Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The TDL Benning Complaint Thread Department


Warhippy

Recommended Posts

Just now, kanucks25 said:

The Canucks are around .500 both with and without Pettersson in the lineup, is he not a difference maker? Are they the same team with and without him in the lineup? Hardly.

 

Phil Kessel is an elite offensive player.

 

The Leafs were considerably a worse team without Kessel. That year they actually played well/hard but didn't have the offensive ability to score enough, Kessel would have helped in that department.

 

Was there luck involved? Yes.

 

Did they put themselves in the best possible to draft Matthews compared to the other 29 teams? Yes.

 

And we come full circle to our earlier philosophical discussion: go with the best plan, give yourself the best chance at success, let the chips fall where they may. If the chips fall your way after you did things right, you deserve it.

 

You claimed that getting rid of Kessel led to Mathews.  You claim that the leafs were considerably worse without him in the lineup. This is not supported by the record.  

 

Your Pettersson example is not a good one.  He hasnt been out of the lineup long enough to establish a trend.  Unless you think 11 games means anything. In this case we are talking a full 82 (EIGHTY TWO) games.  Phil in the lineup for the full season = 68 points.  Next year phil not in the lineup = 69 points.

 

Claiming that getting rid of Phil led to Mathews is a stretch to say the least.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The words "luck", "maybe", etc. are important ones.

 

Sure you can "put yourself in the best position" but that doesn't guarantee anything.  

 

And you have to weigh out the consequences of putting yourself in that position....there are some.  Losing a whole bunch of games takes a toll on players...especially young ones.  

 

Petey is the most important "pick" for me right now....I want the team to focus there/on him and then see how we can support him.  Not reach beyond him because "blahblahblah".

 

He's one of those kids who can change the face of things, so you aren't quite as desperate to find a "#1 Superstar" but, more importantly, guys who can play with him with success.  You're focusing on gathering Petey's but we've got one...now we have to work our magic to optimize him.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Kessel didn't get them Matthews, that is grasping at straws. To argue otherwise is silly as it is 100% false, there was only a 1 point change in the standings. 

 

35 minutes ago, Darius said:

You claimed that getting rid of Kessel led to Mathews.  You claim that the leafs were considerably worse without him in the lineup. This is not supported by the record.  

 

Your Pettersson example is not a good one.  He hasnt been out of the lineup long enough to establish a trend.  Unless you think 11 games means anything. In this case we are talking a full 82 (EIGHTY TWO) games.  Phil in the lineup for the full season = 68 points.  Next year phil not in the lineup = 69 points.

 

Claiming that getting rid of Phil led to Mathews is a stretch to say the least.

 

 

 

Didn't directly lead to, but it was a factor.

 

Again, to suggest a team in any sport is better without an elite offensive player is, well, I can't believe I even have to argue this? lol

 

The suggestion that the Leafs 14/15 and 15/16 season are comparable is asinine and ignores a mountain of context. The GM, the coach, the environment, the locker-room, the team composition, everything was different. The 14/15 season was a complete tire-fire, remember salute-gate? remember Peter Horachek?

 

Are the Islanders a better team without an elite all-around player in Tavares? Their record is great this year. I mean we can make this claim if we want to ignore all context, but when you do factor in the important context as a rational individual would, you'd see that the GM, coaching, goaltending and culture is so vastly different than what Tavares was playing with last season.

 

34 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

Do you actually expect that poster to be honest enough to answer that obviously relevant question? Good luck.

We actually spent like the 2 previous pages having that discussion but okay, thanks for paying attention.

 

And if you're just going to jump into the discussion and ask the same questions that have already been answered and not be bothered to read back, that's not my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

 

 

 

Again, to suggest a team in any sport is better without an elite offensive player is, well, I can't believe I even have to argue this? lol

 

 

We've got one.  Thing is, do you need a collection of them?  Like Edmonton thought?   Maybe fill the room with individuals and egos that all crowd in?

 

Or do you put together a team that seems to have chemistry?  That compliments each other?  Work on establishing a #1 goaltender?  Through coaching changes if necessary?

 

Do you have some veteran leadership that can mentor these new guys?

 

So many things beyond GET ALL THE PICKZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

And you have to weigh out the consequences of putting yourself in that position....there are some.  Losing a whole bunch of games takes a toll on players...especially young ones. 

How true is this, really?

 

People always point to the "losing culture" in Edmonton as an anti-rebuild argument.

Is there a losing culture in Edmonton? I think so.

Is that a big reason why they keep floundering? I think so.

 

But does tanking automatically mean you'll break the psyches of all your youth for the rest of their careers? Definitely not.

The Edmonton Oilers are where they are because of poor direction and leadership in every sense of the word, from hockey ops to people management.

 

The Leafs had two horrific years in 14/15 and 15/16. Kadri, Rielly and Gardiner were on both those teams, they sure seem fine to me right now.

As long as the environment makes the players feel safe, confident and nurtured, you can get past a few losing seasons.

 

Benning and his supporters, especially early on his tenure, argued that it's more important to stay competitive so as to "not become the Oilers" than prioritize asset management. How did this work out?

 

GKf6IDs.png

 

Is Horvat a broken player now? Is Hutton? Stecher? They've all been a big part of the above.

 

And this takes us back to the main, overarching anti-Benning argument: why the hell did we not prioritize asset management if we were going to be complete ass anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

They finished with 1 MORE point WITHOUT him.  It was not a factor. At all. 

 

53 minutes ago, Darius said:

He hasnt been out of the lineup long enough to establish a trend.  Unless you think 11 games means anything. In this case we are talking a full 82 (EIGHTY TWO) games.

So you're using context (sample size) to argue against my Pettersson example, but ignoring all context when it comes the Leafs results with and without Kessel?

 

Can't have it both ways my dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

How true is this, really?

 

People always point to the "losing culture" in Edmonton as an anti-rebuild argument.

Is there a losing culture in Edmonton? I think so.

Is that a big reason why they keep floundering? I think so.

 

But does tanking automatically mean you'll break the psyches of all your youth for the rest of their careers? Definitely not.

The Edmonton Oilers are where they are because of poor direction and leadership in every sense of the word, from hockey ops to people management.

 

The Leafs had two horrific years in 14/15 and 15/16. Kadri, Rielly and Gardiner were on both those teams, they sure seem fine to me right now.

As long as the environment makes the players feel safe, confident and nurtured, you can get past a few losing seasons.

 

Benning and his supporters, especially early on his tenure, argued that it's more important to stay competitive so as to "not become the Oilers" than prioritize asset management. How did this work out?

 

GKf6IDs.png

 

Is Horvat a broken player now? Is Hutton? Stecher? They've all been a big part of the above.

 

And this takes us back to the main, overarching anti-Benning argument: why the hell did we not prioritize asset management if we were going to be complete ass anyway?

Because as a result of not being "complete ass", we allowed for players like Horvat to have leadership from the Sedins and other veterans. Who's to say that your method wouldn't turn us into the next Edmonton or Arizona or Florida? Instead, we're already surprising people. We might not be in the playoffs, but we are showing streaks of what we will likely become in the future, unlike what a lot of these other teams are showing.

 

You want to completely tank and get picks I'm assuming? Expect a lot more seasons of "Out of Playoffs" compared with what we likely will have now because getting lucky in the draft is a thing and Vancouver has not exactly had that luck and is STILL doing better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

So you're using context (sample size) to argue against my Pettersson example, but ignoring all context when it comes the Leafs results with and without Kessel?

 

Can't have it both ways my dude.

Actually with Pettersson we only have 4 less wins than last season with 18 games left and he is 1 player nearly replacing the Sedins production. 

 

Henrik and Daniel put up 105 points combined, Pettersson over a full season is on pace for 86 points. So no I don't agree Pettersson is inconsequential. Kessel was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

How true is this, really?

 

People always point to the "losing culture" in Edmonton as an anti-rebuild argument.

Is there a losing culture in Edmonton? I think so.

Is that a big reason why they keep floundering? I think so.

 

But does tanking automatically mean you'll break the psyches of all your youth for the rest of their careers? Definitely not.

The Edmonton Oilers are where they are because of poor direction and leadership in every sense of the word, from hockey ops to people management.

 

The Leafs had two horrific years in 14/15 and 15/16. Kadri, Rielly and Gardiner were on both those teams, they sure seem fine to me right now.

As long as the environment makes the players feel safe, confident and nurtured, you can get past a few losing seasons.

 

Benning and his supporters, especially early on his tenure, argued that it's more important to stay competitive so as to "not become the Oilers" than prioritize asset management. How did this work out?

 

GKf6IDs.png

 

Is Horvat a broken player now? Is Hutton? Stecher? They've all been a big part of the above.

 

And this takes us back to the main, overarching anti-Benning argument: why the hell did we not prioritize asset management if we were going to be complete ass anyway?

Hutton and Stech had the Sedins leading the charge and owning responsibility - it's different when you have veteran leadership taking the hit.

 

When it's a core of young/new players and it's their identity, it's something quite different.  They are now the ones interviewed after the losses.  That was different then.

 

You're really just helping to point out that nothing is a given and that's mostly my point.  There isn't "one way" to do things that guarantees success ... each team is comprised of individuals and variables that have to be taken into consideration.

 

You seem to think Toronto's got it figured out (that isn't proven yet) and it's cut and dry.  I don't agree with that.

 

Just as "tanking doesn't automatically mean" anything, the same can be said for picks.  Hit and miss.  Weigh out the pros and cons when attempting to acquire them and do what you can.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

I would like to see us acquire more picks too, but Tanev and Sutter weren't landing us anything worth trading for being on the IR. 

 

And I really don't think teams are knocking down doors to get to expendable pieces like Granlund, Schaller, Pouliot, Biega, Spooner etc. 

 

I don't want to see Jake moved just yet, that really only leaves Goldobin as the only piece left worth anything. 

 

Again I’ve never argued AGAINST acquiring picks, I just understand why they weren't able to given the circumstances. There is still time to move injured deadline players at the draft for picks. Possibly Edler too if talks completely break down and JB makes it clear we're moving on, (unlikely but still a possibility regardless)

Worth, a word that is subjective. Worth to the Canucks is much different than worth to the Capitols. Sutter for instance, the Nucks need him to be a regular third/second line defensive player, the Caps would see him as an injury depth guy on their 4th line able to move up and down the line up, more of a utility guy. For the Nucks when they are done, his value is really quite low and if anything a hinderance for young blood learning the NHL, he may even help the team to miss a better chance in the lottery. So if the Caps traded a 3rd pick for him, the lottery is not really affected by that round but Gillis traded Diaz for a 5th round pick, Gaudette so that is pretty good for the odds of that round making and impacting in the NHL.

Another concept is players like Burns, Lindstrom, Weber, Keith, yes it is cherry picking to suggest JUST the home runs but if they were available and there is no pick for the team then there is a 100% certainty of failure because there is not pick so even a 5 to 10% chance is better than 0%.

 

The team should not move JV at all unless it is to improve a draft position, which I can see them doing to move up to a #1 overall pick with Colorado, exchange #1's and JV. IMO not a good deal because doing that in 2020 will result in a better player than Hughes who is suffering through numerous injuries playing with the big men this year, he is maintaining his draft position mostly through past scouting reports. Alexis Lafrenière is a much more valuable player for a team polishing off and two good players and a first is a good deal for Ottawa or any other team that can not suffer through 3+ years of rebuilding. 2020 1rst overall for - JV Nucks 1rst overall and OJ and 2 - 2nd round picks or NHL players.

After that a conscious decision to hire a really good contract manager should be used who considers the whole picture rather than just one player at a time an then deal withthte ramifications. Being a good GM doesn't require a player's love in return

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

You don't need to compromise your cap flexibility / cap space that could be used instead for other teams' cap dumps or trade at a draft pick deficit during a rebuild to insulate your youth.

 

Let's look at the Leafs, for example. Their main rebuild period was from the summer of 2014 (Shanahan takes over) to the summer of 2017.

 

Picks in vs. picks out (net, as in picks that were acquired and then traded away are excluded to show the surplus)

 

Picks out:

2014 4th

 

Picks in:

2015 1st

2016 2nd

2016 3rd

2016 4th

2016 6th

2017 4th

2018 2nd

2018 7th

 

So in the 3 main rebuild years, they acquired 7 more picks than they gave up (equal to an entire draft) and 4 of those extra picks were in the first 3 rounds.

 

This is how rebuilds are done; draft picks are the currency of the NHL. It's like money, if you saved up and now have some extra to spend, you can buy some nice things, like trading a 1st and 2nd for a young starting goalie.

 

During this period, they did acquire some vets as transition / insulation players, but they were all cheap contracts and what they gave up to acquire those players was minimal (Polak, Santorelli, Brewer, Parenteau, Boyes, Grabner, Matthias, Hunwick, Laich, Smith, McElhinney).

 

TO did a good job, no arguing that (although they haven't won anything yet but we shall see); however, I disagree you can compare them to the Canucks. Can't simply ignore the 10 plus years of below average to bad Maple Leaf teams (Between 05-06 and 15-16 they made the playoffs once in eleven years). When TO started their rebuild they already had a younger (less talented) group of players on their roster to support the high end draft picks i.e. they already had better versions of players like Baer, Granlund, etc. 

 

Benning inherited a team of old players with NTCs. He first had to build up the 23 to 26 year old age group so that when his star draft picks like Pettersson, etc. hit the NHL the team could support their development. I believe the next couple seasons will see a significant jump in quality given the stable base Benning has created and the fact that his draft picks are now starting to hit key development points.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

I LOVE when they acquire picks, I just don't think it's as easy as it seems.

Particularly when it comes to players with ntc's. When you're limited to specific teams you're limited to what those teams are willing to give up. For example, Kesler could have got a royal return had there been some competition to get him. With only one trade option I'm impressed Benning got what he did.

 

The flip side of course is the team that says we'll give you this pick or this prospect. Then you have to weigh what the pick can get you versus where the prospect is in development. Sometimes the prospect is the better bet. Sometimes you'd rather swing for the fence even though you're more likely to strike out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 5nothincanucksohno said:

 

TO did a good job, no arguing that (although they haven't won anything yet but we shall see); however, I disagree you can compare them to the Canucks. Can't simply ignore the 10 plus years of below average to bad Maple Leaf teams (Between 05-06 and 15-16 they made the playoffs once in eleven years). When TO started their rebuild they already had a younger (less talented) group of players on their roster to support the high end draft picks i.e. they already had better versions of players like Baer, Granlund, etc. 

 

Benning inherited a team of old players with NTCs. He first had to build up the 23 to 26 year old age group so that when his star draft picks like Pettersson, etc. hit the NHL the team could support their development. I believe the next couple seasons will see a significant jump in quality given the stable base Benning has created and the fact that his draft picks are now starting to hit key development points.

 

No, it's all the added picks since Shanny took over that have made the difference. The results are plain to see.....

 

picks.png.55af234c537102d07b8287fdcb4906be.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Traded Kessel before the 15/16 season, tanked the 15/16 season, won the Matthews lottery.

So...by that token, Benning kept the twins traded nobody and won the Petterson lottery.  Right?  Or...is that not how this works now?

4 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

The Canucks are around .500 both with and without Pettersson in the lineup, is he not a difference maker? Are they the same team with and without him in the lineup? Hardly.

 

 

4 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Pettersson is inconsequential.

Petterson as of last nights game is directly or indirectly the cause of now 16 game winning or tying goals that have lead to overtime.  Without Petterson in the lineup the Canucks are or would be without that minimum 16 points, 2 points behind Ottawa for last in the NHL and therefore first for best odds in the hunt for Hughes.

 

Inconsequential though I am sure.

 

now I have a post of yours I need to find and address, brb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

When Shanahan came in, he made it clear that his plan is to scorch the earth and rebuild properly. What Leafs management did prior to his arrival is irrelevant (middling franchise trying to take shortcuts to competitiveness).

 

His plan was simple, and I outlined it in the post you quoted: accumulate draft picks and fill in roster spots with veterans on short (mostly 1-year), cheap deals without giving up pretty much any assets. Yes, they inherited some good players that are now a part of the team (like Kadri, Reilly and Gardiner) but let's not act like Benning didn't either. In fact, his 3 best D-men right now are ones he inherited, not to mention Horvat and Nylander Virtanen.

 

What they did during the 3 years I described has absolutely nothing to do with what they did 3, 5, 10, 50 years prior; they scorched the earth when Shanahan came in. They put in a proper rebuild plan, and are reaping the rewards 5 years later. The Canucks, on the other hand, are still bottom-feeding 5 years into Benning's tenure.

Shanahan came in the same year as Benning.  At the helm of one of the youngest teams in the league.  benning at the helm of one of the oldest.  Shanahan with the Leafs missing the playoffs for I believe 9 of the prior 10 years, Benning with the Canucks missing the playoffs twice over the same span.  benning inherited 3 defensemen.  Shanahan inherited what again?  Just reilly, Kadri and Gardiner?

 

You completely and intentionally ignore the paramters of those timelines.  And why it is important.  Shanahan had a scorched earth policy?  Benning had NTCs and literally no depth at all to speak of.  Subban, Horvat, Cassels?  Like come on man.  You know how far you're reaching and you just refuse to admit it.

 

Shanahan has been at the helm of the leafs since 2014.  benning since 2014.  Keep that in mind as it's the same amount of time but with vastly different organizational situations

5 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

The Leafs had two horrific years in 14/15 and 15/16. Kadri, Rielly and Gardiner were on both those teams, they sure seem fine to me right now.

As long as the environment makes the players feel safe, confident and nurtured, you can get past a few losing seasons.

 

Benning and his supporters, especially early on his tenure, argued that it's more important to stay competitive so as to "not become the Oilers" than prioritize asset management. How did this work out?

 

GKf6IDs.png

And this takes us back to the main, overarching anti-Benning argument: why the hell did we not prioritize asset management if we were going to be complete ass anyway?

When Shanahan took over the leafs had missed the playoffs all but 1 year since the lockout.

When Benning took over the Canucks had been effectively drafting 20-29 for the same time period.

 

To pretend for even a second that competing at that high level did not affect the organization or the depth they had to play with is such a weak way to try to argue your point.  It's like having a race where you spot the guy a 50 foot head start.

 

Shanahan took over a young Leafs team that had effectively 2 big NTCs in Phaneuf and Kessel.  Benning took over and had Burrows, Hansen, Sedins, Edler, Hamhuis, Kesler or effectively every possible piece of value at his disposal tied up with no options on when and where they went.

 

The two are so vastly different it isn't even approachable.  Now you want to claim somehow it's only a 3 year window as though THAt matters?  OK lets use that 3 year window shall we, from Matthews to 2018 the Leafs had more picks which is all well and good.  But what has come of them?  One could argue the canucks already have more NHL or potential NHL players with far less.  So while more picks may have helped it also may not have which would have lead n doubt to statements like "dim jim can't draft" or some such nonsense.

 

The sad comparison between the Leafs and Canucks over the last 3 drafts/years without looking at ALL at what either team had availabe at the times is simple cherry picking and anyone with half a brain can see through it.  Sure people like Ronning on Empty and Y2KCanucks will claim otherwise, but it doesn't make it any less of a steaming pile of Burkie dog induced BS. 

 

If you'd like to seriouly make your case, why don't you look at the teams in 2014 through last draft.  Look at the average age of the players, the cap hits (including the use of robidas island) the NTCs and NMCs afforded as well as the amount of depth each organization had and THEN start making your argument.  because without all that you're simply giving us a highlight reel argument without any context or backstory, and give me enough time and I can make a highlight reel that makes Gudbranson look like a superstar scoring defenseman.imageproxy.php?img=&key=bb5d22b764914745

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 8.00.08 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 8.00.48 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 8.07.03 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 8.08.02 PM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team is really no better than last year. The difference this year is that we have great goaltending & the rest of the West sucks.

 

As much as Pettersson is a superstar he's really only replaced the offense we lost in the Twins, nevermind Vanek. (If he's even fully replaced the Twins). That was going to be one of the big issues coming in, and its still an issue. Only 1 winger & the PP has regressed big time. 

 

The good part aside from Pettersson/Markstrom is that Hutton is a completely different player & Stecher has taken a step. If you say they are a good 2nd pair the problem becomes that Edler & especially Tanev are unreliable. We do have Hughes around the corner but I can't help but look at the right side & still see work to do.

 

Then there's still the Loui Eriksson problem. And Sutter is becoming a problem too with his injuries. We have Gaudette now (& Beagle to take faceoffs+kill penalties) so they should be proactive & move on from Sutter too IMO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Baggins said:

No, it's all the added picks since Shanny took over that have made the difference. The results are plain to see.....

 

picks.png.55af234c537102d07b8287fdcb4906be.png

 

 

 

Thanks for posting that, definitely shows that it is really all about who you pick and not how many you pick. Benning seems confident that his staff can find solid prospects out of the 7 or 8 draft picks he has each year and is not willing to sacrifice stability at the NHL or AHL level for additional picks. I have no issue with the plan but end of the day he needs to deliver...hope he gets two to three more years to see it through.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2019 at 6:49 PM, Darius said:

Playing devils advocate here.

 

What makes you think that a latter round pick would be more successful for this team than Motte or Goldobin?  I realize that in general picks do have value, i just dont understand the obsession that proper rebuild = dump everything for picks.

Easy. It’s easier to draft talent and really hard to find it on waivers, free agency, and outside of the NHL. 

 

Washington lost beagle, they signed our hack Dowd in free agency. Done deal. Haven’t missed beagle at all.

 

it about balancing value and having the right resources. Benning doesn’t seem to understand this basic concept and places way too much value in hacks like Motte that can easily replaced with waivers or free agency. Should keep the low picks as lottery tickets. Get the Mottes elsewhere like the defending champs did. 

 

Not sure how Goldolbin fits in this. He was, maybe is, a genuine bluechip prospect we had to give an almost 30 goal, really fast, two way forward in Hansen to acquire him. Him and Dahlen were the only two good trades he made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...