RUPERTKBD Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 JB didn't want him on our roster. Abundantly clear and the reason for so many pages of discussion on the matter. Not everyone agrees that it was good asset management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Except that that year was derailed by an injury, at a time when he was playing well... You love to bring up the "shut up and play better" line (which is a misquote, BTW)....that's exactly what Kassian was doing before the back injury flared up. How about all those healthy scratches? He played like crap. Often as invisible offensively as he typically is defensively. People here write players off with far fewer chance than Kassian had. This last season was it for me. Have you ever heard Henrik publicly say anything negative about a teammate before? Of course I bring it up, it speaks volumes. He did shut up after but I wouldn't go as far as saying he was playing better. His effort is completely erratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puckdontlie Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 If management wanted him gone, Kassian should have been moved at the deadline when he was on a scoring streak and teams were interested. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/what-should-canucks-do-with-zack-kassian-1.2985942 I think the low return reflects the back injury. Canucks management probably didn't want to be in a position to waste a roster spot to showcase a player then trade him... he probably wouldn't get the ice time and there's a risk of re-inury. I'm hoping there's a plan to trade Prust esp if Kenins or Grenier can fill that role or else Kassian should have just been put on waivers rather than give up the 5th rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 How about all those healthy scratches? He played like crap. Often as invisible offensively as he typically is defensively. People here write players off with far fewer chance than Kassian had. This last season was it for me. Have you ever heard Henrik publicly say anything negative about a teammate before? Of course I bring it up, it speaks volumes. He did shut up after but I wouldn't go as far as saying he was playing better. His effort is completely erratic. The healthy scratches were before the injury. They don't really have any bearing on whether Kasiian had improved after being reinserted into the lineup. The second bolded sentence I disagree with completely. He was playing much better from what I saw. Benning's own words: “But Zack has played very well for us the last couple of weeks and we’ve been happy with his play. He’s stepped up and he’s doing the things we want him to do and he’s been part of our team winning the last couple of weeks.” He may or may not have maintained that level of play had the back not flared up, but we'll never know. Benning moved him for next to nothing before we got the chance to find out. As I've said several times before, it was poor asset management IMO and bring up the standard "Benning didn't want him on the team" line doesn't make me change my opinion. Management is not infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilduce39 Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 If management wanted him gone, Kassian should have been moved at the deadline when he was on a scoring streak and teams were interested. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/what-should-canucks-do-with-zack-kassian-1.2985942 To be fair, Benning's quote in that piece implies that he was shopping Zack, but receiving no decent offers decided to keep him. Probably was hoping he'd finish the season strong to properly fluff up his value, which obviously didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 To be fair, Benning's quote in that piece implies that he was shopping Zack, but receiving no decent offers decided to keep him. Probably was hoping he'd finish the season strong to properly fluff up his value, which obviously didn't happen. The article also says this: Benning conceded to reporters after the deadline passed that Kassian’s name was mentioned in discussions with fellow GMs, but he was reluctant to move the player with soft hands Somehow, that narrative has changed to "nobody wanted him". Now, I don't know if Benning ever uttered those words, but a lot of CDCers have. Either way, such a statement certainly seems to me to be speculative at the absolute best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puckdontlie Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 To be fair, Benning's quote in that piece implies that he was shopping Zack, but receiving no decent offers decided to keep him. Probably was hoping he'd finish the season strong to properly fluff up his value, which obviously didn't happen. I agree with the decision to move on but Benning should have done it at the deadline. He should have gotten a better deal at that time. Even if they make the same deal for Prust, they could have gotten 1.5 seasons including playoffs out of him. Also there was no real urgency to trade him in the offseason unless they thought he was going to do some adventure sports this summer and wreck his back further. At the same time I this is is a fairly insignificant trade and if management changed their mind between the deadline and July 1 then I'm glad they were decisive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 I agree with the decision to move on but Benning should have done it at the deadline. He should have gotten a better deal at that time. Even if they make the same deal for Prust, they could have gotten 1.5 seasons including playoffs out of him. Also there was no real urgency to trade him in the offseason unless they thought he was going to do some adventure sports this summer and wreck his back further. At the same time I this is is a fairly insignificant trade and if management changed their mind between the deadline and July 1 then I'm glad they were decisive. It's tough to trade a guy who is out with a back injury. This may have affected the ultimate price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Some internet anger issues in this post. I watched 20+ Pens games last year and when they could determine the matchups, Sutter was always out against the other teams best fwds. This is beyond obvious. Kills me that people would say otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 a guy who looked to have bought into what was being asked of him I think you gotta look pretty close to see that. "I played physical like everyone wanted...so" (pouts) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Abundantly clear and the reason for so many pages of discussion on the matter. Not everyone agrees that it was good asset management. But we already gave him a spot he didn't earn for a whole year to showcase him, and he impressed no one but a few Canuck fans that were rooting for him for all they're worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 The article also says this: Somehow, that narrative has changed to "nobody wanted him". Now, I don't know if Benning ever uttered those words, but a lot of CDCers have. Either way, such a statement certainly seems to me to be speculative at the absolute best. Reliable sources like McKenzie and Friedman reported that he was on the market all year. Benning managed the asset by talking him up at every chance. Later, he traded him for a return that no one calls a bonanza. So I wonder what the reality was. Did they want to move him, and get no good offer all year? Maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madwolf Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I've been watching a few Pens game on NHL Gamecenter to get a better idea of Sutter, and just watching his scoring plays this is what I can see so far: - He has speed. He can absolutely get behind the defense. - He can beat the goalie 1 on 1. - He spaces himself well on the ice on offense. - He has a solid back hand. - He doesn't get moved around that much. This was interesting to see from all the critique he took about not being a physical player. May be it's just his size, but it never really seemed like he got moved off the puck. He didn't seem terrible good along the boards, but I also didn't see much of that play either. It kind of reminded me of what we wanted out of Kassian, but didn't always get. - He isn't afraid to get in position for the rebound. - He's pretty good at picking the corners on the goalie. Some of his goals were pretty sweet, stuff the goalie normally isn't going to get beat by, he could pinch it in there. Obviously this isn't something he'll do all the time, but he can do it. - He's pretty good at poke checking the puck away. This setup a few of his breakaways. I honestly think he'll see a few points better results with the Canucks just based on being on our 2nd line. He honestly played with nobody last season, and just having Burrows is almost an upgrade statistically on any of the other 2 forwards he played with last year combined. Not to mention he'll be asked to play a different style of game, which doesn't leave him playing purely on a defensive line that is supposed to stop the other teams top lines and bide time for Crosby and Malkins lines to get back on the ice. The more I watch him the more I like the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I think you gotta look pretty close to see that. "I played physical like everyone wanted...so" (pouts) But we already gave him a spot he didn't earn for a whole year to showcase him, and he impressed no one but a few Canuck fans that were rooting for him for all they're worth. You must have missed this quote from Jim Benning: But Zack has played very well for us the last couple of weeks and we’ve been happy with his play. He’s stepped up and he’s doing the things we want him to do and he’s been part of our team winning the last couple of weeks.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Reliable sources like McKenzie and Friedman reported that he was on the market all year. Benning managed the asset by talking him up at every chance. Later, he traded him for a return that no one calls a bonanza. So I wonder what the reality was. Did they want to move him, and get no good offer all year? Maybe? People keep saying this, but I've yet to see any verification. Benning just took over the team at the beginning of the season. Are you suggesting that he was trying to trade a player from the moment he took office? That seems like pretty poor due diligence to me. Any GM that I'd have respect for would at least give the player the chance to show what he can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 People keep saying this, but I've yet to see any verification. Benning just took over the team at the beginning of the season. Are you suggesting that he was trying to trade a player from the moment he took office? That seems like pretty poor due diligence to me. Any GM that I'd have respect for would at least give the player the chance to show what he can do. You just have to insist that Benning is being totally honest, while insisting that he didn't have the know-how to shop him? I didn't miss that quote actually, because I listened to each of his weekly interviews. And in each one he was asked the same questions about Zack "the Storyline" Kassian and in each one he answered by saying that he had turned the corner and you don't just trade a player like that. And every week reliable sources say he was shopped for all he was worth. These sources are executives that tell trusted journalists little tidbits. They aren't factual reports, but they are an awful lot more credible than a guy who is actually in the game. Do you get that? Banging in a few pucks while playing with hall of famers is not all that amazing, especially if you can't actually forecheck two shifts in a row. And I love how you jump to the assumption that the shopping starting last summer. I didn't say that, I didn't hear reports of it, and it totally doesn't matter. He sucked all year, and we now have abundant evidence that he was not valued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 People keep saying this, but I've yet to see any verification. Benning just took over the team at the beginning of the season. Are you suggesting that he was trying to trade a player from the moment he took office? That seems like pretty poor due diligence to me. Any GM that I'd have respect for would at least give the player the chance to show what he can do. Benning's job in Boston was to know all the players in the league, both on and off the ice. Him trying to move Kassian from day one shows me that Benning was on top of ALL the players in the league, and knew Kassian ahead of coming here. All the teams know of Kassian's issues. I'm disappointed with Gillis not knowing of those issues, and trading for Kassian in the first lace. That's an indication Gillis did not know what he was doing. I don't want to go on a Gillis ruined our team rant, but ......Ballard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 People keep saying this, but I've yet to see any verification. Benning just took over the team at the beginning of the season. Are you suggesting that he was trying to trade a player from the moment he took office? That seems like pretty poor due diligence to me. Any GM that I'd have respect for would at least give the player the chance to show what he can do. People keep saying this, but I've yet to see any verification. Benning just took over the team at the beginning of the season. Are you suggesting that he was trying to trade a player from the moment he took office? That seems like pretty poor due diligence to me. Any GM that I'd have respect for would at least give the player the chance to show what he can do. I completely agree on the Kassian deal that I feel we may have made a mistake in terms of his potential and the return we got doesn't thrill me. I get the other side of the argument but it seems to be fueled by media conjecture rather than anything said by the team. Did he have chances? Yes. Was he always effective? No. Does he have skill? Absolutely yes. I think the team should have given him this year to sort it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I completely agree on the Kassian deal that I feel we may have made a mistake in terms of his potential and the return we got doesn't thrill me. I get the other side of the argument but it seems to be fueled by media conjecture rather than anything said by the team. Did he have chances? Yes. Was he always effective? No. Does he have skill? Absolutely yes. I think the team should have given him this year to sort it out. Kassian had multiple chances from several coaches. It was not his skills, it was his commitment that was the issue. I'm not going to bring up old news, but the guy clearly had (has) a reputation around the league about off ice issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Kassian had multiple chances from several coaches. It was not his skills, it was his commitment that was the issue. I'm not going to bring up old news, but the guy clearly had (has) a reputation around the league about off ice issues. I get that completely. However as RupertKBD has pointed out Benning acknowledged his ability to help this team when he is focused. Every thing i heard from Kassian at the end of last year and through the summer was about more focus and more commitment. He wanted to raise his game to another level and focus on consistency. I am saying given this I believe it would have made more sense from an asset management stand-point to have him back at camp and assess his renewed commitment. If it wasn't there then you move him. It's hard finding people with his kind of skill. Million dollar skills, 5-cent head. I've seen lots of guys like him before. The key is to be patient and help him find his game and the maturity. I think he was beginning to understand he may be pissing away his opportunity. Some will say he's had enough of a chance. I get it. I just don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.