller...managements thinking keeping Miller is only because benning won't admit to his mistakes. He continuously lies to us for his reasonings to justify his moves/errors. Or he'll get Linden to cover for him with some "story" or excuse to justify the moves. We could have and should have gone with the younger goalie, on a cheaper contract with better stats all around to be paired with Markstrom. Instead of an aging goalie, who is accident prone and missed 2 months last season, who underperformed and didn't pan out to be the goalie we were all told he was....and who comes with a 6 million cap hit. - So we can both agree that it was no big feat that we made the Playoffs... Just like Eddie Murphy said, "if Stevie Wonder could take the wheel, I'd be impressed". If the Canucks made the Conference Finals or beat a Playoff contender, I'd be impressed. - Seriously? You KNOW what benning's plans are? He told you? He has no clue I don't know how you know what his plans are? He wants to be competitive and develop our prospects to take over....this is every GM's plan! But your saying you know his objectives and so you excuse his actions because it's part of the big picture that only you have "insight" too? That's the reason why he wants to overpay (salary/cap) Sbisa, Dorset, Prust, Miller? That's the reason he is willing to give away our picks and overpay to acquire these same players? This is the reason he brought in smallish centers who can't defend or take a faceoff? Does trading away our good players for measly returns play a big part of his "future" plans too? Does tossing in our draft picks, on every deal, play a part in bennings overall plan to improve our future? Stop talking like you have any insight to his future and ONLY YOU can see the big picture.... it's getting tiresome. And to go a little further, I said that I don't mind some of the players that benning acquired....I just HATE what benning paid to get these players and I can't fathom why he would resign these players to some of their contracts. If you suggest that benning paid the "expected" price for these players and that this much of our cap should go to players like Sbisa, Dorset and Prust than you and I both know your lying through your teeth. - Double standards on credit. Nobody gives MG credit because he inherited his team after 5 + years and benning gets credit after 1 year? Absolute BS. Last year was not all benning....that's almost laughable. Without the majority of the players brought in by MG...all of this is mute. Let's not forget the fact that we have the opportunity to play our players for developmental purposes and to get the most out of our prospects.... ALL BECAUSE OF MG'S MOVE TO OWN OUR FARM TEAM. This whole competitive environment stems from the fact that MG made this move.... benning had a small role, and deserves little if any credit. One standard for all GMs instead of selective standards to suit your needs please. - WD, I'm not upset with. However, like I said, this playing 4 lines in the Playoffs does not work and it won't...adjustments need to be made. - Foundational player? Hehe Why do people believe that anything benning says is fact and the truth....the ONLY truth? Sutter is not a rookie or prospect....he's been around the league for years. PLEASE show me any evidence where he is a proven 'FOUNDATIONAL' player? This tactic of benning has become quite redundant..."Sbisa will be a top 4 Dman", "Miller is here for stability",'s all a load of bs. This scenario just repeated itself with Sutter... "a foundational player" hehe Now this is the benning supporters excuse for the trade.... It doesn't matter if you think it means he will be here for an extended period does it? How he performs makes the big difference and what has he shown to make you believe that he will improve now? Again, I don't mind having Sutter on this team...but we paid too much for him. - How is it too early to critique bennings contract negotiations? How is it too early to critique the overpayment for players in trades? How is it too early to critique Vey's performance since he just played a full year? We are not critiquing least I'm not, I'm critiquing the actual trade deal. Same with almost every other trade benning has made..... This is fair game and must be critiqued. - The transitional players you mentioned... you really think it's necessary our prospects need to see Sbisa's physical presence, shot blocking and PK duties? So the effect must be the same when they see him play defense or try and move the puck.... This team is loaded with defensively responsible players like Burrows and Hansen so Sutter won't bring anything to the table. But does this mean that Sutters soft game will be acquired by our prospects too? C'mon.... what you wrote here is absolute garbage spewed from benning or linden. Draft picks don't pan out so they are worthy of being tossed in with trade deals to get to an agreement quickly? And yes we have prospects that are NHL ready.... have you watched the Comets? BTW, we had a d prospect that was close, but benning tossed him in with a trade for an older player that will be a rfa next season. Well, great that we traded for prospects that are closer to be NHL ready....but aren't ready. Now we have to play them and can't wait for them to develop. Do you not see the risks involved with trading for these waiver eligible prospects? AND, we only got a 2nd round pick for our top 4dmen....and we are giving up 2nd round picks for these waiver eligible prospects!!!! Is this another part of bennings overall plan? ANOTHER load of BS benning lays out and now everyone believes that it's ok to give away our picks.... "draft picks don't always pan out"!!! This is one of the funnier ones... so does prospects that are waiver eligible always pan out? Is there a guarantee? Your worst supporting argument so far has been, "benning has stated that." Your source is the main problem here! I admit that I have zero patience for stupidity and, in my opinion, a good understanding of bennings plan and philosophy. So I have a good perspective of what's ahead. The biggest problem I have is that benning doesn't know how to negotiate, he doesn't know what a fair deal or contract is and he doesn't understand the actual value of having draft picks. Because we disagree with benning, it doesn't mean that pro benning supporters have more insight to what his plans are. We just don't agree with what benning has done so far...but there is a very good chance that we both have the exact same outlook on his plans/philosophy.
  14.     I'll reply to your comments in red first, - I agree with you on the Kesler trade. I've said numerous times that Kes screwed us over and I put no blame on benning for the returns. I'm not happy with Sbisa in the deal, but benning liked him so whatever....I'm only upset with Sbisa's contract after we acquired him. Garrison's trade is what I was referring to.... I think we should have gotten more for him, but this deal was rushed. - I'll agree that rushing the deal wasn't the sole reason for the poor return...obviously a NTC is a factor. We can put the blame on any factors....but a 2nd round pick for a top 4 D man is a poor return. - Miller is not needed period. Not than, not now and not for our future. We can agree to disagree on this one because you are not going to convince me that Miller played better than Lack and I fully believe that we would have had the same results if Lack had a respectable back up goalie last year. - You misunderstood me. My complaint here is about all the cap space being used up on our goalie, Sbisa, Prust and Dorset. It's not difficult to understand that we are in's been discussed enough on CDC, the media and everywhere else. And this statement was specific to another posters reply... You're taking it out of context. - No, I'm looking at future implications that you want to ignore. - When I say "meh"... I'm talking about Vey playing in our division. If he were to play in the East, he would do much better and might be worth it. Unfortunately, we play in the toughest conference and a pretty tough division now where Vey's attributes fall short. Baertschi I said was ok because he is a prospect that was treated unfairly by his previous team and he had been overlooked by them. Pedan is not waiver eligible. - Yes, benning can trust WD's insight. However, blame still lands on benning if it doesn't work out. And it hasn't... I don't hear anybody giving the same excuses for MG or any other GM of the Nucks when there was a mistake? benning has input from various sources and those that don't agree with him he fires.... at the end of the day, he makes the final decision and he carries the blame. You are the 3rd person who tried to make excuses for benning on this? You agree or disagree that the fault of any trades falls on the GM? - Vey for Garrison... you wrote, "Garrison was dumped to TBL for capspace and a pick..." This is my point! What GM just "dumps" a top 4 Dman quickly when the market value is much higher? - haha your narrowed vision seems to be the difference between us. If Lack can put up equal numbers to Miller (AND HE DID) than this would have a significant effect on this team and how competitive we really could be. If the fan favorite, Lack, could put up 30+ wins than the direct advantages we gain would be extremely significant and allow Markstrom the proper time to adjust. Now with Miller, at his age, we are COMPLETELY screwed if Markstrom doesn't make it as a #1. Think about it.... we have Lack that is much more proven and experienced and we have Markstrom who has sh!t the bed since he played in the NHL, what's the smarter move in picking a goalie for the future? You have a proven player and you have a prospect that has been awful in the few NHL games he's been in.... this is not hard. - a lot of what if's and hindsight in regards to Miller and Lack? You are lacking in arguments here so you're going with one of the typical excuses benning fans make. Stop being so narrow-minded and stop making excuses for benning and you will see more clearly. The season prior to last, Lack played great until the toil and marathon games became an issue...he proved himself. Last year when Millers aging body couldn't handle the rigors of the game, Lack came in and played solidly as our #1. The difference between Miller and Lack does not equal the difference in salary..... what part of this is hindsight like you say? and what part of this is "what ifs"? These are facts. - when a player is waiver eligible, the risk factors increase and the numbers I used are only to signify that the risk is much higher. Like I stated earlier....benning makes the final decision so the blame rests on him. - not bad or good hehe Was Vey ready last year? Will he play the position that we acquired him for this year or in the future? And this is another excuse for people who defend benning....they always say, " won't have a huge impact on this team years from now". The immediate impact is that we lost a 2nd round prospect that could develop into a strong player.... Please don't be so nonchalant with our early draft picks, they are crucial for every franchise and have major implications for the future. - the last statement wasn't in hindsight and you have used this word significantly in your "defending" of benning. What other methods do you suggest to argue or discuss bad judgements that benning has made in the past? HINDSIGHT MUST BE USED TO DISCUSS A SUBJECT THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE PAST. If hindsight is the only argument people have against what has been written than it's just used as an excuse.
  15.     - a prospect picked up in the 2nd round could be a better player someday... Good argument! - If we didn't use our cap space on goaltending, than there wouldn't be an issue... doesn't matter who was signed first. Still hating? - I would rather draft an 18 year old and develop him properly in our own system and let him get comfortable with our own players with the amount of time required before he's ready for the NHL. Better option than picking up a slightly older prospect who is unproven in the NHL and is waiver eligible. How happy were you that Vey was gifted ice time last year and some of our own prospects weren't given an opportunity to get some NHL experience because we would have lost Vey on waivers? Vey wasn't ready...isn't ready and if he wasn't waiver eligible, he would be on the farm until he improves his deficiencies. No prospects should be given NHL ice time when they aren't ready.