-
Posts
13,496 -
Joined
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by AV.
-
Sure. All but arguably Nonis were better than Benning, despite getting equal or less time in the job. Quinn may had the most time out of all GMs in the last 30 years but I wasn't around for those days to analyze how he did.
-
I'm not arguing they had the same opportunity. I'm arguing that their situations were not so far apart. Gillis did not walk into a Stanley Cup contender waiting to break out and Benning didn't walk into a dumpster fire.
-
I have to be honest, and I'll try to respectful, but I have no idea what the &^@# you're talking about. In the 2007/08 season, Kesler and Burrows hit 30 pts. The Canucks were not a playoff team In the 2008/09 season (the first season of Mike Gillis), Kesler and Burrows hit higher pt totals. The Canucks made the second round. Gillis didn't make the players better nor did he inherit a group of players that were on the cusp of breaking out. Coaching decisions and team decisions (such as bringing in Ryan Johnson, signing Pavol Demitra and Mats Sundin) made the team better and got more out of the existing Canuck players. To demonstrate how foolish what you're saying is would be like saying Benning inherited a playoff team because in 2014/15 (his first season), the Canucks made the playoffs. You see how that doesn't make sense? The Canucks were a bottom six team the year before in 2013/14 and it was when they added Miller, Vrbata, Bonino that they made the playoffs again the next season. I'm not saying Benning didn't inherit an older or an exhausted team. I'm saying that (1) Gillis didn't inherit a Stanley Cup contender when he was hired nor did (2) Benning inherit a total mess when he was hired.
-
Lol no, that's not how it works. If Benning and Green are fired today and replaced with new guys, do the new guys inherit the Pettersson coming off a 70 pt season or the Pettersson with 0 pts to date because the new season hasn't started. Mike Gillis was hired in April of 2008. He inherited guys with 2008 stats, not 2009 stats.
-
Benning supporters are as foolish as he is
-
Until AV switched up his lines DURING the 2008/09 season, Burrows - Kesler - Hansen was the third line on the team. They were not anywhere near those numbers as third liners.
-
I said Kesler was a bottom-six center. He scored 21 goals (fact-checked that a post ago) and was behind the Sedins and Naslund in points (from memory). So, not 3rd in scoring and even if he was, 37 pts being 3rd best in a team just proves how bad the team really was and how much Gillis and AV did to turn it around quickly. Burrows was a bit more productive than I remembered but again, he was a 3rd liner until AV put him with the twins. Nobody bashed Ballard being brought in. People may have been sour that we moved a 1st or "gave up"on Grabner but anybody that watched hockey knew that he was a legit top-4 defenceman. Edler made 1M less because he was still in his sophomore contract.
-
In 2008, Kesler had 37 pts - middle six numbers In 2008, Burrows had 31 pts - middle six numbers At best, they were third-line players.
-
What's hilarious about this is how much the narrative changes to protect Benning. When probed about why his rebuild was suspect and unorthodox, the reason is that he was told to win from ownership or had to make do with the team he had When asked why he didn't win then during the last five seasons, the reason is that he was rebuilding and had bad contracts that handicapped him.
-
Gillis inherited the Sedins and Luongo as legitimate players and that's it. Kesler was a bottom six center, Burrows was a 4th liner, Bieksa a #4, Edler a sophomore with potential, Raymond a rookie, Schneider and Grabner as prospects. This "amazing" team had missed the playoffs 2/3 seasons upon being taken over. He may hot have been stuck with NTCs/NMCs when taking over, but please don't argue that Gillis was handed a Stanley Cup contender just to protect Jim Benning.
-
Lol that's a lot of revisionism. Sedins, sure. Keep in mind, players like Samuelsson and Ehrhoff (Gillis acquisitions) turned them into 100 pt players. Kesler, no. Him turning into a 70 pt player had nothing to do with his potential and everything to do with the coach's deployment and the addition of Mats Sundin (Gillis acquisition). Burrows, hell no. Again, coach deployment Edler, yes Ohlund, no. Cut him loose after a year Salo, sure. You argument would have been better served if you used players like Schneider, Hansen, Bieksa or argued that he inherited a top coach in Alain Vigneault (I might be biased here) -- The Bernier trade was a mistake. It was also a mistake that Gillis never repeated again because he never traded picks for young talent in that vein ever again. Benning tried this numerous times and debatably only hit with Baertschi. If Benning is such a great developer of talent, imagine where we'd be with all the 2nds/3rds/4ths we kept. The Ballard trade is only a mistake in hindsight. O'Brien/Rome weren't good enough. Mitchell was coming off a concussion. There were rumours that Hamhuis was going to sign but if he didn't sign, where would that have left us on the LD side? At the time, Ballard was stuck behind bad teams in Phoenix/Florida, but hit a ton, blocked a ton of shots, consistently put up 30 pts, was durable, and was signed to a very fair 6 x 4.25M contract. The return was a top 9 RW, a skilled RW prospect who wasn't going to play ahead of Burrows/Samuelsson on the RW side, and the 25th ovr. We also got Victor Oreskovich who didn't really bring much to the table offensively but did do a more effective job than Bernier at being a physical player in the bottom six. It's a shame it didn't work out but it certainly wasn't a bad trade. If you're going to play that game, Benning moved Shinkaruk (1st) for Granlund (2nd), Kassian (1st) + 5th for Prust (4th), Mallet (2nd) + 3rd for Pedan (3rd). So much great pick management Neverthless, Gillis never made that type of trade again.
-
I don't know who you are but you've spent the last 48 hours confuse reacting all my posts and shadowing everything I do. Seems like bullying behaviour to me, maybe @Robert Long could confirm... Anyways, its common knowledge that Mike Gillis was fired (in addition to his mismanagement of the Schneider/Luongo situation) because he wanted to rebuild and ownership wouldn't allow it. Why do you think Benning/Linden never used the word "rebuild" in the beginning and insisting on "retooling"? Only in hindsight was the asset cupboard empty. Horvat, Kassian, Schroeder, Shinkaruk, Jensen were five 1st round picks. Other prospects like Subban, Cassels, and Rodin were also seen as good pieces at the time. The NTCs/NMCs given out allowed us to retain many contributing pieces from our team for less money. Consider Hansen and Higgins were 40 pt players and made only 2.5M because of movement protections, Edler a legitimate #2 and only making 5M, Sedins for 7M. And yes, cap goes up, prices go up but in 2020, we have 10 pt Beagle making 3M with trade protection, ICU patient Ferland making 3.5M with trade protection, and character guy Sutter making 4.25M with trade protection. To add to that, virtually the same team (subtract Kesler/Garrrison and add Bonino/Miller/Vrbata) comfortably made the playoffs the next season, and they did it by finishing ahead of the season prior President's trophy winning San Joe Sharks and season prior defending cup champs Los Angeles Kings. So was there really a huge mess left behind? If the problem is attracting free-agents, then sign free-agents who you want to play for a fair term and dollar amount. Fans can forgive overpaying for 1 or 2 free-agents. Doing it 5-6 times is egregious. We may have found a way out of the Gagner/Del Zotto signings and perhaps managed to find solutionl with the Baerstchi/Gudbranson extensions, but we're suffering now because of the Beagle/Ferland/Roussel/Myers deals. Nobody expects a perfect GM but it isn't outlandish to expect your GM to do better than what he has done.
-
Lol it's Zfetch. Vote Zfetch
-
Mike Gillis was also a rookie and yet, we saw one of our most successful periods under him. Being a "rookie" means nothing if you learn from your mistakes early on and importantly, make use of your staff. Under this administration, we've seen a long-time AGM leave after one season, the team president "amicably" leave (he was fired), and the director of scouting leave (largely responsible for our best period of drafting ever). What does that tell you about the front office? I've stated many times that most of Benning's mistakes are not one-offs or unlucky; they are patterns and a result of being too stubborn and too late to change. There are no perfect or ideal candidates. Jim Benning once upon a time looked like a great candidate with his impressive scouting background and his work as an AGM on a team that won a Stanley Cup. Paul Fenton was regarded as the next best thing for years and when finally given the chance, he was sacked in just over a year while being Minnesota's GM. We can debate new candidates all we want but the assessment comes from doing the job. My point is in all of this is that we've now seen 6 years of Benning be the GM and that gives us 6 years of sample size to assess him. Throughout his tenure we've seen much of these setbacks and excuses given. First, it was "team stuck with all these NTCs/NMCs" so we couldn't get good trade returns, then it was "can't rebuild with Sedins" as an excuse for not accumulating more picks and prospects, and now years later, when the Sedins are gone and all of the "bad" Gillis contracts are gone, we are left with...more bad contracts with NTCs/NMCs and heavy money that's now forced us to walk away from many of quality free-agents. And sure, people will say "but he brought in Hughes/ Pettersson" and prospect development is better and all of that is true. But here's the thing: you don't get props for numerously picking talent in the top 10. Picks are lottery-protected for a reason when they're traded and its because there's a higher guarantee for a great future NHL player in that range. But even if you do want to say that he hit homeruns with that Pettersson (thanks to Linden and Brackett) pick and Hughes pick, you can't gloss over the fact that his administration passed up on Nylanders/Ehlers for Virtanen, Sergachev/Tkachuk for Juolevi. Brian Burke was given 6 years (4 playoff appearances), Dave Nonis was given 4 years (1 playoff appearance), and Mike Gillis was given 6 years (5 playoff appearances, 1 SC appearance). In 6 years, Benning has two playoff appearances, with this second playoff appearance being a huge *** since the Canucks weren't in a playoff spot at the time of the league shutting down in March. He has an inferior resume to Burke and Gillis, and may only be marginally better than Nonis. This isn't about hating Benning. It's about realizing that he's just not that great and it would be worth exploring another name (Chris Gear for example).
-
Minnesota recalls Gabriel Dollery, Braydyn Baker Minnesota sends down Zachary Galambos
-
Scum team is BoKnows and naslund.is.king. vote naslund.is.king
-
Full sentences and paragraphs only.
-
Minnesota waives Vladislav Namestnikov.
-
Nice to have you back. Now, re-post this list with a bit more than jotted notes.
-
OmG aLaDeEn aCciDeNtaLLy WrOtE tHiS iN tHrEaD aNd NoT mAfiA pM!!!11!!
-
falcon45ca on the ball Good look.
-
Cute response
-
BoKnows is scheming hard.
-
[Proposal] Eriksson+ for Colin Miller
AV. replied to Jayinblack's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Eriksson > Miller Hope this helps.