External Validation

[The Honey Badger]

What i don't get is that many of these negative comments on JB and TL are based on actual outcome vs expected outcome. You can't do something that is expected but not real.

The expected return for Lack is more than a 3rd, it should be a 2nd or high 1st. That's entirely promoted by national and local media. The other 29 GMs out there are the ones who truly decide what should be the return for Lack. Nobody knows if they were offered that at all. We don't know what didn't happen. Critics say that JB should have hung on to Lack until his value is right. Well then, if that happens and Lack is still a canuck right now, the critics will turn around and say why is Lack still here? Was JB living under a stone when Luongo/Schneider drama happened? The truth is, management doesn't want Lack to be with the team come September because they don't want another controversy, so he needs to go. The bottom line is, we did that.

Kesler should fetch a bigger return? Yes, if he's available for all 29 teams. With essentially one team to trade with, we are lucky we even get 3 assets in return. And who knows how McCann will turn out.

Kassian for Prust. Did we lose the trade? I have no idea. All I know is when we trade CoHo for Kassian, CDC was on fire saying we lost the trade big time. Fast forward until today, we get a NHL player for Kassian, Sabres got nothing but buyout penalty for CoHo.

I like Aaron Ward because he is by far the one with the most objectivity. I think JB and TL is keeping the big picture in mind in the sense that what needs to be done more than how. This off-season, they need to shed salary and trade Lack, so they trade Bieksa and Lack away, while being classy of trading Bieksa to a contender who is willing to extend his contract. If JB has kept the expected outcome and return in mind, nothing may end up happening and even then, he will be criticized for doing nothing.

[babych]

Not surprised. 20,000 posts just means oldnews says too much Babych.

Babych has been here longer than oldnews, who must defer.

Epic stache. Desjardins approves.

Babych likes you.

Babych approves.

[Crabcakes]

Great comments and thanks for getting back to the question I posed in the OP.

I would emphasize two important insights in your message.

1. Quite possibly Benning and Linden are doing what they were hired to do and doing it very well. It is likely that the owner wants them to be in the playoffs if at all possible. While fans like me might prefer to see the team tank for a couple of years and enjoy watching the prospects develop that strategy would probably cost the owners many millions of dollars,

Last year the value of being in contention for the playoffs and then making the playoffs was probably at least $10 to $15 million (relative to being out of the picture as of, say, the trade deadline) and quite possibly more. Of course building a serious Cup contender might offset a short run loss but you might take the loss and never build a Cup contender (like Edmonton, Toronto, Arizona, and Buffalo have done for quite a while). So that is very risky.

2. I agree that it is probably unfair or simply incorrect to accuse Benning of being inconsistent. He has been consistent. He has consistently said is not trading top young prospects for short run gain, and he has been consistent in that. He has also said that he wants to use his other assets to do as well as possible in the short run -- hence to desire to sign Miller and Vrbata and to shore up team toughness (Dorsett, Sbisa, Prust) which he thinks is important. We might disagree with his actual decisions, but he has not been inconsistent. And I do not see the Kassian trade as inconsistent at all. Benning had obviously concluded that Kassian was a problem and he just wanted to get rid of him.

However, I wonder if the moves made by Calgary, Edmonton, Anaheim, LA, and even San Jose have persuaded the owner to give up on the playoffs next year. All these teams improved and all look better on the paper than the Canucks. That is what I am detecting in the messaging coming from Benning.

I would love to see Benning get a chance to use what is his real skill -- evaluating young players. Last year's draft was good, this year's draft seems good, and picking up Baertschi and Pedan looks good. (Vey does not look so good, but I assume that was WD's choice.) Imagine what he could do with a high first round pick, a couple of low first rounders (in return for Vrby and Hammer) and maybe three second rounders.

That would make next year's draft a lot of fun.

I agree, Benning obviously can see that other teams in the division have made improvements. In fact, the Hamilton trade to Calgary and to a lesser extent, the Lucic trade to LA were total shockers. These are franchise core players!

At any rate, Benning can't let the changes that other teams were able to make affect the execution of his plan. Benning can't rush things, they have to play out naturally. If other teams are in a position to make rapid change in one year, reacting to it may jeopardise the success of the overall plan.

Blowing it up is a bad idea. Stay the course.

[slaythedragon]

On Vey, think people are too quick to dismiss him. He didn't have a great year but it was decent overall... Also to Bennings defence Vey did align in terms of "getting younger" but guess people don't want to go through the growing pains of certain young players... oh wait never-mind as Kassian should've gotten his 4th chance to actually be a professional.

Sorry if I sound snarky to you, I meant it more directed at the CDC population thats been trolling the Kassian trade thread. Anyways I do agree that while I doubt we are "tanking" or trying not to make the playoffs, I do think we're in a good position to hit the payload when selling as you have mentioned some of the players.

Overall I'm a fan of Benning because things are actually changing so good or bad I'm happy to see it moving in a different direction.

exactly ^

[CanadianRugby]

LOL @ the anti-tanking crowd thinking they're better or more loyal fans because they favor a more noble yet unrealistic strategy.

Tanking can turn you into Edmonton, but it can also turn you into the Hawks or Penguins or Ducks or thanks to the Sedins, what Vancouver was in 2011.

[Crabcakes]

LOL @ the anti-tanking crowd thinking they're better or more loyal fans because they favor a more noble yet unrealistic strategy.

Tanking can turn you into Edmonton, but it can also turn you into the Hawks or Penguins or Ducks or thanks to the Sedins, what Vancouver was in 2011.

I'm only on CDC to try and figure out what the Canucks are actually doing.

Apparently, the Canucks are not tanking which renders this discussion moot. There are lots of people on here who would rather tank. That's fine, engage in your fantasies.

Only the Penguins tanked on purpose to draft Mario and probably the Sabres to draft McDavid....how did that work out?

[oldnews]

LOL @ the anti-tanking crowd thinking they're better or more loyal fans because they favor a more noble yet unrealistic strategy.

Tanking can turn you into Edmonton, but it can also turn you into the Hawks or Penguins or Ducks ? or thanks to the Sedins, what Vancouver was in 2011.

First of all, starting a post with LOL puts you in pretty select company.

Second, your post is pretty misinformed.

Anti-tanking has nothing to do with 'loyalty' or 'nobility'. It has to do with not being losers, intentionally.

You fail to distinguish between sucking and tanking. Chicago sucked, plain and simple. Someone has to be last, second last, etc, but intending to makes you a special kind of loser. That would be Pittsburgh of the past, and Buffalo in the present.

What gives you the idea that the Canucks "tanked" in 1999 to land the Sedins? Look at their roster. They 'Tortorella'd', not 'tanked'. Naslund, Messier, Mogilny, Ohlund - all remained here. Keenan was dysfunctional - it's as simple as that - it wasn't an intention to "tank".

They dealt Linden the previous year for Bert, McCabe and a 1st - not exactly a "tank" move, and then dealt Bure in the offseason for Jovo, again - they didn't really tank - they simply wound up sucking.

They rebounded from the Tortorella misadventure not as a result of a top 10 pick (Virtanen), but as a team. as they did in 2000, 2001, etc.

2011 was 12 years after the Canucks drafted the Sedins.

The Ducks never approached anything resembling "tanking". Have a look at their roster. They're a team built on late picks.

Ironically, if you look at their core - whether their SCC team of 2006-7 or current - there's nothing there built on tank picks.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

1- Why, do you think I was directing that at you specifically?

2-There's a quote button at the bottom right of posts

No, I wasn't taking it personally. I thought you were making an appeal for everyone to respect one another's opinion, and I don't. I am here specifically to troll stupid fans.

[TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy]

I think San Jose is going to be a much better team than people think, but still he definitely lost some spots. I think the trade to Anaheim was just to stick it to the Sharks for messing around with the pick year. San Jose was clearly targeting Roy seeing he fell last minute and wanted to use the pick to move up to get him instead. you can't blame them but still, Benning was clearly pissed about that.

This. Even if the pick was still on the table if he had accepted it then it would hurt his future bargaining positions and allowed other GM's the idea that he could be strong armed.

[CanadianRugby]

First of all, starting a post with LOL puts you in pretty select company.

Second, your post is pretty misinformed.

Anti-tanking has nothing to do with 'loyalty' or 'nobility'. It has to do with not being losers, intentionally.

You fail to distinguish between sucking and tanking. Chicago sucked, plain and simple. Someone has to be last, second last, etc, but intending to makes you a special kind of loser. That would be Pittsburgh of the past, and Buffalo in the present.

What gives you the idea that the Canucks "tanked" in 1999 to land the Sedins? Look at their roster. They 'Tortorella'd', not 'tanked'. Naslund, Messier, Mogilny, Ohlund - all remained here. Keenan was dysfunctional - it's as simple as that - it wasn't an intention to "tank".

They dealt Linden the previous year for Bert, McCabe and a 1st - not exactly a "tank" move, and then dealt Bure in the offseason for Jovo, again - they didn't really tank - they simply wound up sucking.

They rebounded from the Tortorella misadventure not as a result of a top 10 pick (Virtanen), but as a team. as they did in 2000, 2001, etc.

2011 was 12 years after the Canucks drafted the Sedins.

The Ducks never approached anything resembling "tanking". Have a look at their roster. They're a team built on late picks.

Ironically, if you look at their core - whether their SCC team of 2006-7 or current - there's nothing there built on tank picks.

So you're saying it's better to have a terrible team through terrible management over a long time then to blow it up on purpose? Tanked, sucked, tortatella'd... what's the difference. The whole argument is do you need top end picks to have a chance at becoming a championship quality team. Not, what's the best way to get your team to suck.

Penguins wouldn't be champs without Malkin & Crosby

Chicago wouldn't be a dynasty without Kane & Toews

Would LA have won without Doughty?

All top picks.

You state the current Anaheim team built their team through mid round picks. Ture. But when they won in 2007, the six years prior to winning they picked (overall) 2nd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 19th twice. So actually they picked in the top 10 4/6 years before they won a Cup. Even the Bruins picked in top 10 4 out of 5 years before they won.

[oldnews]

So you're saying it's better to have a terrible team through terrible management over a long time then to blow it up on purpose? Tanked, sucked, tortatella'd... what's the difference. The whole argument is do you need top end picks to have a chance at becoming a championship quality team. Not, what's the best way to get your team to suck.

Penguins wouldn't be champs without Malkin & Crosby

Chicago wouldn't be a dynasty without Kane & Toews

Would LA have won without Doughty?

All top picks.

You state the current Anaheim team built their team through mid round picks. Ture. But when they won in 2007, the six years prior to winning they picked (overall) 2nd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 19th twice. So actually they picked in the top 10 4/6 years before they won a Cup. Even the Bruins picked in top 10 4 out of 5 years before they won.

If the question, as you say, is whether you need high picks to win, the answer is no, you don't necessarily need high picks to win, and citing teams that had high picks but none of them in the lineup when they won has really nothing to do with the question you framed.

[higgyfan]

To soon to 'evaluate' a gm after only 1 yr.

G Snow was the laughing stock of the league, but now everyone thinks he's fantastic.

When M Gillis named Lu as the captain and then signed Sundin for $10m, the media went wild with hysterics. The following year he was voted GM of the year.

So...

Lets give JB a couple of years before turfing him aside.

[CanadianRugby]

If the question, as you say, is whether you need high picks to win, the answer is no, you don't necessarily need high picks to win, and citing teams that had high picks but none of them in the lineup when they won has really nothing to do with the question you framed.

Really? Then name off some teams that didn't have high end picks and won the Stanely Cup in the cap era. The last team was the Red Wings 8 years ago. What are these teams that I cited that had high picks but not playing for them? Malkin, Crosby, Kane, Toews, Doughty, Seguin all played for the last 7 champions. Anaheim didn't have their prospects playing but traded Lupul who they took 5th overall for Pronger the year they won.

[Seven pounds soft]

We wanted change, we got change! (This forum never stops complaining... )

It takes more than one year to see a result...especially with an old core and lots of trade clauses...

It's just ridiculous to read what many CDC members posts...

IMO Benning and Linden has been very consistent and they obviously have a plan (which they don't have to spell out to us!) which they're trying to follow. Probably a plan for 3-5 years, where they wanna stay competitive before they get a contender.

I got no problems with that at all, and even though I consider myself having a very high Hockey-IQ (and doesn't agree with all their decisions so far) I can't say that I'm better than them, so I'll just let them do their stuff for a couple of years and then pin down my verdict!

I'm a Canuck and so are they, so let's give them a rest and cheer for our team, in good times AND bad times!!

Best post of the off season

My thoughts exactly

[lmm]

I think San Jose is going to be a much better team than people think, but still he definitely lost some spots. I think the trade to Anaheim was just to stick it to the Sharks for messing around with the pick year. San Jose was clearly targeting Roy seeing he fell last minute and wanted to use the pick to move up to get him instead. you can't blame them but still, Benning was clearly pissed about that.

I think between you, Crabcakes, Kesler and ThEyMaKe you woozie, you all make Benning sound like more of an idiot than I do. If he gets his panties in a twist that badly because a trade did not work out he is doomed to have less trading partners than Gillis did. You say he was "pissed", while the others say he was trying to "stick It" to Wilson. Is that the way you think grown NHL executives operate? If Wilson wanted Roy and he went out and got him, so be it. Good for him. We should be happy with Baertchi.

Do you remember last years draft when Canucks video showed Benning shopping his 2nd first but deciding he would draft McCann instead? How is that different? I do not remember anyone, on this forum or elsewhere, saying Benning slimeballed anyone because he chose to use his pick rather than trade it.

You 4 seem to agree that Benning made a statement, you also agree that he was mad. Let me ask you this, when was the last time that you made a good decision when you were mad?