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

Dazzle

Members
  • Posts

    11,843
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Dazzle

  1. Demko and Hoglander. Personally, I think you're biased. Not to mention Rathbone as well, and Gaudette. Also, name a GM that has nailed picks out of the park all the time. Even Yzerman has practically freaking missed on a whole draft. Take your blinders off.
  2. Funny you go with this narrative yet.. No mention of Demko, Rathbone, Brisebois, Hoglander, Lind, Jasek, Gadjovich, Woo. Demko and Hoglander are two players that you completely ignored. Big miss in your analysis. Compare that to the previous GMs, namely Gillis. Both of which are not 'high draft picks' that detractors accuse Benning of being gifted. The other players are close or very close to being NHLers. At no such point did we have any kind of depth like this in previous regimes. Let's just say your analysis that Benning's drafting being overrated is so flawed that we can safely disregard your perspective. Podkolzin is gonna be like Horvat also. A winger version. That's what his playing style is comparable to. Funny how you left out Podkolzin and went with the hindsight Cole Caufield who was quite small at the time of his draft.
  3. Disagree heavily on the Horvat/Landeskog comparison. Horvat's issue in the draft that caused him to drop was his skating. His work ethic ultimately helped him develop to who he is now. If Horvat turned into Hodgson (the injury aspect, not the other controversial parts), Gillis could have walked away from his tenure having drafted no player that has any particular NHL significance. In short, the Landeskog and Horvat comparison is not realistically a one to one.
  4. Then you run the risk of being like Buffalo or Edmonton. Both teams had perentially drafted players, yet never got anywhere. The Oilers haven't been good until recently. Their rebuild (or oil change if you look at it that way), has been basically 10 years. Edmonton has had a series of #1 overall picks, one of which was freaking McDavid.
  5. Ok, the story of Sakic needs to be set straight. He made a ton of mistakes during his tenure. Perhaps the romanticism surrounding this guy needs to be toned down. In 2013, he was named GM. It's worth noting that before he became GM, Colorado had missed the playoffs for three consecutive years. In 2010-2011, COL drafted in the 17th overall Joey Hishton. The next year (2011-2012), COL drafted #2 Gabriel Landeskog The year after that, they didn't draft anyone, and picked up Varlamov from Washington (COL receives a 2nd round pick in exchange). Varlamov is their starting goalie. Following that, aside from a first round push, Sakic misses the playoffs for three more years. 2013–14 2013–14 Western Central 1st 82 52 22 — 8 112 248 217 7 3 4 — 20 22 Lost in First Round, 3–4 (Wild) 2014–15 2014–15 Western Central 7th 82 39 31 — 12 90 219 227 — — — — — — Did not qualify 2015–16 2015–16 Western Central 6th 82 39 39 — 4 82 216 240 — — — — — — Did not qualify 2016–17 2016–17 Western Central 7th 82 22 56 — 4 48 166 278 — — — — — — Did not qualify The following players were obtained under Sakic through the draft, in the consecutive order of the missed years: Rantanen, Jost, Makar. All of them being high first round picks. Safe to say, Sakic was in a better position than Benning was. Benning did not have anyone remotely close to Landeskog to start off. Yzerman was initially on Tampa Bay, but then moved to Detroit. We're seeing a similar type of 'tanking' phase for Detroit. The amount of romanticism of Yzerman/Sakic is actually disingenous for discussion. You are cherryingpicking the positive results of these two GMs while ignoring the down years they had. Not to mention, the teams were in better positions than the Canucks were, in terms of development.
  6. While it's true that WD did do some good things, he didn't end up being a winning NHL coach. This carried over to the LA Kings, who probably had a better roster than whatever Vancouver gave him. Ultimately, he never coached in the NHL again, at least not right now. I feel like TG will end up going down this pathway, since his win/loss rate is not dissimilar to WD, despite having a much better roster overall than whatever WD had.
  7. Ok. Benning also established himself as one of the best scouters. For each Sakic or Yzerman story, there is a Markus Naslund one, who if I remember correctly, didn't stay for very long as a MODO Swedish hockey GM. Dorion (Ottawa Sens GM) is also a famed scouter. He's made plenty of mistakes himself. In short, Sakic/Yzerman probably were set up for success better than Benning/Dorion. Look at the teams of Colorado and Tampa, but particularly Tampa.
  8. I lost all respect for him when he judged Lind in the limited amount of games he has thus far in this season. "Meh, he can play hockey". This guy is dumb.
  9. So here's the thing. Sakic and Yzerman have made a ton of mistakes during their tenure, as everyone inevitably does. While your point about the Courtnall/Linden hirings being akin to figureheads has some merit, the issue is that all teams have made internal hirings all the time. And there is nothing wrong with that. Alain Vigneault, for instance, was not a noted scorer, and yet he has crafted a lengthy coaching career (whether or not he has his flaws as a coach is beside the point). It's safe to say that former players UNDERSTAND the game, having played it. Vigneault was, I believe, promoted within Montreal. Eventually he made his way to Vancouver for a brief time, before going over to Philly. Now, the most problematic parts of your post is about "He will be better than FA" - FA is the owner, not a general manager (not similar to Yzerman/Sakic, in other words). The closest comparison to what you're trying to say may be Mario Lemieux. And he's had his share of 'meddling' too, as every owner who has an interest in the team does. Ultimately, it's safe to say that FA cares about this team equally as all of us fans, considering he is also a VERY vocal Canuck fan, as well as a business owner. He doesn't own any other teams to my knowledge, so the Canucks is his baby. We also know that FA has spent a lot of money in the past to improve the Canucks (whether this be by free agency, or through the upgrading of locker rooms/facilities, as suggested by Gillis). How soon do people forget about this. FA has gone through all the periods that we have enjoyed, as well as the suffering of the team.
  10. Kind of hilarious how a billionaire, among the top 25 in Canada, would be questioned for their business acumen by Canucks fans.
  11. I like how he (Timrafan) likes to criticize the Canucks/AHL coaching to be "neanderthal" (the word he used specifically), all because his darling Dahlen couldn't make TWO NHL rosters, nor did he succeed in San Jose's AHL team. Ultimately, Dahlen is still playing in the same league as when he started in Sweden.
  12. So we are in agreement that having 5M space will give us more flexibility to do something. Here's where the discussion is going off-track, imo. There is an assumption though that someone 'better' is automatically out there, when that isn't always going to be the case. Not to mention, someone who performed well on another team (due to the team being better, for example) may not necessarily translate onto the Canucks team. We KNOW for a fact that Horvat wanted Pearson (some media has touched on this, and Horvat's message after Pearson's signing is a sort of confirmation). There is also a track record of Pearson's progress on the team. He has a 'fit' here. We do not currently have proven players who can take in his spot. So if we have 5M of capspace and we don't use much of it (it's not even the fan's money), the team may or may not flounder. If we use some of the money, either through a trade or through UFA (ignoring Pearson), the risks of acquiring a 'dud' are still there. But we KNOW what we have in Pearson. Therefore, allocating some money for a player that has chemistry with Horvat is a really easy decision. Really easy. Let's suppose that we ignore Pearson and go after someone else. These are some of the possibilities that we'll run into. 1) UFA - nothing more needs to be said about this and the risks involved. 2) Trades - to get a good player, you OFTEN have to trade assets in return. Raymond/Ballard and a 2nd type deals don't really exist. Hoping for this type of scenario is just a fantasy. This means we have to give up picks (something that our fanbase is adamant against) or give up 'good' players, like Boeser or Pettersson. 3) Waivers - with no cap space, we can't entertain the idea of acquiring a player thrown out on waivers. That being said, every team has dead cap. Every team. Waivers are often players that have no trade value (at least until after they clear). If the Canucks didn't/couldn't get rid of ANOTHER player they had in exchange for some other team's redundant player, then how does this help the Canucks? The Canucks team are in an awkward situation between development and trying to push for the playoffs, but this describes a lot of teams as well when you think about it. Throwing in unproven prospects into the lineup (also known as rushing their development) doesn't necessarily help their developments. We've seen some examples - Buffalo, for instance, who have been put into situations that ultimately have hurt their development. The player that stands out in this example is Dahlin. So much pressure was placed on him to save the franchise, but now he is clearly floundering on that team. Now Reinhart wants out (or is rumoured to be), and can you really fault him? Another thing to consider is: does every team want to make the playoffs? ABSOLUTELY. Judging a team for trying to make the playoffs is ludicrous. A rebuild only happens when a team that fails to achieve their goals of going into playoffs, and typically is started by newer management. It assumes that there are assets to be traded/sold off for more picks, as to create a clean slate. A rebuild can't happen if there are zero prospects in the pool (when Benning started), as well as players that are clearly just roster plugs. You'll get next to no value for them.
  13. Patrick Johnson is a clown. His take on Lind was GARBAGE.

    1. Show previous comments  2 more
    2. Dazzle

      Dazzle

      @mll@Alflives Basically he disregarded Lind in his latest commentary. His reaction was similar to "meh... he can play hockey, but he's shown nothing that proves he can play in the top six". Are you freaking kidding me?

    3. NewbieCanuckFan

      NewbieCanuckFan

      Jango Fett when asked about Patrick Johnson:

       

       

      :P

    4. J-23

      J-23

      Too many people expect young guys to step in and become an immediate impact player these days. 

  14. This fanbase feels so incredibly self-entitled and condescending to other fans of the league. Other fans feel this way - and watching first hand the stuff that gets said on social media, I really have to agree. Of course, there are always exceptions, but the reputation around the league about Canucks fan is, sorry to say, generally not good. Not to mention, the incessant whining reflects a fanbase that is so self absorbed with the team's shortcomings that it fails to see how bad the other teams have it. For example, our prospect pool is nowhere near poor, yet the drafting of this team is being questioned. How is this possible? People are constantly ignoring "facts" that are inconvenient to the angle that they want to push. This accurately represents a lot of our fans' opinions. In other words, it's NEVER good enough in Canucksland.
  15. So basically if you have 5 million, you want to see what kind of calibre of players can you get for 5 million? In other words, you CAN get the option of splashing a big fish UFA signing, is this what you're advocating? Players signed for 5M may or may not necessarily work here either. If they don't, that is 5M that is basically dead money. Think of Eriksson, for example. The whole cycle of this just ends up getting repeated.
  16. I'm with you. I've never seen so much incessant whining from fans. It's embarrassing really. We have such arrogant fans.
  17. So who would take Pearson's spot? Realistically, a player like that, especially in free agency, is likely going to be around the same ballpark, with no guarantee of success. At the very minimum, there is an assurance that Pearson enjoys it here in Vancouver, plus there's some chemistry with several players, most notably Horvat. Thus, the signing of Pearson is kind of a no-brainer. It's not an overpayment by the market standards. It's a pretty average signing that has received an overreaction from this fanbase.
  18. Moreover, I think Benning's departure to Texas to watch the games may be the team's way of having him be in charge of scouting. Basically Benning gets re-assigned to another department. So I think we will be seeing a new GM after all.
  19. Honestly, I don't see it as a bad thing. This guy is just competitive. If Horvat or someone else said this, would you really disagree with him? Horvat did after all say he didn't want to go through another rebuild. Guess he's a "whiner" too. Come on guys.
  20. Laine is such a tantalizing player. If he puts everything together, he can be among the greats. His defensive game is subpar though. I really think we should be really happy about Boeser and how he has shown commitment to improving his game. I hope Boeser can get 40 goals in the near future. Also, the blame towards Torts is a bit overstated. Torts EXPECTS accountability in his players - and Laine has shown little proof that he cares about the other sides of his games thus far in his career. Of course it wasn't going to be a fit. The problem is with Laine. It's not Tortorella's fault that Laine is lazy. Laine is easily 3 times the player that Virtanen is right now, yet you can't help but want more of those tantalizing skillsets that both players have.
  21. "Lazy and unfocused play" is a bit harsh for a player that really hasn't had much time to show what he can do, not to mention doing it under a mediocre defensive coach. He went around the wrong way. Big deal. He'll learn from that. How many times have we seen Hughes make a stupid pass? A lot. Better trade him because he's a "giveaway machine". /sar
×
×
  • Create New...