When can we extend Jim Bennings contract?

[Warhippy]

6 minutes ago, the_impersonator13 said:

Yes from those I know "in the know"....this was very much the case that some external pressures had their hand in drafting Virtanan. 

IIRC Gillis pre firing was actually all in for Larkin.

 

Cannot remember if this was ever verified but imagine the effect a Larkin would have had on this franchise then Benning's allowance for the last 3 drafts.  In that regard it looks pretty good in retrospect.

 

But even IF Virtanen never becomes more than a 3rd/4th line player he STILL became an NHL player, look at the drafts from 2007 through 2014.  There's a solid number of top 10 picks that did not pan out, like at all, either busting completely or never ever living up to their draft status.

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/

 

Actually might be worse than I thought for some teams.

 

Starting in

 

2007:  JVR, Ellerby, Hickey, Hamill

2008:  Bogosian, Schenn, Wilson, Boedker, Filatov...Hodgson

2009:  Glennie, MPS, Cowen, 

2010:  Gudbranson, Conolly, Burmistrov, McIlrath

2011:  Strome, Zabinejad, 

2012:  Murray, Reinhardt, Reilly, Pouliot, Koekkoek

2013:  Nicushkin

2014:  Reinhardt, Dal Colle, Virtanen, Fleury, Ritchie

 

IMO all of these players listed here from 2007 through 2014 have not reached their draft status as top 10 picks judging by (again my opinion only) the standards put forth by this forum and that HF place.  We MAY thus far have whiffed on Virtanen during benning's first draft here, it could be because Benning wanted him, or as per rumours; unsubstantiated or not, that a higher hand in the organization demanded that pick be JV

 

But bottom line is that endless teams make mistakes, lots of top 10 picks never pan out, even more don't live up to their draft status but still become solid NHL depth.  There's no use worrying about that now.  But if we judge a GM by one draft than wtf would people want Holland?  Or any other GM judging by this list?

[bad alice french]

32 minutes ago, appleboy said:

The biggest mistake Benning made was the Virtanen pick. He made the statement today that his father always taught him to look at hockey sense in a player.

I came away from listening to that very confused. It is the one pick that leaves me questioning everything that has happened. I would like to think that this pick was not Jim's choice. It would make me more confident in him.

Agreed. JV won't arrive this season and one would have to be blindly optimistic at this stage to expect a huge change in his style of play by into next season. One thing that will improve over time is his confidence. Swagger, intimidation and good chiriping skills take time but man did we miss on a couple excellent players. &^@#ing stings so bad!

29 minutes ago, Alflives said:

There have been other posts about the Jake pick being pushed became he was a local boy, and selling tickets was part of it all.  

Bummer.

[bad alice french]

19 minutes ago, Alflives said:

And then Jake makes the team really young (clearly too soon) and there are Canuck’s cameras documenting his travels and stuff.  I remember one specifically about Jake’s first time in the “Big Apple”.  His pick certainly could have been a part of a larger marketing campaign.  

That's starting to make a lot of sense. Maybe JB gets a pass.

[TheGuardian_]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

A prospect pool isn't ranked by sheer number of prospects, but by the quality and quantity of them expected to make the NHL.  Our pool no longer had Boeser and Virtanen, but and still is ranked in the top ten.  A year ago before the draft we were ranked around 14 by THN, right around this time.   So last year's pool WITH Boeser and Virtanen, was worse than our current one.

 

I'd recommend getting a subscription, they have three prospect based mags a year, I've been collecting them for close to two decades now, and it gives you a very good idea of whos around and what other teams have and how they compare.  BTW the Canucks were dead last when Benning took over.

Actually I looked over the lists provided by Warhippy and they do include Boeser, who should not be considered now as well as Subban, Pedan and Guance. These players should be removed from the lists as they now all have more than the required number of games to be still considered prospects or are not on the team.

 

I found a site that had the Nucks at 27th in 2013 and 15th in 2014. They currently were ranked around 8th with all those players listed as still being prospects.

 

 

[Crabcakes]

49 minutes ago, bad alice french said:

Couple things.

First off, I think you're in a generous mood when suggesting MOST players take 5 years to make the show. Most of the young studs, and I'm grossly generalizing here, seem to be good early. Nylander, Paastrnak, Boeser, Marner, Barzal, Ehlers, Tkatchuk, Macavoy, Hamilton etc. etc. etc. barely spend any time if any at all in the minors. Then you have your deep draft picks that pan out (Anders Lee, Marchand, Theodore, Parayko, Ritchie, Wilson, Toffoli...) that take a while but show pro level smarts and crack the line up in 2-3 years at the most. Most teams don't have time to keep a prospect in the line up for 4 to 5 seasons waiting for them to figure it out.  Players down on the farm almost never make if they haven't spent good, long stretches on the big club over 4 years. They become what they are by that time... professional minor leaguers.

 

Secondly, not sure if I'm reading this properly but are you suggesting that JV is right on schedule and that seeing as he was Benning's first pick suggests that it should be judged as a positive and successful pick? I've been biting my tongue for so long on that pick. I'm tired of it and I feel that most people on here that have played the game at a reasonably high level and really know the ins and outs of what goes on on the ice would say that JV simply lacks in hockey IQ. This really concerns me from a fan perspective. That kid just does not seem to get it and we are left hoping  that he can at least be as good as a Kassian-type player. Unless something simply clicks and he learns vision and anticipation (two qualities some would argue are natural and difficult to teach), he will have to learn to do what it takes to stick (Ritchie, Wilson, Kassian). Right now the guy doesn't know who he is and Benning's pick could end up being viewed as a massive failure as Nylander and Ehlers were unanimously  considered futur NHL stars heading into the draft. Everybody in hockey knew this but Jimbo went of the grid.

 

A couple weeks ago I was unconditionally a JB fan. Since reading over some of the amazingly written and thought out posts by so many people on these boards who really know their $&!#, I'm on the fence. We have been patient brother. I'll support Jim Benning if he gets an extension but he has his warts.

Caught me, as a big picture thinker, I tend to make sweeping generalizations.....Honestly, my aim was to say that becoming effective, usually takes more rather than less time.  Being "effective" in the NHL is different than "playing" in the NHL.  JV plays, he is effective sometimes, mostly he is not.  I don't know whether JV is right on schedule but he's not a bust either.  I hope that is more clear.

 

If you want to know my opinion on JV, yes, I think his hockey-IQ is less than JB would have liked.  If you have heard the Benning interview from today on Sportsnet 650 http://www.sportsnet.ca/650/the-program/jim-benning-talks-prospects-trade-deadline-canucks-sellers/, it opened with a discussion about his father the scout.  His father's thing was hockey sense, speed and skill (he scouted the WHL for the Habs).  This supports my opinion which is that JV was the owner's choice.  He has many attributes that Benning likes (shot, speed, physical) but not the hockey sense which is likely the most important thing.  

 

FWIW has Kassian "stuck"?  27 years old, this season, 49 games 4-9-13 -2 meh!

 

 

 

 

 

[TheGuardian_]

22 minutes ago, Logitek said:

We, as fans, need to start making noise towards the Canucks organization and get the message to ownership that we want Benning to be given the chance to remain at the helm.  Hes made some mistakes but so does everybody on a new job.  If he learns from them, that is all you can ask for and he has done a lot of good for the organization as well to set us up for a bright future.  He deserves the chance to take this team he's building into the future.  I'll be extremely upset if they end up letting him go and bringing in another GM - Ken Holland or otherwise and you should to.

 

Us fans can have an impact in this decision.  We can have a say in this, just as if it was any other movement that happens all the time online.  The ownership group needs to hear it loud and clear that Benning remaining as GM is what the fans want and that they will be angry if he is not brought back. 

Stand up for your team and leadership.

 

Call the Canucks: 604-899-7400

 

Write a letter:

 

89 West Georgia St.
Vancouver, B.C.
V6B 0N8

 

Post online about it

 

https://twitter.com/Canucks

@Canucks

https://www.instagram.com/canucks/

 

Make some noise and have a say on who is going to take this team into the future.

Better still buy season tickets and have them phone you! They used to phone me every year, Burke I mean. Besides I can always just talk to them when I bump into them. Not as much since Pat passed though.

[AlwaysACanuckFan]

 

 

 

 

 

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

 

 

 

 

 

Read this on HF...absolutely disgusting the kind of comments they lobbed over there about his family/personal life.

 

We may be pretty awful here at times but glad to see nearly to a poster we're head and shoulders above HF

[CanadianRugby]

37 minutes ago, Darius71 said:

Here is where my dilemma is CanadianRugby: was this Benning's doing - trying to compete and rebuild on the Fly, or was he influenced/directed by ownership to take this position?  Owners prefer playoff gate, want basically no down time where seat sales suck, and as a result might have pushed for remaining competitive (the fact that it hasnt worked out that way is another story).  Benning came out and told us his plan to remain competitive, but was this really his plan?  

Of course the owners wanted a quick rebuild, so they hired a guy that sold them on the idea he could do it.  I'm sure Benning thought he could do it, I doubt he takes a job where he knows he's setting himself up to fail in ownership's eyes. 

[bad alice french]

17 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Caught me, as a big picture thinker, I tend to make sweeping generalizations.....Honestly, my aim was to say that becoming effective, usually takes more rather than less time.  Being "effective" in the NHL is different than "playing" in the NHL.  JV plays, he is effective sometimes, mostly he is not.  I don't know whether JV is right on schedule but he's not a bust either.  I hope that is more clear.

 

If you want to know my opinion on JV, yes, I think his hockey-IQ is less than JB would have liked.  If you have heard the Benning interview from today on Sportsnet 650 http://www.sportsnet.ca/650/the-program/jim-benning-talks-prospects-trade-deadline-canucks-sellers/, it opened with a discussion about his father the scout.  His father's thing was hockey sense, speed and skill (he scouted the WHL for the Habs).  This supports my opinion which is that JV was the owner's choice.  He has many attributes that Benning likes (shot, speed, physical) but not the hockey sense which is likely the most important thing.  

 

FWIW has Kassian "stuck"?  27 years old, this season, 49 games 4-9-13 -2 meh!

 

 

 

 

 

No $&!# eh? It was utterly painful watching Zack bring it in the playoffs last year. To a "T" the player I envisioned him becoming when he came here for Hodgson.

Something's up in the land of the Coil. They are a better team than what we've seen but I still loathe them. Always will.

 

Yeah, I'm rooting for JV too, bud.  The guy just looks like he's a step behind. He's great once he gets it on his stick with a little room but needs to learn where to be and how to retrieve pucks. That or we wait till he's a 4 year veteran at 23 yrs old and decides it's time to start knocking the crap out of people. If this happens, it will have been well worth the wait as he is physically exactly what we need more of.

 

The game is so fast and so unkind to bad decisions. This whole "owner's choice" movement makes sense and most certainly gets JB some slack if true. Still, like you said, no GM is prfect.

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Short term? What is 4 years? The window for the cup for most teams is less than that.

 

While no one can expect a GM to be perfect on every deal, trading to fill roster spots is not really doing anything except....filling roster spots. But by comparing what other teams have accomplished in the drafts, like number of players actually in the NHL, people can see if there is any parody.

 

Now you mention the prospect pool, that's okay but in the case of the Nucks their prospect pool reflects either bad drafting, poor players or not really rebuilding. A comparison will show the Canucks have more prospects in the system than any other NHL team also some of the oldest prospects over the last 5 years and fewer playing in the NHL or at least on this team. If shear numbers of prospects means good management then any GM just has to draft for 3 years and not have any graduated to the NHL team, presto, good GM.

 

Just read some inserts in Botchford's column, one about goalies and when they were at their best and the one's playing in the NHL now and their age. It does seem that there are a few Vezina candidates' around 22 yrs old. The piece shows the vest years of some of the best goalies of the last 20 years, it seems between 23 and 26. 

 

Before injuries we saw a team that came out of the chute with the pedal to the metal playing teams that are playoff bound now that didn't work as hard or put their bodies in danger of being hurt early in the season. Look over the last 15 years or so in the league standings, the not so good team start off fairly to really well, first 20 games or so and then slide, just like the Canucks have for the last 3 years.

 

The future looks good, again, the team is very near the bottom of the well and it is going to get worse before it gets better, the team just isn't setup to have rookies learn the game and now there will too many rookies to play. So yes the future looks good, it is hard to believe it could get worse. Doug MacLean was describing what we will have to endure once these prospects actually play in the NHL. 

Shots fired......

 

4 years isn't long term (all of the points that Tavares was referring to were short term ( <1.5 years)).....you could call it mid term if you wanted to class it as such.......  I am certain of the fact that any long term goal that any GM in hockey might have will not come to fruition in his 3rd season.  Yes, it is Bennings 3rd season because we all know that his real work gets done in the off season.  I give him a pass on the 2014 off season because he was learning what he had as a team and had his hands full with making quick changes like Kesler, goaltending and a line mate for the Sedins (Vrbata).  Long term to me is 5+ years.  That is, the time it takes to decide whether your draft picks for a certain year are going to make it or not.  JV isn't there yet.

 

The prospect pool as it sits right now is probably better than at any other time in the Canucks history.  That is a bold statement.  I have been following the Canucks since 1974.  I challenge you to tell me another time in the history of this club other that when it first started that a rebuild of this magnitude has been attempted.  Even in Quinn's time, the prospect pool wasn't as depleted since they had come off 8 seasons with mostly high draft picks.  I honestly don't think that early management was even thinking in those terms so I would say never.  The closest period imo is when Pat Quinn took over in 1988.  His first draft pick was none other that Trevor Linden but he wasn't really a drafter, he was more of a deal maker and that is what built the 1993 & 1994 Canucks that made it to the SCF.  That's 5 years to reach the highest regular season point total to that date (1993 101 points) and 6 years to reach the SCF.

 

So, rebuilding through that draft has never been done before in Vancouver and I would suggest this is the reason why, the Canucks have only had 1 sustained period of success in it's history and had 1 legitimate shot at the Stanley Cup as the favorite (2011)

 

Quality of prospects?  Old?  Benning inherited a team with some young guys like Horvat and mostly an older core which was getting on for 30 or older.  Since players in their prime are expensive (in free agency or to trade assets for), and the Canucks had a lot of higher priced veterans and was near the cap, we all can understand why Benning was targeting early 20's retreads like Baertschi, Granlund, Vey, Etem etc.  Draftees?  Are you going to quibble about Benning's drafting?  I said in another post that I thought that JV was the owners choice.  I have no problem with any other selection.

 

I agree with your next point about younger teams doing well earlier in the season.  The Canucks are that.  Injuries had something to do with their mid season swoon.  It's a rebuild, depth is thin.

 

 

[Rush17]

29 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Read this on HF...absolutely disgusting the kind of comments they lobbed over there about his family/personal life.

 

We may be pretty awful here at times but glad to see nearly to a poster we're head and shoulders above HF

so much has changed

 

 

jim looks so young in this video

 poor guy lol. talk about a stressful job.

[Crabcakes]

14 minutes ago, bad alice french said:

No $&!# eh? It was utterly painful watching Zack bring it in the playoffs last year. To a "T" the player I envisioned him becoming when he came here for Hodgson.

Something's up in the land of the Coil. They are a better team than what we've seen but I still loathe them. Always will.

 

Yeah, I'm rooting for JV too, bud.  The guy just looks like he's a step behind. He's great once he gets it on his stick with a little room but needs to learn where to be and how to retrieve pucks. That or we wait till he's a 4 year veteran at 23 yrs old and decides it's time to start knocking the crap out of people. If this happens, it will have been well worth the wait as he is physically exactly what we need more of.

 

The game is so fast and so unkind to bad decisions. This whole "owner's choice" movement makes sense and most certainly gets JB some slack if true. Still, like you said, no GM is prfect.

I think JV still thinks of himself as a boy playing in a mans league.  Some people mature in this way later.  It's an observation rather than a criticism.  Until he sees himself as an equal to mature players like Doughty, Toews etc he won't excel.  Not every player has this issue.  Horvat or Boeser didn't.  It's my feeling about the guy and I think you're hinting at it.  When he reaches a certain age and has a certain confidence level, he won't mind getting physical against players who he admires.

[IBatch]

59 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Actually I looked over the lists provided by Warhippy and they do include Boeser, who should not be considered now as well as Subban, Pedan and Guance. These players should be removed from the lists as they now all have more than the required number of games to be still considered prospects or are not on the team.

 

I found a site that had the Nucks at 27th in 2013 and 15th in 2014. They currently were ranked around 8th with all those players listed as still being prospects.

 

 

Sounds good.  THN takes guys off the list once they are no longer rookies or have proven they have made the show.  Was the site SN that you were looking at as that ranking sounds about right, without Boeser and Virtanen.  A lot of other teams top guys are also in the show this year, enter Barzal, Debricant, McAvoy, PLD and THN number one pick from last year, start of this year, Chabot is playing regularly in Ottawa now too. Oh yeah, Keller too in ARI.  Same for every other year, the best prospects become pros and are taken off the list.  In the next month or so THN should release their current list, not sure exactly what it will be, but those guys won't be on it anymore, and excited to see what they have to say about Pettersson after his season so far.

 

Why would a site list Boeser as a prospect?  Sounds like they don't keep in touch.  Perhaps it's a site that list the best 21 and unders which THN does from time to time too?

 

Also as an aside, when you look at these lists spend some time looking at the worst pools (SJ etc), it's pathetic really, absolutely nothing to be excited about.  Then consider that is exactly where we were four years ago, and one of those years was a playoff year.   

No team has gone that far ahead in so short a time, and as WarHippy so thankfully pointed out, JV is far from the only top ten bust in recent times (or since the draft started).  Certainly drafted better than Holland over the same period, and most other GMs too.  

 

Obviously it's not all about the drafting ( unless your a full on tanker), but it's a big part of it, especially in a rebuild.

[appleboy]

1 hour ago, CanadianRugby said:

 

I disagree.  I think his biggest mistake was trying to compete and rebuild on the fly.  This group has been drafting well in the late 1st and later rounds, imagine what our prospect pool would look like if we had an extra 2 or 3 picks each year.  

Are they trying to build on the fly or just trying to keep a buffer of vets around their kids. Edmonton ruined a lot of players by putting them in charge of the team. Let's face the facts. We have been in the bottom of the league anyway. A few extra picks versus better development. Lots of mixed feelings about what was the right thing to do.

[Crabcakes]

2 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Are they trying to build on the fly or just trying to keep a buffer of vets around their kids. Edmonton ruined a lot of players by putting them in charge of the team. Let's face the facts. We have been in the bottom of the league anyway. A few extra picks versus better development. Lots of mixed feelings about what was the right thing to do.

I think this is an important distinction.  In their rebuild, the veteran players are there to  support (or shelter) the prospects or younger players.  The reason is that the young guys will develop better.

[IBatch]

30 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Shots fired......

 

4 years isn't long term (all of the points that Tavares was referring to were short term ( <1.5 years)).....you could call it mid term if you wanted to class it as such.......  I am certain of the fact that any long term goal that any GM in hockey might have will not come to fruition in his 3rd season.  Yes, it is Bennings 3rd season because we all know that his real work gets done in the off season.  I give him a pass on the 2014 off season because he was learning what he had as a team and had his hands full with making quick changes like Kesler, goaltending and a line mate for the Sedins (Vrbata).  Long term to me is 5+ years.  That is, the time it takes to decide whether your draft picks for a certain year are going to make it or not.  JV isn't there yet.

 

The prospect pool as it sits right now is probably better than at any other time in the Canucks history.  That is a bold statement.  I have been following the Canucks since 1974.  I challenge you to tell me another time in the history of this club other that when it first started that a rebuild of this magnitude has been attempted.  Even in Quinn's time, the prospect pool wasn't as depleted since they had come off 8 seasons with mostly high draft picks.  I honestly don't think that early management was even thinking in those terms so I would say never.  The closest period imo is when Pat Quinn took over in 1988.  His first draft pick was none other that Trevor Linden but he wasn't really a drafter, he was more of a deal maker and that is what built the 1993 & 1994 Canucks that made it to the SCF.  That's 5 years to reach the highest regular season point total to that date (1993 101 points) and 6 years to reach the SCF.

 

So, rebuilding through that draft has never been done before in Vancouver and I would suggest this is the reason why, the Canucks have only had 1 sustained period of success in it's history and had 1 legitimate shot at the Stanley Cup as the favorite (2011)

 

Quality of prospects?  Old?  Benning inherited a team with some young guys like Horvat and mostly an older core which was getting on for 30 or older.  Since players in their prime are expensive (in free agency or to trade assets for), and the Canucks had a lot of higher priced veterans and was near the cap, we all can understand why Benning was targeting early 20's retreads like Baertschi, Granlund, Vey, Etem etc.  Draftees?  Are you going to quibble about Benning's drafting?  I said in another post that I thought that JV was the owners choice.  I have no problem with any other selection.

 

I agree with your next point about younger teams doing well earlier in the season.  The Canucks are that.  Injuries had something to do with their mid season swoon.  It's a rebuild, depth is thin.

 

 

The older fans get it.  Thank god it's not Keenan right?

[Crabcakes]

10 minutes ago, IBatch said:

The older fans get it.  Thank god it's not Keenan right?

[TheGuardian_]

6 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Shots fired......

 

4 years isn't long term (all of the points that Tavares was referring to were short term ( <1.5 years)).....you could call it mid term if you wanted to class it as such.......  I am certain of the fact that any long term goal that any GM in hockey might have will not come to fruition in his 3rd season.  Yes, it is Bennings 3rd season because we all know that his real work gets done in the off season.  I give him a pass on the 2014 off season because he was learning what he had as a team and had his hands full with making quick changes like Kesler, goaltending and a line mate for the Sedins (Vrbata).  Long term to me is 5+ years.  That is, the time it takes to decide whether your draft picks for a certain year are going to make it or not.  JV isn't there yet.

 

The prospect pool as it sits right now is probably better than at any other time in the Canucks history.  That is a bold statement.  I have been following the Canucks since 1974.  I challenge you to tell me another time in the history of this club other that when it first started that a rebuild of this magnitude has been attempted.  Even in Quinn's time, the prospect pool wasn't as depleted since they had come off 8 seasons with mostly high draft picks.  I honestly don't think that early management was even thinking in those terms so I would say never.  The closest period imo is when Pat Quinn took over in 1988.  His first draft pick was none other that Trevor Linden but he wasn't really a drafter, he was more of a deal maker and that is what built the 1993 & 1994 Canucks that made it to the SCF.  That's 5 years to reach the highest regular season point total to that date (1993 101 points) and 6 years to reach the SCF.

 

So, rebuilding through that draft has never been done before in Vancouver and I would suggest this is the reason why, the Canucks have only had 1 sustained period of success in it's history and had 1 legitimate shot at the Stanley Cup as the favorite (2011)

 

Quality of prospects?  Old?  Benning inherited a team with some young guys like Horvat and mostly an older core which was getting on for 30 or older.  Since players in their prime are expensive (in free agency or to trade assets for), and the Canucks had a lot of higher priced veterans and was near the cap, we all can understand why Benning was targeting early 20's retreads like Baertschi, Granlund, Vey, Etem etc.  Draftees?  Are you going to quibble about Benning's drafting?  I said in another post that I thought that JV was the owners choice.  I have no problem with any other selection.

 

I agree with your next point about younger teams doing well earlier in the season.  The Canucks are that.  Injuries had something to do with their mid season swoon.  It's a rebuild, depth is thin.

 

 

He was hired in May 2014, all those deals you mentioned were completed in July, so he just sat back after that?

 

Pat was not allowed to coach for 5 years either and back then they didn't have farm teams they had affiliates. Back then a draft pick made it or didn't, look up the number of games played in those years, it either a lot or near none. And most went straight into the NHL.

 

Linden, as soon as Quinn took over they tanked to get him. They used 4 different goalies that year.

 

Used to watch the western League Canucks play in the Forum, I think those teams could have been really good in the NHL.

 

Okay JV was Linden's idea and Benning agreed, scouting had Larkin in their sights from April. It was stupid to draft a kid that just had shoulder surgery.

 

Coaching is so much better now and the players are exposed to so much higher levels of competition that any player picked in the top 10 should be able to step right into the NHL, there are almost no players that spend 3 or 4 years developing that become impact players with the exception sometimes being and most often, defencemen. They even are getting instruction in interviewing.

 

So Benning and Linden are completing their fourth year, they have won....nothing they have improved scoring....minus 74, they have improved goals against.......plus 30+, they have saved the team money.......not a dime, they have increased the number of draft picks........not by one, they have the team improved points.......nope, they hired the best people to run the show........again, really, family, buddies and cronies, they have the largest prospect pool in Canuck history.......yes, so many they can't put them all on Utica, their development team, the players are not being trained to play in the system, they have sold more tickets and paraphernalia.......nope to that one as well, both are going down, they have the most prospects.....yes, the most drafted players not on the team of any team in the league, they place the good of the franchise ahead of poor results.......nope, the Sedins are steering this bus, what they want they get regardless of the fans or team results, they have completed savy trades.......well that depends upon which end you look, Chicago and Florida are happy, their FA signings have helped the team to glory......no, just kept them from the bottom and possible better draft picks.

 

BUT THERE IS HOPE, THE TEAM CAN'T GET MUCH WORSE, UP IS SOON TO BE THE ONLY WAY TO GO, so there is hope. Sooner or later some of those prospects will be on the 30th placed team, 30th out of 31 and barley not in the AHL.

 

Doom and gloom, soon even if it is two more years this kind of management will have the team full of nothing but rookies led by players that have never had a winning NHL season, a bunch of players that have learned acceptance of losing "gracefully" and not feeling bad about cashing their paychecks. In two years they will/may have a whole off season to dwell in the losing environment and listen to how bad the team is for an extra year.

[Crabcakes]

4 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

He was hired in May 2014, all those deals you mentioned were completed in July, so he just sat back after that?

 

Pat was not allowed to coach for 5 years either and back then they didn't have farm teams they had affiliates. Back then a draft pick made it or didn't, look up the number of games played in those years, it either a lot or near none. And most went straight into the NHL.

 

Linden, as soon as Quinn took over they tanked to get him. They used 4 different goalies that year.

 

Used to watch the western League Canucks play in the Forum, I think those teams could have been really good in the NHL.

 

Okay JV was Linden's idea and Benning agreed, scouting had Larkin in their sights from April. It was stupid to draft a kid that just had shoulder surgery.

 

Coaching is so much better now and the players are exposed to so much higher levels of competition that any player picked in the top 10 should be able to step right into the NHL, there are almost no players that spend 3 or 4 years developing that become impact players with the exception sometimes being and most often, defencemen. They even are getting instruction in interviewing.

 

So Benning and Linden are completing their fourth year, they have won....nothing they have improved scoring....minus 74, they have improved goals against.......plus 30+, they have saved the team money.......not a dime, they have increased the number of draft picks........not by one, they have the team improved points.......nope, they hired the best people to run the show........again, really, family, buddies and cronies, they have the largest prospect pool in Canuck history.......yes, so many they can't put them all on Utica, their development team, the players are not being trained to play in the system, they have sold more tickets and paraphernalia.......nope to that one as well, both are going down, they have the most prospects.....yes, the most drafted players not on the team of any team in the league, they place the good of the franchise ahead of poor results.......nope, the Sedins are steering this bus, what they want they get regardless of the fans or team results, they have completed savy trades.......well that depends upon which end you look, Chicago and Florida are happy, their FA signings have helped the team to glory......no, just kept them from the bottom and possible better draft picks.

 

BUT THERE IS HOPE, THE TEAM CAN'T GET MUCH WORSE, UP IS SOON TO BE THE ONLY WAY TO GO, so there is hope. Sooner or later some of those prospects will be on the 30th placed team, 30th out of 31 and barley not in the AHL.

 

Doom and gloom, soon even if it is two more years this kind of management will have the team full of nothing but rookies led by players that have never had a winning NHL season, a bunch of players that have learned acceptance of losing "gracefully" and not feeling bad about cashing their paychecks. In two years they will/may have a whole off season to dwell in the losing environment and listen to how bad the team is for an extra year.

I swear, if you were had more lexical dexterity, your real name would be Tony Gallagher.

 

I kid.  Agree to disagree.