nuck luck Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 - If we didn't overpay Miller we wouldn't have needed to get rid of Garrison.... do you get this? How come you conveniently ignored my comment about Sbisa's contract? THIS IS MY ISSUE! Stop skirting around this issue.... you either agree with the contract or you don't. If you don't than you agree with what I've said. - We had all summer....and we wouldn't be in this position without overpaying and "upgrading" an area on the team that wasn't our biggest issue. How do you not blame benning? He is the one who signed Miller and overpaid! He is the one who spent our cap space to try and improve goaltending when there were much bigger problems with this team. Double-standards here AGAIN. MG is at fault because he was forced to trade Lou or Schneids when the league changed the rules on him (unprofessionally and without precedence). But, benning is not at fault for having to get rid of a top 4 Dman (for peanuts) when benning was the sole reason we were on the wrong side of the cap and benning gets a free ride because Garrison had a NTC due to his discount salary? So benning is allowed to trade our quality players for minimal returns because he is forced to....BUT, nobody has a problem with benning playing top dollar to other GMs when they are also forced to trade a player? You did not answer any questions and only gave excuses and this seems to be the theme here. THIS IS MY ISSUE WITH GARRISONS TRADE. He receives minimal in return for our top 4Dmen and we give up maximum in return for prospects that aren't proven or ready. Do you see the problem here? - I can't prove Lack would do any better in a starting role, nor can you prove that we needed Miller and that he was a necessity. I can prove that Lack played tremendously well for a rookie in the #1 position the year prior...until fatigue set in due to not having a backup. I can also prove that Lack's numbers were equal to or better than Millers last year, and that Lack is not accident prone and young and healthy. - Another excuse. What team that spends to the max each year can afford to ignore the cap? You are ignoring the ENTIRE point here. It's our OPPORTUNITY COSTS that is pissing me off! If we spent that money unwisely, we cannot afford to spend the money on other areas of the team that needs to be improved. THIS is why draft picks are equally important to us and we can't afford to give them away or request minimum in return for top 4 Dmen.... WHY DO YOU THINK WE COULDN'T GET IN ON THE HAMILTON DEAL? We didn't maximize our deals previously.... the same thing will happen if we don't maximize our cap space wisely. Stop making excuses. You know that it's absurd to say that we don't have to worry about cap space....EVERY team needs to address it. Teams that spend to the max must be more careful. If we have cap space, it doesn't mean we should just spend it on our 4th line....nobody knows what can happen next week, next month or next year. What happens when an opportunity comes up where we can get a young, stud top 4Dman or young top 6 forward, but we don't have the cap space because we used it up on our 4th line? This could happen at any time.... so cap space is important ALL THE TIME. Example: A young, proven top 4 Dman is available on the market and the team isn't asking for much, however, we are not able to make an offer because we don't have the adequate picks to make the trade. Up until this point, draft picks are not reliable because they have a low probability rate so we gave them away and we didn't ask for more/better picks in return for our top 4Dmen. Do you see where your argument is flawed about draft picks not being reliable? THIS WAS ANOTHER BS LINE FROM BENNING TO COMPENSATE FOR HIS POOR DECISION AGAIN. CAP space works the same.... if we waste cap space on our goaltending (when scoring and defense is a bigger issue) and 4th line players or players like Sbisa, we are not able to acquire a good player when one becomes available. - If you can't see the problems that I've pointed out above, than you are not looking at the whole picture like you claim. These are some of the future implications that I'm talking about and they are a very BIG significance because our GM is too shortsighted to see this. This does not stop us from getting better, faster, stronger, etc...but it sure slows the process down and doesn't make the outcome as effective. Benning is headed in the right direction, but he is on the wrong path. - I'm trying to give Vey some credit.... yes it is speculation that Vey would do better in the East because they aren't as strong as the West and they're game style is more suited for Vey. The point still is that Vey isn't big enough or responsible enough to play against our rivals in the West and this is fact. No speculation that Vey did not perform well last year. I'm gonna reply to what your response will be: Why should we give him ice time with the Canucks? We need to be patient? We should give him a chance? Since when does Vey get special coddling and why should we give him a nipple when our other prospects are working hard everyday trying to get just a slight glimpse of NHL action.... oh, because Vey is waiver eligible and a risky acquisition, so he gets special attention... - HE IS NOT NHL READY. Vey proved it last year! We traded a valuable 2nd round pick for this player that is supposedly NHL ready! He wasn't. Of course someone is to blame.... Double standards again! MG picks up a proven top4 Dman in Ballard and he doesn't perform well due to various circumstances and everyone harps on MG.... benning trades away our 2nd round pick for an unproven prospect that is waiver eligible and benning is not at fault when we can all clearly see that Vey isn't ready? - Again... we needed the cap space because benning is wasting the cap space on areas that are not necessary. - You accuse me of speculation and you actually do it more than I do? Did Lack put up equal numbers or better numbers than Miller last year? If so, than my calculations are fairly close that he could have done the job like he did the year prior. The only thing Lack needs is a reliable backup and we would have the same outcome without Miller. - Hypocritical??? that's a laugh. You use speculation all the time and you claim that I'm speculating. You use double-standards all the time and you claim I'm being hypocritical? The comments you said that I was using in hindsight are exactly the same things I was saying before the deals were made last year and this year. As far as speculation accusations that your throwing as some sort of argument... it's quite funny if you look at your posts, it's all about speculation. I always wanted and stated: - to sign Santorelli - Lack as our #1 or sign a reliable backup or give Miller a contract equal to his performance and not his history or speculated performance. - I always knew Miller was not an elite goalie. A goalie who had one elite year. He's old, declining and a distraction to the team (Lucic). What part of the above is hindsight if I discussed this last year prior to the trades or at the time of the trade? I'm just repeating what I said...and many others, this is not something I made up afterwards. But, you don't have another argument or anything else to say so you claim it's "speculation" ....give an argument instead of claiming "speculation" as your "goto" defense. - WD IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. WD can make a comment or request... but the FINAL decision ALWAYS falls on the GM. ANY argument you make otherwise just shows how much your love for benning is blinding you.... - AGAIN... we needed cap space because benning wasted it. - Look at his performance when Miller was out for 2 months with an injury! Look at their stats before Miller's age effected his ability to stay healthy! The odds are that I am closer to the truth than you are.... You make another comment about me speculating on whether Lack can put up 30+ wins, but you feel it's reliable that you speculate about Miller putting up the 30+ wins? I'm a hypocrite? Please. Fine, my evidence isn't strong and neither is yours. However, in my case we aren't spending $6 million of our cap space on speculation and we are spending $6 million of cap space a NTC and 3 years on complete speculation of Miller's capabilities. This actually goes perfectly with bennings thought process in negotiating contracts with employees.... Sbisa "could" be a top 4 Dman, so we should pay him more! Dorsett has intangibles and should score more, pay him more! Miller had an elite year once and he should do it again, pay him more! - This is another defensive mechanism you have, "you cannot prove whether or not Lack would of done better in a starting role"....Did Lack not play like a #1 after Lou was traded? Was fatigue an issue when Torts wouldn't play Markstrom to relieve Lack? Did Lack not play exceptional well....at least equal to Miller and help us get to the Playoffs when Miller's age caused his injury? Yes, there is slight speculation here, but there is evidence that backs what I say...that you fail to recognize or admit to. Can you prove that Miller would have gotten us to the Playoffs if he didn't get injured? Of course you will say Yes....because you believe that you are the only one who can speculate. - Vey is a stop gap!!!! He's not a corner stone piece of the team! The expectations were that he was ready and that he would take over the 3rd C role on this team last year. He failed and now we need to rack our brains to figure out a role that he can fit into. This is a fail. Give him time???? How much time should we give this "prospect" that isn't ready for the NHL? 2 more years or maybe 3? What a joke, we could easily acquire a player that is ready NOW in FA or acquire a better player in a trade than Vey.... Vey has skills granted, but they are not unique and his flaws greatly hinder his abilities to play the role that we acquired him for. - I lack the patience to see whether or not these moves pan out???? Can you stop with the BS because I'm not so naive. A poor trade deal can be judged and analyzed immediately. Waiting is not necessary for matters like this. This is your problem, you seem to think along the same lines as benning! A smart GM does not pay extra for a player because the GM believes he will play better... or on speculations. You pay for what the player is worth at the time....and at the time, the trades were not in our favor and we have every right to criticize! Your argument is laughable: - If Sbisa improves his game SIGNIFICANTLY than we win the trade deal or contract negotiations? - If Sutter becomes a cornerstone player and turns into a Kes type player than benning wins the deal? - If Prust, somehow, puts up significant points for the first time in his long career than we win the trade? No wonder GM's love trading with benning and nobody understands what he's doing....DO YOU SEE WHAT YOUR DOING HERE, SPECULATING THAT THE DEAL WAS GOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE. At the time of the deals, we overpaid. period. Be honest, as an example, at the time of the Kass trade.... nobody knew about the 5th round pick until a little afterwards. Did you believe that we were the team that acquired the 5th round pick in this trade? Or did you believe that we had to give them this pick to trade for a 4th liner? All of your points have been used in hindsight, speculations, double standards or argued with "you can't prove it".... I'll agree that we need to use some of these methods sometimes, but don't call me out on it if you do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 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. Of course Willie would be consulted about Vey. His ahl performance speaks for itself but I'd wager Benning asked about his work ethic, drive and even personality. I agree this was a low risk trade. Nothing comes without some risk. Still, I'd say his odds of succeeding in the NHL are higher than the historical odds of a 2nd round pick playing more than 200 games and also saved the development time that pick would require. Making that trade speeded up the process by 3 to 4 years. I see that as a very good gamble. Baerstchi is another good gamble that falls into the same category of speeding up the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 - If we didn't overpay Miller we wouldn't have needed to get rid of Garrison.... do you get this? Because we could have got Miller for $1.5m? How come you conveniently ignored my comment about Sbisa's contract? THIS IS MY ISSUE! Stop skirting around this issue.... you either agree with the contract or you don't. If you don't than you agree with what I've said. I think people are making too big a deal out of his contract. had he signed for what most here thought it would have been a one year deal not a three year deal. His deal is a gamble on Bennings part. He may be a little overpaid this season (we have to see how that plays out) but if he continues to improve as he did through last season by the third year he could be a huge bargain. This isn't a strategy that's unheard of when re-signing young players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck luck Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 In regards to Benning's plan. It is pretty easy to see. 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. - How can you argue my arguments are in hindsight when they were said immediately after I heard about the trade? Another example of you using these defensive techniques to argue your point.... - If Markstrom was to become a #1, than it wouldn't matter if Miller or Lack was here correct? Markstrom would move them out. So you are arguing that Miller is here because of veteran presence (benning's line again) when the majority of teams in the NHL go with a younger goalie tandem. Earlier, you argued that Santorelli missed most of the season due to injury so he wasn't worthy of being resigned.... Miller is much older and also had an injury that left him out for 2 months, why is he worthy of keeping if he's injury prone? What happens when Miller gets injured... this is EXTREMELY risky. Why not go with the younger, healthier goalie with the lower cap space that played equally as good last year. Do you not want to see our own prospects to be given a chance to perform or do you prefer we just trade them away for older veterans? - I am not downplaying anything. I'm going by what I saw and stats. I saw a "backup" given much harder opponents to play against and still come up with equal stats to Miller, I saw Miller give up more goals per game than our "backup", I see a huge difference in salaries, I see a goalie with no future for this team and I see a young goalie that we developed with a ton of potential, etc. What are you watching? - All you have to say is that Sbisa's contract is "iffy"?????!!!! Get serious. I know a few benning supporters and they admit that this deal was absolute crap! Iffy.... that's a hilarious way to explain it. Again, I'll bring up bennings negotiation skills..... he had all the leverage, he had all the cards, he could take this to arbitration and there's no way Sbisa would earn this much, and he still gave Sbisa this much? Funny thing, it's not based on his actual play, but based on speculation that Sbisa will play like a typical top 4 Dman. I'll take any Dman that can play defense and move the puck out of our end....Sbisa's attributes are not that rare and his deficiencies can't be ignored. I hope Sbisa pans out....Like I said, it's not personal, but until Sbisa proves himself, he should be getting paid similar dollars to other Dmen with the same capabilities. - In the NHL, if you do not handle the cap space properly and you don't have prospects to develop than you are not doing your team any favors. When you overpay and give away picks than you have less prospects to develop, when you sign bottom six players to large contracts than you hinder your teams abilities to acquire top FA or get involved in potential trade deals. What part of the above isn't right? Please explain clearly... - Regarding Sbisa, Dorset and Prust.... you know why it was done? and you can't say if it's right or wrong? Why is that I wonder....oh, because we have to wait and see how these players pan out? So the contracts are good if they pan out.....and wrong if they don't? So you agree that the contracts were based on speculation! It is very easy to answer the question regarding the contracts these players have now... Is their current performance worthy of the contracts benning gave them? - benning has only been here for 1 year and you still give him credit? I'm quite confident that MG would have brought in the right pieces to make the Comets competitive too.... benning has been here for 1 year!!!!! And yes Markstrom was a key part of the Comets....but YOU admitted that benning was forced into this trade due to NTCs, so he sort of "stumbled" upon this move...basically, he got lucky. - I recall WD using all 4 lines... and I don't remember the Sedins having extra shifts out there. Maybe I'm wrong on this? but it seems we both agree on WD. - You never stated Sutter was a rookie, but I stated to show that he has many years experience in the NHL so I said, "he's not a rookie". I said this to argue that he doesn't have a history of being a "foundational" player.... Sutter obviously thinks highly of Sutter and expects him to play here for many years, but this is speculation again! What I am asking for is ANY evidence that shows that Sutter can improve his game now that he is a vet and has played in the NHL for many years. Sutter needs to greatly improve his stats if he is to be on our 2nd line.... and I have a lot more faith in Bo than you do, I think Bo will replace Sutter at 2nd and Sutter will be our 3rd C a lot earlier than his contract expires. benning also said that Sutter was a good player because we could match him up against our opponents.... do you see the double talk here? WD rolls 4 lines and doesn't like to match lines, but benning said..... - if Sutter doesn't improve than we lost this trade heavily because Bonino brought similar attributes and scores more. I shouldn't have to mention that Bonino's cap hit is also valuable, but you don't care about cap space. We have problems with scoring....this is a MAJOR ISSUE! - Please don't speculate about what benning can get in the 2nd round. Sutter might be better for our team in certain areas, but there's negatives too. I'm not arguing about Sutter....I'm arguing what we paid to acquire him. Since when is one of our top D prospects expendable???? This is a glaring hole in our prospects pool.... This is the exact crap excuse benning supporters always make..... "draft picks are risky and have no guarantee".... "we have plenty of D prospects who are close, he's expendable"? Just exactly which players make Clendening expendable? If there isn't a difference between a late 2nd and early 3rd than why do it? There's obviously enough of an advantage to stick to your guns for this extra bit right? Our GM is oblivious to how all these "extras" are advantageous and you don't get upset? - You think we can't critique a trade deal for the deal alone??? You prefer to use speculation here and wait for results....oblivious to what it cost us to acquire this player? "PANNED OUT" seems to be another tool you use as an argument. AT the time of the trade, did you feel we paid too much or did you feel it was fair? hehe this is simple and you know it.... you don't need to pan and wait for any results. Based on performance thus far alone.... you think it was a good deal? - You were the one who said that these guys can see Sbisa's game and learn from him. I just pointed out that there are other things that these kids can learn from Sbisa too and it's not good. I like Hamuis so we have no argument here. This makes two points in the same thread....not bad from where we started Burrows and Hansen don't play C so it's not a big deal if they are good at faceoffs.... but they play a hell of a defensive game and I would be thoroughly pleased if some of our prospects could emulate and play close to what Burrows and Hansen brings night in and night out. I don't mind Sutter, I just don't like what were paying him and what we gave up to acquire him. He's faster than Bonino and plays better defensively, but he doesn't play with grit and doesn't use his size. His faceoffs will be an advantage.... but does that equate to the points Bonino produced and his cap savings? Plus Clendening and the pick? - Baertschi and Grenier deserved a look and Gaunce did too....some others, but these guys should have had a small taste anyways. So Vey took that away from them because he's waiver eligible. We added a pick in almost every trade bennings made so far.... how can you not think we are throwing them away? - We don't need prospects based upon age.... we need them based upon abilities, performance and readiness. If they have the former two, but lack readiness and he is waiver eligible, than it is a high risk maneuver. - I disagree with you about these necessary risks to take a waiver eligible player...we don't have to take the risk and choosing our own pick in the draft give us better odds because...like pro-benning supporters say....benning is the drafting wiz. However, I am not adamant that all waiver eligible trades should be ignored. I like the Baertschi trade because I thought there were other factors for his low performance.... Vey, should have been ignored and just signed Santorelli. I also agree with you on Pedan and Baertsch....but Pedan hasn't really shown much due to his concussion and will need more time. Hope he recovers and they both do become regulars...Vey, Yes...I"m sure a lot of us will be watching Vey and I'm not rooting against him. I hope he proves me wrong and becomes good enough to be an NHL regular.....I just can't see him playing C. - I have patience, I had it with MG when he first arrived because he wasn't making a 'statement' trade immediately and understood the players and what they brought prior to doing anything. He wasn't getting fleeced in deals and he wasn't giving away picks. I have repeatedly said, I don't mind the players acquired, I just don't like what we gave up to get these players and the contracts we are giving them. Benning's plan The guidelines you mentioned are the same for every team. Every team wants the new core to succeed the old core and they want to make the transition the right way with proper development. Utica did well because of MG's moves and the players he put in place....benning added some pieces, but he should not be given so much credit. Bo...he would have done well with MG here or with anybody not named Torts. I credit Bo for everything he's done to get himself to where he is now.... I'll credit benning, for giving bo the opportunity, but Bo gets credit for staying with the Canucks and his improvement. Work ethic, skills, size, etc... he either learned at an early age from good parenting or peers and the others are God given. Nothing benning or anyone else in management did to help Bo get to where he's at....other than give him a fair opportunity. Agree we appear to be a different team...harder working maybe, character-wise....we didn't have a problem before. Are we a better team? Not sure....we replaced a lot of skilled players for these new guys and we still haven't addressed scoring. Your plan doesn't excuse what benning has done thus far..... where does overpaying for players come into the plan? Where does giving draft picks or better draft positions come into the plan? Where does trading our younger players for older players come into the plan? Where does overpaying our 4th line come into the plan? Where does overpaying a 6/7 dman come into the plan? I have no problem with the plan....that every GM has. I just have a problem with bennings execution of the plan! How do we improve our prospects if we have less prospects to develop due to giving away draft picks? benning needs to improve his negotiation skills and stop giving away our picks when it's not necessary. Stop trading away our youth for older players! If benning values these vets so much, trade away one of our vets instead of our youth. How does spending any available cap space on our bottom players going to help us? Automatically, we are ruled out of any possible future trade acquisitions because we don't have cap space or draft picks to make the trade. How do we keep the youth in a competitive and winning environment when we are replacing skill with players that don't have a history of scoring goals? Meat and potatoes were fine during that time against Boston.....but I don't see "meat & potatoes" in the SCFs anymore. Looks more like skill and speed are the requisite now. Are we getting to this overall plan in the best manner possible? Definitely not. And this is why I have an issue because we seem to be taking one step forwards and two steps back....or just standing still. I can respect your positive vibes and I don't mind our long discussions on this.... but you have to admit that there were better options available and better choices could have been made and we would be a little closer to "the goal". Honestly, if we had another GM with experience and negotiating skills.... everyone would be a lot more optimistic of where were at. Even if we had the same players that benning acquired because it wouldn't have cost us so much.... and our cap space would allow us to target FA for positions that we must address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 the majority of teams in the NHL go with a younger goalie tandem. 1 - Who gives a rats tush that other teams have a younger goalie tandem. In two years time we'll likely have one of the younger goalie tandems. Again so what? When the Bruins beat us in the finals the average age of their tandem was 31. So again - so what? 2 - How many teams decide to go with two young goalies where neither have even one single season as an nhl starter? Your rants get longer and longer yet less and less convincing. I suspect your real complaint is Benning isn't doing what YOU want. Because everything done makes sense to me given the game plan set out by Linden and Benning and wanting players "who play the right way". Now that's something that definitely couldn't be said about Kassian. What I am asking for is ANY evidence that shows that Sutter can improve his game now that he is a vet and has played in the NHL for many years. This is one of the dumbest statements I've seen. Do you expect him to look into his crystal ball and provide evidence of the future? The only evidence will be after it happens. To say a player can't improve his production by being utilized in better situations with more offensive linemates is naive at best. I haven't seen much of Sutter at all so I have an open mind about him. I can tell you somebody who has a great deal of time watching Sutter play - Benning. He's watched Sutter play against his Bruins for years. Likely knows far more about him and his abilities than any Canuck fan. So unlike you, I'll wait and see before passing judgement on the Sutter deal. You know, because I don't have a crystal ball. - I disagree with you about these necessary risks to take a waiver eligible player...we don't have to take the risk and choosing our own pick in the draft give us better odds because...like pro-benning supporters say....benning is the drafting wiz. However, I am not adamant that all waiver eligible trades should be ignored. I like the Baertschi trade because I thought there were other factors for his low performance.... Vey, should have been ignored and just signed Santorelli. Wait now, this is hilarious! Baertschi is ok to trade for despite being waiver eligible because of some random excuses rolling around in your head regarding his "low performance" and is thus worth a 2nd round pick but Vey, who excelled in the AHL, should have been ignored. Because you know, low performance is much better value for a 2nd rounder than excelling. Just keep rolling out the comedy. Gold Jerry! It's gold!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 **nuck nuck** Post too long. I'm not reading all of that. I did read your comments on Bennings plan. Now, Linden has said this......the Canucks are in a unique position because their old core group is all over 30 and the new core is going to come from players drafted since 2012. When Benning arrived, there wasn't a lot in the middle. Obviously, the over 30's will retire before the young group reaches their prime. This is why Benning has to add a number of players to bridge the age gap. If he doesn't then the Canucks are in danger of becoming the Oilers 2.0 with prospects and no vets. These guys don't need to fill in for 5-7 years, just a few will be fine. So, Benning brought in Miller, Vrbata, Dorset, Prust, Sutter, Sbisa, Vey, Baertschi, Clendening, Bartkowski etc. So adding a few older players is not optional. It is completely necessary because they need to develop young players. The best way to do this is by having as close to a full team structure with strong leaders who do things the right way off the ice but still can perform to a high level on the ice (providing an example and delivering performance wise). Then of course, the team must play meaningful games where both teams must elevate their games. It's nothing mysterious. It's completely logical. I for the life of me don't understand why so many people can't or won't understand this. Now before you accuse me of drinking the kool-aid. That's Benning's plan. It makes sense to me so we'll see how it goes. I don't agree with all of the moves and signings but big picture-wise, I think they're in good hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 1 - Who gives a rats tush that other teams have a younger goalie tandem. In two years time we'll likely have one of the younger goalie tandems. Again so what? When the Bruins beat us in the finals the average age of their tandem was 31. So again - so what? 2 - How many teams decide to go with two young goalies where neither have even one single season as an nhl starter? Your rants get longer and longer yet less and less convincing. I suspect your real complaint is Benning isn't doing what YOU want. Because everything done makes sense to me given the game plan set out by Linden and Benning and wanting players "who play the right way". Now that's something that definitely couldn't be said about Kassian. This is one of the dumbest statements I've seen. Do you expect him to look into his crystal ball and provide evidence of the future? The only evidence will be after it happens. To say a player can't improve his production by being utilized in better situations with more offensive linemates is naive at best. I haven't seen much of Sutter at all so I have an open mind about him. I can tell you somebody who has a great deal of time watching Sutter play - Benning. He's watched Sutter play against his Bruins for years. Likely knows far more about him and his abilities than any Canuck fan. So unlike you, I'll wait and see before passing judgement on the Sutter deal. You know, because I don't have a crystal ball. Wait now, this is hilarious! Baertschi is ok to trade for despite being waiver eligible because of some random excuses rolling around in your head regarding his "low performance" and is thus worth a 2nd round pick but Vey, who excelled in the AHL, should have been ignored. Because you know, low performance is much better value for a 2nd rounder than excelling. Just keep rolling out the comedy. Gold Jerry! It's gold!! Is this about, where we project these players in 2020? If it is, I see Vey not even on our team, and most likely in Europe. He brings nothing to impact a game, other than limited offence. Baertchi, will be a key player in our top six. I see the impact he has on offence being a lot better than Vey. Even with the Vey issues, Benning needed to get guys of that age group, so I accept the using the pick. Baertchi will prove to be a Naslund like steal. (Apologies, wrong thread, I think.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 **nuck nuck** Post too long. I'm not reading all of that. Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 - If we didn't overpay Miller we wouldn't have needed to get rid of Garrison.... do you get this? If we never moved Garrison we'd have no cap for one of Miller or Vrbata whatsoever. How come you conveniently ignored my comment about Sbisa's contract? THIS IS MY ISSUE! Stop skirting around this issue.... you either agree with the contract or you don't. If you don't than you agree with what I've said. I think Sbisa's contract is iffy, I did state that. I also stated it is good to have Sbisa's qualities since he was 2nd in hits and shot blocks on our team and 5th in TOI. Despite his flaws he did alright year for what was asked of him. - We had all summer....and we wouldn't be in this position without overpaying and "upgrading" an area on the team that wasn't our biggest issue. How do you not blame benning? He is the one who signed Miller and overpaid! He is the one who spent our cap space to try and improve goaltending when there were much bigger problems with this team. We never had solidified goaltending. Lack was coming off a rookie year and Markstrom was very unproven within the organization. You cannot prove that they would of done better if they were forced into roles. Double-standards here AGAIN. MG is at fault because he was forced to trade Lou or Schneids when the league changed the rules on him (unprofessionally and without precedence). But, benning is not at fault for having to get rid of a top 4 Dman (for peanuts) when benning was the sole reason we were on the wrong side of the cap and benning gets a free ride because Garrison had a NTC due to his discount salary? So benning is allowed to trade our quality players for minimal returns because he is forced to....BUT, nobody has a problem with benning playing top dollar to other GMs when they are also forced to trade a player? Garrison had a NTC and we were tight on cap. I don't know whether or not Benning won or lost the majority of his moves since they need time to pan out. Like I said I am reserving judgement on Benning's moves. It will take more than one year to flame or praise him for a lot of the moves he has made. You did not answer any questions and only gave excuses and this seems to be the theme here. THIS IS MY ISSUE WITH GARRISONS TRADE. He receives minimal in return for our top 4Dmen and we give up maximum in return for prospects that aren't proven or ready. Do you see the problem here? Nope when Garrison has a NTC and we are tight on cap and lack prospects in that age group. These minor risks must be made. - I can't prove Lack would do any better in a starting role, nor can you prove that we needed Miller and that he was a necessity. I can prove that Lack played tremendously well for a rookie in the #1 position the year prior...until fatigue set in due to not having a backup. I can also prove that Lack's numbers were equal to or better than Millers last year, and that Lack is not accident prone and young and healthy. Well Miller got 29 wins so yeah we needed that. Nobody will know how Lack would of done if he was in a starting role. Management chose Markstrom which is another move I will save my judgement for since I have to see how Markstrom and Lack pan out. - Another excuse. What team that spends to the max each year can afford to ignore the cap? You are ignoring the ENTIRE point here. It's our OPPORTUNITY COSTS that is pissing me off! If we spent that money unwisely, we cannot afford to spend the money on other areas of the team that needs to be improved. THIS is why draft picks are equally important to us and we can't afford to give them away or request minimum in return for top 4 Dmen.... WHY DO YOU THINK WE COULDN'T GET IN ON THE HAMILTON DEAL? We didn't maximize our deals previously.... the same thing will happen if we don't maximize our cap space wisely. Draft picks are important and they can be use in trades or for drafting. Sulking over the Hamilton deal is meaningless since 27 other GMs, some of which have more picks than us, could of offered more. Boston surprised a lot of people with that trade. Stop making excuses. You know that it's absurd to say that we don't have to worry about cap space....EVERY team needs to address it. Teams that spend to the max must be more careful. If we have cap space, it doesn't mean we should just spend it on our 4th line....nobody knows what can happen next week, next month or next year. What happens when an opportunity comes up where we can get a young, stud top 4Dman or young top 6 forward, but we don't have the cap space because we used it up on our 4th line? This could happen at any time.... so cap space is important ALL THE TIME. I'm not making excuses. It makes sense that a transitional team cap situation is not a huge issue in the long term. Veterans will be moved, which means our bigger contracts, and our youth will be brought in, which will be cheaper contracts. 18M in cap next off-season Example: A young, proven top 4 Dman is available on the market and the team isn't asking for much, however, we are not able to make an offer because we don't have the adequate picks to make the trade. Up until this point, draft picks are not reliable because they have a low probability rate so we gave them away and we didn't ask for more/better picks in return for our top 4Dmen. Do you see where your argument is flawed about draft picks not being reliable? THIS WAS ANOTHER BS LINE FROM BENNING TO COMPENSATE FOR HIS POOR DECISION AGAIN. You fail to realize that we need prospects in a certain age group and that these minor risks are necessary. Also we need transitional players in order to stay competitive for the development of our youth. CAP space works the same.... if we waste cap space on our goaltending (when scoring and defense is a bigger issue) and 4th line players or players like Sbisa, we are not able to acquire a good player when one becomes available. Well with 18M in cap next season I am sure we will be able to acquire a good player in some way shape or form next off-season - If you can't see the problems that I've pointed out above, than you are not looking at the whole picture like you claim. These are some of the future implications that I'm talking about and they are a very BIG significance because our GM is too shortsighted to see this. This does not stop us from getting better, faster, stronger, etc...but it sure slows the process down and doesn't make the outcome as effective. Benning is headed in the right direction, but he is on the wrong path. Not at all. None of these deals have a major significance on the new core besides the Markstrom decision. 3+ years from now a fair amount of the old core and transitional players will be replaced by youth, the new core. - I'm trying to give Vey some credit.... yes it is speculation that Vey would do better in the East because they aren't as strong as the West and they're game style is more suited for Vey. The point still is that Vey isn't big enough or responsible enough to play against our rivals in the West and this is fact. No speculation that Vey did not perform well last year. He was very inconsistent and was out muscled a lot. Next season we will find out if he can fix his flaws. It was his rookie year so I want to see how he does next year before I judge him. I'm gonna reply to what your response will be: Why should we give him ice time with the Canucks? We need to be patient? We should give him a chance? Since when does Vey get special coddling and why should we give him a nipple when our other prospects are working hard everyday trying to get just a slight glimpse of NHL action.... oh, because Vey is waiver eligible and a risky acquisition, so he gets special attention... At the time of the trade he was one of the most NHL ready prospects we had. - HE IS NOT NHL READY. Vey proved it last year! We traded a valuable 2nd round pick for this player that is supposedly NHL ready! He wasn't. Of course someone is to blame.... Of course Vey proved that he wasn't ready last year, you don't seem to understand that nobody knew that at the time.. No garuantee that the 2nd round pick plays more games than Vey in the NHL. It was a necessary minor risk that we've yet to see pan out. Double standards again! MG picks up a proven top4 Dman in Ballard and he doesn't perform well due to various circumstances and everyone harps on MG.... benning trades away our 2nd round pick for an unproven prospect that is waiver eligible and benning is not at fault when we can all clearly see that Vey isn't ready? Nobody saw whether or not Vey was ready and we needed the cap. - Again... we needed the cap space because benning is wasting the cap space on areas that are not necessary. Goal-tending was necessary since Miller was able to acquire 29 wins which was a significant contribution to making the playoffs. - You accuse me of speculation and you actually do it more than I do? Did Lack put up equal numbers or better numbers than Miller last year? If so, than my calculations are fairly close that he could have done the job like he did the year prior. The only thing Lack needs is a reliable backup and we would have the same outcome without Miller. Lol - Hypocritical??? that's a laugh. You use speculation all the time and you claim that I'm speculating. You use double-standards all the time and you claim I'm being hypocritical? The comments you said that I was using in hindsight are exactly the same things I was saying before the deals were made last year and this year. As far as speculation accusations that your throwing as some sort of argument... it's quite funny if you look at your posts, it's all about speculation. I am not basing mine on purely speculation and hindsight like you because that's making some of your arguments pointless. I always wanted and stated: - to sign Santorelli - Lack as our #1 or sign a reliable backup or give Miller a contract equal to his performance and not his history or speculated performance. - I always knew Miller was not an elite goalie. A goalie who had one elite year. He's old, declining and a distraction to the team (Lucic). Just because you wanted those things doesn't mean they were the right or wrong call. What part of the above is hindsight if I discussed this last year prior to the trades or at the time of the trade? I'm just repeating what I said...and many others, this is not something I made up afterwards. But, you don't have another argument or anything else to say so you claim it's "speculation" ....give an argument instead of claiming "speculation" as your "goto" defense. I am not giving a reply to an argument based from purely speculation and hindsight because it is meaningless. Come up with better supported arguments. - WD IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. WD can make a comment or request... but the FINAL decision ALWAYS falls on the GM. ANY argument you make otherwise just shows how much your love for benning is blinding you.... I don't love Benning. I believe in his plan and philosophy for the future. I am holding judgement on his moves because none of us have yet to see how they have panned out. - AGAIN... we needed cap space because benning wasted it. We only need cap space to sign transitional players and for re-signing. Also next year we have 18M in cap space freed up - Look at his performance when Miller was out for 2 months with an injury! Look at their stats before Miller's age effected his ability to stay healthy! The odds are that I am closer to the truth than you are.... You make another comment about me speculating on whether Lack can put up 30+ wins, but you feel it's reliable that you speculate about Miller putting up the 30+ wins? I'm a hypocrite? Please. Fine, my evidence isn't strong and neither is yours. However, in my case we aren't spending $6 million of our cap space on speculation and we are spending $6 million of cap space a NTC and 3 years on complete speculation of Miller's capabilities. Miller was on pace for 35+ wins last season prior to his injury. Yes it is speculation that I made but a solid one since he was capable of putting up a good amount of wins last year. This actually goes perfectly with bennings thought process in negotiating contracts with employees.... Sbisa "could" be a top 4 Dman, so we should pay him more! Dorsett has intangibles and should score more, pay him more! Miller had an elite year once and he should do it again, pay him more! Dorsett earned that contract after a career year, Miller's brings stability, Sbisa's contract is iffy which I mentioned previously - This is another defensive mechanism you have, "you cannot prove whether or not Lack would of done better in a starting role"....Did Lack not play like a #1 after Lou was traded? Was fatigue an issue when Torts wouldn't play Markstrom to relieve Lack? Did Lack not play exceptional well....at least equal to Miller and help us get to the Playoffs when Miller's age caused his injury? Yes, there is slight speculation here, but there is evidence that backs what I say...that you fail to recognize or admit to. Lack played well but has never played a full season as a starter and that was what I meant. Can you prove that Miller would have gotten us to the Playoffs if he didn't get injured? I can't prove that but I can prove that without his 29 wins we wouldn't of gotten to the playoffs. Of course you will say Yes....because you believe that you are the only one who can speculate. Nope. Like I said wait and see approach. - Vey is a stop gap!!!! He's not a corner stone piece of the team! The expectations were that he was ready and that he would take over the 3rd C role on this team last year. He failed and now we need to rack our brains to figure out a role that he can fit into. This is a fail. Give him time???? How much time should we give this "prospect" that isn't ready for the NHL? 2 more years or maybe 3? What a joke, we could easily acquire a player that is ready NOW in FA or acquire a better player in a trade than Vey.... Vey has skills granted, but they are not unique and his flaws greatly hinder his abilities to play the role that we acquired him for. You're giving up on Vey after a year? yikes you do lack patience. - I lack the patience to see whether or not these moves pan out???? Can you stop with the BS because I'm not so naive. A poor trade deal can be judged and analyzed immediately. Waiting is not necessary for matters like this. Yes waiting is very necessary because it will take more than a year to see how these moves pan out. This is your problem, you seem to think along the same lines as benning! A smart GM does not pay extra for a player because the GM believes he will play better... or on speculations. You pay for what the player is worth at the time....and at the time, the trades were not in our favor and we have every right to criticize! Nope I just have the patience necessary to see how these moves pan out Your argument is laughable: - If Sbisa improves his game SIGNIFICANTLY than we win the trade deal or contract negotiations? More so how McCann pans out will tell at this point. If Kesler never gave us just two teams then we'd have more to lean on. - If Sutter becomes a cornerstone player and turns into a Kes type player than benning wins the deal? We shouldn't be expecting him to be Kes for us. He is here to take up a more defensive role to give our youth more offensive opportunity, help us on the dot and bring speed. - If Prust, somehow, puts up significant points for the first time in his long career than we win the trade? Not why we brought him here. No wonder GM's love trading with benning and nobody understands what he's doing....DO YOU SEE WHAT YOUR DOING HERE, SPECULATING THAT THE DEAL WAS GOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE. You're that blind to what I am stating? How many times have I said you cannot tell that the deal panned out or not because it takes time. I don't know whether or not these deals were right or wrong and neither do you. At the time of the deals, we overpaid. period. How do you know when they have not panned out Be honest, as an example, at the time of the Kass trade.... nobody knew about the 5th round pick until a little afterwards. Did you believe that we were the team that acquired the 5th round pick in this trade? Or did you believe that we had to give them this pick to trade for a 4th liner? We needed the type of player Prust is. Kass's value was low and Kass never fit the critera of the next core. Nobody shouldn't sulk over a 5th round pick. All of your points have been used in hindsight, speculations, double standards or argued with "you can't prove it".... I'll agree that we need to use some of these methods sometimes, but don't call me out on it if you do the same. I'm not using complete hindsight in my arguments like you in some of you points because that makes some of your arguments pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 - How can you argue my arguments are in hindsight when they were said immediately after I heard about the trade? Another example of you using these defensive techniques to argue your point.... Your Vey/Garrison argument has used purely hindsight at times and uses hindsight more than any other argument. The Miller/Lack argument you're using speculation more so than any other argument. - If Markstrom was to become a #1, than it wouldn't matter if Miller or Lack was here correct? Markstrom would move them out. So you are arguing that Miller is here because of veteran presence (benning's line again) when the majority of teams in the NHL go with a younger goalie tandem. Earlier, you argued that Santorelli missed most of the season due to injury so he wasn't worthy of being resigned.... Miller is much older and also had an injury that left him out for 2 months, why is he worthy of keeping if he's injury prone? What happens when Miller gets injured... this is EXTREMELY risky. Why not go with the younger, healthier goalie with the lower cap space that played equally as good last year. This team always has had a veteran and a young goalie. The formula has worked real well in the past. I never mentioned Santo at all. That was someone else. Do you not want to see our own prospects to be given a chance to perform or do you prefer we just trade them away for older veterans? Depends whether or not that they're expendable pieces. Clendening was going to be the 8th D, Kassian had 3 chances with 3 coaches, and none of the picks we traded have yet to prove anything at the pro level. - I am not downplaying anything. I'm going by what I saw and stats. I saw a "backup" given much harder opponents to play against and still come up with equal stats to Miller, I saw Miller give up more goals per game than our "backup", I see a huge difference in salaries, I see a goalie with no future for this team and I see a young goalie that we developed with a ton of potential, etc. What are you watching? Miller gave up a lot of goals and had some off games. Miller did compete when the game was on the line, which is part of the reason for his 29 wins. He is able to get the job done. Lack given harder competition? When Miller was healthy he was barely given any competition which is one of the things I didn't like about WD. - All you have to say is that Sbisa's contract is "iffy"?????!!!! Get serious. I know a few benning supporters and they admit that this deal was absolute crap! Iffy.... that's a hilarious way to explain it. Again, I'll bring up bennings negotiation skills..... he had all the leverage, he had all the cards, he could take this to arbitration and there's no way Sbisa would earn this much, and he still gave Sbisa this much? Funny thing, it's not based on his actual play, but based on speculation that Sbisa will play like a typical top 4 Dman. by iffy I meant doubtful and uncertain. That is a fair thing to say to Sbisa. Not my favorite signing but I do think what Sbisa brings is important. I'll take any Dman that can play defense and move the puck out of our end....Sbisa's attributes are not that rare and his deficiencies can't be ignored. I hope Sbisa pans out....Like I said, it's not personal, but until Sbisa proves himself, he should be getting paid similar dollars to other Dmen with the same capabilities. IMO Fair assessment. - In the NHL, if you do not handle the cap space properly and you don't have prospects to develop than you are not doing your team any favors. When you overpay and give away picks than you have less prospects to develop, when you sign bottom six players to large contracts than you hinder your teams abilities to acquire top FA or get involved in potential trade deals. We traded a bunch of our picks for more NHL ready prospects, which we lacked. We also used some picks for transitional players which help us keep our team competitive in order to bring in youth in a good environment for them to thrive in. What part of the above isn't right? Please explain clearly... It is correct but as a transitional team we need transitional players to fill certain roles. Also and more importantly when youth prove that they are ready then veterans will be traded to create room for them which will in turn create cap space. Not only will trading those veteran to make room for youth and cap space they will also get us youth! Example Bieksa for a 2nd. You understand that clearly? it is like the 5th time I have said it. - Regarding Sbisa, Dorset and Prust.... you know why it was done? and you can't say if it's right or wrong? Why is that I wonder....oh, because we have to wait and see how these players pan out? So the contracts are good if they pan out.....and wrong if they don't? So you agree that the contracts were based on speculation! Sbisa definitely. Dorsett and Prust earn those contracts IMO. It is very easy to answer the question regarding the contracts these players have now... Is their current performance worthy of the contracts benning gave them? Sbisa more than likely not. Tanev and Dorsett definitely worthy. Sutter is fair price. Miller was Market value. My Opinion - benning has only been here for 1 year and you still give him credit? I'm quite confident that MG would have brought in the right pieces to make the Comets competitive too.... benning has been here for 1 year!!!!! And yes Markstrom was a key part of the Comets....but YOU admitted that benning was forced into this trade due to NTCs, so he sort of "stumbled" upon this move...basically, he got lucky. Yes I give him credit. I also give MG credit for laying down the foundation. You're discrediting Benning for growing upon that foundation. Forced to trade whom because of NTC? - I recall WD using all 4 lines... and I don't remember the Sedins having extra shifts out there. Maybe I'm wrong on this? but it seems we both agree on WD. Never had much of a problem with WD. Only major problem I had is how he managed the goalies. He played Miller too much, I think he was on pace for 60+ games prior to his injury. It would of been better to even out the schedule and keep both goalies as fresh as possibly. Like a 50/30 split. - You never stated Sutter was a rookie, but I stated to show that he has many years experience in the NHL so I said, "he's not a rookie". I said this to argue that he doesn't have a history of being a "foundational" player.... Sutter obviously thinks highly of Sutter and expects him to play here for many years, but this is speculation again! What I am asking for is ANY evidence that shows that Sutter can improve his game now that he is a vet and has played in the NHL for many years. You ignored what I stated was a Foundational player in my eyes, which to me makes sense. I am not repeating that again. Sutter needs to greatly improve his stats if he is to be on our 2nd line.... and I have a lot more faith in Bo than you do, I think Bo will replace Sutter at 2nd and Sutter will be our 3rd C a lot earlier than his contract expires. I have tons of faith in Bo, what are you talking about? In terms of roles JB and TL both stated that Sutter is here to take up a more defensive role in order to give Horvat more offensive opportunity. I am behind that and think that if Horvat can replace Sutter on a more offensive line that would be great. benning also said that Sutter was a good player because we could match him up against our opponents.... do you see the double talk here? WD rolls 4 lines and doesn't like to match lines, but benning said..... Sutter might start in the defensive zone more so than any other center on our team. WD does matchup like Sedins vs Monahan/Johnny in the playoffs but he likes to challenge his players at times to like when we saw Horvat matchup with Getzlaf. it is a weird approach but I think that was him just adapting to how each game goes. - if Sutter doesn't improve than we lost this trade heavily because Bonino brought similar attributes and scores more. I shouldn't have to mention that Bonino's cap hit is also valuable, but you don't care about cap space. We have problems with scoring....this is a MAJOR ISSUE! Bonino isn't as fast or better on faceoffs than Sutter. Defensively Sutter has an edge but offensively yeah Bones is a bit better overall but I think Sutter is a better goal scorer. BOTH are very inconsistent offensively though. I think that this was a fairly even deal. If any team comes out on top it won't be by much. Also again Sutter is here for Horvat to take up a more offensive role - Please don't speculate about what benning can get in the 2nd round. Sutter might be better for our team in certain areas, but there's negatives too. I'm not arguing about Sutter....I'm arguing what we paid to acquire him. IMO it was a fair price. Since when is one of our top D prospects expendable???? This is a glaring hole in our prospects pool.... This is the exact crap excuse benning supporters always make..... "draft picks are risky and have no guarantee".... "we have plenty of D prospects who are close, he's expendable"? Just exactly which players make Clendening expendable? Hard to argue that he was our best d prospects, one of our most ready? definitely. I never said we have a lot of guys that are as ready as Clendening but that Clendening has the same ceiling as a lot of our defense prospects. We have a bunch of depth with 5-8 potential and lack some blue chip d prospects. If there isn't a difference between a late 2nd and early 3rd than why do it? There's obviously enough of an advantage to stick to your guns for this extra bit right? Our GM is oblivious to how all these "extras" are advantageous and you don't get upset? Nope, no need to get upset IMO. Why should I? It is ANA's 2nd for Pitt's earliest 3rd. I am confident Benning can get a player he wants in the 2nd round with that pick - You think we can't critique a trade deal for the deal alone??? You prefer to use speculation here and wait for results....oblivious to what it cost us to acquire this player? "PANNED OUT" seems to be another tool you use as an argument. It makes sense. Bonino can have a horrid season and Sutter become solid for us or vice versa. That 3rd round pick could turn into somebody and that 2nd could turn into nobody or vice versa. Clendening could become an NHLer one day or become nothing. AT the time of the trade, did you feel we paid too much or did you feel it was fair? hehe this is simple and you know it.... you don't need to pan and wait for any results. Based on performance thus far alone.... you think it was a good deal? I don't think judging deals based off the right then and now is a good way of looking at things. I need to see how each piece does on their respective teams before judging this move. Until then I have to wait and see how it pans out. Someone might say one thing now and the total opposite can happen. - You were the one who said that these guys can see Sbisa's game and learn from him. I just pointed out that there are other things that these kids can learn from Sbisa too and it's not good. I never said that the young guys can learn from Sbisa's game. I said Sbisa's game is needed for this team in this transition unless of course he is replaced. I like Hamuis so we have no argument here. This makes two points in the same thread....not bad from where we started Burrows and Hansen don't play C so it's not a big deal if they are good at faceoffs.... but they play a hell of a defensive game and I would be thoroughly pleased if some of our prospects could emulate and play close to what Burrows and Hansen brings night in and night out. I would be happy to if some of our prospects were able to mirror Hansen and Burrows game like Grenier, Kenins and others. I don't mind Sutter, I just don't like what were paying him and what we gave up to acquire him. He's faster than Bonino and plays better defensively, but he doesn't play with grit and doesn't use his size. His faceoffs will be an advantage.... but does that equate to the points Bonino produced and his cap savings? Plus Clendening and the pick? I think the early 3rd for late 2nd is a wash, Sutter>Bonino for our team and I think Clendening is expendable. It is fair to say we are both two different sides of a coin on many things including this. - Baertschi and Grenier deserved a look and Gaunce did too....some others, but these guys should have had a small taste anyways. So Vey took that away from them because he's waiver eligible. I am not confident in forcing young players into roles they are not ready for. I believe that neither of these players were ready besides maybe baertschi who was acquired at the deadline. We added a pick in almost every trade bennings made so far.... how can you not think we are throwing them away? Not necessarily as we get a return for what we give up you know. - We don't need prospects based upon age.... we need them based upon abilities, performance and readiness. If they have the former two, but lack readiness and he is waiver eligible, than it is a high risk maneuver. I strongly disagree. Prospects in this age group are more ready and more capable at the pro level than 18 year olds, besides top end talent. Also it is not high risk at all. It is a minor risk. You take a risk whenever you draft somebody, we lacked older, developed, prospects so we are taking a minor risks on these players. You shouldn't be so certain that the picks we give up would be better than what we are getting. - I disagree with you about these necessary risks to take a waiver eligible player...we don't have to take the risk and choosing our own pick in the draft give us better odds because...like pro-benning supporters say....benning is the drafting wiz. However, I am not adamant that all waiver eligible trades should be ignored. I like the Baertschi trade because I thought there were other factors for his low performance.... Vey, should have been ignored and just signed Santorelli. I think these risks were necessary, they won't cause serious damage if they don't work Again nothing is certain with picks. We lacked depth with developed prospects, went out, and acquired some. I also agree with you on Pedan and Baertsch....but Pedan hasn't really shown much due to his concussion and will need more time. Hope he recovers and they both do become regulars...Vey, Yes...I"m sure a lot of us will be watching Vey and I'm not rooting against him. I hope he proves me wrong and becomes good enough to be an NHL regular.....I just can't see him playing C. I see Vey as more of a winger if he is able to take steps forward. Hope Pedan gets healthy. - I have patience, I had it with MG when he first arrived because he wasn't making a 'statement' trade immediately and understood the players and what they brought prior to doing anything. He wasn't getting fleeced in deals and he wasn't giving away picks. Gillis did a lot worse as the years went on. Traded a 3rd and a 2nd for Bernier Traded a 3rd for alberts. Bernier, Grabner and a 1st for Ballard and Oreskovich Traded two 4ths and a prospect for Pahlsson Traded a propsect and a 2nd for Roy Traded a prospect and a 4th for Walsh and Zalpe Traded Schnieder for Horvat Traded Luongo + 800k retained for Matthias and Markstrom. Traded Parent for O'Brien He was good at handing out NTC's too. Gillis had pros but the cons kept stacking up, especially after 2011. I have repeatedly said, I don't mind the players acquired, I just don't like what we gave up to get these players and the contracts we are giving them. I respect that opinion. I have different views on most of our moves though. Benning's plan The guidelines you mentioned are the same for every team. Every team wants the new core to succeed the old core and they want to make the transition the right way with proper development. Ours is really key because the old core is, well, old. We must prepare properly for when they are gone because I don't want to imagine the consequences if we don't Utica did well because of MG's moves and the players he put in place....benning added some pieces, but he should not be given so much credit. You shouldn't discredit Benning. Without those moves he made Utica wouldn't of gotten that far. Bo...he would have done well with MG here or with anybody not named Torts. I credit Bo for everything he's done to get himself to where he is now.... I'll credit benning, for giving bo the opportunity, but Bo gets credit for staying with the Canucks and his improvement. Work ethic, skills, size, etc... he either learned at an early age from good parenting or peers and the others are God given. Nothing benning or anyone else in management did to help Bo get to where he's at....other than give him a fair opportunity. Well I give Benning credit for the environment he brought Bo in. Bo flourished in this competitive environment. This is basically a success in Benning's plan if Bo continues to flourish. Agree we appear to be a different team...harder working maybe, character-wise....we didn't have a problem before. Are we a better team? Not sure....we replaced a lot of skilled players for these new guys and we still haven't addressed scoring. Yes, these short term situations need to be addressed sooner rather than later if we wish to stay competitive. Defense will be an issue, especially if Hammer is not re-signed. A top 6 forward must be had to replace Vrbata if he is not re-signed. Your plan doesn't excuse what benning has done thus far..... where does overpaying for players come into the plan? Where does giving draft picks or better draft positions come into the plan? Where does trading our younger players for older players come into the plan? Where does overpaying our 4th line come into the plan? Where does overpaying a 6/7 dman come into the plan? We have very different perspectives you and I. I have no problem with the plan....that every GM has. I just have a problem with bennings execution of the plan! I am confident in his abilities in building for the future. How do we improve our prospects if we have less prospects to develop due to giving away draft picks? benning needs to improve his negotiation skills and stop giving away our picks when it's not necessary. Benning's only filled our shelf ever since he has gotten here. Stop trading away our youth for older players! If benning values these vets so much, trade away one of our vets instead of our youth. We need transitional players if youth are not ready. When the youth becomes ready than these veterans can be moved for more youth. How does spending any available cap space on our bottom players going to help us? Automatically, we are ruled out of any possible future trade acquisitions because we don't have cap space or draft picks to make the trade. We have 18M in cap next season. Also in this transition we will shed more cap as young players become more ready. How do we keep the youth in a competitive and winning environment when we are replacing skill with players that don't have a history of scoring goals? Meat and potatoes were fine during that time against Boston.....but I don't see "meat & potatoes" in the SCFs anymore. Looks more like skill and speed are the requisite now. I don't think we are meat and potatoes. We are a lot more of a faster and hardworking than in previous years. We are 4 lines deep(though with one 1st line and three 3rds) Are we getting to this overall plan in the best manner possible? Definitely not. And this is why I have an issue because we seem to be taking one step forwards and two steps back....or just standing still. I believe that we are going about it the best way we can. I do however can see us taking a step back this year. WC teams improving, we have a ton of upcoming UFAs who would garner some significant returns. We have enough cap next year to improve our team. I can respect your positive vibes and I don't mind our long discussions on this.... but you have to admit that there were better options available and better choices could have been made and we would be a little closer to "the goal". I do believe that there might of been better possible decisions but I know it might take a while to find out what could of been better or even worse for that matter. It is the wait and see approach of mine. I am not super positive btw. If some of Benning's significant moves fail, particularly the Markstrom one, I won't be too happy. I for one wanted us to keep both Lack and Miller. Honestly, if we had another GM with experience and negotiating skills.... everyone would be a lot more optimistic of where were at. Even if we had the same players that benning acquired because it wouldn't have cost us so much.... and our cap space would allow us to target FA for positions that we must address. I think a lot of people here just don't like some of the decisions, especially moving Lack. I can sympathize with that but I believe we won't know whether or not they were the right call at this moment but rather as each moves pans out, yes I said pan out again. I don't think firing the GM after one year is a very good plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck luck Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 1 - Who gives a rats tush that other teams have a younger goalie tandem. In two years time we'll likely have one of the younger goalie tandems. Again so what? When the Bruins beat us in the finals the average age of their tandem was 31. So again - so what? 2 - How many teams decide to go with two young goalies where neither have even one single season as an nhl starter? Your rants get longer and longer yet less and less convincing. I suspect your real complaint is Benning isn't doing what YOU want. Because everything done makes sense to me given the game plan set out by Linden and Benning and wanting players "who play the right way". Now that's something that definitely couldn't be said about Kassian. This is one of the dumbest statements I've seen. Do you expect him to look into his crystal ball and provide evidence of the future? The only evidence will be after it happens. To say a player can't improve his production by being utilized in better situations with more offensive linemates is naive at best. I haven't seen much of Sutter at all so I have an open mind about him. I can tell you somebody who has a great deal of time watching Sutter play - Benning. He's watched Sutter play against his Bruins for years. Likely knows far more about him and his abilities than any Canuck fan. So unlike you, I'll wait and see before passing judgement on the Sutter deal. You know, because I don't have a crystal ball. Wait now, this is hilarious! Baertschi is ok to trade for despite being waiver eligible because of some random excuses rolling around in your head regarding his "low performance" and is thus worth a 2nd round pick but Vey, who excelled in the AHL, should have been ignored. Because you know, low performance is much better value for a 2nd rounder than excelling. Just keep rolling out the comedy. Gold Jerry! It's gold!! 1) I applaud you for doing what everyone else does on CDC to sound like a smart-tush! quoting a portion of a reply without understanding what it is referring to and using it for an argument to make a smart-tush comment. **slow clap** I stated that there is a movement towards a younger goalie tandem now as opposed to having an older goalie paired with a younger one.....IN REFERENCE to an earlier comment regarding what benning said. He is saying that we need an older goalie to mentor or bring more stability to the net and I'm saying that it's not necessary and it's not the norm in the NHL anymore, hence, there is a movement towards a younger goalie tandem. Probably because they understand that this whole "mentoring" crap bares little fruit on actual game performance.... there are areas where the more experienced player can help them out, but these are in areas like dealing with the media, being a professional athlete, etc. That's what! 2) Again.... if you want to be involved in discussion than I suggest you understand and go back and read the comments first. I have said from the beginning that Miller was signed for too much and we should have gone with Lack and a reliable backup! I never suggested that Markstrom was good enough to be a backup last year! get it? In no way have I ever inclined that we should go with Lack and Markstrom last year.... I suggested a reliable backup for Lack for much less money. Your comments are ridiculous and avoidable if you only understood what the discussions were about... I don't mind discussing the Canucks with people on CDC. I just don't respect posters who make snide remarks without understanding the context of the discussions. And....I won't go over the same things again with posters who want to play, but are too lazy to do the necessary work involved and catch up with the current conversation. If you care to read the previous discussions.... you will understand that MY BIGGEST ISSUES WITH BENNING ARE THE TRADE DEALS HE'S MADE WITH OTHER GMs, FOCUSING ON THE CANUCKS BIGGEST AREAS OF NEED, AND NEGOTIATIONS WITH AGENTS FOR CONTRACTS. I've stated this numerous times, but smart-tush people like yourself will sidetrack the conversation with idiotic comments like you gave that really have nothing to do with the point....and the main issue gets lost. I don't give a FU@K about us having a younger goalie tandem or not....I care about having a reliable goaltending tandem and improving our scoring and defense. You think fans complain when the GM does what they want? BRAVO! you earned yourself another slow clap! Wow...you're a genius to come up with this theory! This is a board to discuss the Canucks whether the fans agree or disagree with management....yes, at the moment I do disagree with the management, but this is obvious. Personally, I don't often complain or "rant and rave" about the Canucks when the management does what I want... Do you complain about management when you agree with their moves? Well....thanks for pointing this out! well thought through... 3) One of the dumbest things huh? I guess I can say the same about you on this comment...but it's tied with what you mentioned in the first paragraph. AGAIN... if you read, you will understand that the person I was replying to has been using the same tactics with me in our conversations, so I am doing the same in return. He stated that Sutter can improve, blah blah blah....and I'm asking him to provide evidence or to back it up that Sutter will improve, otherwise, it is all "speculation". He has said my entire argument thus far has been based on speculation and I called him a hypocrite because he does it more than I. Nobody is saying a player can't improve, but provide something or give some insight as to why you think he will improve? You think he will improve with better linemates and in better situations.... that's fine. I'll accept that. However, I can also argue that he was playing against easier opponents with Pitts since the top 2 lines would be getting the tougher opponents. In Vancouver, he will be played against tougher opponents, so I don't think there will be much of an improvement in production. Fair analysis I think. I don't know too much about Sutter either and I'm not sure exactly who he has been paired with, but I did read that his linemates weren't so bad all the time.... however, I didn't hear about any particular years where he had a big increase in production with these linemates. So, I am doubtful that we see improvement here.... fair enough? If you or anyone else knows something different, than please provide evidence where you know about an increase in production from him with better linemates. Don't just jump in with your "holy" attitude and put some insight into the conversation please. AND, as I said many time previously, I am not anti-Sutter. I don't mind him being here, I just don't like what we gave up for a 3rd line C.... Just because we intend to play him on our 2nd line and benning thinks he is a cornerstone player, it doesn't mean we need to pay extra to Pitts right? If pitts believes Sutter is a 3rd line C than we should be paying accordingly....and getting a better deal due to Boninos cap hit that Pitts needs much more than we do. Baerstch has an issue with management and he is not the type of player to be on the 4th line.... yes, there were variables here that make the trade a little more intriguing. Vey.... not so much. Another big difference between the two players are that one plays C and the other is on the W.... do you get the difference? One must be defensively responsible, take faceoffs, play tougher due to our opponents, etc. The other can get by on his speed and skills alone and his defensive game, faceoffs, physical play will not be scrutinized as much.... get it? The different positions they play makes a difference due to their size and style of game....poor utilization by management is also a factor. Do you get this now? I thought this was a given and I didn't have to spell it out for people... I don't mind your comments or you joining in....but lets try and refrain from going over the same points again. Unless you provide something worthy that can add to our discussions, please mention that. I don't have patience for someone who just wants to be a smart-tush... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck luck Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 **nuck nuck** Post too long. I'm not reading all of that. I did read your comments on Bennings plan. Now, Linden has said this......the Canucks are in a unique position because their old core group is all over 30 and the new core is going to come from players drafted since 2012. When Benning arrived, there wasn't a lot in the middle. Obviously, the over 30's will retire before the young group reaches their prime. This is why Benning has to add a number of players to bridge the age gap. If he doesn't then the Canucks are in danger of becoming the Oilers 2.0 with prospects and no vets. These guys don't need to fill in for 5-7 years, just a few will be fine. So, Benning brought in Miller, Vrbata, Dorset, Prust, Sutter, Sbisa, Vey, Baertschi, Clendening, Bartkowski etc. So adding a few older players is not optional. It is completely necessary because they need to develop young players. The best way to do this is by having as close to a full team structure with strong leaders who do things the right way off the ice but still can perform to a high level on the ice (providing an example and delivering performance wise). Then of course, the team must play meaningful games where both teams must elevate their games. It's nothing mysterious. It's completely logical. I for the life of me don't understand why so many people can't or won't understand this. Now before you accuse me of drinking the kool-aid. That's Benning's plan. It makes sense to me so we'll see how it goes. I don't agree with all of the moves and signings but big picture-wise, I think they're in good hands. Crab... some good points and I don't disagree with it all. I'm not fully onboard with all the acquisitions, but, as I've said numerous times, I don't like the risks we are taking and I absolutely can't ignore what we have given up for some of these players and what we signed the others for. Most of my conversations have been with Kesiscanadian, Junkyard, you and a couple others on a smaller scale..... the funny thing is that we agree on most things. Where the problems arise is that everyone gets sidetracked and wants to ignore overpayments, salary contracts, and some risks....instead we are focusing the discussion on minor details or, in some cases (I am not referring to you in your reply here), just trying to belittle each other. I understand that there is a slight gap, but I really don't see a lot of players retiring before we see more of our prospects in the NHL....I should point out that I'm thinking of the Sedins mostly. I think these guys will have a long career here and they have stated that they are happy in any role management wants...which, to me, seems like it would be a 3rd line role eventually. I hope we can agree on this and I won't have to explain my reasons.... I'll go over the players you listed: Miller - I don't have issues with him, just his contract mainly. He played a full year for us, but was injured and out of it for 2 months. Lack played tremendously well and equal to Miller last year and I thought he was tremendous while playing with Torts....if this rookie had a backup that year, we might not have even needed to contemplate signing Miller and only needed a backup. I think Lack proved himself and we should have signed a reliable backup for much less or Miller, Hiller or anyone else at a reasonable price that would allow us to focus on our goal scoring needs. Signing Miller at 6 million for 3 years and a NTC when there was no other GM even taking a whiff at him is extremely high.... I don't see how this can't be argued. You know that there is leverage being used in all negotiations, benning doesn't seem to use any. This is my issue with benning. Now that the year has transpired, Lack proved himself again and we had offers on Miller.... I don't understand how management would stick with MIller when he is accident prone, older, would give us a higher return in a trade, and he isn't in any long term plans. The risk alone with an accident prone goalie and Markstrom scares the crap out of me... At some point in time, backup goalies have to be put in the spotlight and given the #1 role if they have proved that they are capable. Vrbata - I loved this signing from the beginning. Wrote it in my thread immediately after we signed him and I haven't wavered....wished he could produce a little more in the Playoffs, but it hasn't changed my thoughts. My thinking is that we will get some good picks or a good pick out of him. Dorset - We paid a bit much for and this is for a 4th line player... and his contract is too high for what he brings to the Organization. Prust - I can't believe we payed this much for another 4th line player.... it's ridiculous. We gave up a promising PF with good skills for an aging player, one year before he turns into a rfa, and low skills. Tell me the truth, when you heard, afterwards, that there was a 5th round pick involved in the trade.... you must have thought that we were getting Montreals 5th right? These slight "bonuses" that benning gives to other GMs is fu@king ridiculous...asinine in fact. Let's just agree to disagree on Kass and try not to derail the main points on this trade....I think PF need more time to adjust and we traded Kass too early. And Kass did more than hold his own with the Sedins....why didn't we just play him on the 1st (fu@k the whole develop his game argument or earn it attitude) and increase his numbers? And than trade the guy as there are a lot of teams that would have paid a lot more if Kass's numbers were higher... it's all about strategy here. What management did was complain about Kass publicly, paired him with low-skilled players who couldn't optimize the opportunities Kass gave them, tell the fans that Kass needs to develop the right way, give him minimal PP opportunities, harp on Kass while Vey is gifted with ice time and PP, and try to change him from a "Thornton-type player to Lucic-type". Finally, they decide to trade a promising young player for an older one and pay extra.... this is horrible asset management. I would gladly take a player like Prust on this team....but it's the costs associated that pisses me off. Sutter - Also another player I don't mind having. But was this trade absolutely necessary? Didn't Bonino do well enough and bring more scoring/points to this team? You add his cap and the Sutter deal doesn't look so good to me. Not to mention the pick-swap and Clendening. Another bonus we gave the opposition. Sbisa - I don't blame benning for the Kes trade. But, why would he want a player with Sbisa's history involved with the trade? Ok...so he thought he would play well, but after what he saw...how could he come to the conclusion that Sbisa is worth that much? Just because benning thinks he's a top 4Dman, it doesn't mean we have to pay him now for when (if) he actually becomes one. Vey - I have discussed with many people. Too small for Center, too easy to play against in our conference, too slow, defensive issue and faceoff issues....lots of problems and is not a solution for us even if it was short-term. We could have signed Santorelli for minimal amounts at 2 years and kept that 2nd round pick. We would be a better team. Waiver eligible players are high risk if they have not proven anything in the NHL.... Baerstchi - Mentioned Baerstchi in my comment to Deniro. I don't mind this trade. Clendening - one of our rare potential top 4 Dmen that we traded away for Sutter.... Think about that. We traded Forsling who showed promise for Clendening.... We traded a 2C, a top 4D prospect and gave our 2nd pick for a 3C and their 3rd???? There's more...but I think you get my point. I haven't even mentioned what we received for our players.... These are my issues, not the players...maybe 1 or 2 of them. I don't know how pro benning fans can say that I'm full of crap when the evidence is right there in their face? How do we keep our future intact or improve on it when we keep trading away our picks or give away our players for peanuts? I completely understand what you, junkyarddog and some others are saying.... I just don't understand how you can't see my point of how we are getting fleeced in trades and overpaying players. When you look at each deal individually, you can say....'meh', at least we improved here and there. However, when you start adding up these deals and looking at them altogether, than you start seeing a pattern and the issues have merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 1) I applaud you for doing what everyone else does on CDC to sound like a smart-tush! quoting a portion of a reply without understanding what it is referring to and using it for an argument to make a smart-tush comment. **slow clap** I stated that there is a movement towards a younger goalie tandem now as opposed to having an older goalie paired with a younger one.....IN REFERENCE to an earlier comment regarding what benning said. He is saying that we need an older goalie to mentor or bring more stability to the net and I'm saying that it's not necessary and it's not the norm in the NHL anymore, hence, there is a movement towards a younger goalie tandem. Probably because they understand that this whole "mentoring" crap bares little fruit on actual game performance.... there are areas where the more experienced player can help them out, but these are in areas like dealing with the media, being a professional athlete, etc. That's what! 2) Again.... if you want to be involved in discussion than I suggest you understand and go back and read the comments first. I have said from the beginning that Miller was signed for too much and we should have gone with Lack and a reliable backup! I never suggested that Markstrom was good enough to be a backup last year! get it? In no way have I ever inclined that we should go with Lack and Markstrom last year.... I suggested a reliable backup for Lack for much less money. 1 - I fully understand your comments. I'll say it again - I could give a rats tush if other teams have a younger goalie tandem. Boston won the cup with a tandem that averaged over 30. So what difference does it make? None. 2 - I've already stated we'll have to agree to disagree on Millers salary. There's no problem with my understanding. Somebody disagrees with you and you don't seem to understand it. I've stated this numerous times, but smart-tush people like yourself will sidetrack the conversation with idiotic comments like you gave that really have nothing to do with the point....and the main issue gets lost. I don't give a FU@K about us having a younger goalie tandem or not....I care about having a reliable goaltending tandem and improving our scoring and defense. Then why do YOU keep bringing it up? 3) One of the dumbest things huh? I guess I can say the same about you on this comment...but it's tied with what you mentioned in the first paragraph. Yes it is. How can anybody "provide evidence" of what will occur in the future? Baerstch has an issue with management and he is not the type of player to be on the 4th line.... yes, there were variables here that make the trade a little more intriguing. Vey.... not so much. Another big difference between the two players are that one plays C and the other is on the W.... do you get the difference? One must be defensively responsible, take faceoffs, play tougher due to our opponents, etc. The other can get by on his speed and skills alone and his defensive game, faceoffs, physical play will not be scrutinized as much.... get it? You said Baertschi had low performancen not that he played wing instead of center. I could care less what position they play. Both are good gambles that speed up the rebuild process. Both have already gone through years of development. You're problem is passing judgement too quickly. It was Vey's rookie season. It wasn't great nor was it awful. He made some great defensive plays and had some defensive gaffs. Face-offs don't worry me as few step into the league and do as well as Horvat did. Vey was in the ballpark of Henrik, Kesler, Bonino, and Matthias in their rookie seasons. Rookies do improve. And as we've seen in the past here, you can never have too many centers. I completely understand what you, junkyarddog and some others are saying.... I just don't understand how you can't see my point of how we are getting fleeced in trades and overpaying players. When you look at each deal individually, you can say....'meh', at least we improved here and there. However, when you start adding up these deals and looking at them altogether, than you start seeing a pattern and the issues have merit. This is your problem. We understand, we see it, we simply don't agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 I don't mind your comments or you joining in....but lets try and refrain from going over the same points again. Unless you provide something worthy that can add to our discussions, please mention that. I don't have patience for someone who just wants to be a smart-tush... If YOU stop posting the same thing over and over, I'll stop giving the same reply over and over. At least I'm not doing it in novel form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 **nuck luck** Essentially you are understanding the big picture as I have described it and some of the things that Benning has to do from here forward (such as setting up an organizational structure for the development of young players). There are no shortcuts with building a team. It's all about drafting and developing. When the model is complete, the team will have 2 players from every year ranging in ages from 22 to 33 and 1 extra which makes 23. Each year, 2 either retire or are traded and 2 rookies are introduced and it rolls over in perpetuity. This is the model and is a gross simplification but something like this is what Benning is aiming for. The trick is, getting from here to there. What you don't like is some of the moves that Benning has made. I think that you've made some good points. I think that there have been some overpayments as well in terms of contracts and trades. I think that Benning is more of a talent evaluator and a team builder. Not so much a wheeler and dealer, or contract man (like Gillis was). This is fine because he can't be good at everything. This is why he needs to build his management team with complimentary pieces. They all have to be on the same page in terms of goals for the team (strategy) but they also need to bring their own skills. Benning needs a contracts guy also a guy who is good at negotiating trades maybe then he won't be left holding the short end of the stick so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck luck Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 1 - I fully understand your comments. I'll say it again - I could give a rats tush if other teams have a younger goalie tandem. Boston won the cup with a tandem that averaged over 30. So what difference does it make? None. 2 - I've already stated we'll have to agree to disagree on Millers salary. There's no problem with my understanding. Somebody disagrees with you and you don't seem to understand it. Then why do YOU keep bringing it up? Yes it is. How can anybody "provide evidence" of what will occur in the future? You said Baertschi had low performancen not that he played wing instead of center. I could care less what position they play. Both are good gambles that speed up the rebuild process. Both have already gone through years of development. You're problem is passing judgement too quickly. It was Vey's rookie season. It wasn't great nor was it awful. He made some great defensive plays and had some defensive gaffs. Face-offs don't worry me as few step into the league and do as well as Horvat did. Vey was in the ballpark of Henrik, Kesler, Bonino, and Matthias in their rookie seasons. Rookies do improve. And as we've seen in the past here, you can never have too many centers. This is your problem. We understand, we see it, we simply don't agree with you. Poor Baggins.... did I upset you with logic? 1) You don't have anything valid to say so you defend it with "I don't care..." hehe Great response! I explained the context as it was only relevant to Junkyard dogs comment....so why are YOU bringing it up? Funny. 2) Obviously you have issues with comprehension...coupled with whatever else. Somebody's opinion doesn't jive with yours or somebody writes an argument that stumps you so you make idiotic comments? Take the ring off Frodo. Here's an example of your comprehension issues... I stated that there is no evidence that shows Sutter will perform better with the Canucks.... he's played in the league for years and hasn't shown that he can regularly produce points effectively. He also played against easier matchups while in Pitts and he still didn't produce. So, I asked for evidence of any previous years where he did produce....but the wording probably fooled you... if I substituted "examples" or "previous history" you might understand. You want to fault others because your comprehension levels are low? I'm not asking him to tell the future.... haha 3) AGAIN.... I give you a solid argument and you have nothing to reply with. So you resort (I'm not talking about a place to relax and holiday here.... resort = fall back to/final option) to "I don't care.... wah". Childish. There is a big difference between playing C and W....especially if the player is defensively irresponsible and can't take faceoffs. But, your "I DON'T CARE....WAH" argument is good enough! Point taken. 8 year old kids have the same argument.... 4) I'm passing judgement too quickly? We traded for Vey because he was supposed to center our 3rd line, he was supposed to be NHL ready...... ONE YEAR LATER and what? We found out that Vey isn't good enough to center any lines and he isn't NHL ready! Now we're stuck with him in the HOPES that he develops and becomes a NHL player and we can't find a place for him in the lineup....and to top it off, we can't send him down to the Comets. You want us to be patient with Vey? Is that why we signed him? We didn't trade for Vey so that we could let a prospect, who isn't NHL ready, to develop his game with the Canucks.... We have enough centers now and we have a ton in our prospects pool so benning and WD are not considering Vey at C anymore. It was a bad trade. Bad trades happen and I understand this....is benning the only GM that made a bad trade? NO.... but must CDC ignore the fact because it doesn't fit your image of benning? Sorry...it's not all about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck luck Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 If YOU stop posting the same thing over and over, I'll stop giving the same reply over and over. At least I'm not doing it in novel form. I'm not your teacher, parent or guardian.... NOBODY is forcing you to read anything on CDC. If something is too long and gives you a headache just click away, ignore it, scroll down or whatever else you want to do. Yes.... I wish all of CDC didn't write their thoughts on this forum and just stood by and made snide comments on matters that are way above them. How great would CDC be with characters all like yourself! Just one liners and nothing of substance on CDC.... Oh, I forgot to include that all members of CDC must agree on the subject too... Don't bother replying or reading....I absolve (this is not some gimmick to improve your abs) you from any further anxiety due to my extensive posts. I will ignore your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck luck Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 **nuck luck** Essentially you are understanding the big picture as I have described it and some of the things that Benning has to do from here forward (such as setting up an organizational structure for the development of young players). There are no shortcuts with building a team. It's all about drafting and developing. When the model is complete, the team will have 2 players from every year ranging in ages from 22 to 33 and 1 extra which makes 23. Each year, 2 either retire or are traded and 2 rookies are introduced and it rolls over in perpetuity. This is the model and is a gross simplification but something like this is what Benning is aiming for. The trick is, getting from here to there. What you don't like is some of the moves that Benning has made. I think that you've made some good points. I think that there have been some overpayments as well in terms of contracts and trades. I think that Benning is more of a talent evaluator and a team builder. Not so much a wheeler and dealer, or contract man (like Gillis was). This is fine because he can't be good at everything. This is why he needs to build his management team with complimentary pieces. They all have to be on the same page in terms of goals for the team (strategy) but they also need to bring their own skills. Benning needs a contracts guy also a guy who is good at negotiating trades maybe then he won't be left holding the short end of the stick so much. Crab I understand what you and some others are saying....I'm not arguing with the players that benning brought in. Well, most of them anyways... I still don't like some moves, but I also didn't like all of MG's moves either. TBH, I think Sutter will perform better than Bonino, maybe not points-wise, but I'm hoping Bo can handle that area.... I'm not upset with the Sutter acquisition. Wasn't he the initial player benning was targeting in the Kes trade? I wouldn't have been upset if that had happened either instead of trading with the Ducks.... But, considering that Pitts were forced to trade Sutter because of their cap situation....they should have paid extra to acquire a 2nd line C with a low cap hit. Instead we paid extra by giving them a top4D prospect (benning's words) and swapped picks? This is why I'm so pissed....not with the players, but the deal benning made to acquire the player. I'm not sure if the years has much of an issue, but it's not a problem for me regarding prospects and what you mentioned... I just don't like swapping a 2nd for waiver eligible ones. I gave many reasons why so there's no need to go over this again. I honestly don't know if benning is great at scouting or not, obviously it's too early to make that call with what he's done here....but he should be focusing on his strengths. To me, that means acquire as many draft picks as possible and keep them.... or trade up for a better draft pick. But, if a player is waiver eligible and the other team is obviously forced to trade him... lowball them and pass on the deal if they don't bite. Don't give them what they wanted.... (I'm sure the Ducks weren't asking for a 1st... so 2nd round pick must have been their initial offer). Again...it boils down to what we paid. I might be able to swallow a 3rd for Vey, but a 4th or 5th and I have no problem... I COMPLETELY agree with what you said about benning's abilities and bringing in a "negotiator"...but that'll never happen. benning is good at some things and he is just awful at others...unfortunately, no team can have a GM who doesn't have negotiating skills. And I can't see them hiring someone to negotiate deals for them...tbh, I'm not sure.... has this been done before? But, benning isn't the only one to blame... don't get me wrong here...I'm a fan of Linden! I watched him since he started with the Canucks and I was at the games during the SCF with Linden....as a player I still heart him. As President.... not so much. I think he needs to get involved a little more and he can't just keep excusing benning for all these trade deals....have a talk with benning, maybe Linden should be there during negotiations or just take over the negotiations himself? As President he cannot let this continue, he needs to fix this quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Crab I understand what you and some others are saying....I'm not arguing with the players that benning brought in. Well, most of them anyways... I still don't like some moves, but I also didn't like all of MG's moves either. TBH, I think Sutter will perform better than Bonino, maybe not points-wise, but I'm hoping Bo can handle that area.... I'm not upset with the Sutter acquisition. Wasn't he the initial player benning was targeting in the Kes trade? I wouldn't have been upset if that had happened either instead of trading with the Ducks.... But, considering that Pitts were forced to trade Sutter because of their cap situation....they should have paid extra to acquire a 2nd line C with a low cap hit. Instead we paid extra by giving them a top4D prospect (benning's words) and swapped picks? This is why I'm so pissed....not with the players, but the deal benning made to acquire the player. I'm not sure if the years has much of an issue, but it's not a problem for me regarding prospects and what you mentioned... I just don't like swapping a 2nd for waiver eligible ones. I gave many reasons why so there's no need to go over this again. I honestly don't know if benning is great at scouting or not, obviously it's too early to make that call with what he's done here....but he should be focusing on his strengths. To me, that means acquire as many draft picks as possible and keep them.... or trade up for a better draft pick. But, if a player is waiver eligible and the other team is obviously forced to trade him... lowball them and pass on the deal if they don't bite. Don't give them what they wanted.... (I'm sure the Ducks weren't asking for a 1st... so 2nd round pick must have been their initial offer). Again...it boils down to what we paid. I might be able to swallow a 3rd for Vey, but a 4th or 5th and I have no problem... I COMPLETELY agree with what you said about benning's abilities and bringing in a "negotiator"...but that'll never happen. benning is good at some things and he is just awful at others...unfortunately, no team can have a GM who doesn't have negotiating skills. And I can't see them hiring someone to negotiate deals for them...tbh, I'm not sure.... has this been done before? But, benning isn't the only one to blame... don't get me wrong here...I'm a fan of Linden! I watched him since he started with the Canucks and I was at the games during the SCF with Linden....as a player I still heart him. As President.... not so much. I think he needs to get involved a little more and he can't just keep excusing benning for all these trade deals....have a talk with benning, maybe Linden should be there during negotiations or just take over the negotiations himself? As President he cannot let this continue, he needs to fix this quick. Ya, Sutter was to be a principle in a deal with the Pens for Kesler last year. I thought of that when Benning traded for him which is why I didn't mind having to trade Bonino and Clendening. I really don't think that Bones is a 2C. He is a better fit for the Pens salary wise and skill wise because I would call him more of a 3C+ with some strong defensive skill for a 3rd liner. Sutter, we'll have to wait and see. He's bigger, faster and a right shot which fits the present Canucks better. Nobody really knows what his level will ultimately be since he has been held back in a role that may not have suited him behind 2 of the games best centres. For this reason, I thought signing Sutter to an extension was premature. Benning apparently is confident that he knows what he's got. Benning would have to make the final call in negotiations which makes it tough to delegate these duties for sure. He seems to have gotten what he wanted in his deals, he has just paid too much in general. I get the feeling that he knows what he wants and doesn't mind paying for it. As for the concept of a budget, we'll see if he get's burned down the road or if he learns from his experience. As President, Linden should be more of an executive imo. So, I disagree with you here. In theory, Linden should be more concerned with the bigger picture like setting team strategy. For example, they want to be fast, skilled and difficult to play against. That's Linden's call and he may fine tune his thoughts by asking for Benning's advise. Or, this team is really only going to renew itself through drafting and developing. That is Lindens call again and he selected Benning as GM to carry this out. This is Bennings wheelhouse. He goes out and executes the plan. He finds guys like Sutter and makes the deal. He might ask for Lindens opinion but player selection is Bennings call. Linden should deal with the owner. This is something that I felt drew a lot of Gillis' time. And Linden should deal a lot with the media imo. I find Bennings interviews great but he tells too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Poor Baggins.... did I upset you with logic? Still waiting........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.