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

Canucks Four Biggest Non-Mistakes Over the Last Year


IBatch

Recommended Posts

 

Let me start by saying that your arguments are fine. I just think that you're quibbling.

Context. Let's remember how soon after Benning took over that all of this happened and how quickly it all happened once the chips began to fall. All of our heads were spinning and JB was dubbed Trader Jim.

So, Benning was playing fast and loose and the end result was that several important goals were met.

One of the most important players of the past 5 years, Kesler, demanded a trade with limited options and it was was made. The return was a centre to fill in for Kesler (Bonino), depth on defense (Sbisa) and a first round pick (McCann). Nobody was complaining.

Also, goaltending had been set (Miller) which is a high priority on a Benning team. A legitimate top 6 scoring winger had been added (Vrbata) which had been a long time Canuck weakness. Both of these issues were solved through free agency. Cap room had to be created to allow for the free agent signings by moving a large salary from the Canucks deepest depth position, defense. This was the Garrison trade who also held a NTC. There were a lot of moving pieces here.

As an afterthought, the 2nd round pick obtained in return for Garrison, was moved to the Kings in exchange for Vey.

All in the space of 2 days.

So ya, afterwards when we place all this action under the microscope, he overpaid for Miller (by maybe $1M and 1 year) and he took less for Garrison than maybe he could have gotten but the it was all done quickly.

A 2nd for Vey, if you argue, you're quibbling. If you consider his AHL record, which was stellar, and that Benning had scouted him well (Manchester NH is very close to Boston) and Willie had coached him and had certain knowledge that he had the sort of character that Benning was after as he began rebuilding the Canucks.

The long and the short of all this is that some important goals had been achieved in short order to preserve team stability and at reasonable return. I think that a 101 point season is proof enough.

 

Hypothetically, had benning... :

- Signed Santorelli for 2 years for 2million.

- Kept Garrison

- Signed Miller for 1 or 2 years at 3 or 4 million or another goaltender for 3.5 million

- Not accepted Sbisa and kept our 3rd pick.

- Signed Vrbata

- Trade Bieksa

Deadline

- Trade Santorelli at the deadline (Bo's improvement would've allowed this) for a 2nd or 3rd...

I think we would have gotten further in the Playoffs and we would still have,

- 2nd round pick (not used for Vey)

- 3rd round pick (instead of Sbisa)

- 1st round pick ( Bieksa trade)

- 3rd round pick (Santorelli deadline trade)

We would be in on the Dougie Hamilton trade because we had the picks and should've paid whatever to get him.

My whole point is that we could be in a much better position now and for the future had benning chosen a different path....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My whole point is that we could be in a much better position now and for the future had benning chosen a different path....

What a joke. These moves just happened and you are already saying they don't work or aren't good enough without actually seeing them play out. You have no clue what you are talking about, yet you still like to claim Benning did something wrong.

I also love how you use hindsight for past moves as if it matters now. You have no clue what players are worth to the rest of the league, so stop acting like you know what we should have gotten for other players. For all you know, we could have kept those players you suggest and they would have ended up losing value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that the biggest reason for the poor return was the NTC.

Well we could have traded garrison to St. Louis for Patrick bergland if he hadn't refused to waive so technically it was (although vey could be a better player someday)

- It was Vey for Garrison. The cap space was used for Miller....

We already had the cap space for miller and he was our first player signed. The cap space was for vrbata. Still hating?

Of course it's easier to say this in hindsight, but I am not convinced that trading for waiver eligible players, that are not proven, is a smart move.

You would rather draft a 18 year old that hasn't proven he can lead a junior league in scoring or put up over a point a game in the ahl? You are 100% correct that hindsight makes you look better but your reasoning is mathematically flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Signed Miller for 1 or 2 years at 3 or 4 million

Fun game let's keep it going...

-signed vrbata for 4 years at 2 or 3 million

-signed Vanek for 4 years at 3 million

-traded garrison for Crosby

-traded Kesler for McDavid

I'm better than Benning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

I disagree that the biggest reason for the poor return was the NTC.... Everyone talks like the Canucks are the only team with NTC's? Every team has players with these "NTC's" and Vancouver was around the middle-of-the-pack when it comes to the number of players with NTCs. Why is it that we are the only team giving away these players at discounts with NTCs and other teams aren't?

-I disagree with this statement strongly since Kesler gave us very few options. I also find it ironic that Garrison was moved back to Florida(TBL) since he ties there.

- Back to the point.... the biggest reason for the poor return was because of bennings quick and hasty move to trade him.

- It was definitely the NTC.

- Miller is not the biggest contract...agreed. But we spent 6 million in cap space on an area where we didn't need to. So, even though it isn't as high as the Sedins, it's a bigger issue because it wasn't necessary.

Transitional player like Miller are needed in order to help keep us competitive.

And everyone says that the cap space is not an issue "moving forward..."? I'm so tired of hearing this logic....where do you guys come up with this? For ANY TEAM that spends to the cap every season....cap space is always an issue! Your saying it's ok to give Miller top dollar, Sbisa top dollar, Brandon(s) top dollar, and Prust top dollar? You don't think cap space will be an issue? When a team spends a high portion of their cap on their bottom players....this directly effects the ability to sign, acquire, resign our top players.

-That's because you fail to see the reasoning why is why I said you have a shortened perspective. We are a team transitioning from old to new which means veterans will have to be moved when youth are ready. Example would be Bieksa for a 2nd which freed up cap space. Also we have a ton of cap space next off-season.

This also effects the negotiations for our top players and prospects that are NHL ready.... if so and so is getting this much, I deserve at least "this" much more. If this goes to arbitration... I think it would also have a negative effect on the outcome for the Organization.

- You are reading to much into this.

- We are taking a high-risk chance on a prospect like Vey. It may be common practice in the NHL, but how often are teams giving up their 2nd for a "meh" prospect who hasn't really shown too much in the NHL?

-Vey wasn't a "meh" prospect at the time. I've stated this repetitively. Also Vey isn't the only prospect we traded for. Baertschi(who has ties with TG and was becoming waiver eligible) for a 2nd, Pedan for a 3rd , McCann(at a certain POV) in the Kesler deal, Clendening(who was becoming waiver eligible) for Forsling,

benning is supposedly a guru when it comes to scouting so he should've known that there were issues with skating, speed, grit, face-offs and the defensive sides to Vey's game.

- Benning, more than likely, trusted WIllie's insight on Vey. It would make total sense to trust what your Head Coach thinks of a specific player who he has coached.

- benning obviously chose Markstrom over Lack....but we wouldn't have to trade anyone if he gave Miller a reasonable contract that reflects Miller's previous season, age, etc. It still boils down to the contract.... it was just stupid if there were no other contenders bidding on Miller.

-Miller was given market value IMO. Also a bit of hindsight.

- WD wanted Vey so it's not bennings fault? Yes, I know they had history, but WD is not a GM so the blame falls on benning still.

-It is nobody's fault since we have yet to see how Vey has panned out. Wille is the main and probably only reason we traded for Vey.

- It was Vey for Garrison. The cap space was used for Miller....

-Garrison was dumped to TBL for capspace and a pick, the capspace was used for one of 2 major UFAs and the pick was used for Vey. Whenever a transitional player like Miller can garner a high amount of wins(29 wins in 45 games started) like he did it is a win in my books.

- When you combine Miller's cap with all of the other benning contracts given or players signed....it is GINORMOUS. Absolutely dumbfounding how we are spending our cap dollars...

-like I said previously your shortened perspective which is the difference between you an I. 2 years from now Miller's contract will be done. If Miller can put up 30+ wins and pave the way for Markstrom then the rest of his tenure here will be a successful one.

- Had Lack played a full season with a backup playing a reasonable amount of games....he would have done equal or better than miller with a better GAA %. The difference between Lack and Miller's pay is significant and Miller's play did not equate to 18 Million dollars worth....

-A lot of what ifs and some hindsight.

- You know that it's always high risk when you trade for a player who does well in the AHL, but is really unproven in the NHL, especially when a player's size, defensive game and other deficiencies are questionable. We can multiply the risk by 10 when waivers are added to the equation.

-Probably trusted Willie's insight like I stated previously. What kind of math is that?

Just because benning believes something it doesn't make it a good move. At the moment, we can consider this a bad move correct? Yes, it was his first year.... but now were stuck with him whether he plays well or not, which is part of the high risk. We can't send him down to develop any further.

-Not bad or good since we've yet to see how it pans out. Like I said previously with an bigger perspective you will see that if Vey pans out or not it won't have a huge impact on this team years from now.

Of course it's easier to say this in hindsight, but I am not convinced that trading for waiver eligible players, that are not proven, is a smart move.

You can't support your arguments using Hindsight. It doesn't work.

No guarantees that whoever we drafted in the 2nd, if we would of kept that pick, would of panned out. Instead we traded for a prospect who has taken strides since being drafted and has ties with our NHL head coach.

Miller is a necessary piece since we wanted to keep Markstrom. Since we are a transitioning team that is shedding veterans as young players prove themselves ready cap won't be an issue. Also next season we have like 18M in cap or so with the amount of upcoming UFAs we have.

You should also stop using hindsight in your arguments. It is a good way to get rightfully flamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

I appreciate your non-aggressive responses...and I understand that people on CDC will view me as more of a pessimist, but this wasn't always the case. The Canucks are still my team as they have been for many decades....however, I can't appreciate the moves made when I see major flaws, discrepancies or double standards.

It's quite comical how people on CDC assume that I'm short-sighted....I actually have a talent for assessing situations and looking at future implications, and this is why I'm not so optimistic anymore. I wrote a couple threads about benning and Linden before the season started and midway through the season....and 99% of the replies said the same thing you did. Now, I see a lot of those people who chided me about my thoughts agreeing with me..... go figure. Shortened perspective or looking at the big picture?

If you check my threads on benning prior to the start of last season....

- I questioned his GM capabilities and his ability to negotiate....which has become a major issue.

-This is more opinionated than it is foresight.

- I foresaw a decision as to the Canucks having to move Miller or Lack because of the former's contract....and it did.

- It was actually a few things that contributed to this. Markstrom's play, Managment choosing Markstrom over Lack, Management thinking keeping Miller is better for Markstrom's development, etc.

-If Markstrom was claimed off waivers or played like crap in Utica we'd, more than likely be heading into this season with Lack/Miller and Lack would be the goalie of the future.

- I foresaw a better season just because of us not having to deal with Torts...I said that all the players who had a bad season under Torts would rebound....and they did.

-You're definitely not the only one

There's more, go ahead and read it if you care...I was pretty accurate with my assessments in my threads a year later, so my pessimism is a result of what I see happening to us now and in the future. It's warranted.

That's still fairly short sighted if you're only looking a year ahead. At big picture I meant when the Sedins are gone and the new core is ready to take the reins which is years from now.

All these small things that benning does adds up and makes it an issue because compiled, it can't be ignored.

One thing I would like to straighten out is that all the advances we see in our prospects and what's happening to our farm team should be credited to MG. He was THE GM who finally made the move to get us to own our own farm team and develop our own players. benning did make some minor contributions to the Comets too...but credit should be given where credit is due. After multiple years, very few people give MG credit because they think he adopted all the players and prospects when he started....and I sure won't give benning credit for the Comets or prospects after only being here for 1 year.

Gillis did lay down the foundation by acquiring Utica but last year was all Benning. He brought in guys like Sanguinetti, Pedan Baertschi, Conacher, Clendening all of which made huge contributions to Utica's success in the playoffs. Somehow we were also able to keep Markstrom which was arguably the biggest reason of Utica's success but we acquired him at the cost of IMO the worst deal we've ever made in recent memory which was Luo with 800k( :sick:)retained till 2022 for Matthias and Markstrom.

Without a doubt Benning's contributions played a major role in Utica's success last season which was already a major part of the plan to develop prospects in a competitive environment.

- WD... I was really high on him when he was first hired, but his ability to adapt last year gave me doubts. I still have faith in him, but it depends on him being able to adjust to the NHL.

-In my eyes he did well for his first year. Willie did have his flaws with how he handled the goalies games but I like his philosophy and think it works best for our team during this transition.

Now that you bring WD up...here's another thing that bothers me about benning. He says one thing to the media to defend his trades/moves and it seems as though he doesn't have a clue about his own team. I'm not a big fan of the Sutter trade, but what I find puzzling is that he says Sutter will be a cornerstone of this team....Sutter is the type of "matchup" player this team needed. Doesn't benning know that the coach of the Canucks doesn't match up against any team and just plays all 4 lines?

-The key word he used was foundational player. That in my eyes means a player that will more than likely be with us during this entire transition from old core to new core. The fact that he is under contract for 6 more years which leads me to believe this. He did state that a part of the reason we acquired him was to give Horvat more offensive opportunity and that I can certainly get behind. Sutter is faster than most of our players and a righty C that can win draws which is something we lacked.

- It's far too early to critique what bennings draft moves have been like....a few picks I had an issue with, but overall I'm ok.

-It is too early to critique a lot of benning moves overall since we've yet to see how they have panned out.

- I'm not as optimistic about the older players(transitional players) being brought in as you are, I would prefer our younger players to play alongside skilled, hard-working players as opposed to slightly skilled, hard-working players. However, I don't think the players brought in will have a negative impact on the younger players development so no big deal...I believe that these kids have inherited their hunger to improve and be competitive at a much younger age.

-These transitional players are needed to play certain roles, like Prust and Dorsett for physicality, protecting our youth and playing in PK roles. Sutter for a more defensive role to open up offensive opportunities for our youth. Sbisa adds a physical presence, shot blocking and PK duties. Vrbata adds much needed scoring.

I used to be optimistic and I'm sure I will again, but until we start getting better trade deals and more skilled players....I can't see any change coming soon.

Here's the thing, we can't keep coming up on the losing end of trade deals...there is no optimistic view possible on this. We can't keep signing insignificant players to large contracts and give away NTC without getting a discount in return. benning needs to understand his strengths and maximize it whenever possible....keep his picks and draft solid players that we develop as opposed to trading the pick for waiver eligible players that aren't proven in the NHL.

We haven't lost or won almost any deal yet. You don't need to be optimistic to realize that. We needed prospects that are close to NHL ready since we lacked prospects in those areas, Benning has stated that. Draft picks don't always pan out.

When I see a move worthy of acclamation I will give it....Other than the Vrbata move, I haven't seen much. But, I appreciate your viewpoint and I applaud you for your optimism... without our different viewpoints, there wouldn't be much to say on here ;)

I am not super optimistic as being too optimistic, as well as too pessimistic, can lead your views and opinions to being far fetched most of the time. I myself try to draw the line between the two but of course I slightly lean toward optimism because you always want things to succeed.

I just have a great deal of patience and, in my opinion, a good understanding of Benning's plan and philosophy. That doesn't mean I can predict the future but it gives me a good perspective of what's ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What a joke. These moves just happened and you are already saying they don't work or aren't good enough without actually seeing them play out. You have no clue what you are talking about, yet you still like to claim Benning did something wrong.

I also love how you use hindsight for past moves as if it matters now. You have no clue what players are worth to the rest of the league, so stop acting like you know what we should have gotten for other players. For all you know, we could have kept those players you suggest and they would have ended up losing value.

 

I'll reply in kind to you....

Look smarta$$, anytime someone makes a reference to our or ANY previous trades or mentions "what ifs"....it MUST be done in hindsight because the subject being discussed is from events that have ALREADY materialized! Get it? C'mon.... think a little bit about what you wrote. You really are a bright cookie aren't you?

When you say, "these moves just happened".... are you talking about the Miller acquisition? Are you referencing the Garrison trade? Or maybe you're discussing Vey? Maybe your thinking about Santorelli, Sbisa or Vrbata? Even a child understands the difference between "now" or "just happened" vs last year....

This isn't about a draft where none of us have really had a chance to watch all the players with a wide lens and the players are still yet to develop.... these are players that we have followed closely and know a lot about it. We have a good understanding of what these players will bring the following season because they're.... wait for it.... proven NHL players. Proven is the key word here ok ;)

Hence, it doesn't take much to know the value of what a player brings to a team, especially to the Canucks if you followed this team. But you obviously have no clue...

And what I suggested that we could receive for a player is very possible considering what they actually received last year....not recently.

Santorelli - signed a 1 year deal worth 1.5 and was part of a trade with Nashville at the deadline. Franson & Santorelli for Jokinen, Leipsic and a 1st.

- I think a 3rd for Santorelli is reasonable. 2 year contract at 1 million is also not too far off.

- Hiller signed with Calgary for 4.5...so maybe my 3.5 suggestion could be moved higher

- Sbisa isn't my favorite player, but benning valued him around this mark

- Bieksa had more value last year than he did this year

And... most of these "suggestions" are what I and other members on CDC were discussing last year and none of them are out of the blue:

- lots of people wanted Santorelli resigned and it very well could have been done

- Garrison, our highest point producer on the blue line, didn't have to be traded...and Bieksa would have been the better option. I know that I and a few others didn't like the trade and the returns we got.

- Miller should have been signed for less, at 4.5 I would be ok with Miller

- Vrbata was signed

- Santorelli was traded at the deadline

What part of the above is so unimaginable for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well we could have traded garrison to St. Louis for Patrick bergland if he hadn't refused to waive so technically it was (although vey could be a better player someday)

We already had the cap space for miller and he was our first player signed. The cap space was for vrbata. Still hating?

You would rather draft a 18 year old that hasn't proven he can lead a junior league in scoring or put up over a point a game in the ahl? You are 100% correct that hindsight makes you look better but your reasoning is mathematically flawed.

 

- a prospect picked up in the 2nd round could be a better player someday... Good argument!

- If we didn't use our cap space on goaltending, than there wouldn't be an issue... doesn't matter who was signed first. Still hating?

- I would rather draft an 18 year old and develop him properly in our own system and let him get comfortable with our own players with the amount of time required before he's ready for the NHL. Better option than picking up a slightly older prospect who is unproven in the NHL and is waiver eligible.

How happy were you that Vey was gifted ice time last year and some of our own prospects weren't given an opportunity to get some NHL experience because we would have lost Vey on waivers? Vey wasn't ready...isn't ready and if he wasn't waiver eligible, he would be on the farm until he improves his deficiencies. No prospects should be given NHL ice time when they aren't ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No guarantees that whoever we drafted in the 2nd, if we would of kept that pick, would of panned out. Instead we traded for a prospect who has taken strides since being drafted and has ties with our NHL head coach.

Miller is a necessary piece since we wanted to keep Markstrom. Since we are a transitioning team that is shedding veterans as young players prove themselves ready cap won't be an issue. Also next season we have like 18M in cap or so with the amount of upcoming UFAs we have.

You should also stop using hindsight in your arguments. It is a good way to get rightfully flamed.

 

I'll reply to your comments in red first,

- I agree with you on the Kesler trade. I've said numerous times that Kes screwed us over and I put no blame on benning for the returns. I'm not happy with Sbisa in the deal, but benning liked him so whatever....I'm only upset with Sbisa's contract after we acquired him. Garrison's trade is what I was referring to.... I think we should have gotten more for him, but this deal was rushed.

- I'll agree that rushing the deal wasn't the sole reason for the poor return...obviously a NTC is a factor. We can put the blame on any factors....but a 2nd round pick for a top 4 D man is a poor return.

- Miller is not needed period. Not than, not now and not for our future. We can agree to disagree on this one because you are not going to convince me that Miller played better than Lack and I fully believe that we would have had the same results if Lack had a respectable back up goalie last year.

- You misunderstood me. My complaint here is about all the cap space being used up on our goalie, Sbisa, Prust and Dorset. It's not difficult to understand that we are in transition....it's been discussed enough on CDC, the media and everywhere else. And this statement was specific to another posters reply... You're taking it out of context.

- No, I'm looking at future implications that you want to ignore.

- When I say "meh"... I'm talking about Vey playing in our division. If he were to play in the East, he would do much better and might be worth it. Unfortunately, we play in the toughest conference and a pretty tough division now where Vey's attributes fall short. Baertschi I said was ok because he is a prospect that was treated unfairly by his previous team and he had been overlooked by them. Pedan is not waiver eligible.

- Yes, benning can trust WD's insight. However, blame still lands on benning if it doesn't work out. And it hasn't... I don't hear anybody giving the same excuses for MG or any other GM of the Nucks when there was a mistake? benning has input from various sources and those that don't agree with him he fires.... at the end of the day, he makes the final decision and he carries the blame. You are the 3rd person who tried to make excuses for benning on this? You agree or disagree that the fault of any trades falls on the GM?

- Vey for Garrison... you wrote, "Garrison was dumped to TBL for capspace and a pick..." This is my point! What GM just "dumps" a top 4 Dman quickly when the market value is much higher?

- haha your narrowed vision seems to be the difference between us. If Lack can put up equal numbers to Miller (AND HE DID) than this would have a significant effect on this team and how competitive we really could be. If the fan favorite, Lack, could put up 30+ wins than the direct advantages we gain would be extremely significant and allow Markstrom the proper time to adjust. Now with Miller, at his age, we are COMPLETELY screwed if Markstrom doesn't make it as a #1. Think about it.... we have Lack that is much more proven and experienced and we have Markstrom who has sh!t the bed since he played in the NHL, what's the smarter move in picking a goalie for the future? You have a proven player and you have a prospect that has been awful in the few NHL games he's been in.... this is not hard.

- a lot of what if's and hindsight in regards to Miller and Lack? You are lacking in arguments here so you're going with one of the typical excuses benning fans make. Stop being so narrow-minded and stop making excuses for benning and you will see more clearly.

The season prior to last, Lack played great until the toil and marathon games became an issue...he proved himself. Last year when Millers aging body couldn't handle the rigors of the game, Lack came in and played solidly as our #1. The difference between Miller and Lack does not equal the difference in salary..... what part of this is hindsight like you say? and what part of this is "what ifs"? These are facts.

- when a player is waiver eligible, the risk factors increase and the numbers I used are only to signify that the risk is much higher. Like I stated earlier....benning makes the final decision so the blame rests on him.

- not bad or good hehe Was Vey ready last year? Will he play the position that we acquired him for this year or in the future? And this is another excuse for people who defend benning....they always say, "...it won't have a huge impact on this team years from now". The immediate impact is that we lost a 2nd round prospect that could develop into a strong player.... Please don't be so nonchalant with our early draft picks, they are crucial for every franchise and have major implications for the future.

- the last statement wasn't in hindsight and you have used this word significantly in your "defending" of benning. What other methods do you suggest to argue or discuss bad judgements that benning has made in the past?

HINDSIGHT MUST BE USED TO DISCUSS A SUBJECT THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE PAST. If hindsight is the only argument people have against what has been written than it's just used as an excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just have a great deal of patience and, in my opinion, a good understanding of Benning's plan and philosophy. That doesn't mean I can predict the future but it gives me a good perspective of what's ahead.

 

- opinion or foresight, call it what you will. I was surprised that any GM would offer that much to an aging goalie, coming off a sh!t performance on a good team the season prior, no other GM's interested, and a goalie who is in decline and aging.

I called benning out on this last year and almost everyone flamed me for it because I wasn't on board the "benning is god" train. I'm still not and there's obviously some still clinging onto the skirts.

- Markstrom's play is not a huge relevance to Lack or Miller...managements thinking keeping Miller is only because benning won't admit to his mistakes. He continuously lies to us for his reasonings to justify his moves/errors. Or he'll get Linden to cover for him with some "story" or excuse to justify the moves.

We could have and should have gone with the younger goalie, on a cheaper contract with better stats all around to be paired with Markstrom. Instead of an aging goalie, who is accident prone and missed 2 months last season, who underperformed and didn't pan out to be the goalie we were all told he was....and who comes with a 6 million cap hit.

- So we can both agree that it was no big feat that we made the Playoffs... Just like Eddie Murphy said, "if Stevie Wonder could take the wheel, I'd be impressed". If the Canucks made the Conference Finals or beat a Playoff contender, I'd be impressed. ;)

- Seriously? You KNOW what benning's plans are? He told you? He has no clue himself....so I don't know how you know what his plans are? He wants to be competitive and develop our prospects to take over....this is every GM's plan! But your saying you know his objectives and so you excuse his actions because it's part of the big picture that only you have "insight" too?

That's the reason why he wants to overpay (salary/cap) Sbisa, Dorset, Prust, Miller? That's the reason he is willing to give away our picks and overpay to acquire these same players?

This is the reason he brought in smallish centers who can't defend or take a faceoff? Does

trading away our good players for measly returns play a big part of his "future" plans too?

Does tossing in our draft picks, on every deal, play a part in bennings overall plan to improve our future?

Stop talking like you have any insight to his future and ONLY YOU can see the big picture.... it's getting tiresome. And to go a little further, I said that I don't mind some of the players that benning acquired....I just HATE what benning paid to get these players and I can't fathom why he would resign these players to some of their contracts.

If you suggest that benning paid the "expected" price for these players and that this much of our cap should go to players like Sbisa, Dorset and Prust than you and I both know your lying through your teeth.

- Double standards on credit. Nobody gives MG credit because he inherited his team after 5 + years and benning gets credit after 1 year? Absolute BS. Last year was not all benning....that's almost laughable. Without the majority of the players brought in by MG...all of this is mute. Let's not forget the fact that we have the opportunity to play our players for developmental purposes and to get the most out of our prospects.... ALL BECAUSE OF MG'S MOVE TO OWN OUR FARM TEAM. This whole competitive environment stems from the fact that MG made this move.... benning had a small role, and deserves little if any credit.

One standard for all GMs instead of selective standards to suit your needs please.

- WD, I'm not upset with. However, like I said, this playing 4 lines in the Playoffs does not work and it won't...adjustments need to be made.

- Foundational player? Hehe Why do people believe that anything benning says is fact and the truth....the ONLY truth?

Sutter is not a rookie or prospect....he's been around the league for years. PLEASE show me any evidence where he is a proven 'FOUNDATIONAL' player? This tactic of benning has become quite redundant..."Sbisa will be a top 4 Dman", "Miller is here for stability", etc...it's all a load of bs. This scenario just repeated itself with Sutter... "a foundational player" hehe Now this is the benning supporters excuse for the trade....

It doesn't matter if you think it means he will be here for an extended period does it? How he performs makes the big difference and what has he shown to make you believe that he will improve now?

Again, I don't mind having Sutter on this team...but we paid too much for him.

- How is it too early to critique bennings contract negotiations? How is it too early to critique the overpayment for players in trades? How is it too early to critique Vey's performance since he just played a full year?

We are not critiquing Sutter...at least I'm not, I'm critiquing the actual trade deal. Same with almost every other trade benning has made..... This is fair game and must be critiqued.

- The transitional players you mentioned... you really think it's necessary our prospects need to see Sbisa's physical presence, shot blocking and PK duties? So the effect must be the same when they see him play defense or try and move the puck.... This team is loaded with defensively responsible players like Burrows and Hansen so Sutter won't bring anything to the table. But does this mean that Sutters soft game will be acquired by our prospects too?

C'mon.... what you wrote here is absolute garbage spewed from benning or linden.

Draft picks don't pan out so they are worthy of being tossed in with trade deals to get to an agreement quickly? And yes we have prospects that are NHL ready.... have you watched the Comets?

BTW, we had a d prospect that was close, but benning tossed him in with a trade for an older player that will be a rfa next season. Well, great that we traded for prospects that are closer to be NHL ready....but aren't ready. Now we have to play them and can't wait for them to develop. Do you not see the risks involved with trading for these waiver eligible prospects?

AND, we only got a 2nd round pick for our top 4dmen....and we are giving up 2nd round picks for these waiver eligible prospects!!!! Is this another part of bennings overall plan?

ANOTHER load of BS benning lays out and now everyone believes that it's ok to give away our picks.... "draft picks don't always pan out"!!! This is one of the funnier ones... so does prospects that are waiver eligible always pan out? Is there a guarantee?

Your worst supporting argument so far has been, "benning has stated that." Your source is the main problem here!

I admit that I have zero patience for stupidity and, in my opinion, a good understanding of bennings plan and philosophy. So I have a good perspective of what's ahead. The biggest problem I have is that benning doesn't know how to negotiate, he doesn't know what a fair deal or contract is and he doesn't understand the actual value of having draft picks.

Because we disagree with benning, it doesn't mean that pro benning supporters have more insight to what his plans are. We just don't agree with what benning has done so far...but there is a very good chance that we both have the exact same outlook on his plans/philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the Miller signing we wouldn't have made the playoffs period. No way Lack and Markstrom would have been enough, Markstrom wouldn't have had the excellent development year either - which hopefully was enough for him to do well this year. Also Miller's term and money were fair compared to the rest of the goalies in the league, it's not super star goalie money, just very good goalie money which he still is - goalies can play till their 40 and not lose a step, both Broduer and Roy won a cup or went to the final late in their careers, to say nothing about Bower, Plante and Hall.

Burrows said it too - goalie contraversories not wanted in Van with the new regime - and that has intangibles that are better avoided (had a lot to do with Kesler wanting out - that is hard to put a price on too).

Don't be surprised to see Lack's numbers plummet in CAR either. Teams take bigger risks when they play behind their number #1s. Will be interesting to see no doubt. Markstrom should learn from Miller and hopefully be ready to take over in two years time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

I'll reply to your comments in red first,

- I agree with you on the Kesler trade. I've said numerous times that Kes screwed us over and I put no blame on benning for the returns. I'm not happy with Sbisa in the deal, but benning liked him so whatever....I'm only upset with Sbisa's contract after we acquired him. Garrison's trade is what I was referring to.... I think we should have gotten more for him, but this deal was rushed.

We had to move him before FA in order two sign one of those two UFAs

- I'll agree that rushing the deal wasn't the sole reason for the poor return...obviously a NTC is a factor. We can put the blame on any factors....but a 2nd round pick for a top 4 D man is a poor return.

Cap tight team, and garrison's NTC. Other teams are not stupid and recognized that. We needed to move someone with FA coming up. It was a return that was out of Benning's control.

- Miller is not needed period. Not than, not now and not for our future. We can agree to disagree on this one because you are not going to convince me that Miller played better than Lack and I fully believe that we would have had the same results if Lack had a respectable back up goalie last year.

You can't prove Lack would do any better in the starting role or if Markstrom would develop properly without a veteran goalie.

- You misunderstood me. My complaint here is about all the cap space being used up on our goalie, Sbisa, Prust and Dorset. It's not difficult to understand that we are in transition....it's been discussed enough on CDC, the media and everywhere else. And this statement was specific to another posters reply... You're taking it out of context.

Still doesn't matter in this transition. 3+ years from now Miller will be non-existent. I also stated again and again veterans will be moved that no longer are needed to make room for younger players. An example would be Bieksa for a 2nd which freed up a bunch of cap for re-signings and UFAs.

- No, I'm looking at future implications that you want to ignore.

I am not ignoring them. I am recognizing that they are of little significance in the big picture and realize that your short shortsightedness is the reason why you're making a huge deal of these things that will be of little significance years from now.

- When I say "meh"... I'm talking about Vey playing in our division. If he were to play in the East, he would do much better and might be worth it. Unfortunately, we play in the toughest conference and a pretty tough division now where Vey's attributes fall short. Baertschi I said was ok because he is a prospect that was treated unfairly by his previous team and he had been overlooked by them. Pedan is not waiver eligible.

Vey would do better in the east? That's specualting. I never said Pedan was waiver eligible.

- Yes, benning can trust WD's insight. However, blame still lands on benning if it doesn't work out. And it hasn't... I don't hear anybody giving the same excuses for MG or any other GM of the Nucks when there was a mistake? benning has input from various sources and those that don't agree with him he fires.... at the end of the day, he makes the final decision and he carries the blame. You are the 3rd person who tried to make excuses for benning on this? You agree or disagree that the fault of any trades falls on the GM?

There are no faults and no one too blame yet since we have yet to see how Vey pans out. Willie D is also the main and only reason why we traded for Vey. If WD wasn't the coach then why would we trade for Vey?

- Vey for Garrison... you wrote, "Garrison was dumped to TBL for capspace and a pick..." This is my point! What GM just "dumps" a top 4 Dman quickly when the market value is much higher?

Again we needed the cap before FA.

- haha your narrowed vision seems to be the difference between us. If Lack can put up equal numbers to Miller (AND HE DID) than this would have a significant effect on this team and how competitive we really could be. If the fan favorite, Lack, could put up 30+ wins than the direct advantages we gain would be extremely significant and allow Markstrom the proper time to adjust. Now with Miller, at his age, we are COMPLETELY screwed if Markstrom doesn't make it as a #1. Think about it.... we have Lack that is much more proven and experienced and we have Markstrom who has sh!t the bed since he played in the NHL, what's the smarter move in picking a goalie for the future? You have a proven player and you have a prospect that has been awful in the few NHL games he's been in.... this is not hard.

I am not narrow minded. I just don't think speculating whether or not Lack would of done better in a starting role is REALLY not strong evidence. Markstrom could be that starting goalie or could be a nobody, like almost all of Benning's decisions we will have to wait and see.

- a lot of what if's and hindsight in regards to Miller and Lack? You are lacking in arguments here so you're going with one of the typical excuses benning fans make. Stop being so narrow-minded and stop making excuses for benning and you will see more clearly.

How hypocritical of you to say since you're using hindsight and speculation to support your arguments.

The season prior to last, Lack played great until the toil and marathon games became an issue...he proved himself. Last year when Millers aging body couldn't handle the rigors of the game, Lack came in and played solidly as our #1. The difference between Miller and Lack does not equal the difference in salary..... what part of this is hindsight like you say? and what part of this is "what ifs"? These are facts.

No they are what ifs. You cannot prove whether or not Lack would of done better in a starting role.

- when a player is waiver eligible, the risk factors increase and the numbers I used are only to signify that the risk is much higher. Like I stated earlier....benning makes the final decision so the blame rests on him.

There's no one to blame quite yet since we've yet to see how Vey pans out.

- not bad or good hehe Was Vey ready last year? Will he play the position that we acquired him for this year or in the future? And this is another excuse for people who defend benning....they always say, "...it won't have a huge impact on this team years from now". The immediate impact is that we lost a 2nd round prospect that could develop into a strong player.... Please don't be so nonchalant with our early draft picks, they are crucial for every franchise and have major implications for the future.

We traded for a prospect that was in an age group that we needed. 2nd round pick could of developed into a nobody. In fact Vey might do more in the NHL than whoever we would of drafted in the 2nd round.

- the last statement wasn't in hindsight and you have used this word significantly in your "defending" of benning. What other methods do you suggest to argue or discuss bad judgements that benning has made in the past?

Bad judgements? You lack the patience to see whether or not these moves pan out.

HINDSIGHT MUST BE USED TO DISCUSS A SUBJECT THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE PAST. If hindsight is the only argument people have against what has been written than it's just used as an excuse.

Hindsight can be used in discussion but if you are using hindsight to support your arguments than your arguments are very meaningless.

The only thing that can come from Hindsight is learning from the past. An example would be not trading Matthias who performed poorly after the deadline. Benning could learn from that and be more willing to move any of our upcoming UFAs that he does not plan on re-signing

The problem with how you're using hindsight is that you are using it to support what you're saying but in fact it makes what you say more and more insignificant. You already believe that these moves are already mistakes and you also making it look like these mistakes are going to affect the franchise in a major way when in fact most of their affects, like Miller and Vey, are going to be of little significance in the long term, 3+ years from now. This is a result of your shortsightedness and lack of patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no faults and no one too blame yet since we have yet to see how Vey pans out. Willie D is also the main and only reason why we traded for Vey. If WD wasn't the coach then why would we trade for Vey?

I don't buy that at all. I have no doubt WD was asked about Vey considering he had previously coached him. But I highly doubt LA's GM contacted Willie about trading for Vey and he in turn told Benning he had to trade for him. Just as I highly doubt a a newly hired rookie coach is going to put the screws to his new boss about acquiring a prospect.

LA put Vey on the market because he was waiver eligible and they didn't have a roster spot for him. If you want the best return possible you don't contact only one GM you contact several if not all that would have room for a prospect on their roster. Benning made the deal and with Vey's AHL performance it was a relatively safe bet you'd be getting an NHL player with that pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

- opinion or foresight, call it what you will. I was surprised that any GM would offer that much to an aging goalie, coming off a sh!t performance on a good team the season prior, no other GM's interested, and a goalie who is in decline and aging.

I called benning out on this last year and almost everyone flamed me for it because I wasn't on board the "benning is god" train. I'm still not and there's obviously some still clinging onto the skirts.

More so that your arguments are flawed with hindsight then not being on the "benning is god train."

- Markstrom's play is not a huge relevance to Lack or Miller...managements thinking keeping Miller is only because benning won't admit to his mistakes. He continuously lies to us for his reasonings to justify his moves/errors. Or he'll get Linden to cover for him with some "story" or excuse to justify the moves.

Markstrom was a huge impact because he was chosen over Lack to be a part of the new core. Miller is here because Management believes that this team and Markstrom need a veteran goalie in the short term and not a goalie who's never been the sure fire starter in the NHL. They wanted that veteran presence.

We could have and should have gone with the younger goalie, on a cheaper contract with better stats all around to be paired with Markstrom. Instead of an aging goalie, who is accident prone and missed 2 months last season, who underperformed and didn't pan out to be the goalie we were all told he was....and who comes with a 6 million cap hit.

29 wins in 45 games. You downplay that Miller is capable of keeping this team competitive.

- So we can both agree that it was no big feat that we made the Playoffs... Just like Eddie Murphy said, "if Stevie Wonder could take the wheel, I'd be impressed". If the Canucks made the Conference Finals or beat a Playoff contender, I'd be impressed. ;)

It was a significant feat seeing as we were the 6th worst team in the league a year prior.

- Seriously? You KNOW what benning's plans are? He told you? He has no clue himself....so I don't know how you know what his plans are? He wants to be competitive and develop our prospects to take over....this is every GM's plan! But your saying you know his objectives and so you excuse his actions because it's part of the big picture that only you have "insight" too?

You're that short sighted to not see what the end goal is? I will comment on this below the quote.

That's the reason why he wants to overpay (salary/cap) Sbisa, Dorset, Prust, Miller? That's the reason he is willing to give away our picks and overpay to acquire these same players?

We need players for this transition. Sbisa deal is iffy IMO but he brings attributes we lack, Miller is market value and Dorsett and Prust earned those contracts.

This is the reason he brought in smallish centers who can't defend or take a faceoff? Does

trading away our good players for measly returns play a big part of his "future" plans too?

Vey? Like i've stated we've yet to see how he pans out

Does tossing in our draft picks, on every deal, play a part in bennings overall plan to improve our future?

Stop talking like you have any insight to his future and ONLY YOU can see the big picture.... it's getting tiresome. And to go a little further, I said that I don't mind some of the players that benning acquired....I just HATE what benning paid to get these players and I can't fathom why he would resign these players to some of their contracts.

I never said I was the only one. Just because you hate what we paid for doesn't mean they were right or wrong.

If you suggest that benning paid the "expected" price for these players and that this much of our cap should go to players like Sbisa, Dorset and Prust than you and I both know your lying through your teeth.

I know why these moves were done. I can't tell you whether or not they were the right move. I've stated this previously

- Double standards on credit. Nobody gives MG credit because he inherited his team after 5 + years and benning gets credit after 1 year? Absolute BS. Last year was not all benning....that's almost laughable. Without the majority of the players brought in by MG...all of this is mute. Let's not forget the fact that we have the opportunity to play our players for developmental purposes and to get the most out of our prospects.... ALL BECAUSE OF MG'S MOVE TO OWN OUR FARM TEAM. This whole competitive environment stems from the fact that MG made this move.... benning had a small role, and deserves little if any credit.

Yes Gillis laid down the foundation. I give him credit for that but it was Benning who grew upon it which was a major reason of Utica's success which is already a part of his plan which I will mention below the quote.

One standard for all GMs instead of selective standards to suit your needs please.

- WD, I'm not upset with. However, like I said, this playing 4 lines in the Playoffs does not work and it won't...adjustments need to be made.

If I recall correctly he admitted to that early in the series and changed his approach. Unfortunately that was not enough. Media made a big deal of why the Sedins were not getting played enough if I recall correctly.

- Foundational player? Hehe Why do people believe that anything benning says is fact and the truth....the ONLY truth?

Sutter is not a rookie or prospect....he's been around the league for years. PLEASE show me any evidence where he is a proven 'FOUNDATIONAL' player? This tactic of benning has become quite redundant..."Sbisa will be a top 4 Dman", "Miller is here for stability", etc...it's all a load of bs. This scenario just repeated itself with Sutter... "a foundational player" hehe Now this is the benning supporters excuse for the trade....

Never stated Sutter isn't a rookie or prospect so you are taking it out of context to what Benning said. I stated what I think is a foundational player in Bennings eyes which to me is a player that will be a part of this team during this entire transition between old core and new core. Think of it this way, when Sutter's contract is up Horvat will be 26 years old.

Benning and TL also stated that Sutter is here to give Horvat more offensive opportunity.

It doesn't matter if you think it means he will be here for an extended period does it? How he performs makes the big difference and what has he shown to make you believe that he will improve now?

I never stated that he would improve. If he does however that would be nice. He is a solid player.

Again, I don't mind having Sutter on this team...but we paid too much for him.

I don't mind it. Sutter is better for our team than Bonino, We never wanted to trade Clendening but, with the amount of guys we have with similar ceilings, he was expendable and it was a late 2nd for Pitts earliest 3rd. Benning can easily get a player he has penciled in the 2nd round with that 3rd.

- How is it too early to critique bennings contract negotiations? How is it too early to critique the overpayment for players in trades? How is it too early to critique Vey's performance since he just played a full year?

We both don't know the values of players, especially with the cap trending upward. Well we've yet to see how a lot of these trades pan out. Also Vey was a rookie last season.

We are not critiquing Sutter...at least I'm not, I'm critiquing the actual trade deal. Same with almost every other trade benning has made..... This is fair game and must be critiqued.

Not really since we've yet to see how a lot of these deals have panned out

- The transitional players you mentioned... you really think it's necessary our prospects need to see Sbisa's physical presence, shot blocking and PK duties? So the effect must be the same when they see him play defense or try and move the puck.... This team is loaded with defensively responsible players like Burrows and Hansen so Sutter won't bring anything to the table. But does this mean that Sutters soft game will be acquired by our prospects too?

It is not necessary for our young guys to see Sbisa's play. It is necessary for our team to have the physical presence, shot blocking and PK duties Sbisa brings. Sbisa isn't really a leader but he doesn't have an ego. Hamhuis is someone our young guys should look up to which is why I hope he gets re-signed. Burrows and Hansen can't win faceoffs while doing so as the only right handed C like Sutter. Sutter is also fairly fast and speed is a significant issue for our team.

C'mon.... what you wrote here is absolute garbage spewed from benning or linden.

Okay?..

Draft picks don't pan out so they are worthy of being tossed in with trade deals to get to an agreement quickly? And yes we have prospects that are NHL ready.... have you watched the Comets?

You are capable of trading picks, it happens all the time and it is not throwing them away unless of course you trade picks for playoff boosts and fail in the playoffs. Yes. Baertschi and Corrado are ready and hopefully Grenier gets a shot. I don't think we are throwing away picks.

BTW, we had a d prospect that was close, but benning tossed him in with a trade for an older player that will be a rfa next season. Well, great that we traded for prospects that are closer to be NHL ready....but aren't ready. Now we have to play them and can't wait for them to develop. Do you not see the risks involved with trading for these waiver eligible prospects? I see the risks but it is necessary to take these minor risks when the majority of your prospects are not 20-24. Also which defenseman was close to NHL ready?

AND, we only got a 2nd round pick for our top 4dmen....and we are giving up 2nd round picks for these waiver eligible prospects!!!! Is this another part of bennings overall plan?

We needed prospects that fit a certain age group.

ANOTHER load of BS benning lays out and now everyone believes that it's ok to give away our picks.... "draft picks don't always pan out"!!! This is one of the funnier ones... so does prospects that are waiver eligible always pan out? Is there a guarantee?

Nope it is not a guarantee but again with the lack of depth in our prospect pool and lack of prospects of that age group these minor risks are necessary.

It could really help us if Pedan and Baertschi are able to become regulars, both players have played well since joining our organization. Also it should be interesting to see Vey after his rookie year.

Your worst supporting argument so far has been, "benning has stated that." Your source is the main problem here!

Not really and in fact it is a lot more credible than using just hindsight and speculation to support what I have to say.

I admit that I have zero patience for stupidity and, in my opinion, a good understanding of bennings plan and philosophy. So I have a good perspective of what's ahead. The biggest problem I have is that benning doesn't know how to negotiate, he doesn't know what a fair deal or contract is and he doesn't understand the actual value of having draft picks.

You have zero patience whatsoever and have no understanding of Benning's plan or philosophy.

Because we disagree with benning, it doesn't mean that pro benning supporters have more insight to what his plans are. We just don't agree with what benning has done so far...but there is a very good chance that we both have the exact same outlook on his plans/philosophy.

I am pro Benning on his plan and philosphy that doesn't mean I like or hate his moves. For all I know Markstrom could bust and Kass could become a top 6 player. Those moves would then turn out bad IMO.

I adopted a wait and see approach. I have the patience to reserve my judgement. Let me ask you when we traded for Kassian was it a bad move right then and there? No we had to wait and see how it panned out before judging the move.

That's the difference between me and you. You lack the patience to wait and see while seeming so certain that every move has gone down the drain.

In regards to Benning's plan. It is pretty easy to see.

I see a plan in place for the future and a set guideline for it. Creating and developing the new core in order to succeed the old core. Benning wants to develop prospects the right way which is creating a competitive environment for our young players to thrive in TOP to bottom, from Utica to up here in Vancouver. We saw how well are prospects in Utica did and we sure as hell saw how well Horvat did up here.

I see an identity change. This is a very different mentality then the previous regime. We appear to be becoming more of a hard working team full on players with good character as well getting faster and better on the transition. Our drafting reflects that. We are bringing in transitional guys who help us stay competitive and have good character to surround our youth with during this transition. Hopefully like Pat to Trevor to the Sedins the torch will be passed.

I see a reason for each deal made, however that doesn't mean theses reasons were right or wrong. I also see that right or wrong a lot of the conclusions of these moves won't known at this time and more importantly will not be franchise defining.

What will be franchise defining is how well Benning creates the next core of players before the old core, especially the Sedins, are gone.

The goal is to develop our youth the best we can in order for them to become the best player they can possibly be. Not only do we want to do here in the NHL but we want Utica to be successful in this as well.

We need to build this new core and build it well because our old core doesn't have that many good years left in them.

We're heading for a setback of unknown proportions when the Sedins are done. How well we build this new core will determine the impact of this setback.

Not ALL moves will be to build for youth. We need players, transitional players, to play specific roles in order help keep us competitive during this time so that we are able develop our youth the way we want to.

We also have a criteria of how we want the identity of our new core to be. Our drafting reflects of this a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- a prospect picked up in the 2nd round could be a better player someday... Good argument!

The argument was that garrisons NTC effected his trade value. I straight up proved it with an example. Then you pull that gem out? Spectacular diversion.

- If we didn't use our cap space on goaltending, than there wouldn't be an issue... doesn't matter who was signed first. Still hating?

So you are saying you would rather have garrison than vey and vrbata?

- I would rather draft an 18 year old and develop him properly in our own system and let him get comfortable with our own players with the amount of time required before he's ready for the NHL. Better option than picking up a slightly older prospect who is unproven in the NHL and is waiver eligible.

Yeah good idea, maybe they can develop well in our system like our previous 10 years of 2nd round picks. Mallet,sauve, Ellington and Rodin are really working out well for us.

How happy were you that Vey was gifted ice time last year and some of our own prospects weren't given an opportunity to get some NHL experience because we would have lost Vey on waivers? Vey wasn't ready...isn't ready and if he wasn't waiver eligible, he would be on the farm until he improves his deficiencies. No prospects should be given NHL ice time when they aren't ready.

What prospects are you crying about? Gaunce? Shink? Freisen? None of them were ready. Jensen got a few call ups but didn't step up.

Vey ended up 15th in rookie scoring (1 point behind bo). He had more points than countless blue chip prospects did. Do they suck too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that at all. I have no doubt WD was asked about Vey considering he had previously coached him. But I highly doubt LA's GM contacted Willie about trading for Vey and he in turn told Benning he had to trade for him. Just as I highly doubt a a newly hired rookie coach is going to put the screws to his new boss about acquiring a prospect.

LA put Vey on the market because he was waiver eligible and they didn't have a roster spot for him. If you want the best return possible you don't contact only one GM you contact several if not all that would have room for a prospect on their roster. Benning made the deal and with Vey's AHL performance it was a relatively safe bet you'd be getting an NHL player with that pick.

I shouldn't of stated that Willie was the only reason since I stated other reasons prior.

Solid point but in regards of scouting him I do believe that Willie's insight of Vey did play a part.

The AHL production and the steps Vey took in development in played their part in why we got him.

The age group also was a factor. These are necessary minor risks with the lack of prospects we have in this age group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we disagree with benning, it doesn't mean that pro benning supporters have more insight to what his plans are. We just don't agree with what benning has done so far...but there is a very good chance that we both have the exact same outlook on his plans/philosophy.

I am pro Benning on his plan and philosphy that doesn't mean I like or hate his moves. For all I know Markstrom could bust and Kass could become a top 6 player. Those moves would then turn out bad IMO.

I adopted a wait and see approach. I have the patience to reserve my judgement. Let me ask you when we traded for Kassian was it a bad move right then and there? No we had to wait and see how it panned out before judging the move.

That's the difference between me and you. You lack the patience to wait and see while seeming so certain that every move has already gone down the drain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Without the Miller signing we wouldn't have made the playoffs period. No way Lack and Markstrom would have been enough, Markstrom wouldn't have had the excellent development year either - which hopefully was enough for him to do well this year. Also Miller's term and money were fair compared to the rest of the goalies in the league, it's not super star goalie money, just very good goalie money which he still is - goalies can play till their 40 and not lose a step, both Broduer and Roy won a cup or went to the final late in their careers, to say nothing about Bower, Plante and Hall.

Burrows said it too - goalie contraversories not wanted in Van with the new regime - and that has intangibles that are better avoided (had a lot to do with Kesler wanting out - that is hard to put a price on too).

Don't be surprised to see Lack's numbers plummet in CAR either. Teams take bigger risks when they play behind their number #1s. Will be interesting to see no doubt. Markstrom should learn from Miller and hopefully be ready to take over in two years time.

 

Seriously? You should try arguing with something that could be back up....and if you're gonna put Lack in a scenario with Markstrom as his backup than it would only be fair to put Miller in the same situation right?

You claim that there is no way that a combo of Lack and Markstrom would have made the Playoffs last year and I'll agree because Markstrom wasn't ready. Had the GM signed a reliable backup for a reasonable cap than I would disagree... NOW, how far do you think a combo of Miller and Markstrom would have gotten last year? I GUARANTEE you that Lack and Markstrom would have gotten us further than Miller and Markstrom! We would have been stuck with Markstrom as our #1 for 2 + months last year because of Millers injury.

NOW DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH AN AGING, INJURY PRONE GOALTENDER COUPLED WITH MARKSTROM WHO IS STILL FRAGILE AND NEEDS TO BUILD CONFIDENCE?

I can't believe you had the audacity to put Miller in conversation with Roy and Brodeur??!! This just negates your whole point. Being a typical benning fan, I'm sure you have double-standards here too.... Lou is too old and will hinder us when he's 4, but Miller will be fine when he's 40.

Your saying that Burrows knows that this management doesn't want controversies? So this proves what part of your argument? THIS management is the one who went out and hired an aging, accident prone goalie to a contract that does not match his recent performance history... THIS management is the one who is stirring up the sh!t again. Goaltending WAS NOT our issue and this management needed to focus on goal scoring and our defense....but they went out and signed Miller instead to improve our goaltending.

I will be surprised to see Lack's number plummet, but I won't be surprised if Miller's numbers plummet far greater and to see him injured again. I also will expect Markstrom to be thrust into the #1 role and falter because of the undue pressure of being Millers backup.

How much do you think Miller can teach Markstrom? Everyone talks about these guys like their in their teens. These guys are adults....they don't need tutoring, at most, they may need someone to show them the ropes on how to deal with the media, the goaltending coach will teach Markstrom what he needs to know. The majority of teams in the NHL (stronger teams) have a tandem of younger goalies as opposed to the older + younger combination.... Obviously your theory is old and a MAJORITY of the GMs in the league disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out this Kevin Woodley interview from TSN1040 this morning http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040-i-1410/woodley-playoffs-a-realistic-goal-for-canucks-1.350703 there are also articles on NHL.com from Sunday.

He's talking about Lack and what a hard worker he is. Since 4 days after their last game, Lack has been working on his puck tracking technique and apparently has improved quite a bit. It makes up for his poor skating according to Woodley. It's interesting stuff.

I still think that Benning picked Markstrom over Lack because he felt he was mentally stronger as he showed in the recent Calder Cup run. However, Lack has some great qualities and is obviously driven.

Time will tell if Benning made the right call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...