5nothincanucksohno

Re: resulting comparisons to Myers. Hindsight is 20/20. I highly doubt Gardiner would have signed a 6x5 deal on July 1. He clearly overplayed his hand and good on the Hurricanes for snapping him up. Not relevant with respect to the Canucks' summer timeline IMO.

Yes (nod head slowly) - short leash required but data doesn't lie

I wouldn't mind Goldy getting some additional playing time on the first line (if he has put in the work this summer): Goldy EP40 Boeser Pearson Bo Miller Ferland Sutter Virtanen Leivo Beagle Eriksson Baer/Motte Roussel IR

Agreed, that is exactly what Benning did and I agree with the moves. Question was more geared to people who seem resigned to ignoring the current team because they are so focused on not liking the process. Maybe this is the wrong forum to present this post as the feelings regarding Benning's extension are split elsewhere (e.g. sportsnet poll was 50/50 basically). I like what Benning has done and think the extension was warranted.

Posted something similar in another thread but am interested to see how far the divide actually is regarding Benning i.e. I want to attempt to better separate opinions on how the team got to where it is (i.e. Benning's process) and where the team is actually at today (minus the baggage of the last four years). Statement 1: Most would say that after the first round loss to Calgary in 2015, a rebuild was in the cards. The team was older and there were little to no viable prospects in the system. That was Benning's first year and that is the situation he inherited. Q1: Is the above statement fair? Statement 2: Given the inherited situation, if the team had decided to full out tank I believe it would have taken at least four years to get to this point (i.e. four years of no playoffs). Q2: Is the above statement fair? And the Leafs can't be used as a counter argument b/c they had almost 9+ years of missing the playoffs before they chose to start their tank-rebuild, as opposed to having consistent success like the Canucks - i.e. TO had higher picks, mid-twenty-year-old players already on the NHL roster, more legit prospects to speed up the tank-rebuild, etc. Statement 3: In 2015, if you had told me that in four years the team would have the core it does and be in the situation it is, I would have taken it. The process hasn't always been ideal but the team has a legit young core, some solid veteran pieces, some up-and-coming prospects in the system, and solid goaltending. Q3: Is the above statement fair? Statement 4: If you look at most of the cup winners over last decade, they have had two key forwards, a stud offensive d-man, and competent goaltending. Chicago with Toews/Kane/Keith, Pit with Crosby/Malkin/Letang, LA with Kopitar/Carter/Doughty, etc. To me, EP40, Bo/Boeser, and Hughes have the drive and skill to potentially fall into that category. They still need to prove it but I feel the core has the potential. Q4: Is the above statement fair? My conclusion: why not extend the core's window to win by adding solid support pieces? The process wasn't always pretty but Benning did get the team to this result. The challenge now is turning this group of players into a team that can get into the playoffs and be flexible enough to win playoff rounds in multiple ways. The next three years are crucial and I think Benning has earned the right to see it through. Hopefully Benning continues to learn/improve and more and more fans begin pushing in the same direction (i.e. remain critical where needed but more positive about the direction and less focused on the past).

Let's try and find some common ground, eh? Statement 1: Most would say that after the first round loss to Calgary in 2015, a rebuild was in the cards. The team was older and there were little to no viable prospects in the system. That was Benning's first year and that is the situation he inherited. Q1: Is the above statement fair? Statement 2: Given the inherited situation, if the team had decided to full out tank I believe it would have taken at least four years to get to this point. Q2: Is the above statement fair? And the Leafs can't be used as a counter argument b/c they had almost 9+ years of missing the playoffs before they chose to start their tank-rebuild, as opposed to having consistent success like the Canucks - i.e. TO had higher picks, mid-twenty-year-old players already on the NHL roster, more prospects to speed up the tank-rebuild, etc. Statement 3: In 2015, if you had told me that in four years the team would have the core it does and be in the situation it is, I would have taken it. The process hasn't always been ideal but the team has a legit young core, some solid veteran pieces, some up-and-coming prospects in the system, and solid goaltending. Q3: Is the above statement fair? Statement 4: If you look at most of the cup winners over last decade, they have had two key forwards, a stud offensive d-man, and competent goaltending. Chicago with Toews/Kane/Keith, Pit with Crosby/Malkin/Letang, LA with Kopitar/Carter/Doughty, etc. To me, EP40, Bo/Boeser, and Hughes have the drive and skill to potentially fall into that category. Still need to prove it but I feel the core has the potential. Q4: Is the above statement fair? My conclusion: why not extend the core's window to win by adding solid support pieces? Wasn't always pretty but Benning did get the team to this result. The challenge now is turning this group of players into a team that can get into the playoffs and be flexible enough to win playoff rounds in multiple ways. The next three years are crucial and I think Benning has earned the right to see it through.

At forward, I could see Jasek filling a Hansen role and still think Lind is legit (although he has to put in the work). At D, I like Rafferty and still have a lot of faith in Brisebois being a later bloomer (as he has been at most levels).

Having more picks certainly increases a team's odds at selecting good players but at the end of the day true success is really determined by the key players chosen (i.e. the core). Most of the teams that have had Cup success over the last decade or so have had two key forwards, one offensive stud on D, and competent goaltending. Chicago with Toews/Kane/Keith, Pit with Crosby/Malkin/Letang, LA with Kopitar/Carter/Doughty, etc. The real debate in my opinion is do people think that EP40, Bo/Boeser, and Hughes are at this level. For me, I think the core group has the skill and drive to be successful so why not extend their window to win as long as possible? I have no problem with adding legit support pieces around the core group and seeing what they can do...trades, moves, draft selections, etc. still need to be rationale and focused on the long-term but risk is required to win.

Wow, gonna be fun watching twitter burn!!! This is the right move and regardless of the pessimists, Benning deserves a couple more years to see things through (consistency is important at this point and Benning has shown an ability to learn and/or move on from his mistakes). I hope they bring in someone who can deal with negotiations, etc. to help navigate the next five years financially. They are ok with respect to the Cap but need to be careful.

Sounds like they are trying to get Goldy on a two way contract so that they can send him down to the AHL during preseason (I believe he can start at the AHL level without having to clear waivers if sent down prior to the season starting). This would also improve his trade value - as he is already in the AHL. https://thecanuckway.com/2019/07/25/vancouver-canucks-contract-nikolay-goldobin/

Two keys for me on this trade: 1) The team is better off not wasting any prime years of EP40 - the fact that Petey is on his ELC for two more years makes adding a player like Miller worth it (in addition to other adds). Why not extend EP40's window to win? 2) An often forgotten element of the trade is that Miller can play center so, all of a sudden the team is much more prepared for when the inevitable injuries strike: Petey Bo Miller Sutter Gaudette Beagle

I agree about the schedule. It might end up being the most important key to success next season. The schedule is much more balanced - especially when compared to last season's crazy November and February schedules. Last season the team had 35 wins, 36 loses, and 11 loser points. In November and February the team played 18 of their 41 away games (or 43.9% of the season's away games in two months!). In that same time period they played an additional 10 home games for a total of 28 games. Their record during those two months was 7 wins, 15 loses, and 6 loser points. If those two months are removed, the team's overall record was 28 wins, 21 loses, and 5 loser points. Projected over an 82 game season their record would be approximately 42-32-8 or good for 92 points and the 8th seed. Now we need to consider the benefits of months with higher home games so the above calculation is in no way a given but it does show the negative impact of the crazy schedule. Additionally the heavy away schedule in those months contributed to injuries during that time (key ones being Edler and Tanev) so hopefully the more balanced schedule limits injuries as well (knock on wood). It is not crazy to think that the team could earn an extra 5 wins from the much improved schedule and say another 5 wins from the improved line-up - putting them at 45 wins next year or at approximately 95 to 98 points (which would have been good for 6th place last year).

Agreed, Stecher is a great player to have but Edler proved his worth last year - win/lose record when he was healthy/injured was clear as day last year. I hope the added depth allows him to play less heavy minutes and remain healthy....a healthy Edler and the vastly improved schedule (compared to the last two years) could end up being two of the biggest positives this season.

I know there is a group that will hate the Meyers deal no matter what but hard to argue against $ and term for all these deals

Exactly why I feel the "analytics or die" crowd are underestimating how good Benning's teams will be over the next 3 years. He drafts "last guy in the gym" types - they are all extremely self driven. Another reason I like the Miller trade - I think he is going to a great addition to the EP40 line.

With only two years of data, could be argued that a better long-term deal can be signed after year two given player has much less leverage (less time to prove skills, no arb rights and is not offer sheet eligible). Benefits/negatives to both options but although team misses out on one ELC year, can save on long-term second contract.

Boeser does not have arbitration rights and he cannot be signed to an offer sheet. Hughes will be in the same boat in two years...benefit of burning first year of ELC by playing a couple games at the end of the season. https://canucksarmy.com/2019/06/05/the-back-and-forth-of-the-boeser-negotiations/

I think because there are so many others on twitter ready to applaud them for trashing Benning...JB has truly trolled the keyboard warriors in this market without even meaning to haha. I think JB has done a lot of good things and although I worry about signing Meyers to a long contract, it is almost worth it just to see JB's fan club go berserk.

Boeser does not have arbitration rights and he cannot be signed to an offer sheet. Hughes will be in the same boat in two years...benefit of burning first year of ELC by playing a couple games at the end of the season. https://canucksarmy.com/2019/06/05/the-back-and-forth-of-the-boeser-negotiations/

Agreed, I missed the subtlety of your last line. Some of the outrage it pretty humorous...a certain section of the fan base has decided they hate JB no matter what happens. As a result, every draft pick traded is amplified, etc. In my view: 1 - Re-building teams lose games 2 - Takes 3 - 5 years to develop most draft picks (Benning has had five years and six drafts) - top end picks usually take less time 3 - Teams need veterans to support prospect growth and maintain stability 4 - I believe in the Canucks' young core so why not bet on them and expand their window to win 5 - Teams need solid, cap-friendly role players to support the core - sacrificing some draft picks is worth adding said players

I guess I don't necessarily agree with those versions of Sakic/Benning. It wasn't too long ago that the Avs seemed like a tire fire under Sakic and Roy. I would say about two years ago, Sakic started getting his feet under him (he has been in the job one year longer than Benning). I think it has more to do with the core a GM assembles...starting next year, Benning will look better and better as the core he drafted takes over the team...much like what happened when MacKinnon stepped up his game two years ago. https://milehighsticking.com/2017/10/01/colorado-avalanche-joe-sakic-developing-good-gm/ Edit: That comment might be sarcastic so my mistake if that is the case.

Who knows if this will pan out though...young centers could struggle and it could impact Colorado next year. Still need vets.

Plus, people always forget that a lot of other teams have missed the playoffs for a much longer span of time. With the Canucks not drafting well (previous to Benning) the team was due for some down years while it restocked. For example, Avs were in the playoffs every year until 2007 and since then have made the playoffs 4 times in 13 seasons...they better have some good prospects in the cupboard. The Canucks in the same span made the playoffs 7 times with the last 4 years being misses (i.e. they are re-building)...the team is adding players and Benning has established a great young core so I find it funny to see how agro people are when it comes to JB. He has made mistakes but he has also done a tonne of great things.

What happens in 2020 if there is a lockout and there is no season to determine the 2021 draft rankings? Would hate for the Canucks to win a league wide draft lottery only to have the pick go to Tampa. Hopefully there is no lock out and it is not an issue but man would that prove the existence of a Canuck curse.

The challenge is that championship windows are getting smaller given the size of the RFA contracts. It really comes down to whether the young core on a team is a SC winning group. If they aren't and a team commits dollars to them then the team is in a tough place. Everyone was all about the Leafs but they will have trouble adding talent moving forward and Colorado will be in a similar situation soon enough. Canucks will have to deal with this issue as well. I think the drive of Petey, Hughes and Boeser will be good enough to challenge for a SC so I am all for putting cap friendly role players around them as soon as possible.