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

Provost

Members
  • Posts

    11,729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Provost

  1. I literally answered it. You haven't answered what there is to be gained by blind loyalty to a particular GM regardless of their success or failure.
  2. That exact same as you gain by blindly accepting anything that the organization does regardless of any objective metrics or results. Your comment is a false dichotomy as well. You can be critical of the team and still be a fan, it is narcissistic to think you are the abitrar of how exactly what being a fan looks like. Criticism can and has been earned by the team brass... unless your only definition of being a fan is blind loyalty and cheerleading for a particular head office figure. Also, don't conflate any particular GM or player with the team. Someone can love the Canucks and not like the job Benning has done. Who says that the most productive thing is to simply accept repeated failure? Would Aquilini spend money if he knew he was going to fill the building no matter how little he spent or how bad the team was? Holding the team to a high account just maybe means they will actually try to live up to it. The Canucks objectively have one of the smallest front offices in the league and lowest paid ones. The money they were spending under the Gillis regime they just aren't spending anymore. That isn't a recipe for success. The excuse of not knowing the revenue for the past year and having to pinch pennies is hogwash. The team made money hand over foot for years and is valued more than half a billion dollars more than what Aquilini paid for it. They also knew they were getting their huge chunk of the expansion fees handed to them to cover their losses from this year. They know that the capped escrow means that they are going to make tons of money for the next 5 years as the players pay it back. Even with all that they wouldn't spend anything to buy out or sign players for this season and try to build on the success of the bubble play. We went to one of the lowest team payrolls in actual dollars of the league last season. I have no time for failure, and it is simply fact that GMs with losing records over their entire tenure don't get 9 years to "figure it out". GMs with losing records get fired because their job is to put a winning product on the ice.
  3. I would have taken Johnson 3 years ago. He was waived last year with no takers. I don't think he is a bad player, but at this point it takes a sweetener to absorb that salary. I fully expect Tampa and Seattle to make some sort of deal to send Johnson there. He is a hometown Washington State guy and a Stanley Cup winner so could be a good early face of the franchise as captain.
  4. ... and he also says that they haven't even had their exit meetings yet.
  5. Sutter being a bad value at his current price tag isn’t the same as him not having value if he is signed to $1.5-2 million on a short term deal. No idea if he could be had at that price... the Sutter name carries value on its own around the league, so maybe he gets a decent offer elsewhere. If you can sign him to a $2 million x 2 year deal I would do that.... otherwise walking away is fine also. I hope Benning handles things better this offseason with his UFAs. If he had have told Toffoli, Stecher, and Tanev... “hey, we love you but here is what all can afford under the cap... circle back around to us if you can’t get a better offer.” Maybe we could have kept one of them for a decent value, certainly they wouldn’t have left with bad feelings about not being offered any contracts at all. The same needs to happen for Sutter, Hamonic, and Edler this offseason. Here is an offer that we can afford, we know it is low but we are in a cap crunch. Take a peek around the market and see what your options are, you have earned that. The offer is on the table through all of July 1st. To me, those offers should be $3 million or less for Edler and Hamonic and $2 million for or less for Sutter... and with 2 years term max. Filling holes with cheap, short term veteran players is what you are “supposed” to do... not expensive, long term guys.
  6. Those all sound like interesting targets... unfortunately not easy or cheap to come by. I think we need to find someone who is undervalued and will be one of the next guys to hit that tier. Easier said than done, but you get nowhere paying market price or more to fill holes, especially since it just creates holes elsewhere in the lineup. To me that means a young player who is currently buried deeper in the lineup than they should be, or a player on a bad team that needs a change of scenery. Foote is an interesting option, being a guy on a deep team where there has been little chance to earn premium minutes. Ristolainen is one of the latter categories of guys. He has been on the same terrible team for years, and players leaving Buffalo have a tendency to get better. I would bet on Risto being an impactful 2-3 D on his next team and he will show that most of his defensive warts are as a result of being asked to do everything on a bad roster. I don’t know all the players on other teams to really know how many other guys are out there in situations like the above two guys. That is what pro scouts are supposed to be for, and there should absolutely be guys who can fit the bill that shake out in expansion. The good thing is we just need a complementary partner for Hughes and Rathbone... we have the harder to find guys.
  7. Well hopefully the bad seasons can modify the cap hits down a bit. Dare we dream about matching Boeser’s deal or $6-6.25 million to make them the highest paid players on the team? Benning can argue that if they don’t want to see their friends moved on for salary reasons (like happened last offseason) and be able to build a winning roster then they have to take less than top dollar. Their agent will of course argue that Benning would just waste the money on bad veterans anyways.. I would love to see one of them signed long term.
  8. Ummm that is distinctly NOT how data analysis works. If their results are consistently bad, with one outlier... the outlier is what you throw out if you choose to, It would be special cause variation. We have been bad for years, very much right in the same range just like this year. We were also not good last year for most of the season, we just had a short hot streak with the play in and a playoff round. We were absolutely trending towards missing the playoffs if the shortened season hadn’t rescued us. The bubble is distinctly different than what came before and what came after.
  9. Tough to think most of the assistants won’t be back as well. I am actually not on the “fire Green” bandwagon. The players still seem to be playing hard for him, he just has a terrible roster. The only reason I thought he might be gone would be if they wanted a new GM to be able to hire their own coach. Please let them announce a big name President or hockey operations so at least we know next year will be assessing and making a new plan forward. Someone with the status to demand less interference from ownership, at least with hockey decisions. I have zero faith in the Benning/Weisbrod duo. Bad results and too many staff and players leaving the organization with bad feelings about how they were treated.
  10. As someone that has been the unfortunate witness to a lot the stuff you post here... I can make a very well informed stance that you have no idea what is going on.
  11. ... I think you are operating under a deep misapprehension that you are a connected member of the media. Otherwise your comment makes zero sense. You saying that the media are idiots making stuff up isn’t comparable to me saying you have no level of knowledge or authority to make that judgment.
  12. ... and at the same time, most of them are vastly more informed and connected than anyone on this forum, so who are you to judge?
  13. The funny part is that those players think anyone wants to trade for them...
  14. The only thing that really gives Buffalo decent value for Reinhart is if they take money back in the trade so they open up more potential suitors. Lots of contending teams would be fine giving up something decent for just one year of Reinhart and the possible head start on signing him longer term. Buffalo also hasn't yet signalled whether they are rebuilding yet again or if they want to make hockey trades to try to be better in the short term. I think most of it depends on Eichel... if they can find a way to make him happy, then they "re-tool" to give him some help. If Eichel is on the way out, then they should just go all out for picks/prospects.
  15. Players also read the news and talk to other players. It isn't about some random guy on Twitter. Players say they want to go to teams where they have a chance to win. A perennial cellar dweller is not that. We had some good buxx after the bubble last year and didn't leverage it.
  16. I think you are stuck in the past... they don’t care enough about us to hate us. It matters, because good luck getting players and staff agree to come to a team that is universally considered to be badly run. It will affect our on ice product.
  17. Terrible news... they are running this franchise into the ground. It is already a laughingstock in the league right there with Ottawa and Buffalo. On the plus side, the 2023 draft is supposed to be stellar and we now have a better chance at picking near the top of that year...
  18. This all seems like flimsy optics to appease fans and try to avoid making substantive changes. They need to fire Benning and put in a legitimate, experienced President and GM in place to start straightening things out. As much as Gillis had flaws, we were considered to be a well run organization then and now we are considered dysfunctional.
  19. The "scenario" I was responding to was that if we dropped outside the top 10 in picks, so presumably those D we need to target won't be around by then... or at least there is a low enough chance they would be that we could make a deal for that pick proactively if we had to decide before the actual draft floor. I absolutely agree that if we are picking high enough, we should get one of those high end D. We will still need players on their ELCs to be able to afford the extensions we will need to our current players over the next 2-4 years.
  20. If our pick is that low I would definitely send it for Reinhart (assuming he signs a reasonable extension to play at home). They have to eat a contract to make the money work, or we make it a bit bigger. Our 1st Schmidt Roussel DiPietro for Reinhart Risolainen They get rid or two players who don't want to be there. They get a replacement D who can play both sides, and a really solid goalie prospect. We get a top 6 winger and a more physical D. Then we just need a 3C and our roster is pretty set (I don't think we can afford RNH and we aren't good enough to have him come here cheap)... I would rather have Reinhart as a winger than as a centre. Miller-Petterson-Boeser Hoglander-Horvat-Reinhart Pearson-XX-Podkolzin Motte-Beagle-MacEwan Highmore-Lind Hughes-Hamonic Rathbone-Ristolainen Edler-Myers Bowie
  21. ..... I went to do other things after the 2nd period safe in the knowledge that we had lost the game and reduced the risk of us dropping in the draft. That point alone cost us 3 spots.... so Canucks like to even screw up losing. I guess Markstrom really wants a good defence man in front of him for the next half a decade... so decided to let every shot in the 3rd to help his team’s draft position?
  22. It would be terrible optics that would almost surely cause backlash. I know it was many years ago, but you are absolutely right that it isn't something you want to be in your history when dealing with a current similar issue.
  23. I did a really deep dive and compared all Benning’s 1st round picks with what we would have gotten just by going by various major draft rankings. I picked the highest ranked player left available from each list at our draft spot. Benning came out above average, but not some sort of genius level that people attribute to him. He was beaten by Pronman and Craig Button for example. The one clear win by Benning is that almost no one had Petterson that high. Hughes and Boeser were a wash because almost all the scouting lists would have also selected them at that spot. Juolevi and Virtanen were obviously the misses. I have no issue saying Benning is an above average draft guy.l and still think he needs to get fired. It is a results league and he hasn’t gotten results... the rest is just people trying to rationalize and fit their bias. 7 years is insanely long for any NHL GM who has a losing record.
  24. We can still stay in the bottom 5... we just need to go 0-3 in regulation and we finish 4th worst and have the 5th best chance in the lottery once you factor in Seattle. One more win drops us 3 spots in the draft lottery... 3 wins and we are outside the top 10 in the lottery. Today's lottery simulator only took me 2 tries and we picked 2nd!
  25. Especially since it isn't dependent on who the GM or Head coach is. Goalies coaches are kind of on their own, with the Rangers for example their goalie coach has survived a bunch of different Head coaches. I can see that if the GM may be getting replaced that they can't commit to Green... but honestly no new management is going to be dissuaded because they can't put in "their" goalie coach. They would honestly almost certainly be happy that there was a facet of the operation that had continuity and they could largely ignore because it is working well. That can't be said for the rest of the roster, coaching staff, pro scouts, etc. There is a ton of work to do.
×
×
  • Create New...