DSVII

The better to destroy our draft position if we dig a hole for ourselves in November It'll be meaningless wins in March. We also don't leave the Pacific time zone from Feb 21st onwards so if we are hopelessly out of a playoff spot by TDL, the wins will be even more frustrating. Safe to say this isn't a year for even team tank to find any hope if we aren't in a playoff spot by TDL. It's playoffs or bust. And if the team can't even make playoffs with the 3rd most favorable rest schedule. I'd say consider tearing it down and start over properly for once.

Third most favorable schedule in the league from a rest day POV. No excuses this year.

Canucks approach draft With less picks than contenders Short term for playoffs

I wouldn't say you're necessarily wrong, i would love a Pavelski style outcome, but we already have one of those bets in JT Miller, I'm wary of the team making another one. It's also survivorship bias, for each of those names you listed there are perhaps hundreds more players that have fallen off a cliff when they're in their mid 30s. Staal would be battling against the odds here, and i acknowledge it is totally possible he continues playing at a high level. From a team construction standpoint, I'm just not willing to pay the price on a player who has to hit a ~95th percentile outcome to break even on his contract value at 4M. With the 4.7M dead cap coming from OEL and Peteys extension, we need to make efficient, cheaper high reward signings and Staal doesn't fit that mold to me.

Not a direct player to player comparison. But the thought process is eerily similar. Consider the projection of where you think a 35 year old centre is gonna look like even 1 year into a 4 year deal. It's a high risk low reward gamble we should not make IMO. Even your comparison is between Beagle 2-3 years into his deal with us vs Staal today. I'd like to see Beagles chart moved back three years for an apples to apples match. And even then Staal is older. I have no interest hoping he plays the same quality when he's 38 years old as your deal time horizon suggests

Honestly wouldn't bother. Not our price or age range, let another team hold the bag. Shades of Beagle [ The 32-year-old center had 22 points (seven goals, 15 assists) in 79 games with the Washington Capitals last season and ranked first on the Capitals with a 58.5 face-off win percent ]

No one's calling him a genius. But on the other side of the ledger you have posters claiming that the Sedin era core was an auto-pilot lock to make the finals and credit Gillis with absolutely nothing.

Flames are imploding Like Oceangate submarine Pass the popcorn, please

No. Keep the draft pick and use the cap space to squeeze another capped out team for their defense. Like a Reilly or Gryzlck out of Boston. I don't think Hanafin fits in our D-core anyway.

It's what happens when every GM under Aqua is told to make playoffs at all cost or be fired in 2 years. With that incentive, any GM will make a move that hurts in 5 years but helps today.

I'll take that over all the failed pro-scouting acquisitions from Benning era.

Considering we had all the leverage in this OEL deal (OEL wanted only to come here or Boston and Boston said no way in hell) AND we end up paying the 1st along with all the dead cap. I think this one hurts more in terms of opportunity cost. We couldn't be in on the Marino trade and God knows how many other past and future moves to come because of this.

Remembering the going rate during flat cap era. 1 year/ 6 mil of cap = 1st rounder. Benning paid a top ten 1st to give Arizona 6 years worth of 1st rounder value in cap space.

We go to sports to escape the realities of life. I don't blame fans for trying to get some enjoyment out of their team. Rather than confront the fact that by following this team, you can't ever escape pain.

The hivemind is slowly shifting towards seeing the true damage of the Benning era at least

At this point. Him and Hughes are the lineup

There's really no chips left to play. Gotta make playoffs next year. And that terrifies me for our long term picture

From just Loui deal Bad cap spanning three decades Thank you Jim Benning

How we spend that cap space really determines whether this was the right move or not. I'd prefer to wait a year but they must really think OEL is unsalvageable. And God damn. All of Bennings moves post 2016 can't even seem to last one year before going stale. The only bright side is that Aquilini is feeling that $20 mil sting. Hopefully this teaches him to meddle less.

I've said this to you many times. If Benning and his post-2014 drafted core averaged 106 points per year and made playoffs for 6 of the 8 years. You would be building shrines to him. Again, we are Canucks fans, it's great we love our players. I love laughing at the Leafs. A lot. But we have to take our sunny rose tinted glasses off when it comes to evaluating our core on whether they can win a cup. The fact remains, despite how great Petey is as a Calder player, he isn't good enough to take this team to the playoffs in an 82 game season, at least not yet. And when he does, he still has a way to go before he can match the last core. I think with the Sedins, we can agree their development and peak were not ideal and very unique among hockey players. The fact that they couldn't peak when the WCE was still here is one of my many 'what ifs' As for ridiculousness You're comparing what these guy's primes COULD be, under perfect cirucumstances, and saying they'll be better than what the best team we ever had as a team is.

And guess what? As an aggregate, the man games lost and % of cap space on IR under Celebrini's tenure exceeded Burnie. Again, it's not blaming him for hockey being violent, but by the numbers, the team spiked way above the league average in these categories. The Canucks had a first rate front office when Gillis left, sleep doctors, training programs, an analytics department, a farm team infrastructure, capologist etc...Those still remained even after the Torts year, Benning systematically took these apart while the rest of the league adopted these innovations. I understood the consequences too, and was hoping Benning would too, but he explicitly said this was a situation he could turn around quickly with confidence. So you have to hold him accountable for that. It's something you haven't grasped. https://nhl.nbcsports.com/2014/05/23/canucks-a-team-we-can-turn-around-in-a-hurry-says-new-gm-benning/ Hard Disagree. Benning had the picks, the cap space, and the infrastracture to pivot easily to a retool and rebuild effectively had he chosen so. The team he inherited scored over 100+ points the following season. We've seen teams go all in on cup runs and restock the cupboards in the same amount of time Benning tried to tread water in a Pacific division that was mostly rebuilding. 10x harder? That is hyperbole. Also, i'll reiterate again. Every GM had to deal with Covid (by the time Nucks were infected, they had a <10% chance of making it) Every GM had to deal with flat salary cap Every GM had to deal with the expansion draft In fact, the flat cap is one of the reasons why we can laugh at the Maple Leafs since they couldn't fully load up for their playoff runs with their overpaid core, but even then they've accomplished more than us. In the same timeframe, they drafted a core, and competed with a playoff spot for 6 consecutive years since Benning started. Averaging 106 points. If Benning had those results, 110% guaranteed you'd be singing more praises for him. "Guy", singular. What's the point of drafting a 40 goal scorer in McCann if you trade him for a high-risk/low-reward play in Gudbranson? Drafting is far from the most important function of a GM. What was wrong, as I had explained many times to you, was that Gillis had no control of the farm team since the Jets took over the Moose in 2011. We were affiliated with the Chicago Wolves and they had full control of our prospect deployment, so we were unable to even get them to put our guys in top positions to succeed. For a guy clamoring about the importance of development you are sure are ungrateful for the fact that GMMG set up the Utica Comets for Benning. You obviously don't even get the concept of draft capital, and are throwing it around like you do. Yes, stars can be found in the 20s and potentially 30s. The existence of Brock Boeser at 23rd, just because he outperformed someone drafted at say 5th. Doesn't make a 23rd pick more draft capital than a 5th in a draft. You're basically telling me. "See? This guy hit on a 20% ticket, so Gillis should be able to match what Benning did with a 95% ticket!" Again, i'm not even claiming that the drafting wasn't sub par under Gillis, but there are reasons for this. Especially in the development department with the Chicago Wolves. I would flip that around and tell you that in 8 years, with a fully set up farm system and higher quantity and value of picks than GMMG, having only 1 Utica graduation in Demko is an uglier result than the shitty Gillis drafting. It is about development. And Benning has done squat considering he was set up for success better than GMMG was with the Chicago Wolves. He never fully utilized the Farm team to set up his high end prospects for success and rushed them. Who did Benning graduate from Utica outside of the 1st round besides Demko? Jake Hoglander McCann The 20th place pick argument was never about selling them off (those were your own words), but that when you have a GM picking constantly in the 20s, you don't expect them to walk away from the draft with the same amount of talent as a GM picking constantly in the top 10s. And just because Brock Boeser exists does not change this, because it is pure mathematics. Because you are using the fact that players like Boeser exist in the 20s that there is no excuse for Gillis to not succeed at drafting at that range. Draft capital only exists for you as a phrase to throw around whenever you think you have a shot at someone. You truly don't understand it. Because I do recall in a past conversation that you said draft position is a weak argument to explain why Gillis didn't produce as many NHLers as Benning. See: Chicago Wolves. If Benning had the same hardship you would be excusing him just as you are for the Covid/Flat cap. But you see, unlike those circumstances, this one was unique to Gillis because it was to facilitate the Jets. But guess what, he got it solved. All the time in the world? He was busy trying to get a cup, which you fully support by the way. So why are you not more understanding of the fact that despite all those obstacles, he got the infrastructure set up for Benning? Gillis left an imprint on the organization and culture of the team, the programs and infrastructure he set up in the front office with the vision of the team as a fast paced team that punished you on the PP. The standards died really when the Sedins and Tanev/Edler left. Benning did nothing to supplant that culture, he let it run to the ground (in your own phrase) "almost winning" by the way, is a stratosphere above whatever Benning achieved. Again you move the goalposts to suit Benning. Give me an example, I've given you so many others. Define winning too. Because to you winning to achieve 15th place in 2020 is better than Game 7 in 2011 The roster still competed for playoffs the next year. Benning did not start from ground zero, he started from 100 points. Then he ran the team into the ground rather than rebuild and trade for prospects. I seem to recall his initial UFA signings were his best, Vrbata, Miller. Also, when you make it to game 7 of the stanely cup finals, and your core is still intact, you run it back. Just ask Tampa Bay what they did after 2015 or the Capitals after all those years. Again, why are you applying perfect hindsight to all of Gillis' actions? And not look at the circumstances around them. Benning meanwhile, you are applying the perfect scenario to justify his shortcomings (Petey/Hughes/Demko will one day be on the level of the WCE and Sedins) You do realize that Torts was no Gillis' hire right? Gillis wanted to rebuild in 2013, he wanted to let go. The only person who didn't was Aqua. This whole section is a tangent. What Gillis did try a semi retool up till 2013, he was just constrained by the effects of the cap crunch, which I understand but I was also running out of patience and wanted a rebuild. To his credit, he wanted to rebuild in 2013 after the SJ sweep. Guess what though, Benning also had disposable assets in 2015 after seeing the team fail in the 2015 run. He just chose to not trade them as well. Where is your outrage on this if Gillis made the same mistake in 2013? You are applying different standards to both. Goalposts I can understand because I know from your vantage point, Benning is working with a 10x handicap, but as you can see, I don't agree at all. He was very well set up. I mean, as a fan who consumes hockey, I think you understand that a rebuild takes more than one season of work. And up until 2013, he was going for it under express directive from ownership. He tried to improve the team, those moves didn't work out. He recognized that and wanted a rebuild. We will never know how good Gillis was at rebuilding, i personally wanted to see what he would do with one more year, but what we do know is already better than what we got (Larkin > Virtanen). Whose to say. But you are slagging him on something he might have done, not something he has. HAHA, the twins are grownups, they said themselves they'd be happy to mentor kids for a rebuild. I see you subscribe to the stealth rebuild. And this is where draft capital comes in. this was not a rebuild, in any sense of the word. A rebuild stocks up picks A rebuild stocks up on higher draft position picks This is a chart based on the HockeyDB drafts of all the teams that finished below the Canucks in those 'rebuilding' years. Aside from being capped out, Benning had fewer picks going into the draft than any rebuilding team around him for most years. Based on these draft values: https://soundofhockey.com/2022/06/06/examining-the-value-of-nhl-draft-picks/ For reference, the cost of Hronek (17th + 43rd) equates to about 242 points on the weighted chart. This was never a rebuild, it was a failed franken tool. JB did sign Miller (which was a fine add) and had Marky and Lack which made playoffs. Twins should not be moved, they were an important part of the team and culture. The entire Pacific was rebuilding Kesler had two destinations, and JB still got a 1st and two roster players from him (personally i wanted Shea Theodore from Anahei, he was available) Garrison was traded away, as was Burrows and Hansen because they still had value to the roster And not to mention 30-35% of the cap space to play with after those trades. The fact we made playoffs in 2015 showed there was something still there. Again, I have a hard time believing you saying you are objectively evaluating anything that Benning didn't touch. The accountability comes from the fact that even when including Salos injuries and games lost, the team as a whole was still less injured under Burnie's stewardship than it was under Celebrini. You are willfully ignorant of the hard line numbers (# of man games lost / year) that don't support you. Again you can thank Aqua. Seriously, my score of 4/10 was because I was trying to be charitable to the fact Aqualini tied Benning to a flawed strategy. If you aren't willing to even be objective enough to see that 2013 onwards Gillis was forced by management to go for it with Torts and the like, then Benning is a 2/10 GM for me. And Jake Virtanen can go back to being 100% Benning's responsibility. And after the remarks that came out from Trevor today, and Benning throwing him under the bus, a 2/10 he is. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/longer-vision-linden-canucks-management How you can support a guy that's done so much harm to this organization is beyond me. But they were moved or were moveable. Garrison/Kesler/Burrows/Hansen/Hamhuis Unfortunately I don't deal in fantasies. I mean, we imagined the Boudreau bump would last to this year too. again, you're slagging on Gillis on what he may have done in a rebuild. And now you're asking me to praise Benning because of what this core may have done under sunny circumstances? Real world doesn't work like that. We need to see consistent results. Except that was never my ideology. Heck, ideology? This isn't politics, this is just hockey. Straw Man. Please pull up that debate. Pull up where I said development doesn't matter. I'm curious where you got that idea. Even if you do pull up something where my words can be misconstrued, i'm telling you now that's not what I mean. You need both in tandem to rebuild, and Benning failed on both fronts. For a guy who claims to understand development, it's not just about competition in camp, it's about whether they have the habits and standards required to succeed at the NHL level, and even if you're the number 1 guy at camp, you aren't gifted a spot because of that. oZS is meaningless unless you also back it up with quality of competition, you have to determine whether or not Jake is being sheltered or driving play himself. I'd also take a look at his linemates and production with and away from top stars. You and I have a very different definition of built on. I think similar to Hogs, Jake got as far as he could without the foundation and structrual habits playing in the AHL for a long time can get for you. Luckily, Hogs is on that right path. I've repeated the Utica issue enough. Benning should be thankful he inherited that farm team when he started, but he just never fully utilized it.

And guess what, 60+ games is still better than 40-50. That's really not the impression you're portraying here. You've spent entire threads saying that Gillis ran the team into the ground and didn't stock the farm and that he left Benning with nothing. You do realize by virtue of picking in the late 20s and trading picks away to make those cup runs that you don't blame him for, the chances of him stocking the farm are probably in the bottom range of outcomes when compared to his peers? Because if you truly weren't blaming him for going all in on the cup, and you're looking at the effect those weaker draft positions had on the team Benning inherited, you would be taking that into account rather than calling him 'Gilass'. (cringe by the way, same way I cringe whenever i read 'Benning Bros') There are consequences, yes, and here's what I've been telling you many times. Gillis was fired before he could even do anything, and what he did do in the time he had left, Benning rode into the ground (Markstrom, Bo, Tanev) So why are you slagging him for not leaving Benning anything when he didn't have a chance to? (even though I vehemently disagree, he left Benning with plenty.) HAHA well for one thing, this is completely unrelated to Celebrini, Salo wasn't even here when Benning started. So this is a strawman. Because that's all you claim to win on. Guess what though, even with Salo and Tanev on the roster at once, Burnie came up with lower man games lost average than Celebrini, in both games lost and $ of cap hit man games lost. If Salo had Celebrini, i fear for his life. Again, you cry 'gaslight', but it's really a straw man argument from you. I think highlighting this 'argument' for all to see is enough to refute the utter inanity of it. The 1 loss from Gillis did hurt, but really because it broke Frankie's poor brain and made Gillis hire Torts and go for the Bruins build style. As for last season, have you also considered the management group sat by idly, because Benning's contracts sucked and couldn't be moved? Or that they wanted a chance to evaluate this roster? You kinda just threw in draft capital like it means anything there? Because from a draft capital perspective, 30th->29th isn't much movement. He's responsible for assigning players to the NHL or AHL and working with the coach to set him up to succeed. How many games in Utica did he play before making it to the big show? I lost an imaginary argument you conjured up in your own mind. That's really all you have.

Linden bares responsibility for the strategic direction yes. But it wasn't him that signed Sbisa to an extension or Trade 2nds for Vey. Etc..and when he tried to course correct for a slow cooked rebuild. He was let go. Execution was still JB. I'm always intrigued that Benning inspires so much loyalty that supporters easily throw character guys like Linden and the Sedins (for OEL) under the bus for him.

Benning did a much better job selling himself when he undercut Linden to the Aquilinis.

Those quotation marks are right because I never said Full seasons. I may as well call you scarecrow with all the strawman you keep bringing up. And Tanev was far from a full timer, more of a prospect in the years before the final Let me simply it for you. 60-65 games of Tanev > 40-55 games of Tanev. Considering you made a big kerfuffle about missing some years playoffs by 3 games. That is astronomical by your own metric. But then again, the value of 1 win seems to change whenever it suits you. 3 wins shy of a playoff berth -> praise Benning 1 win shy of a cup -> Dead in the water, no prospect pool, useless I think we can all agree, the only thing that could have helped Salo was if we gave him the wolverine syrum. Again you brought him up, not me. Nah, that's the equivalent of you blaming Gillis for not fully stocking a farm while gunning for a cup. It's the time returning from injury, and the chance of reinjury that also feeds into this. And also a funny coincidence that Tanev started playing at his 60+ game clip once Celebrini jumped ship in the middle of the season to lead the Golden state warriors to their injury riddled finals lost. I wouldn't say one NHL season is particularly more violent than the last one, so if there is a substantial change in it, you question the staff. It is indisputable that the team had above average man games lost and to more key personel under Celebrini than Burnstein. This is just pure man games lost, doesn't take into account weighted cost of the missing person. Great and under whose management was his development mishandled?