Dazzle

1. Yes you did. You ignored it. By mentioning a player's name, that implies you had a good reason to bring him up. Clearly you didn't. Now you're backtracking. 2. Sure you did. You mentioned a comparable player that was signed cheaper. Your words. In other words, you made the comparison of the two players there, thus implying that GM Benning made a bad choice. 3. Wasn't talking about a 4 year contract. Was talking about the 2.5 number. Are you changing shifting goal posts again? Upon reflection: I don't know what person would bring up a player like Hankapaa like this, and refuse to say he was trying to make a comparison.

So you're looking for attention then, is what you're saying?

This is your problem: you look at extremes. I didn't say that the situation was always the case - I'm just saying that the collusion factor seems to be apparent for CERTAIN GMs. And you've already CONFIRMED in this post that Benning made a great trade to Vegas - got a 3rd/2023. Why is it that Benning got a 3rd back from Winnipeg, despite the poor year? Yes, you didn't answer that. I have no clue what you're talking about with regards to Yakupov. What does drafting Yakupov have to do with other teams being jealous? I never once said this at all. Your memory is flawed lol.

How much have you actually talked about the Halak/Sutter signings? You've made summary compliments about these signings, though in the Poolman signing, you were more than quick to spend the bulk of your time on. What gives?

You've actually missed my point - the point being that there are more things than just a simple 1 to 1 comparison. YOUR logic was that "we could've signed this guy", but you're ignoring the underlying factors, namely that Poolman is said to be a better skater/more mobile. And given the fact that Poolman actually had a good playoff with WIN, you're just nitpicking.

Really? The guy who defended Dahlen tooth and nail is calling ME biased? Reading the comments of people here, some think this is going to be PK 2.0. I'm not convinced it's a great signing, but it's definitely a splash.

Never mind about Martinez. I erred in mixing him up with Voynov.

And this is really funny because I was, at one point, a Gillis supporter. Most of us were at one point or another. I am sure many of us appreciate his contributions to the teams he had helped construct. I will be a fan of the next GM who comes in, provided they make positive contributions to the team I'm cheering. I am not necessarily latched onto Benning, unlike some people who think Gillis was a "Good GM", which I now reflect on in a more negative light. Opinions change over time.

There is nothing wrong with being critical about a situation, and having concerns, especially based on the past. However, I find it hilarious that you say the bolded, given how you've spent ALMOST ALL OF THE FA PERIOD in the poolman signing, which you have previously admitted was something you "didn't mind". HMMM. The fact that you said that "if the other side were to understand this", implies your 'side' is superior. At the same time, you've grouped everyone who disagrees with you as being in a category that supports Benning I think your post has unintentionally detangled your twisted logic. You've JUST admitted that you're against the GM, which thus contradicts what you said in the middle. Congrats. We all knew this already. Thanks for confirming it. This isn't about discussing Canucks then. This is about you venting.

Cool, so you're so scarred by previous incidents that you feel justified that you won't jump back into the pool. Not to invalidate PTSD, but that's why people have the gall to be a GM. But one thing that's applicable to you: it's easier to criticize than to produce anything of substance. You've admitted your bias. People have called you biased. You call them naive.

WOW, what a complete fall from grace. Couldn't even get a 1 way contract? Glad we didn't get this guy at all. I remember some ppl on these boards were very high on him.

First off, it's safe to say the latest FA signings involving Barrie, Hamilton, Ceci are overpaid. By nature, they are, because they have a bigger name attached to them. So you've COMPLAINED about overpaying in previous signings, and now you would've added them. Really? Also, FYI, Dougie Hamilton joins Devils on $63 million, 7-year deal - so no, OEL doesn't have a 'worse' contract than all of those guys. Tyson Barrie plays pretty sketchy defense and would not have helped the Canucks, period. The fact that you're advocating for these 'big name' UFAs contradicts your previous complaints. Not to mention, you've demonstrated your bias. I don't know what the market was for the other players, but Martinez was most likely never considered by the Canucks due to his past behavioural history. Hamonic isn't overpaid - he's a known entity for Hughes, and did an admirable job last year on a cheap contract. He's proven. I don't see a problem with this signing at all. While Poolman is the most contentious signing of the FA, he is only 28 with low mileage, and had a very good playoff series with WIN. He might not be top 4 material, but at 2.5, it's a cheap option. In terms of reasonable signings, Benning has made a statement this offseason in contrast to his previous 'overpaying' seasons. The fact that you can't see these differences is a concern.

There are a lot of teams that have fallen into this trap, so this is hardly a 'Vancouver' thing'. The other points that you make will make it clear why I take this angle. The so-called 'trend' of 1 million too much has been applied to practically every single signing, INCLUDING the Pearson one, which ISN'T an overpayment (even though many people will say it is). What I am pointing out is that just because someone says it is overpaid, it doesn't mean it is ACTUALLY the case.. Often, it is fueled by bias. Now I'm going back to the 'national media' part. It's interesting you say they are "saying the same thing" - but they're not. Sportsnet is the only network that rated the Canucks the lowest. Other media outlets are saying Vancouver did a good job. The so-called 'opinion' that you're talking about is contentious, and just because you have one doesn't necessarily mean it's the right one either. You're also conflating Hankanpaa as being equal to Poolman, which is not the case. If so, he wouldn't be signed for the same thing in Dallas. (And that in itself is a complicated matter because of the tax situation in Texas). In summary, your post that was meant to clarify things is actually a conflation of multiple issues. This is not limited to Vancouver fans, but they are often vulnerable to making these fallacious conclusions. You've also proven the point that posters are BIASED based on past events. We can call this skeptical, but that in itself is a bias.

Then IMHO, Juolevi will likely stay on the main roster. He's a cheap option to have.

Would OJ really be claimed? Does he really have a spot in the NHL, other than Vancouver? I think it's pretty unlikely. The most value Juolevi has is to Vancouver.

Who did you want on defence? Barrie? Hamilton? Ceci? You complain about 'overpaying', and then you complain about having reliable players at reasonable costs.

I don't think it makes sense to trade Juolevi, especially for the so-called 'more developed' prospect. 1) Juolevi is probably very cheap to re-sign, unless he wants out and/or management is done with him (both of which I think are unlikely possibilities). Moreover, he can be buried in the farm if need be. 2) Juolevi likely has little value WORTH trading away for. 3) You won't get a more developed prospect back unless he cost too much (also nonsensical)

I can envision some people saying that as management's decision to 'justify' the signing.

This is most likely to be false. Benning had a cap problem. Given that Garland had been signed, having Schmidt was not necessarily the wisest decision. Other GMs knew this and COULD HAVE asked for a king's ransom. The Canucks still had to sign Petterson, Hughes, and Dickinson (Juolevi too). It wouldn't have been wise for the GM to pigeon hole himself with the space. This arguably shows that Benning has positioned himself for future moves (moves that we saw recently, for example), as well as any potential risks of offersheets. Instead, the Canucks passed on the savings they got from the LV deal to Winnipeg, which arguably could be seen as a loss at the same time - Canucks only got a year of Schmidt for free. But at least WIN's GM didn't want to embarrass Benning. Yet this 'saving face' policy is applicable the other GMs around the league as well. Chicago and Fleury, for instance. LV NEEDED that cap space. I'm not saying that GMs are doing favours that would screw themselves selflessly; there has to be a mutual benefit to it. Often it is to get good players at huge discounts. Some GMs don't get much respect though around the league - one of those was our past GM Gillis, but arguably GMs who had to bend themselves over to clear cap spaces (NYI/PHI, for example - Toronto too.) Cap space is a luxury. And teams that had it COULD have screwed teams over, yet that is not always the case.

Why else would Schmidt get a 3rd after having an OBVIOUSLY bad year from Winnipeg? Winnipeg could've offered a 4th and made a statement. (This is in reference to the fact that Benning got a 3rd for Schmidt originally)

Lol. I have read your posts with little discrimination. I have agreed with you on things - sometimes completely. But mostly I'm in disagreement with your stuff, especially with how you approach things. Look no further that you've spent the bulk of your time debating in the Poolman thread, often with little relevance to the player himself, but to the GM. To me, it's obvious to me that you've got a slant against the GM, so much so that it bleeds into your posts.

Considering that Tampa is getting a pretty jammy treatment from other teams, it's obvious that enticement is not necessary. There is a blatant collusion going on with some GMs.

Lol... it is just as lazy, naive, and irresponsible to say, definitively, that it IS crippling. You're one of the last ones on the board qualified to talk about this. That's the point. A lot of the arguments, especially in this thread, have been rehearsed dribble from the same crowd of people who have little interest in discussing the overall pros/cons of a GM, but focussing on the negative ones. That is blatantly a one-sided argument.

Guddy should be an assistant or something, or a commentator. I don't hate the guy. When he came here, he was severely overpaid, which I KNOW oldnews will disagree That being said, Guddy did give it his all. I don't think anyone can deny that from him. He might not have an offensive game, but he's a character guy.

He definitely does. I think it's just like Datsyuk and playing at a high level. Very interesting decision by Krejci.