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. I'm a wait and see person, unlike some people who are ready to sell Boeser for an unproven player. I wish Kuzmenko the best. I'd love it for Pod and Kuz to flourish together.
  2. Holy. Kuzmenko is not established, so he can't really "replace" Boeser, Garland, or Pearson. This is how you ruin prospects. For intents and purposes, Kuzmenko is a prospect.
  3. Let's complain about Benning and how he didn't do a rebuild, so let's blow it up and rebuild. There's really no need to "blow it up". There are good pieces in place. It just needs some tweaking. No need to throw away draft picks - just retool. Honestly, the Canucks would've made the playoffs if Green didn't stay as long as he did. You take the same Benning team from this year with Green and put it with Boudreau. That's what happened. So this is less about Benning's team being bad as it is about Green being a bad coach.
  4. It's a bit ironic because they (media pundits) said the same thing with Gillis. A prospect pool being dry versus a lot of the players making that roster are two very different situations. Gillis left the team in complete shambles - an aging core, with no draft picks worth mentioning. Benning has left a core that is relatively young, with some prospects potentially making the big club. A little bit disingenous of a talking point you have there because there are still lots of people still making excuses for Gillis lmfao. "But but but they are a playoff team!!!"
  5. This fanbase has some of the most entitled fans of hockey, and it's not even justifiable why we have these people. We've had some good stretches of hockey, but some people only want to remember the good and forget the bad, resulting in those people with some questionable interpretations of their memories.
  6. The prospect pool isn't bone dry though, lol. Benning's biggest mistake was keeping Green employed for as long as he did.
  7. You're seriously missing so big explanations here. First off, every GM has misses in the first round. You are partially right that other players drafted make up for those losses at time, and nothing can be more true than with Tampa Bay. They drafted Brayden Point, for example. Tampa Bay's drafting (and luck) is far and away better than almost all teams. The fact that they were so successful at the draft means they could save more money by putting in legitimate homegrown products. The farm system is naturally better because of these players. Given how Gillis absolutely EFF'd up every draft pick that he had, it's a little bit hilarious that you'll make excuses for his drafting in order to criticize Benning. Gillis' drafting is horrendous bad, and that absolutely has to be acknowledged when taking into account Benning's failures. The foundation was so bare - it's baffling how people forgot this.
  8. It's possible that no one actually wants to coach the Oilers. McDavid (and Dratsaitl) are amazing, but it'll always fall on the coach if the team falters. It's not so much the coaching that is problematic, but maybe the roster build.
  9. There's no real source for Benning wanting Glass. Much of this was speculation, in the same way that Benning used Glass to double-fake his way through to EP. Truthfully, EP wasn't even ranked as high as 5th in most drafts, and neither was Glass. Speculation is not fact. Moreover, saying draft position and draft quality is excusing Gillis' poor drafting performances. Gillis had plenty of second round picks, but he either threw them away, or just busted. Hoglander and Demko are two second round picks of players that Gillis could not reproduce on even his best drafting days. Let alone Rathbone. So I'm not sure where you're getting this story about Gillis 'outperforming' Benning. Lmfao... Gillis could've drafted a goaltender, or a defenseman... Instead, he got a forward (Horvat) by trading away his only asset - a proven goaltender, and he got Hodgson right at the beginning of his tenure. Interestingly, those two were his two best picks. Not very convincing, bud.
  10. But that's the thing though... if drafting doesn't matter, why did you finish your sentence with the rest? Can't believe people are willing to overlook Gillis' obvious draft blunders over a few seasons of winning. Can't believe that people forget that his inability to develop players is a direct reason why the Canucks had next to no prospects by the end of it. Gillis had some winning seasons, yes, but if we just ignore the faults, what we see is a bunch of people who are only seeing one side of the story.
  11. Let's be real. Even if Gillis had all the draft picks, he'd only hit 1 or 2 every few years, AT best. There are only four NHL players that come to mind when considering Gillis' draft picks - Horvat, Hutton, Hodgson, and Connaughton. The rest were AHL, or never made it. Just awful. His two best years were his first, and his last - and both of them had high first round picks. Gillis couldn't draft for CRAP.
  12. And who built the core? Wasn't JR. Who left the core to rot? Gillis. Just because Gillis rode some of the most winning teams in Canuck history doesn't mean he did an indisputable good job. He sold a lot of assets, or just didn't capitalize on others. The draft picks are a major stain on Gillis' record. Only 4 players throughout his entire stretch that could ostensibly be credited to him - Horvat, Hutton, Connaugton, and Hodgson. That's a really, really bad record.
  13. This is a very poor takeaway from the regime. First off, the team is in a better position than when Gillis left. That's your biggest weakness from your post. Because there is somewhat of a core in place, there is no need to "speed up the rebuild". Worst GM we've had? Lmfao... In my opinion, Gillis is highly overrated. Given the poor draft performances/development, he is right up there for worst GM ever. Yes, this takes into account the playoff successes he's had, which, by the way, were largely built by previous GMs. Did Gillis do something for the team? He did. He had great ideas at times. But it's hard to ignore the massive holes he left behind with the awful drafting (Gaunce being one of them), plus the trading away of a 1st in the Grabner deal, only to buyout the player they traded for. Yikes. Benning didn't do as well as we hoped, but calling him the worst GM is really undeserving. Demko, Hoglander, Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, and so forth, were all Benning picks. Horvat was the only draft pick that really worked out for Gillis. Yeah, nothing more needs to be said.
  14. So I think it's clear that Green's not nearly as good as some people on the board make him out to be. LV had a great look at Green's coaching in the bubble, and what we saw wasn't coaching, but rather supreme goaltending. For a coach with several seasons in the NHL, he has not posted winning seasons, including in the AHL. Regardless of the excuses that people rush to make, we have to look at the facts. Given the fact that there were so many different variations of rosters, including the one that Boudreau took on, Green has had mediocre to poor seasons. This year being the worst, obviously. Green's not an NHL coach and the hiring of Cassidy, plus the remaining number of great coaches available show that Green's not likely to be a head coach anytime soon. What an awful, awful coach extension by Benning. It really makes you wonder if Benning's teams would do better with a more proven coach. A playoff team has excellent coaches. If the Canucks were serious about a run, they should've hired better coaches from the beginning.
  15. Hope this puts a dent in the NUMBERS crowd. Seattle was full-on analytics and they look like clowns.
  16. You seem to ignore the fact that the foundation was set by other people, not Gillis. When you look at the fact that Gillis couldn't draft any replacements for his inherited pieces, you'll see that the prospect pool was actually being drained and/or not being accumulated. In short, the 2011 team was largely a product of Gillis' predecessors, mixed in with some lucky, effective Gillis signings. When you see the draft picks after 2011, you'll see very poor draft picks regardless of the picks that Gillis did possess. For all the excuses made for the Gillis draft picks, Tampa Bay interestingly could continue their success, and it was their draft picks that saved them the money, which might otherwise be used for UFA.
  17. The team was barren with Gillis' picks/overall handling of the roster (particularly for the latter half of his tenure). The prospect picks were significantly better under Benning than Gillis. It's not hard to figure out that the Canucks got shafted big time, in a way that Tampa never did. And to be perfectly honest, Tampa Bay really did luck out. They've had very few draft busts, even for low picks, relative to the average draft pick. "Good judgement" is a lazy way of explaining why they did have some draft busts. If the Canucks had the drafting luck that Tampa did, this team would be in a very very different situation, but few can compare to Tampa Bay's successes. Your comparison to Tampa, therefore, is pretty unreasonable.
  18. Don't be so easily impressed. What is he supposed to say? He's not interested? Every single GM who's trying to do their job will say something above. Until we see results, everything is all talk. It's funny people haven't picked up on this.
  19. Basically in other words, Tampa was incredibly lucky at the drafts on multiple occasions. Do you even remember when Tampa was a decent/mediocre team? Things take time for a team to shape up. Tampa's number one reason for them being good was drafting. While Tampa was competitive, they were ALSO able to make use of their draft picks and strike gold. As another poster said, their success has largely been anomalies rather than the norm. Gillis may have helped ice a competitive team, but he also made poor draft choices/had poor development. Added to that, he did trade picks away as well, leading to a total erosion of the prospect pool that had been developed so far. It's time that people realize that simply pushing to win is not good enough. When you have a massive hole of drafting for a good half a decade, you are not likely going to be successful in the long term.
  20. I don't know how the police handled this (I don't have any information), but I agree, it's incredible how Iain can seemingly get away right in front of ppl's eyes. They arrested him, but released him with no charges... like WTF... Why not just wait until you could get charges then? Pressure? And besides, the body was found, which is often the important thing in solving potential murder cases. If they can determine how she died, then Iain's story won't hold up. He has no alibis whatsoever.
  21. You are part of the problem with this toxic fanbase. Comments like the above are absolutely trash. You should be ashamed of yourself for not evolving beyond your subhuman sensibilities. The Sedins were not the problem, and neither was Naslund. Both these players had played a long time in the NHL at high levels. You are not "soft" at those levels. Get out of here with your garbage.
  22. The reality is that there are a ton of good coaches available (or soon to be available) before that certain coach gets re-hired, at least at the NHL level. Even the assistant coaches of good teams could get promoted.
×
×
  • Create New...