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

iinatcc

Members
  • Posts

    6,261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by iinatcc

  1. I think it will depend on this road trip. At this point this road trip will be sink or swim for the team.
  2. Well technically still better than last season
  3. With that logic shouldn't we then be blaming Nonis instead? From what I've heard Gillis did admit that he should have revamped the scouting department he inherited from Nonis. Point is every GM, despite what the inherited, is going to be responsible to what happens to the team moving forward especially for a GM that had 8 off seasons to do something. No one forgot any of the bad moves Gillis has made. However, as you said, the Canucks were winning and the record speaks for itself. 5 out 6 seasons in the Playoffs. 2 2nd round exits, one finals appearance. No matter how you slice it it's a better record Benning has. All this talk about trading, drafting, and signing is only meaning when it's attached to the actual records.
  4. I am risking of putting too much hindsight here but I say Miller and Garland trades is a product of the bad moves and wrong decisions Benning made in his time as the Canucks GM. You could argue for Miller he may have not been needed if let's say Benning drafted Tkachuck over Juolevi or maybe Benning still gets Miller but maybe the loss of the picks would have easier to digest if Benning kept in more asset or drafted better. As for Garland he was drafted 2015 if I'm not mistaken. So he's someone Benning could have targeted. So far Benning has found little success beyond the early 2nd round picks Like I said it's a lot of hypothetical but there's always a cause and effect that lead to Benning's firing and overall failure as a GM
  5. I remember the folks at Sportsnet recently saying that Garland and OEL trade was good but to what end? Individually they are fine and makes the team good now but there's the question of losing the 1st round pick and losing cap flexibility.
  6. Year 1, 2 and even 3 of Benning's tenure I can understand this argument. But at year 8 when Benning is still giving up 1st and 2nd round picks just to be decent playoff bubble team shows what little Benning did then.
  7. When someone explains Cap Flexibility to Benning this is his reaction ...
  8. A 0.5 ppg player. I'd rather have him over Dickinson
  9. Can't wait for the revival of the Oil Change series. Oil Change Season 4: The Exodus of McDavid
  10. Oilers drop in the standings is amazing. It almost seems like the universe is trying to balance things out with Vancouver and Edmonton. Does anyone think Oilers will do a coaching change and hire Green?
  11. Well yes but other GM's have this issue as well. It was Benning's job to convince these players to try and waive their NTC/NMC on their expiring contract. If I am not mistaken Benning didn't ask Hamhius about waiving his NTC until quite late. And this actually shows Benning's biggest problem his inability to manage assets and negotiate, which eventually lead to his downfall.
  12. If I am not mistaken Hansen still had a year left in his contract after that season. I could be wrong. Kesler's trade happened the off season so I didn't count that.
  13. Because this isn't the only time Benning could not get a returning asset for a player whose contracts are expiring. The Vrbata reason is valid I guess and I think Kiprusoff had a similar reason. That said when looking at a pure ratio Benning's inability to get assets in return of expiring contracts, when the team is already out of the playoffs ,is way too high. Ryan Miller, Vrbata, Hamhuis, Burrows, Vanek, Grandlund and Edler (I won't include the Sedins here). The only return Benning got was from Burrows and Vanek. I don't know the ratio of other teams but I can imagine it's much better than Benning's (that is basically 2 out of 7).
×
×
  • Create New...