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

Baggins

Members
  • Posts

    11,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Baggins

  1. Unfortunately Green wants Jake to be smarter. I'm not that's in the cards with Jake. There's a difference between chasing hits, which can put you out of position. and finishing checks where you're actually forcing turnovers and mistakes. It's the ability to recognize the difference. Green hasn't had a problem playing the young guys that that earn it through hard work and responding to coaching. Jake is a five year vet now and he's still not responding to coaching. Even in the offseason with the fitness targets. Why would any coach reward him? You can see the difference with Jake from game to game. And here's an oddity, when he's engaged and playing hard, Green tends to give him more ice time. It's all about earning it. You seem to be of the opinion young players should be gifted there spot and ice time. The majority of coaches want to win games though. Their job rather depends on it. Even on a bad team the coach wants young players "playing the right way" so down the road when the team is better that young player is a solid contributor rather than trying to change bad habits years later. The longer you wait the harder it will be to break bad habits. The coaches job is to get the most out of the players the GM gives him. Jake could be a solid top six player if he just put the effort in and responded to the coaching. That's what frustrates me most. All the tools are there and Jake just seems too lazy to use them to full effect. I can see him as being expendable as a result. As the team improves you don't want players you don't know what you'll get from game to game.
  2. The difference was what Benning set the team up for to start the season. Each year the team was "competing" for a playoff spot up until Xmas or well into January. Relatively healthy they could compete. But with little to nothing worth a damn on the farm team Gillis left behind meant a large number of injuries would sink the ship. Which is exactly what happened. I respect he at least set the team up to have a chance rather than setting it up to lose the day the season started. Teams "compete" for a playoff spot.
  3. So just don't trade the player? We didn't get OEL for pennies because Arizona wasn't going to give him away. OEL didn't demand a trade as Kesler did. He didn't want to leave. Btw, we didn't get what we could have for Kesler had there been more trade options but we got far from pennies for him. We were in the playoff hunt each year until midseason when the injuries seemed to pile up. It was pretty easy to predict a number of injuries would sink the ship with little to no quality in the way of callups from the farm team Gillis left. At least Benning set the team up to compete to start the season rather than setting it up to lose from day one. I wouldn't have bothered going to games had he done the latter.
  4. Why should he be "gifted" top six? Does he play with the consistency, intensity, or even effort of them? My problem with Jake is the tools are there. He just seems too lazy to use them with any consistency. When it comes to "offensive ice time" Jake was pretty close to Motte in the playoffs, with the advantage of PP time, and did considerably less. So yes, I make that comparison. Aren't the playoffs when players are supposed to "step up". Did Jake? Of our YOUNG players Jake is the only problem child I see. Missed targets in offseason fitness and inconsistent effort, He a lazy player. Not to mention the absolute stupidity of going clubbing before going into the bubble. Why reward that type of player? The coach isn't wasting his talent, he is.
  5. Funny thing about prospects, opinions vary. Projections often aren't reality. What that particular projection said was expect a very good 3C with the possibility of 2C. This difference is what to expect versus what's possible (the ceiling). Many choose to expect the ceiling. Unrealistic expectations that often lead to disappointment. As far as I'm concerned the only knock stopping him being projected as top 6 was his skating. Which he managed to greatly improve after his first season. He was tied at 25th scoring in the OHL his last season and that's just one junior league. Meaning he wasn't considered an elite producer in his draft. Not even close, but he was a "complete player" with size raising his value. Don't underestimate the value of a forward already being good defensively in the draft. It tougher to teach prospects that side of the game, particularly the ones that view themselves as offensive players (see Virtanen). Btw, Goldobin outproduced him by 20 points that OHL season and went 27th.
  6. By some. Most were negative because picks were being moved. You know, because all our picks will be homeruns. Many were negative about his moves purely because he wasn't doing what they wanted - intentionally tanking the team. I'm more realistic than that. A 2nd for Vey was a good deal. We had nothing worth a damn in the AHL and he had put up numbers head and shoulders above what we did have. But prospects don't come with any more of a guarantee than picks do. It's only a mistake in hindsight. You see the odds of that pick stepping on NHL ice in less than 3 to 5 years is low. Even then only about 25% manage to play 200 NHL games. It's all a gamble. Trading for Vey got a quality prospect on the ice right away and youth was sorely lacking. To me it made sense, to the tank crew we threw away a superstar from that draft. LA drafted McKeown who played 10 NHL games. Look how peeved people were about trading Forsling. He's a future star... drafted in the 5th freakin' round. He's played 122 NHL games, has been traded again, and spent all of last season in the AHL. Stupid Benning traded him for a prospect that had played very well in the AHL. But he was still just a prospect. Meaning no guarantee. But again he was traded for a prospect that appeared NHL ready. People freaked about trading Shinkaruk, our future 1st line LW. Stupid Benning. He played 15 NHL games and is now in the KHL. I have to add, not as productive as Vey still. But that's the problem here. The notion all our picks will be winners. Never ever trade picks or our drafted prospects. They'll all be stars! Nonsense. GM's need to keep all options open and some will pan out, others won't. That's not so much mistakes, it's just reality. You can make a list of "mistakes" by every GM in the league and there will be fans that hated those "mistakes" at the time it happened. Just as every year there have been those complaining who we took in the first round. Year after year. Even Pettersson, most were going on about Vilardi. Stupid Benning. You win some, you lose some. Particularly with young players. I expect that and don't look at it as mistakes. Nobody has a crystal ball.
  7. You must be running on a treadmill. There seems to be some oxygen deprivation going on. You do need to look at the whole picture. Clause contracts exist on every team. To ignore that some players don't cooperate when the time comes and blame the GM for not moving them is foolish to say the least. It happens all around the league. Also ignoring Covid having a rather negative effect is simply ignoring real life extenuating circumstances. It's affected most teams and who they can sign or trade. If you don't think Covid has had an effect on trades and signings you have your head in the sand. There really wasn't much wheeling and dealing at the draft this year either. There's a great deal of uncertainty righty now and a lot of teams are playing it safe. Life isn't black and white. There's a lot of gray out there. Is Kesler only giving two trade options (with one not interested) Bennings fault? No. Was it Beniings fault Vrbata's wife was pregnant and he didn't want to be moved at the deadline? No. You never know how clause contracts will play out when it comes time to move on. Moving those players requires both their cooperation and teams they'll go to actually being interested. Two things out of any GM's control. The pesky gray area. Do all prospects/young players reach their projected potential? Nope. Do all draft picks pan out? Nope. Life would be so much easier with a crystal ball to wipe out those pesky gray areas. It's not excuses. It's life. Some of us just don't expect the rose garden without some manure. Btw, what team is "good" during a rebuild? Benning did what he could to try and keep the team competitive but he's been rebuilding since he got here. I'd say he's done a good job considering what he started with. One player worth a damn under 27 and a farm team with nobody worth the snot on your sleeve to draw from. Expansion teams have started with better than that.
  8. Who said he's infallible? No GM is. Something I've said repeatedly. All three of the players you mention are easy to defend based on knowns at the time. Not all signings or trades work out. Unlike some I expect that. Particularly with young players. But they did make sense at the time. Even trading for Vey (who has done very well in the KHL btw) made sense even though it didn't work out for us. I look at it as a good gamble that didn't pay off. These are "mistakes" seen in hindsight just as draft picks are hits and misses in hindsight. Decisions are made on what you know at the time. If your expectation is every signing, trade and draft pick will be a homerun you're going to hate every GM. Btw, I'd say Sbisa worked out fine for us. Vegas took him in the expansion draft. rather than somebody important, like Gaunce.
  9. I actually figured he'd get more than that, $2 - 2.5m, on the open market. I liked the kid for his work ethic and tenacity, but his size was a problem in the corners and around the net. Unfortunately his offensive ability didn't compensate for his shortcomings (pun intended).
  10. If you have to move you go for the best offer and situation. It's just that simple.
  11. Nobody has said Jake doesn't have scoring ability. He does. Scoring is only one part of the game though. How effective could he be if he put in the effort being asked of him? How much should the coach trust him when he doesn't know what kind of effort he'll get game to game or even shift to shift? If he scores a goal every 4th game (a 20 goal pace) what use is he the other 3 games? Look no further than Motte in the playoffs. He plays the way they've been trying to get Jake to play the past five years. Hard on the forecheck, hard on the backcheck and finishing checks. What Willie, and now Travis, have been asking of Jake for five years and both said it publicly repeatedly. It makes life harder for the opposition and creates scoring opportunities. Can you honestly say Jake plays that way? Can you say he putting in the effort game to game, shift to shift? If you can't then Jake hasn't jumped through hoops to earn ice time, he's coasting on his scoring. Offensive ice time in the playoffs Motte averaged 11:45 per game (0:02 is pp time) and Jake 11:15 per game (1:28 is pp time). Motte outscored Jake 4-2, outshot him 29-16, outhit him 61-36, and had 17 takeaways to Jakes 6. The way Motte plays leads to offensive opportunities. Jake's own lack of consistent effort is the reason he gets, bounced around, benched and scratched. Motte led our forwards in blocked shots in the playoffs with 24. Now Motte plays on the PK so one would expect him to have more than Jakes measly 5. So lets look at top 6 players: Miller 18, Pearson 17, Horvat 15, Boeser 14, and Pettersson 12. Despite missing 9 games and being on the limp Toffoli had 4 blocked shots. The only other forwards with fewer blocked shots than Jake were MacEwen (6 games played) and Ferland (2 games played). Does that say anything about Jakes effort? Add this, both Pearson and Miller outhit Virtanen in the playoffs. There's more to the game than just scoring goals. Ask Yzerman, Twice cut from Team Canada because scoring isn't enough. He would have continued scoring goals, but he never would have been the player and leader he became if that was enough on it's own. Yzerman was finally threatened with being traded from Detroit if he didn't change the way he played. The only person holding Jake back is Jake. He has all the tools to play the way he's been asked. With his size and speed he could be a force to reckon with and still score. He'd also be more effective those 3 games games he doesn't score. If he only had the desire to put in the effort. That's entirely on him not the coaching. If he's disinterested, as you say, trade him. Disinterested players that don't respond to coaching don't help you win. Miller was the same as Jake in NY. He viewed himself as an offensive player and that's the way he wanted to play. AV was his coach in NY. Another big meanie to young offensive players. His last season there he was 31st among forwards in blocked shots per 60 minutes. That's right, 31st, as the Rangers had 36 forwards play games that season. He had 60 giveaways to 34 takeaways. This last season here he had 36 giveaways to 52 takeaways. Getting traded changed his attitude to being coached. Finally listening and responding changed his game for the better and hasn't stopped him from scoring. And it only took two seasons in the bottom six in Tampa while being bounced around up and down the lines to become a better player. Amazing what an attitude change on the players part can do. But it also takes desire and commitment on the players part. That's when you "earn it".
  12. They'll just look at moving other contracts to move salary. OEL was their best option but now it will be plan B - moving a couple of contracts weakening the team even more.
  13. I'm glad we didn't get that anchor of a contract. It's not even the salary that bothered as I think he'd be worth it with the offensive forwards he'd get to play with here. He just showed he wouldn't be the most cooperative when it came to be traded though. It was that attitude and the NMC till the end that made me shudder at the thought.
  14. Sorry to see Marky go as I really liked him. It really sucks the Flames got him. The Flames just got better.
  15. Wish it was longer. The kid is full of desire and commitment. He delivers.
  16. Oh they got it right. He's a north south player that isn't particularly creative. We got what he was billed to be. What he was billed as can be a very effective NHL player though. The problem with Jake is his own commitment to be the best he can be. From "missed goals" in offseason fitness to an inconsistent effort on ice are things well within his control and he fails there. That's not a coaching problem as both Willie and then Travis have been on him about it. Both coaches have publicly said what they want from him and been crystal clear about it. That's a player problem and it's entirely on him that he's not responding to that coaching and delivering on and off the ice. If he put in half the effort Motte does he'd be a real asset to the team and a top six regular. He seems content to be average. Meaning he lacks the desire and commitment to be the best he can be. That's wasted potential and he's the one wasting it not the coaches. He's a five year veteran, how long do you wait for him to wake up? Miller said being traded was his wake up call. That's when he responded to coaching and made the effort to improve his game. Miller saw himself as an offensive player. Look at him now. He made himself into a solid two way asset through 100% effort and commitment. You can see that effort on the ice both directions. Miller had three split AHL/NHL seasons and two full seasons in NY before being traded. Sometimes that's what it takes - getting traded. I'm not sure being traded would create that desire in Jake. He just doesn't come across as that smart.
  17. From the time he was drafted.... Or if you want the video to hear what they had to say....
  18. Not just cap but income. There's currently no plan for attending games this next season meaning all teams take a pretty good hit on revenue. For most it means losing considerable money. Belts are being tightened.
  19. Jeez, is there a team in the league that doesn't have clause contracts? Some players with clauses are cooperative. Some aren't. You don't really know which way that wind will blow until the time comes and you ask them to waive. Welcome to pro sports.
  20. We played 3 rounds but made it to round two. It was listed as Play In Round then Round One, Round Two, etc. So we won two rounds (play in and round 1) but lost in the 2nd round. Just to make it really confusing. But the play in round counted towards player playoff stats. So no matter what you call it three rounds were played.
  21. I'm just saying what's been reported. Players do change their mind on such things. But the Kesler situation should tell you a pile of crap won't be in the trade. He gave two teams and one immediately had no interest. Leaving Benning with one team to deal with. Did he get a pile of crap with cap dumps? Are the Bruins offering crap with cap dumps? Not according to what's been reported. You're suggesting only one thing Arizona would have interest in - Juolevi. You're sending more salary than they're getting rid of. How does that make sense for them? They'd be better off not moving OEL and moving a couple of easier mid/high money contracts and getting a realistic return.
  22. Even "missed targets" calls into question the players work ethic. Particularly when you're a repeat offender. His inconsistent effort on the ice also says something about his work ethic.
  23. GM's often listen to offers from other teams and if it's satisfactory go back to the player and ask if he'll accept a move there. Often the answer is no but sometimes a player will accept if it works for him and his family. It really depends on the player. Burrows had an ntc and said he never thought about Ottawa. Benning had an offer and simply asked if Burrows would go there. But let me ask this would you rather have your turd package or a 1st, 2nd, and a prospect if you're looking to cut cost? Rumor is that's what the Bruins offered and Arizona is pushing for their top D prospect instead of the one the B's offered. But the Oilers have also been reportedly in talks with Arizona's GM.
  24. As the season ended with some teams having played more games the Canucks we were in the 7th playoffs spot when it ended. There's no what if's there. It's simply the way it was in the standings. "What if" they went on a 5 game winning streak? See how easy that is. Reality versus fantasy. Not the way it works. You make claims, it's up to you to back it up with evidence. Otherwise it's just babble.
  25. Oh we understand. It doesn't change his value or teams interest in acquiring him. You can make up any crap offer you want but it doesn't mean they'll take it when there's other teams interested. Arizona has always been a budget team that goes through cycles of moving high contracts. They haven't given their players away for crap offers though. The only part of your suggestion they'd be interested in is Juolevi. You're ignoring the fact there are "other teams" making offers. A team that's looking to save money isn't looking to take more salary back than they're trading. You're offering two cap dumps, two average players, and a prospect. They're not going for that. Stacking crap doesn't get you a top 2 d-man. The other teams will make real offers for that player.
×
×
  • Create New...