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

Maniwaki Canuck

Members
  • Posts

    3,900
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maniwaki Canuck

  1. I like Benning and hope he gets extended, but have to dispute the notion that he's getting a lot of "hate" for recent moves. The Podkolzin and Hoglander picks were universally praised as far as I can see. Even those of us who question the Miller deal are saying basically that we like the player but not the price paid for him: that's hardly getting personal with Benning or being "negative". Reasonable people can disagree about this stuff and the closer you get to market value in a deal, the more likely it is that they will. There's a lot of people on this board that can't handle that though. It's a shame because those of us in the minority opinion about the Miller deal care about the club just as much as those who try to shut us up. There are real trade-offs involved here and they cuts both ways. One thing that the Miller deal resurrects for me is Linden's departure last summer and all the speculation that he wanted to follow the "Winnipeg model" whereas Aquilini and Benning were wanting to expedite things a bit more. I'm a lot more inclined to think that speculation was correct now, but even if it wasn't, it still speaks to the strategic choice the Canucks have just made about whether to compete harder sooner or accumulate more to compete better later. I'm in the latter camp but can certainly understand the former. It will be great to be back in the post-season again soon, but we're going to need a deeper home-grown talent pool if we ever want to get past Colorado in our conference. That's what the debate should be about, and probably was last summer.
  2. Okay, public retraction of that connotation, but not for pushing back against the insufferable conformism you're trying to impose on this discussion.
  3. That's the most reasonable and measured case for the deal I've read here. While I still don't like it, that has to be the thinking and it could turn out to be right. Or not!
  4. Benning has said it without that qualifier a couple of times in the run-up to the draft, but I do agree that no GM can swear to never, ever trade a first round pick. And of course Miller isn't a rental, so it does qualify as a hockey deal. But it is a pretty abrupt shift in message and strategy about where this club sits in its rebuild. That's what setting a lot of us off, or at least me. I could see doing this sort of thing 2 or 3 years from now after building up a stronger pool, but not quite yet. It feels like a short-cut, and one that robs Benning of a prime drafting opportunity he would surely capitalize on.
  5. Like the player and his contract but not this deal for us at our current stage in the rebuild. He will almost certainly make us better next year and for the rest of his contract. But hitting on a low 20s first rounder (assuming that's the price) in 1 or 2 years' time would do more to bring us a cup. I guess the trade-off is getting us to a better place in the short and medium term so morale doesn't become a problem. We'll see how much better a place that runs out to be. Anyway, from now on the challenge for those of us who question the deal is to separate that issue from the player himself. There's a lot to like about him.
  6. What an authoritarian intolerant twat. If you can't understand why some people don't like this trade after Benning promising not to trade firsts at this stage in our rebuild, then you're just plain thick. And to pile on with the sexist nonsense at the end. Get stuffed.
  7. Nothing against Miller or his contract: both are pretty good. It's just about the price, where we are in our rebuild, and acting like a buyer at the trade deadline at a time when many teams (including Tampa) have to shed cap. You can sell it as a hockey deal but the timing is way, way off. This is the kind of deal you do at the top of your competitive cycle, not when you're just starting to recover.
  8. I know what you mean: plays a similar game but with a different mentality. Podkolzin is way more locked in. Virtanen is Podkolzin's floor.
  9. I was hoping Zegras would fall to us too, but was delighted when they made this pick. Krebs or Boldy would have been safer from a p.r. point of view, but this was a pure bpa pick that has a bigger chance of being a home run. Really respect Benning for making this call and am proud of cdc for seeing Podkolzin for the player he is and not flipping out because he's Russian.
  10. Okay, I'm not telling you what to think or who to trust, but there were some on this board (not me for the record, but aGENT for one) who didn't take the bait about him going to free agency and said it was all part of the negotiation process. They turned out to be right. If you're just a stenographer for what someone wants you to think in the moment and can't see what the dynamics are, you're going to get played sometimes. That's what I think happened here. None of this is to say that he doesn't have decent insider access, maybe better than anyone else in the local media. In fact, what happened here could only happen to someone with good sources.
  11. True, but wasn't he also the source of earlier reports that there wasn't going to be a deal? No doubt the guy has some access but if he's just putting out what some party to the negotiation wants the public to hear at any given moment and can change 180 degrees from one day to the next, then that does affect his credibility, no? Maybe not to "a stopped clock is right twice a day" levels, but definitely in that direction.
  12. Yeah, Dhaliwal is a drama queen and getting to Pratt-like levels of dumbness. Just listening to the guy costs you some brain cells.
  13. Wow, perfect deal for the club and a fair one for Edler too. JB is learning how to negotiate! This also lessens the likelihood of doing something stupid in free agency. Big win all around.
  14. Hey, think whatever you want. But it was crap judgement on Brassard's part and hurt his team.
×
×
  • Create New...