Gollumpus Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 On 11/11/2017 at 8:41 PM, fanfor42 said: Benning gets re-signed 6 minutes after the Sedins retire. Please please do not re-sign the Sedins. Please let us all move on. Please. So what you're saying is that if Benning re-signs the Sedins then he works for free for the next 3 or so years. I like that type of commitment in a GM. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 7 hours ago, CanadianRugby said: It is irrelevant. There was no salary cap back then. Comparing team building strategies when ELC were different, draft rules were different, salaries were different, makes no sense. If you have to go back to that time period to find something that supports your argument you should realize your argument is flawed. Toronto tanked for 1 year and got Matthews. We've been through this before, Toronto has had a number of years of rebuild and many of their players are from before Matthews. If you can't see how your argument is flawed in that I can't help you. We don't even know whether or not Toronto will become some sort of dynasty or if they'll never win the cup with who they have now. Even if they do, your argument of "Toronto tanked for 1 year" is really "Toronto got lucky for 1 year and one a lottery where they had a 20% chance of getting Matthews." That lottery could have gone so many different directions to where "insert team here" could be saying the same thing right now, yet how many teams are not saying that because they didn't win the lottery? A lot more than just 1 team in Toronto. I hate this term, but if there is such a thing as "rose-coloured glasses" you have them towards rebuilding. Seriously. In fact, let's look at Toronto's stats from last year. Great, you have Matthews on top. I'm sure their 2nd highest point producer was picked up in that same year yes? Oh wait, he wasn't. How about Kadri? Oh wait, he wasn't either. Marner and Nylander, drafted the years prior to Matthews. In fact, most of the team was there before Matthews. lol I've barely even talked about the older players on the team or other players that weren't even drafted. So to say it took them only a year? It's false. Period. Let me ask you this. If Toronto wasn't able to pick up Matthews (pretend we were lucky even and picked him up) would you have the same tune as now about us "not tanking"? Because the possibility of us picking Matthews up was not that far behind Toronto's. Except the odds are so bad that it's unlikely to happen for any 1 given team, which is why the whole nothing of tanking becomes infeasible if it means having to be a bad team for 5 or 10 years, and guess what? The odds do not change. More drafts do not mean a better chance. Math tells us we get the same odds at no more than 20% each and every time. Toronto beat all odds in this case and there was an 80% chance you wouldn't be here talking nonsense about how it took "Toronto to tank for 1 year to get Matthews" right now. Actually, let's even talk about another team who, by your definition, "tanked" and got number 1 overall: Colorado. They got MacKinnon. Great. Where are they now again? Great rebuild. Good to know that the 1st overall pick means you get out of "rebuild mode". Colorado totally must have tanked for 1 year and are now looking great! Right?..... Good to know that Hall and Yakupov and RHN totally turned Edmonton into a powerhouse before they finally picked up McDavid. (which ironically they're not fairing so hot in the standings again. lol) Good to know Eichel and Reinhart have brought Buffalo out of their dungeon. Good to know Ekblad and Barkov have turned Florida into that Stanley Cup running. But hey, I guess you'd prefer to ignore those cases and just say "Toronto only took 1 year to rebuild." Let's just focus on the 1 case that's worked in the past year and claim it only took a year while ignoring all the cases where it hasn't worked out. As for Detroit, so what? If anything the cap rebuilding era makes it harder for things like that to happen and the new draft rules make it also impossible to do that through tanking. Besides, you asked for a team and I gave you one. Anyway, I've mostly assumed you're a troll on these boards by your demeanor, so I'm not going to expect much of a debate from you. Who knows though. Maybe I'll get pleasantly surprised and actually get points from you that actually looks at my arguments and not just ignores most of them while throwing some slap fight tantrum going "you're wrong!!!!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 On 11/11/2017 at 8:41 PM, fanfor42 said: Benning gets re-signed 6 minutes after the Sedins retire. Please please do not re-sign the Sedins. Please let us all move on. Please. Sedins are likely back for another year, but probably at a lot lower rate. Anything that I've heard is, they aren't currently thinking retirement and they are looking okay with their minutes rolled back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 19 hours ago, CanadianRugby said: It is irrelevant. There was no salary cap back then. Comparing team building strategies when ELC were different, draft rules were different, salaries were different, makes no sense. If you have to go back to that time period to find something that supports your argument you should realize your argument is flawed. Toronto tanked for 1 year and got Matthews. You remind me of a guy who's been unemployed for 10 years..wins $5M in the lottery..and then starts up a company giving 'business advice'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 19 hours ago, CanadianRugby said: It is irrelevant. There was no salary cap back then. Comparing team building strategies when ELC were different, draft rules were different, salaries were different, makes no sense. If you have to go back to that time period to find something that supports your argument you should realize your argument is flawed. Toronto tanked for 1 year and got Matthews. Coilers had to tank for umpteen years to get McDavid. Laffs got lucky. Or perhaps it wasn't luck (****put on tin foil hat****) considering who they have as general manager (Lou gave Bettman an offer he couldn't refuse...): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianRugby Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 20 hours ago, The Lock said: We've been through this before, Toronto has had a number of years of rebuild and many of their players are from before Matthews. If you can't see how your argument is flawed in that I can't help you. We don't even know whether or not Toronto will become some sort of dynasty or if they'll never win the cup with who they have now. And? We were talking if tanking worked to get a top pick, not if that team will become a dynasty. 20 hours ago, The Lock said: Actually, let's even talk about another team who, by your definition, "tanked" and got number 1 overall: Colorado. They got MacKinnon. Great. Where are they now again? Great rebuild. Good to know that the 1st overall pick means you get out of "rebuild mode". Colorado totally must have tanked for 1 year and are now looking great! Right?..... There's a big difference to a rebuild if you're tanking or just plain terrible. Colorado got the 1st pick and sucks. What does that prove? Nobody ever claimed that tanking guarantees anything other than getting a better shot at having a really good rebuild. This is because it's so hard to get stars. LA, Chicago, Pens all drafted great players outside of the top of the draft, Benning has done that with Boeser. However, that's not enough. Most teams get lucky and find a star later in the draft. In the cap era the dynasties also drafted superstars at the top of the draft on top of the Keiths, Kopitars and Murrays. Most of the good teams that haven't tanked, and also haven't won the cup. Most of the crappy teams that got top picks, also haven't won the cup. They don't matter. Naming one example like Colorado doesn't matter. The examples that matter are the ones that are winning cups, the teams that built dynasties. How did they manage to do it in a cap era with so much parity? In the cap era they're doing it big part with young players that were taken at the top of the draft. Those top player's don't win by themselves. You still need good drafting, trades, contracts and luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianRugby Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 8 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said: Coilers had to tank for umpteen years to get McDavid. I think it was more of terrible management than tanking, but you're right in that a lot of their top picks were meh. They weren't given much of a chance to succeed though. No defence or goaltending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianRugby Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 8 hours ago, Honky Cat said: You remind me of a guy who's been unemployed for 10 years..wins $5M in the lottery..and then starts up a company giving 'business advice'. You remind me of a guy that doesn't have anything hockey related to add to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 2 hours ago, CanadianRugby said: And? We were talking if tanking worked to get a top pick, not if that team will become a dynasty. There's a big difference to a rebuild if you're tanking or just plain terrible. Colorado got the 1st pick and sucks. What does that prove? Nobody ever claimed that tanking guarantees anything other than getting a better shot at having a really good rebuild. This is because it's so hard to get stars. LA, Chicago, Pens all drafted great players outside of the top of the draft, Benning has done that with Boeser. However, that's not enough. Most teams get lucky and find a star later in the draft. In the cap era the dynasties also drafted superstars at the top of the draft on top of the Keiths, Kopitars and Murrays. Most of the good teams that haven't tanked, and also haven't won the cup. Most of the crappy teams that got top picks, also haven't won the cup. They don't matter. Naming one example like Colorado doesn't matter. The examples that matter are the ones that are winning cups, the teams that built dynasties. How did they manage to do it in a cap era with so much parity? In the cap era they're doing it big part with young players that were taken at the top of the draft. Those top player's don't win by themselves. You still need good drafting, trades, contracts and luck. So basically the conversation goes from us talking about a full on rebuild regarding Benning, then you bring up Toronto only taking one year so I say why it didn't.... now we're magically just talking about Toronto getting a top pick. No. We are not just talking about getting a top pick. We're talking about a rebuild. I've used the exact same argument you just made about being terrible with Chicago and LA, funny how people for tanking claim those teams somehow tanked while teams like Colorado are just terrible somehow. There's no consistency there in terms of an argument. Even Toronto could be said to be just bad that one year. As far as I'm concerned, there are 31 teams in this league and the data from ALL of them matter. Ruling 1 team out without a good reason or in an inconsistent way as to why you are not ruling out other teams is just skewed data in the end. It's not a clear picture at all and that's what bugs me about conversations about tanking with a few people on this forum. People are not looking at the full picture. People just see what they want to see and that's it. And we will get more good players. Pettersson for example is 4th in the SweHL against adults.... as an 18 year old. How well that will translate into the NHL, we obviously don't know, but it's kind of rare to see an 18 year old player like that in that league without them becoming something rather significant in the NHL. Boeser was drafted in the late 1st round, so who knows if we get (or even have) more gems like that in the end. I'm glad you are at least acknowledging that there is luck involved and that it's more than just getting 1 or 2 players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuporbust Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 On 08/11/2017 at 5:06 PM, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said: Wasn't Aquilini quoted recently saying that JB's extension is coming soon? Thought I heard something this past week. No. He said he wouldn't discuss it in public (on radio). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattrek Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 On 11/9/2017 at 6:45 PM, kanucks25 said: As for Benning, I wouldn't be surprised if he was extended and at this point I don't really think it matters. We're finally on the right path and it doesn't really matter who steers the ship over the next couple years 'cause it's not like we're going to contend anyway. IMO, he should have already been fired for past transgressions but as long as he doesn't do something stupid again like sign Gudbranson to a crippling Eriksson-like deal, I wouldn't be horrified if he stays. Just don't start trading picks and prospects for older players like he did in his first 2.5 years and it's all good. Yup if anyone else was at the helm we'd definitely have Gudbranson, Dorsett, Sutter, Baertschi, Granlund, Boeser, Virtanen, Del Zotto, Pouliot, Stecher, Demko, Dahlen, Juolevi, Goldobin, MacEwan, Gadjovich, Brisebois, Chatfield, Pettersson, Gaudette and Lind (I'm sure I'm missing some) all in our line up or in our system. Benning had nothing to do with that of course. Haters will never give Benning any credit, best to ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 1 hour ago, cuporbust said: No. He said he wouldn't discuss it in public (on radio). but he also said he has liked what JB has done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Me I would resign him 3 years to finish what he has started and see in three years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolboarder Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I would be in favor of resigning him for 3 years to fit in 7 years that any rebuilding GM needs to see this vision becoming a reality. 3-4 years are not enough of a rebuild so 6 to 7 years fits in a timeframe for a 31-team league assuming that your picks from each draft producing 3-4 NHLers plus trading to get assets. So far, from what he gave away picks or a draft picks, he has produced almost half of it already. I'm talking, traded away picks/veterans/prosects for Baertschi, Granlund, Pouliot, Sutter, Gudbrasen, and Dorsett and that's almost 1/4 of the team, not to mention a NHL potential in Goldobin, Dahllin. If they do pan out, and that count will only go up to almost 1/3 of the roster turnovers. He also drafted Virtenan, Trymakin, Demko, Boeser and that's 3/4 of them that is playing with this team from his pick. so that's almost 1/2 of turnover in term of roster plus 5 UFA that is a placeholder and that's goes up to 3/4 of the roster turnover to go along with college free agent: Stecher. Plus too many potentials picks that has yet to play in AHL The Canucks do have a potential to complete their rebuild as soon as next season or even ended it already with their play so far but Benning knows that is not enough and he will do diligent to find more players through the drafts that is in his control. He cannot control where they would finish at the end of the season. If he target a certain players he wants, he will do it without hesitation. If he felt that he needs more picks to round up, he will. If there are more injures, they should be able to withstand a few injures as proven by their absence. Also more UFA pool this coming summer with Sedin's contract coming off the book, higher prized UFA to be found to maintain their internal competition until one of our prospects is able to beat them at their own game, that's when we will skyrocketing higher in the standing once our prospects beat out veterans in a training camp. If they can beat out the veterans, they can beat other NHL teams without any help from the vets. It should be a main goal here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 On 15/11/2017 at 12:07 AM, The Lock said: What are you even going on about? You asked for a team that hadn't been rebuilding and won a cup and claimed I wouldn't be able to find one. I told you one and now you're dodging that fact entirely by claiming that somehow winning a cup over 10 years ago is irrelevant. Also, somehow they were riding Lindstrom? That has to be some of the biggest nonsense I've actually heard on these forums. Yzerman, Federov, etc say hi. Meanwhile, the draft is harder to win the lottery through tanking, some players drafted beyond the start of the first round are becoming superstars, our prospect pool looks better than it has in the past decade, and the world is somehow still spinning around despite the fact that we haven't officially tanked. Would I like the next Matthews or McDavid? Sure. Who wouldn't? But I'm not going to watch a team tank for 5 to 10 years just to get that one player that will get us to the cup finals in the year 2030 and beyond, especially when there's even a good chance of that NOT happening if we tank. This.... +10 That will MAYBE get us to a cup final..... Sure thing the resent cup winner has had high draft picks in their ranks, but there are far more team with high draft picks in their ranks that still ends up going nowhere... Why is it so hard to understand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 On 15/11/2017 at 12:40 AM, CanadianRugby said: It is irrelevant. There was no salary cap back then. Comparing team building strategies when ELC were different, draft rules were different, salaries were different, makes no sense. If you have to go back to that time period to find something that supports your argument you should realize your argument is flawed. Toronto tanked for 1 year and got Matthews. Tell that to Colorado, who picked 4th last season or us who ended up picking 5th....again... Or Buffalo who was crying because they only got Eichel. After seeing how we fared in the last couple of drafts, you would have though that the word 'luck' would have vanished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyg43 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I would say after the TDL ,a day after . The extension in the 3 + year range based on where , what an how is team trending based on JB current quality assurance assessment of his Management review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Even if we build up the pool and hit on most the rookies we shouldn't be hasty. If a cup winning GM is available after the "rebuild" we should weigh our options. Just like players we shouldn't get overly attached, we want a cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymond Luxury Yacht Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 28 minutes ago, TimberWolf said: Even if we build up the pool and hit on most the rookies we shouldn't be hasty. If a cup winning GM is available after the "rebuild" we should weigh our options. Just like players we shouldn't get overly attached, we want a cup. We should immediately give him a 6 year, 6 mil extension with a modified no firing clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 6 hours ago, Raymond Luxury Yacht said: We should immediately give him a 6 year, 6 mil extension with a modified no firing clause. He can car pool with Eriksson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.