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

Patel Bure

Members
  • Posts

    3,904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

2,191 profile views

Patel Bure's Achievements

Canucks Second-Line

Canucks Second-Line (9/14)

3k

Reputation

  1. Benning just “take the Gillis team.” He brought in Vrbata (scored 30+ goals with JS that season), Bonino, and Ryan Miller (miller’s presence allowed us to send Markstrom to the minors which allowed Markstrom to regain his confidence from juniors while developing his game). The Markstrom thing was especially great since Benning was widely criticized for signing Ryan Miller at the time. Miller’s presence also took pressure off of Lack as well, while Lack got acclimated to being a 1B goalie. You compared Benning to McTavish since MacT never took his team to the playoffs (if I understand correctly). So yeah - “it is the point.” I’m calling you out on your bull$&!#.
  2. I’m not sure what the stat is now but a little while back, it was revealed that the OEL-Myers pairing had only give up 5 even strength goals and had the one of the highest CF% amongst NHL defensive pairings.
  3. Doubt it. Craig Smith is a heterosexual man, and is also a man of integrity from what I understand.
  4. You wrote: Even if I assume that Benning's "culture" was a catalyst in the team's success (but apparently not their failures), the bubble was 1.5 years ago, and a lot of things have changed. Response: My contention is that if Benning had changed the coach post bubble, we would have been a 1st round playoff calibre team in 2020-2021. Guys like Schmidt, Virtanen, Hamonic, Petterson, Hughes, and Holtby grossly underperformed last season all evidence is pointing to an incompatible system. Nate Schmidt for example, performed well in Vegas and is performing well in Winnipeg but was a shell in Vancouver. As far as 'culture' goes, yes, the Canucks were not a good team between 2015-2019 and signed over-priced and over-termed vets, but the presence of these vets allowed our younger players to not have to take on tougher match-ups so that they could grow their games at a more comfortable level (unless they earned the right to move higher in the line-up through merit-based performances). You wrote: There's so much evidence that player morale has declined since then. Toffoli expressed disappointment that we didn't offer him a contract, JT Miller called our 2020 offseason "weird", Edler finally left the franchise (and he's not even ring-chasing) after so many years of sticking through terrible rosters, Horvat was asked about fan/management support during the COVID outbreak and didn't even mention management, Miller had to beg the league via press conference to alter their schedule, Boudreau recently emphasizing that players felt it was important their opinions were heard on the very recent COVID breakouts Response: The Canucks biggest priority after the 2020 bubble was to find a long term Alex Edler replacement. Edler couldn't log big minutes anymore and take on the tough match-ups and so they needed to find a long term replacement. Hence - Benning prioritizing the OEL deal which would have allowed us to move on from Beagle, Player Name, and Roussel and allow us some cap space to make some other moves. It didn't pan out unfortunately and we ended up with Schmidt (who should have panned out for us........under a new coach.......and yes, that's on Benning). The Canucks players were disappointed that we appeared to not be building on the 2019-2020 bubble success, but the boys were promised that 2020-2021 would be an anomaly and that they would try and field a competitive team again in 2021-2022. So yes - 2020-2021 was the first season where our "bad contracts" (transitional rebuild contracts I call them) caught up to us which prevented us from making certain signings, but in theory, eventually proceeding forward with Garland, Demko, and Hamonic was a better decision than proceeding forward with Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev when you consider age, term, and money. As far as your other comments go (Toffoli, Miller, Edler leaving, Horvat's comments, Miller begging, Boudreau), you and/or the media is just reaching/speculating with those comments. Walking from Edler was the correct decision, and the Canucks did everything they could to field a competitive team in this off-season............with poor coaching looking like the only reason why things haven't panned out (and I'll admit that this is on Benning). When you look at the player personnel decisions that Benning made however, they were the correct decisions...........with the proof being our current winning streak and how radically different we look with good coaching. You wrote: Can you state what specific things you liked about how Benning led the team, and how it contributed to the culture of the Canucks? I'll state what I didn't like. The biggest things that I liked about Benning's regime is how they did everything in their power to creative a conducive environment for young players in terms of 1) Merit-based performance - letting young players move up in the roster and on the team when they were truly ready to take on those roles - no "throwing to the wolves." 2) Surrounding the kids with vets who either had proven leadership and/or proven past successful experience. Even if these vets were no longer what they were, these vets would take on tougher match-ups on the ice while the kids developed and weren't over-exerted, while the vets would also create a culture on and off the ice (i.e. party boys like Hutton and Gaudette were eventually moved). 3) Attempting to fill the age-gap. I know many fans were upset that the Canucks traded many picks for reclamation projects in order to fill the age gap but it was a necessary evil. In attempting to foster a tight-knit locker room environment, age-gap is a legit issue. You can't have 50% of your kids being under the age of 22 while the other 50% is over 28. So yes - while guys like Baertschi, Granlund, Vey, Chaput, etc., didn't pan out for us long term, they served their purposes in other ways during that time. 4) Converting picks into NHL players: Critics can talk about how we 'bled picks' all they want, but the fact of the matter is that Benning's regime still either drafted and/or developed prospects and converted many to the NHL level. Horvat and Markstrom weren't drafted by Benning obviously, but he developed them correctly and insulated and safeguarded their development (i.e. bringing in Ryan Miller so that Markstrom could get tons of ice-time in Utica while re-discovering his confidence and game, the Canucks bringing in Brandon Sutter so that Sutter could take on tougher defensive match-ups in order to allow Horvat to develop his game more naturally and eventually take on those tougher match-ups himself when he was ready). Although Gudbranson didn't pan out, he was specifically brought in because young stay at home RHD's with potential are almost impossible to acquire. If Gudbranson had panned out, we would have been able to move Chris Tanev for a 1st rounder while simultaneously not over-exerting current players in our line-up. You wrote: 1) Somewhat tied with coaching, but veterans often got a free ride and were never legitimately at threat to lose their roster spot. A guy like Roussel was suiting up WAY too often last season. I'm not entirely familiar with the Roussel situation but perhaps coaches felt that he was still better than some of the other young guys on the team despite Roussel's poor play? The Canucks always had a merit-based system for kids. It's why Baertschi eventually replaced Higgins, Motte replaced Gagner, and why Bieksa was moved after the 2015 playoff loss. Demko replaced Markstrom. Player Name didn't make the 2020-2021 team (although that may have been cap related). You wrote: 2) Very little accountability. The most egregious example here is when Benning blamed the poor 2021 start on being in the Canadian Division. Media blowing things out of proportion. Benning may have blamed a brutal travel schedule but I don't recall him blaming the division. I think what he said was that GM's often make decision based on who they think they will be playing more frequently via division alignment, but he didn't overtly say something like, "we are losing because of the division we are in." 3) Often bringing back a ton of players (and coaches) despite subpar to terrible results. Re-signing Granlund in 2018 is probably the biggest culprit I can think of off-hand. No top free agents would have been signing with us at the time and so I don't see what was wrong is re-signing Granlund in 2018 to a relatively cheap contract. He fulfilled our age gap requirement, and we let him move on when the Canucks wanted to make a more aggressive push. Playoff experience is crucial for a young players' development. Hence - our more aggressive push in 2019-2020. 4) Not taking leadership during crises. Putting Green out to the media to talk about the Virtanen situation is genuinely one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen from a sports executive. Similarly, Benning was off watching the U18s with Weisbrod and used that as an excuse to not have a plan and communicate it during the COVID breakout. Media fabricated nonsense. Benning and Weisbrod were overseas just as the Virtanen thing was happening. All Green said when asked about it, was that there was an ongoing police investigation and that the Canucks had no comment at this time. Just as ownership/management likely requested Green to do so. How was this "disgusting?" Aqua and Benning also made similar comments when asked about this. 5) Constantly talking about "making the playoffs" as if it's a high goal the team should be aspiring to -- the bar is incredibly low there. When Benning took over this team, management and ownership knew where this team was at. Even if a team is rebuilding, they should still try and 'dangle the carrot' for the players by saying, "our goal is to make the playoffs." Doesn't mean it's going to happen. It's just a goal. And yes - if the players unexpectedly over-exceed expectations, then of course management should reward them (hence - rumours of us being interested in Lucic back at the 2015 deadline). Our prospect pool is terrible because we've traded a $&!# ton of picks to quick-patch our issues, and our AHL development system has been subpar compared to basically every other team in the league. Obviously prospect pools are meant to convert to future NHLers, but our current pool (aka the guys who are supposed to elevate this team later on) is extremely shallow. In other words, it's far harder to improve (which we need to do) in subsequent years. We drafted and/or developed the following players: Horvat, Markstrom, Demko, Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, Hogländer, Podkolzin, and Rathbone. Even guys like Hutton, Gaudette, MacEwen, and Virtanen, who are no longer here, were developed by us. Tyler Motte is yet another. Our prospect pool is shallow (largely due to graduation), but we've still got guys like Rathbone, Klimovich, and Dipietro down there.
  5. Guys like Kirk McLean and Peter Nedved farted on his head one too many times during the 1990's which clearly effected his brain cells.
  6. So we are pretending that 2015 and 2020 didn't happen. Got it. You realize that you can't just "erase history" or "pretend that it didn't happen" because it doesn't fit your narrative right?
  7. 1) Benning made a few more mistakes other than just being 'too loyal to Green.' In retrospect, he shouldn't have gone after Ryan Spooner and Sam Gagner. Although I understand his motivation in wanting to get Player Name (i.e. there were no PTO's or cheap vets at the time that would have fulfilled that 2nd line role + Virtanen wasn't ready to take the jump at the time + Burrows was washed up), the Canucks likely should have just let Burrows play with the twins. I also suspect that we could have found a way to sign Tyler Toffoli but the Canucks needed to invest money in a 1b goalie to insulate Demko (Holtby) since Demko was just taking over from Markstrom, and the Canucks also needed to find a long term Edler replacement as it was their biggest long term priority outside of re-upping Petey and Hughes. That's why Benning was working hard on the OEL deal (which didn't pan out at the time), and then ultimately made the move for Schmidt. 2) Who cares if we got a little lucky in 2019-2020? More times than not, teams that are coming out of a rebuild and have a bit of success in the playoffs do tend to get a little lucky. Remember the Canucks in 2006-2007? The Canucks were outplayed badly by Dallas in the 1st round yet Luongo completely stonewalled them which allowed us to advance to the 2nd round. The Canucks back then weren't a finished product just yet, and we weren't a finished product in 2019-2020......so why judge them like one would an elite team? It's like in the movie 'The Matrix' when Neo fought Agent Smith in the train station where Agent Smith dominated the fight but Neo still came out on top (this was the fight before Neo realized he was 'The One'). If St. Louis chose to play Binnington over Allen, how is that our fault? We can only deal with what was in front of us. We qualified for the playoffs fair and square by beating Minnesota. More importantly though - you are acting like "7+ terrible years" is uncommon in hockey when it's actually extremely common for rebuilding teams to go through a relatively large period of growing pains. Don't believe me? Look at teams like Tampa Bay, Carolina, NYI, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Colorado, Dallas, St. Louis, Columbus, etc., etc. It's inevitable. Even a team like Boston, who barely missed the playoffs during their fruitless years during the 00's, always lost in the first round. 7+ years of terrible hockey during a rebuild is not uncommon, and Benning literally took over this team when the previous core was dying.
  8. Fair enough. Just keep giving 'hugs' smilies/reactions to your boi Kanucks25 and I'll be on my way.
  9. The boys at HF, including your "boi" @Kanucks25, were literally using advanced analytics in a perverse incorrect way to make guys like OEL, Myers, etc, etc., look like turd sandwiches in order to make Benning's acquisitions look like poo. Check the archives if you have time. After explaining to guys like Kanuck25 and his buds at HF over and over and over again that advanced analytics + CONTEXT + other factors is what's needed for a comprehensive analysis, they continued to pump the analytics in a peverse and misinformed way as any true disciple of Thomas Drance or JD Burke would. These guys GLOATED when the Canucks were struggling this year because in their minds, they were proven right that "the Benning way" didn't work. GLOATED! They didn't care the Canucks were losing. So tell me - are these real fans to you? Then, after the coaching change, and after Boudreau implemented a new system (i.e. "other factors"), and all of the guys that Kanuck25 and his "boys" from HF were criticizing all started playing better which lead to our current 7 out of 8 winning streak, these guys want to act like little fan boy bitches now? Give me a break man. Tantalum on HF has even gone as far as saying that, "the Canucks were playing bad up until the firings because they were protesting against management." I mean really...... Obviously, these guys have the freedom to cheer whoever they want, but it's just annoying......
  10. If you knew the history of what goes on at HFCanucks, then you'd likely reconsider your opinion.
  11. I don't disagree with that. Benning's loyalty to Green is and was a fireable offense. I just find it funny that you, along with your boys at HF, are cheering on the #BenningBuilt Canucks like a bunch of little fanboyafter criticizing Benning's moves and player personnel for years on end. Hypocrites.
  12. Tonight's final score: Seattle 1 Anaheim 4
  13. My hope is that he won't be able to do much of anything once he's done with covid.
  14. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/32867230/boston-bruins-place-brad-marchand-craig-smith-covid-19-protocol My best wishes to Craig Smith on a speedy and successful recovery.
×
×
  • Create New...