Contrasting Views

[Camel Toe Drag]

I just wanna see Bo go beast all season and turn into Vancouvers next terror. 

[Honky Cat]

I would definitely put myself on the positive side of the equation...Considering the fact that JB took over a veteran team,with virtually no prospects (and no impact players entering their prime years)..I think he's well on track in putting together a decent team..In another year,we will be set in goal and defence..(Joulevi,Boeser,Demko will be on the team)

 

Next on the shopping list is a 1C....its all still a work in progress..and you have to remember, JB has only been on the job for 2 years

[JamesB]

2 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I'm liking how Benning has the team set up for this year. I think it is less vulnerable to injury than it was last year because depth has improved and Utica is better.  The Canucks are better because of the way the defense has been re-constructed.  There are better players and better depth.  They are still lacking a PPQB.... 

 

In general, depth is one of the key differences between this years team and last years.  There may very well be some surprises in the line up.  As for over all performance, I am predicting the same as I have for the past 2 seasons.  They're a bubble team.  If they make the play offs, they may be out in the first round but they will benefit from that experience. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Aircool said:

....

A GM's job isn't to say, "well they'll be better, because Eriksson" and then when they're worse say, "we had a lot of injuries"... A GM is supposed to consider the REALISTIC possibilities that can occur, such as one Sedin being injured for 2-3+ months, or the Sedins regressing, and to plan for that. If your team is contingent upon EVERYTHING going right, it begs the question as to whether your decision-making is correct. Anyone can sign Eriksson and make happy-go-lucky claims as to the dominance of the Sedins this season... That's not hard, GMs are paid to do more.

I think both these posts make a good point. Aircool is right in saying that a GM needs to be prepared but "normal" bad events (like injuries) and I think the key to that is depth. As Crabcakes says, I think the Canucks do have better depth this year, especially on D.

 

As others have indicated, probably the big question mark is whether the young forwards can improve enough to generate the kind of secondary scoring we need to make the playoffs.

[JCM7]

2 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

No PP QB

No second line

Top line gets seniors discount at Denny's -  we will need a truckload of tape to keep them taped up  and  playing all season. 

No  1 D or 2 D  on our club right no.  Sorry Edler and Tanev are more 3 D's on most teams. 

 

Yup its going to be a long season.  Probably drafting in the 25-30 range.  Hopefully we can get a future 1 C in the draft next year. 

 

Hopefully this is rock bottom and we can start to go up from here........

Hahaha.  OP, is this the sort of polarized opinion you were speaking of?  I'm not sure why it is, but a lot of Canucks fans do have very extreme views.

 

There are 30 teams in the NHL.  Of course some of these teams are deeper on D than others, but for argument's sake let's say that  if all were evenly distributed there would be 60 top pairing defensemen in the league.  Are you honestly telling me that you think that you can name 60 defencemen better than Edler and Tanev?  That is CRAZY.  As a top pairing, Edler and Tanev play top minutes against the best forwards on every team they face.  This is probably the toughest job on the team.  They do very well.  Are the Keith and Seabrook?  Nope.  As top pairings go they are not at the top of the league but they're not at the bottom either.

 

It is true that if the top line doesn't get more support than they did last year they will probably burn out just as quickly.  That said Bo and Baert will hopefully take another step forward and help to provide that.  If JB is able to add the scoring winger as he has talked about that would be another source for some scoring.

 

Sutter is healthy and will hopefully remain that way.  With the arrival of Eriksson, Hansen will likely move down and play with Sutter.  I would imagine that Burrows has the inside track for the final position on that line, but one of the young guys could step up and take the spot.

 

Taking all of this into account:

 

Forwards:

 

1st line: ADD Eriksson = big improvement.

2nd line: Bo & Baer improved + new scoring winger = better than last year.

3rd line: Sutter healthy + Hansen moved down from 1st line = WAY BETTER

4th line: who knows but certainly no worse than last year.

 

Defense 

 

Edler healthy = improvement 

Tavev still Tanev = no change 

Hutton one year older = improvement 

Guddy replaces Hammer = Hammer was injured for a big part of last year so whether Guddy is better or not, if he stays healthy it is a big improvement 

Sbisa, Tryamkin, Larson, Pedan = who knows but certainly no worse than last year.

 

Goaltending is the same as last year.

 

This team lost a lot of 1 goal games last year and virtually every area of the team has improved (except for goaltending which is the same).  Will this be enough to get into the playoffs and maybe win a round?  I have no idea.  Will they be better than last year.  Almost certainly.  It is certainly not as bleak as you are making it sound.

[The Bookie]

Maybe all us non-polarized fence sitters need to organize under an umbrella corp.

 

Did you know that there's a Third Pole?

 

There is! http://www.icimod.org/?q=3487

[CrashNBash]

Entering my 39th season as a die hard Canuck fan, I'm excited for this group. I just hope they stay healthy and really gel and support each other. I'm on the positive side and really like JB's moves. Linden is also a man who knows what it takes to be a winner. 

I also can't wait for the first guy who runs our goalie. :-D

[JCM7]

2 hours ago, Aircool said:

I think you sum this up reasonably well, but I think you really miss the point that people like myself have who are considered to have the "negative opinions"...

 

People on these forums like to say things like, Sedins now have Eriksson and will put up 100 points... People have said that... Complete nonsense obviously... Even if you say they will be better, I simply ask what is your justification for that? Who says one of them isn't out for the season by the second week of the season... The "positive" opinions on CDC are essentially, "Sedins will be better this year because they have a better linemate." while ignoring the potential for regression, severe injury, or the general impact of being a one line team.. IE, the other team always only has to match up against your only good line. The point being, it might be better to play Eriksson on the 2nd line.

 

A GM's job isn't to say, "well they'll be better, because Eriksson" and then when they're worse say, "we had a lot of injuries"... A GM is supposed to consider the REALISTIC possibilities that can occur, such as one Sedin being injured for 2-3+ months, or the Sedins regressing, and to plan for that. If your team is contingent upon EVERYTHING going right, it begs the question as to whether your decision-making is correct. Anyone can sign Eriksson and make happy-go-lucky claims as to the dominance of the Sedins this season... That's not hard, GMs are paid to do more.

JB has been GM for 2 years.  Most of the team he inherited has NTCs attached to their deals.  Despite the fact that the one legitimate asset he had that wanted to be traded handcuffed have him by publicly announcing that had would only accept trades to 2 teams he managed to get a decent return.  The team had an aging roster and not a lot of cap space.

 

How do you propose the JB would add depth to be prepared for these injuries?  He could have signed some more.... No wait, he had no cap space.  You cannot build a deep team in 2 years when you are given the hand that JB was dealt.  That said we are better off now than we were 2 years ago.

 

The Canucks played a good part of last year without a top pairing defenseman and without their top 2 centers.  That would be an uphill battle for the strongest cup contenders in the league.  

 

In in the cap era, you cannot stockpile depth through free agency.  You can't trade for "extra" veteran players as no team would have the cap space.  You need capable players on ELCs to fill those voids.  Those players a way too costly via trade so the only way to do this is through scouting and drafting.  This takes a long time.

[Aircool]

19 minutes ago, JCM7 said:

JB has been GM for 2 years.  Most of the team he inherited has NTCs attached to their deals.  Despite the fact that the one legitimate asset he had that wanted to be traded handcuffed have him by publicly announcing that had would only accept trades to 2 teams he managed to get a decent return.  The team had an aging roster and not a lot of cap space.

 

How do you propose the JB would add depth to be prepared for these injuries?  He could have signed some more.... No wait, he had no cap space.  You cannot build a deep team in 2 years when you are given the hand that JB was dealt.  That said we are better off now than we were 2 years ago.

 

The Canucks played a good part of last year without a top pairing defenseman and without their top 2 centers.  That would be an uphill battle for the strongest cup contenders in the league.  

 

In in the cap era, you cannot stockpile depth through free agency.  You can't trade for "extra" veteran players as no team would have the cap space.  You need capable players on ELCs to fill those voids.  Those players a way too costly via trade so the only way to do this is through scouting and drafting.  This takes a long time.

Well, I would have rebuilt. So that's why I don't give him credit for his tough situation... If you have an aging roster that has underperformed what do you do with it when it's no longer capable of winning a cup? You restart.

 

You are correct, you cannot build a deep team in 2 years when you have a crap team. Begs the question why you would try, and not just rebuild. Why? Because greedy ownership and bad decision-making with regards to the on-ice product. This team STILL has no secondary scoring, it is STILL a one line team. I'm not even talking about 3 lines capable of scoring... If you don't have two, you have no business anywhere other than the bottom 5-10 teams in the NHL...

 

Edler isn't a top pairing defenseman, he really never was, just a by-product of the leagues best powerplay. He's a #3. Perhaps a good one, but nonetheless, a #3. The thing people need to realize when numbering defenseman... You aren't a #1 if you are one of the 30 best defenseman in the league. It's not a sliding scale, you are either ELITE or you are not. Just like you aren't a #2 because you might be a Top-60 defenseman in the league. Which is the meaningless logic people use to try and elevate Edler's status, it doesn't make him any better if you call him a Top-pairing D-man. He's still just what he is.

 

You are right, you cannot stockpile depth through Free Agency, cap space is punishing, and you do need young talent. If you have an underperforming aging roster with few to no young players coming through, what does that scream? Again... Rebuild.

 

I don't understand what the point of your post is... You are defending Jim Benning for not giving depth to a team with which he insists on attempting and failing to contend. The points you list are reasons why he shouldn't try to defend, because he will be incapable of it. So rather than try to defend him, why not question his judgement? The answer, in case you don't know, is because the average sports fan decides on their answer to a question, they then make up facts to support their answer... Not the other way around, hence the lunacy on CDC.

[groovy]

4 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

No PP QB

No second line

Top line gets seniors discount at Denny's -  we will need a truckload of tape to keep them taped up  and  playing all season. 

No  1 D or 2 D  on our club right no.  Sorry Edler and Tanev are more 3 D's on most teams. 

 

Yup its going to be a long season.  Probably drafting in the 25-30 range.  Hopefully we can get a future 1 C in the draft next year. 

 

Hopefully this is rock bottom and we can start to go up from here........

Well, it will need to be a long playoff run season to draft 25-30. So if that`s rock-bottom we`re on to a winner!!!

[kylecanuck]

8 hours ago, 'NucK™ said:

I think you are more positive than the average Canucks fan though. At least I have similar views and I know I am.

 

it seems that the more casual fan base is more likely to hate on JB (and that as does make up the majority afterall). Probably because they are just thinking about big picture stuff like: nothing @ free agency, losing hamhuis, mccann, signing a 31yo to 6 years + tkuchuk homers who didn't even know who Juolevi was when his name was called (+ the Lack homers as well who thought we made a bad decision mostly because.. hes a really nice guy and likes tacos. I thought it was clear that marky showed more promise at the time eddie was traded AND we avoided free agency and got brisebois thanks to it. yet people still complain..)

 

they either dont see the other side of it (hammer-mentorship/hard to trade, mccann-traded a prima donna for potential future A captain, erikisson-have to consider that it was the only way the deal would get done), or haven't noticed what Benning has done in just two years to finally get some good prospects into the system (demko, boeser, tryamkin, stecher, zhukenov, pedan, to some extent baerstchi. and lastly, mcann=gubranson, with all this costing us 3 draft picks -baerstchi, vey, trade for guddy- and no picks higher than 23 overall..). TWO YEARS.. and people worry about a pick like OJ.

 

anyways im not saying were in great shape for next year but I truly think you arent following closely enough or just arent a canucks fan if you think Benning is doing a poor job.. (not actually referring to 'you' above obvs )

 

 

Well read sir or madam, while we may not be seeing huge names bring traded to the canucks everyday for some odd reason. I see benning doing well with what he has, and has improved our team hands down from what he inherited. 

 

If you really think about it we where on par with a expension team when benning took over. We had next to nothing in the cupborads in rookies. Our first line is aging stars and a grinder, other than the sedins, tanev, edler, kelser and hammer at the time everyone else was average to worst Compared to the league. 

 

Im enjoying watching our team step out of the last cup run at set its sights on the future. It's certainly better then nonnis and the nut sitting on their hands doing nothing while their teams wither and die....

[Pete M]

E Kane will change the dynamic of this team...he is there for the taken.

Scoring depth is needed to take the load off the first line...once this is done, the first line will be able to breathe...

 

it will be a snow ball effect...just need to add another piece - a goal scoring power forward.

 

This will then add to the success of Horvat, Sutter, Baert, Grandlund, Hansen, Virt etc (i.e., the snow ball effect)

[Fred65]

I agree with a couple of posters too many fans have tunnel vision and tend to concentrate on star players. The Stars will come likely through the draft. But what JB can do right now is change the bottom 6 forwards and build better depth on the blue line. He wants to add character and supposedly size ( although I don't see too much evidence of that, he has improved the speed IMO ) I've mentioned this before the prospects JB had to work with from the last regime is not exactly a poor showing keeping in mind Gillis left a few prospects after his run to 2 presidents Trophies and SC run....different times for sure . Horvat, Hutton, Markstrom, Gaunce, Cassels, Tanev, Subban and Grenier  ( Zalewski & Shinkaruk who I personally like  )

 

What I do like about JB is his willingness to admit mistakes ( Vey, Vrbata ) and move on. He does throw the odd wobbler such as Corrado ( who I believe has just signed a one way contract with TO) Where he fails  IMHO is he does not seem particularly adept at sourcing vets.

 

I believe the media ( mostly eastern ) have convinced too many that the only route to go is the total rebuild and so convince fans that because JB does not follow their assessment then he must be an idiot. Sadly to many have fallen in line.

 

As to the current roster I don't see too much fall off with the Sedins, the only thing they suffer from is  no second line to take some of the heat. Sutter is as I understand a character player as is Horvat. Things are not quite as bleak as our our friends from the eastern media paint. JB has added a couple of nice pieces ( we hope ) with Baertschi and Gudbranson. Hutton & Horvat were a gifts left by Gillis and we hope Markstrom is as well.

[IbanezRG]

Our success really hinges on how much our young players have improved since last season and our vets abilities to stay healthy.

 

If stars align nicely, were a competitive playoff team with a chance at a run.

 

if it's a Sedins and Hansen show again this year then were getting a repeat of last season.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, IbanezRG said:

Our success really hinges on how much our young players have improved since last season and our vets abilities to stay healthy.

 

If stars align nicely, were a competitive playoff team with a chance at a run.

 

if it's a Sedins and Hansen show again this year then were getting a repeat of last season.

PP must be top 5 too, IMHAO.

[TheGuardian_]

8 hours ago, JCM7 said:

JB has been GM for 2 years.  Most of the team he inherited has NTCs attached to their deals.  Despite the fact that the one legitimate asset he had that wanted to be traded handcuffed have him by publicly announcing that had would only accept trades to 2 teams he managed to get a decent return.  The team had an aging roster and not a lot of cap space.

Most of the team had clauses? Right, he just signed 4 more.

Kesler, only two teams he could look to, makes that part of the job pretty easy doesn't it? Definitely the #1 coming back was good, Bonino had to come to make a roster spot and salary, Sbisa, because they had a platoon of young guys and reduced the salary. Canucks gave them a 5 million dollar guy, they gave back 4.7 million in contracts.

 

The team has almost no cap space now, (around 3.5 mil) so is this situation his fault? At the time he took over he had over 9 mil in cap space once he jettisoned Garrison. The Sedins and Burrows (33+) were the only high priced with clauses, now Miller, Eriksson and somewhat Sutter. Tanev's was okay IMO.

 

So he got rid of three clause contracts and signed four.

Does your argument still hold water about clause contracts?

1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

I believe the media ( mostly eastern ) have convinced too many that the only route to go is the total rebuild and so convince fans that because JB does not follow their assessment then he must be an idiot. Sadly to many have fallen in line.

All those years the Canucks were in limbo, neither good enough or bad enough and then came Linden, many very, very good trades, a steal at the draft (Bure) and a cup run, then back to limbo. Then came Burke, some good trades and the Sedins, later a cup run.

 

Commonality, very good to exceptional talent from the draft, daring trades and cup runs. Both times the Canucks bottomed out first.

 

There is very little of my own opinion here, I bolded what might be taken for opinion. I just tried to list things that happened.

 

BTW, a very good post.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

Good read, thank you for posting. You've pretty much covered it all and nailed it with each point.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

12 hours ago, Aircool said:

I think you sum this up reasonably well, but I think you really miss the point that people like myself have who are considered to have the "negative opinions"...

 

People on these forums like to say things like, Sedins now have Eriksson and will put up 100 points... People have said that... Complete nonsense obviously... Even if you say they will be better, I simply ask what is your justification for that? Who says one of them isn't out for the season by the second week of the season... The "positive" opinions on CDC are essentially, "Sedins will be better this year because they have a better linemate." while ignoring the potential for regression, severe injury, or the general impact of being a one line team.. IE, the other team always only has to match up against your only good line. The point being, it might be better to play Eriksson on the 2nd line.

 

Sedins will be better because our PP will be better.  Eriksson is an improvement over last year vbrata, Hutton is a year older, and no more relying on Weber. We have more depth, which will take some focus on them.  Will they be 100 point player, likely not, but last year they put up 60, so an improvement of say 10 points seems reasonable. 

 

Quote

A GM's job isn't to say, "well they'll be better, because Eriksson" and then when they're worse say, "we had a lot of injuries"... A GM is supposed to consider the REALISTIC possibilities that can occur, such as one Sedin being injured for 2-3+ months, or the Sedins regressing, and to plan for that. If your team is contingent upon EVERYTHING going right, it begs the question as to whether your decision-making is correct. Anyone can sign Eriksson and make happy-go-lucky claims as to the dominance of the Sedins this season... That's not hard, GMs are paid to do more.

Key injuries happen to every team, they are possibly, but not something that can be planned out to preventing.  Would capitals struggle if Holtby got injuried.  MTL sure struggled when Price went down.  Their's a difference between depth and depth for key players. Key players are just that, key's, you need them to win.  Sure if a player goes down for a short while you might be able to make do, but long term it will affect your roster. GM can't just go out and get depth to replace those key players, not in a cap world. 

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Sedins will be better because our PP will be better.  Eriksson is an improvement over last year vbrata, Hutton is a year older, and no more relying on Weber. We have more depth, which will take some focus on them.  Will they be 100 point player, likely not, but last year they put up 60, so an improvement of say 10 points seems reasonable. 

 

Key injuries happen to every team, they are possibly, but not something that can be planned out to preventing.  Would capitals struggle if Holtby got injuried.  MTL sure struggled when Price went down.  Their's a difference between depth and depth for key players. Key players are just that, key's, you need them to win.  Sure if a player goes down for a short while you might be able to make do, but long term it will affect your roster. GM can't just go out and get depth to replace those key players, not in a cap world. 

Might I add that Larson is supposed to be a good PP quarterback, which should help our PP too. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

45 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Most of the team had clauses? Right, he just signed 4 more.

Kesler, only two teams he could look to, makes that part of the job pretty easy doesn't it? Definitely the #1 coming back was good, Bonino had to come to make a roster spot and salary, Sbisa, because they had a platoon of young guys and reduced the salary. Canucks gave them a 5 million dollar guy, they gave back 4.7 million in contracts.

Wrong they gave back 4.075.

Sbisa was 2.175 cap

Bonino was a 1.9 cap

 

Math is hard.... 

 

45 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

The team has almost no cap space now, (around 3.5 mil) so is this situation his fault? At the time he took over he had over 9 mil in cap space once he jettisoned Garrison. The Sedins and Burrows (33+) were the only high priced with clauses, now Miller, Eriksson and somewhat Sutter. Tanev's was okay IMO.

Whats the need for this cap space that we need more than 3.5 million?  Is there another UFA we're trying to sign?  Next year Miller and Burrows come off the books which opens up another 10.5 million in cap.  You're argument surrounding cap holds no water. 

 

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Might I add that Larson is supposed to be a good PP quarterback, which should help our PP too. 

He should, but at this point we don't really know what he'll add, could be a weber 2.0 or could turn out to be a missing link, either way you're right it is more depth to help improve our PP.

 

The team this year compared to last year has far more scoring depth.  Last year we ran with Higgins, Vey, Prust, two rookies in McCann, a unmotivated Vbrata and even Cracknell.  When Sutter went down we didn't have much in scoring ability.

 

This year Horvat and Baertschi are a year older,  we've added Eriksson, we've added Rodin, we've added granlund.  All players with offensive strengths, all are there to help take off pressure on hank and danny.