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

wallstreetamigo

Members
  • Posts

    16,779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by wallstreetamigo

  1. The Aquilinis not wanting to be patient for a rebuild is definitely the problem. Even to this day. The Canucks have never committed to an actual rebuild. They have drafted high and accidentally rebuilt their core through the draft due to the spectacular failure of Benning's annual retool to make the playoffs moves. If even some of his retool moves had worked out even as he expected them to, the Canucks would have been a middle of the pack team and drafted much lower. The point though is he never would have been hired in the first place if he wanted to rebuild right off the start. Gillis was fired because he finally decided that was the direction to go. You are essentially saying that Benning came into the role as a yes man and has "listened to the dumb owners". Thats true. But he never woukd have gotten the job if he didnt.
  2. You are ignoring the fact that Benning himself seemed to think that was a great core to inherit as evidenced by him saying things could be turned around quickly with that group. Gillis is responsible for exactly 0 problems "the last few years". 7 years ago sure he bore responsibility for what was left. But there is exactly one player left from that time. Benning also inherited Tanev btw who Benning - like with so many other players - decided he would lose for nothing in return. That was Benning's strategy, it has nothing to do with Gillis. Benning being too afraid to give up players while they still had value is 100% on him. Dont get me wrong, I was not a huge fan of Gillis. But people attempting to pin Benning's failures on him is ridiculous. Benning himself stuck with the aging core. Despite the revisionist history designed to sugar coat his major failures as a GM, he did not have to. And he didnt have to trade picks that he should have kept to rebuild the prospect pool for scrubs. I never said anything about Benning not developing anyone early on. I said his first round picks were huge misses, with the obvious exception of Boeser (who was easily a consensus pick at that spot not a Benning masterstroke btw). Want to know what all of the other players on your list have in common? They were drafted while Brackett was here. Benning traded his picks last year so all we have to go on in giving Benning full credit is his pre-Brackett record. And its pretty spotty actually. And of course his time in Boston and Buffalo which if you look back show an awful lot of first round misses with a few later gems too. We will soon see how Benning and Weisbrod REALLY are at drafting. Hopefully they really are the magicians behind drafting guys like Boeser, Gaudette, Rathbone, etc.....who all were drafted out of Brackett's scouting region of responsibility btw.
  3. Remember though, Gillis was actually fired because he (finally) wanted to rebuild. Benning was only hired because he didnt. Aquilini did not want a rebuild so there is no way he would hire a GM who didnt agree with his wants right off the start. Lets be fair here. 7 years is a long time to keep blaming the former GM for the current ones inability to build out a competitive roster. Gillis sucked at drafting and left the cupboards bare. But Benning has had 7 years and wasted a lot of young players and picks early on for waiver age tweener players like Vey, Clendening, etc. And traded for guys like Sutter and Gudbranson. Not to mention his brutal 1st round picks early in his tenure not developing for several years. He has had enough years now that any "25 year old developed player that would have helped" should actually have been drafted on his watch. Not sure why people complain about Gillis signing players with ntc that handcuffed the team. I mean, Benning has done the exact same thing. And at least Gillis/Gilman didnt also give out premium dollars and term on the deals too. Time for people to stop blaming Gillis for Benning's failures. Its honestly ridiculous. Almost every GM starts with leftover issues. Gillis got the Canucks to be a top of the league team including game 7 of the SCF. It stands to reason the team would bleed picks and draft lower in that environment. Whats Bennings excuse for bleeding picks and handing out ntc like candy again? "Gillis made him do it" just makes people sound stupid.
  4. I am cool with him going to any division rival. The Hawks get seriously outshot with him on the ice now lol.
  5. Philly is going hard after Seth Jones and will very likely be looking at a RHD in free agency if they strike out on him. Schmidt might be a good fallback option to them for a 3rd but i dont think that trade would happen pre expansion draft.
  6. Seattle could take another player from Chicago and trade for Keith for relatively cheap if they know its somewhere he really wants to go.
  7. Keith to Vancouver really makes no sense. Unless they are shipping out Rathbone or Juolevi. Having said that, if Hughes can learn to play like Keith, using his offensive strengths on the defensive side of the game like Keith did early on, QH will be a much better player.
  8. Vancouver media, like all other media, get some things right and some things wrong. We wont know until we see if he gets traded. Given what Benning said when denying the rumor initially, it will strongly suggest Schmidt did indeed want out if he does suddenly get traded. I wont really care much either way tbh. I think he was misused by Green and Baumgartner and would robably be much better with a guy like Juolevi while being able to play more his style of game. If they replace him with a better or even equivalent RHD I am fine with trading him. I do think Shaw could get a lot more out of Schmidt though.
  9. Benning did say he didnt know where the rumor was coming from and denied it. That doesnt mean much though. It could be true, it could be false. If true Benning knows he would be a fool to admit it publicly especially when the player has not forced his hand by doing so. Benning is not that stupid to tank a potential return with absolutely no upside in publicly confirming something like that. Or like i said, it may just not be true. It is avery persistent rumor though and a lot of the time where there is smoke there is fire. It will be interesting to see what happens.
  10. I wouldnt blame Schmidt if he wants out. Having said that, of all our D I think the opportunity to flourish under Shaw is probably among the highest with Schmidt. Edler was not the right partner to allow him to play his game. Thats why I am hoping Edler is not re-signed.
  11. The Flyers are also rumored to be going heavily after Seth Jones. That rumor just wont die. If so, hopefully Benning is kicking tires as they will meed to move a dman out. They may want Schmidt if they miss out on Jones or one of the bigger name RH ufa. But I dont think he fits what they are prioritizing.
  12. I would honestly be perfectly fine rolling with a left side of Hughes, Juolevi, Rathbone. All 3 need to be thrown in the deep end a bit even if there are growing pains at first. I think the focus should be a top notch younger RHD to partner with Hughes long term. Re-sign Hamonic to play 3rd pairing with Rathbone or Juolevi if Myers or Schmidt is on their way out either through expansion or by trade. Hughes-RHD Juolevi-Schmidt Rathbone-Hamonic/Myers If traded, hopefully Schmidt (with other assets added if necessary) can get a top RHD, top 6 LW, or elite 3C. There are some good potential guys in free agency but the cost and term might be too much. I dont want to see long term mistakes made and Shaw alone is going to improve our D even without major personnel changes.
  13. If the Canucks want 3 scoring lines like they say, they could do worse than signing Schwartz. If you really dive into the numbers, Bo isnt actually the one who needs Pearson. Its actually the other way around. Hoglander-EP-Boeser Schwartz-Miller-Podkolzin Pearson-Horvat-Highmore/Gadjovich/Lind If keeping Bo with Pearson is a priority (imo it shouldnt be, Horvat needs an upgrade) the only way that makes sense this season if playoffs are the goal and based on a realistic change that can be afforded is something like the above lineup. I would be fine with something like this though: Miller-EP-Boeser Schwartz-Horvat-Hoglander Pearson-better 3C than Sutter-Podkolzin
  14. I think everyone underestimates just how good Tampa's management team is. They always manage to come out clean as a whistle. A few years back they needed to shed cap. Benning gave them a 1st and a 3rd for Miller. It was a good trade for both teams but it was also Tampa getting max value when they absolutely had to shed cap. The guys they will move will be the older guys on higher contracts. Who will very likely be 2 time cup winning players. Look at just how much Benning himself (let alone all the other GM's around the league) value players who have won championships. They will sweeten the deal for Seattle to take Johnson or McDonough most likely. Both still good players that can help Seattle. Guys like Gourd, Palat, etc. will need to be traded. And they will be but not as cap dumps. Tampa will get fair value at wirst for them because lots of GM's overvalue guys based on having won cups.
  15. He signed a 2 year deal in the KHL I believe. Regardless, I think Benning burnt that bridge already. Tryamkin signed until he is a UFA I believe. He will probably try to come back to the NHL then but it wont be with Vancouver.
  16. Makes sense with the amount of young forwards they have in their system who are ready for a chance.
  17. If they cant trade him whats the bet he joins the long list of overpaid Hawks legacy players who suddenly develop a late career, chronic, ltir escape claise condition that allows the Hawks to skate from his cap hit scot free? Its a way of doing business in Chicago now.
  18. This kind of deal only makes sense if the Canucks are planning to go back into a rebuild part 2 and accumulate assets to surround Petey and Hughes while selling off Miller, Boeser, Horvat etc in the next few years. By the time those draft picks make the NHL, the older core guys will have aged out of their prime years. No chance Benning and Aquilini willfully accept 4-5 more years of losing. They have made a whole bunch of terrible moves trying to avoid it the last 7 even though they didnt manage to avoid it.
  19. If those 80 points come at the expense of his defensive play, its not a win. He currently cant be trusted at all defensively. I expect Shaw will change that. But I also suspect defensive improvement may come alongside the sacrifice of some offensive production. He isnt big or strong either which gives him another disadvantage on the defensive side. He has a lot of work to do defensively. Unless he significantly improves his shot, it will be pretty tough for him to become a ppg player imo. He will pile up assists but without double digit goals that will be tough.
  20. Thanks to MM for the quick processing and to my former (albeit brief lol) boss with the NJD @70seven We thank Victor and wish him the best of luck in NJ. We welcome Danton and Logan, both players who we believe have more to give and we look forward to them joining our nhl team. Carson is a prospect we have high hopes for and are thrilled to add him to our already solid stable of prospects.
  21. Do you guys know how to read? If someone offers you a clear winning return you take it all day every day and dont care about his ceiling. Same as with any other player. Hughes at 8x8 is not worth it at this point. He is simply not good at the part of his job that is so important its actually included in the name. No way he is worth #1 dman money and term at this point.
  22. So lets see if I got this. We trade a lazy player currently being investigated for sexual assault, a 6 mil player who doesnt play, a guy who cant skate for 5 minutes without going into concussion protocol, and a decent but older dman with lots of term left and they pay us Namestnikov and a 1st for the privilage of taking 18 million worth of garbage? Sign me up. Stevie Y would probably block Jim's number though.
  23. Exactly. Nice to have as a player. The rest of the moving parts are terrible for the Canucks though.
  24. Hard no for me especially without a cost effective contract extension in place.
×
×
  • Create New...