Canucks Four Biggest Non-Mistakes Over the Last Year

[hearditall]

I was going to make a similar point. We should not pretend that predictions are facts. The claim that trading for Prust or Sutter was or was not a mistake is just a prediction at this stage. It is not a fact.

What is a fact is that Sutter's salary for his extension is high given his previous production. But obviously we cannot say yet whether that will turn out to be a mistake or not.

We can evaluate some of the things that happened last year. It is a fact that Miller's save percentage last year was .911, which was 32nd in the league. That is poor performance for his cap hit whereas Lack had excellent performance given his much lower cap hit. But maybe Benning was right to trade Lack. Maybe Miller comes back next year and has a big year. I think the odds are against it but it could happen.

So I am nominating Benning for GM of the year just yet, but I haven't yet made up "Fire Benning" signs either. I do find it worrying that the hockey analytics guys are almost all negative about Benning but maybe old school subjective judgements by an experienced hockey guy (Benning) will win.

So I will find next year interesting. The biggest fail, in my view, will be if the Canucks just miss the playoffs and do not acquire picks at the deadline -- not good enough to contend but not bad enough to rebuild with high draft picks. If the Canucks actually make the playoffs again I will give Benning a lot of credit, but I will still be disappointed if they flame out (so to speak) in the first round again.

So you're OK with anything & everything.........,

[-NucksFan]

Think of the team as a jigsaw puzzle that was dumped on the table in front of you with no box to see what picture you are creating ( JB has the box so he sees the final picture ) you start putting the pieces together but it'ts not looking like a picture to you yet. Once you get a significant portion of the puzzle together you can start to imagine the final picture. When you are finally finished to get to see the picture and it makes sense now. Benning sees the picture we are just looking at random pices that make little sense to us. give it time let him continue to build the picture and hopefully in the end we like the complete picture he ends up creating.

[elvis15]

This is what I find hilarious. I type a full response and this Canucklehead quotes only part of my post (which he can't even do right) to sound cool and then never actually replies to the topic.

:sigh:

Do either of you have something to say about the "non-mistakes"?

EDIT: removed the other post after it was removed from this thread.

[TexasCanuck]

But the Eddie Lack trade! grumble grumble

/s

Good reminder to all Canucks fans who don't like JB that he's actually making some good moves.

Some Canucks fans don't like Benning because they take his trades at face value. Benning obviously values the players differently than some and we also do not know most of what happened behind the scenes.

Any way you look at it there has to be a changing of the guard. Out with the old and in with some new. Have faith everyone!!

[Jägermeister]

"Hey, let's just rehash a bunch of moves again in a new thread!"

forum.canucks.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Do not be a mini-mod. Telling other users to stop trolling, flaming or baiting will probably not make the situation better. Spamming the rules and telling people you have reported them will be considered trolling. Report the post and leave the rest to the moderation team.

For someone who seems to be a huge stickler when it comes to the Forum and it's rules, thought it woulld be a nice gentle reminder. You took this thread off-topic by making the claim that it wasn't worthy of being a thread. Ergo, you invited people to make remarks back to you addressing that.

But I'm a rebel so Imma break the rules myself this time

[Jägermeister]

Oh, and I definitely do not agree that the Miller signing wasn't a mistake. Hate the fact we gave him 3 years. I've been going against the Miller bandwagon ever since the season after he won his Veniza. Plain and simple, he just isn't, and never was (save 2010) a great goalie.

[Canuck Surfer]

Trading Lack. After Luongo and Schneider - this city just doesn't need another goalie controversy for a very, very long time. That crept back with Miller's injury and Lack playing well, and even entered the playoffs which was not good for the organization or the fan base. To further support this Lack is in his prime and would be almost thirty by the time Miller is done. Not really next goalie of the future for Vancouver material, excellent back-up material notwithstanding (go back to beginning of this paragraph). Markstrom was probably the best goalie in the AHL last year and has worked incredibly hard to get his chance in the NHL. He also has his eye to playing back home if this wouldn't happen soon (he was picked up to play NHL minutes and considers himself an NHL #1 starter - Roy's stats were terrible at the beginning too so you never really know until the sample size is big enough). At one point he was considered the #2 prospect on the planet and a sure fire NHL starter. Management clearly took all of this into consideration and made the 4th next non-mistake of the year by shipping a fan favourite out to start molding what could be a true goalie of the future in Markstrom.

I think Lack was good enough to be, at worst, close to Miller.

Then we would have had over $4 mill this year to improve our very ordinary D.

And would have been under less pressure to pay Sbisa so much?

I do like Sutter. I can begrudgingly accept Kassians flush. I like Benning's drafting. Keeping Markstrom. A greater emphasis has to be created on the D! I'm not calling the successes a win, or the issues dominant. I'm on the fence. Waiting to see if JB addresses the defence...

[5nothincanucksohno]

One other thing with the higher profile trades, that is Kesler, Lack, Kassian. There was some sort of issue that caused each trade, Kesler wanted out, Lack was a goalie controversy and Kassian obviously had other issues.

Anyway, my point is that Benning didn't sit on these issues for too long, he dealt with them relatively quick before things could really get out of hand.

Agreed, perfect example is Luongo. Gillis held out and held out creating a circus. He ended up basically getting the same deal he would have received if he just pulled the trigger.

Benning makes a decision and moves on. The clarity the team receives moving forward is much more valuable than holding out for a "possibly" higher return.

[5nothincanucksohno]

I think Lack was good enough to be, at worst, close to Miller.

Then we would have had over $4 mill this year to improve our very ordinary D.

^^This assumes that Benning actually believes this team is ready to win now. I think he knows they aren't built for "now" and wants to build up the stable before really making any serious moves. In the meantime, he is creating a hard working team that is entertaining...business side covered and long-term future plan initiated.

Another key aspect of his plan is to maintain/develop a strong culture so that, when he does have the draft picks to play/trade, the team will have a good cultural foundation already built. This explains the 3/4 year contracts for Dorsett and Sbisa.

[-DLC-]

Think of the team as a jigsaw puzzle that was dumped on the table in front of you with no box to see what picture you are creating ( JB has the box so he sees the final picture ) you start putting the pieces together but it'ts not looking like a picture to you yet. Once you get a significant portion of the puzzle together you can start to imagine the final picture. When you are finally finished to get to see the picture and it makes sense now. Benning sees the picture we are just looking at random pices that make little sense to us. give it time let him continue to build the picture and hopefully in the end we like the complete picture he ends up creating.

So very well said.

[JamesB]

I don't think that Lack was a goalie controversy. The controversy (if there was one) was all in the press. None of it was with the team imo.

I think that Bennings goaltending model is to have a bona fide #1 backed up by a younger guy learning how to be the #1. Lack would have had to clearly outplay Miller to become the #1. Now, I know some of you are going to say he did but what I think was his ultimate undoing was that he fell apart at a critical time in game 3 in the playoffs when the series was tied 1-1. These are the moments where Benning decides on the value of a player. At the same time, Markstrom was rising to the challenge and it could be argued that he carried the Comets on his back to the Calder Cup finals.

So what it came down to was that Benning kept the goalie who he felt had more of the right stuff; who was mentally stronger.

additonally: in response to JamesB above: Miller had a 0.911 save % which I agree is mediocre. However, I think that Benning judges Miller based on how he performs at critical moments in games when the result is on the line, which may be reflected in wins above other stats. Miller's season to me could be described as solid on most nights. He had a lot of shutouts (6) but also he had a lot of blow outs.

I think this is right. Benning does not worry much about aggregate stats. Among other things he focuses instead on timing and has emphasized the importance of being able to rise to the occasion in the playoffs and at other key times. That is one of the reasons his judgments are very different form the analytics guys.

Like I indicated before, maybe Benning's old-fashioned judgement (i am tempted to say "gut feeling") will win. I hope so but if I had to bet I would bet in the other direction.

[Kevin Biestra]

Markstrom was probably the best goalie in the AHL last year and has worked incredibly hard to get his chance in the NHL. He also has his eye to playing back home if this wouldn't happen soon (he was picked up to play NHL minutes and considers himself an NHL #1 starter - Roy's stats were terrible at the beginning too so you never really know until the sample size is big enough).

Roy won the Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe trophy in his rookie year. During the regular season that year, he was 9th in voting for the Vezina trophy.

For each of the following eight years, he either won the Vezina, Jennings, Stanley Cup, Conn Smythe Trophy, or was a 1st or 2nd team All-Star or was a Vezina finalist. Almost always more than one of these each year.

There was no point in nearly the first decade of Roy's career where he was anything other than remarkable, save perhaps for the regular season of his rookie year (still 9th for the Vezina, and he won the Cup).

[cory40]

but what about the "D"?

Good "D" creates our offence and shutdowns the other teams offence.

If JB brought in two young good "D" men in his first year as GM (there were a lot of them available), rather than signing MIller, then the Canucks would have been a better team. #1 Mistake with evaluating talent.

This one trade alone has brought scepticism.

I wish we had a thumbs down. Our d was very good last year and will be better next year. Our forwards hung them out to dry in the play-offs just with lack of compete.

[cory40]

Thing for me is this: there is no determining whether moves are "mistakes" or not until they actually play out.

Changes are always unknowns in sports....there are behind the scene things that come into play as well as what we see at (ice) surface level. Character issues, how teams gel and the chemistry involved, attitude and work ethic. The pros making the decisions get firsthand looks and information on all of that...we, the average critic, don't always.

I HATE that some in the media use their infinite wisdom and experience to call out those in a position of knowing more than them. Armchair QB's there will always be, but when they state their opinion as fact, they lose me.

So I welcome this thread/view, based on we won't know and it's too early to tell. Teams are a constant work in progress and upgrades can continue as deemed necessary.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't share ideas....but the article that has already and prematurely reported that mistakes have been made? Sure, ok. No.

Fact is, we don't know the impact that newcomers will have on the overall scope of things. If teams grow stale or complacent, infusing some new parts in can tweak something. This is a city that constantly screams for change, but patience is required in that.

I want to see a group of players who gives it their all and brings energy and effort every night. The only mistakes I see happening are people deciding before we get a glimpse. And I don't hold my breath hoping for huge and glaring super moves....slow and steady could win the race.

Well said. Just go to TSN and read about Toronto and the moves they made basically finding gems that knowone else seen. Media uses the hate on Canucks to pull these articles that mean nothing when the Canucks shockingly sit in a solid play-off spot in April. Changes were made for April not sept.

[cory40]

I don't think that Lack was a goalie controversy. The controversy (if there was one) was all in the press. None of it was with the team imo.

I think that Bennings goaltending model is to have a bona fide #1 backed up by a younger guy learning how to be the #1. Lack would have had to clearly outplay Miller to become the #1. Now, I know some of you are going to say he did but what I think was his ultimate undoing was that he fell apart at a critical time in game 3 in the playoffs when the series was tied 1-1. These are the moments where Benning decides on the value of a player. At the same time, Markstrom was rising to the challenge and it could be argued that he carried the Comets on his back to the Calder Cup finals.

So what it came down to was that Benning kept the goalie who he felt had more of the right stuff; who was mentally stronger.

additonally: in response to JamesB above: Miller had a 0.911 save % which I agree is mediocre. However, I think that Benning judges Miller based on how he performs at critical moments in games when the result is on the line, which may be reflected in wins above other stats. Miller's season to me could be described as solid on most nights. He had a lot of shutouts (6) but also he had a lot of blow outs.

Right on post. Miller had lots of wins early on. And when Lack was in Net the team took less chances. Some night s miller was hung out to dry. G.M.s watch their team . CDC would have asked for Grant Fuhrs head in the 80ès . That is why many here work at Wal-Mart and have Calgary Flames underwear. Does not make them credible.

[Alflives]

Right on post. Miller had lots of wins early on. And when Lack was in Net the team took less chances. Some night s miller was hung out to dry. G.M.s watch their team . CDC would have asked for Grant Fuhrs head in the 80ès . That is why many here work at Wal-Mart and have Calgary Flames underwear. Does not make them credible.

At least those people have jobs, which keeps them from living in their mothers' basements! Not saying that's you, of course. It's not what one does, but it's the effort they give in what they do. Like with the Canucks. We want guys that know their role, and work their hardest to help the team, no matter how their role is defined. Kassian comes to mind as someone that fancied himself a brain surgeon, who refused to work at Walmart, when asked to do so. Tortorella, asked the twins to kill penalties, and block shots, and the twins did all that was asked of them, even if that meant working at Walmart.

[Steve23]

Thank you for saying that. Really.

[elvis15]

EDIT: ^^ And do you have a comment on the topic, Steve?

Oh, and I definitely do not agree that the Miller signing wasn't a mistake. Hate the fact we gave him 3 years. I've been going against the Miller bandwagon ever since the season after he won his Veniza. Plain and simple, he just isn't, and never was (save 2010) a great goalie.

Huh, seems like the moves here we've pretty much beat to death elsewhere, and we can agree not all the moves listed are sure fire, home run, non-mistakes. Imagine that and imagine I make mention of it before continuing to discuss the topic.

If people want to not reply to the thread and only reply to me, that's on them (and you, quoting board rules at me like I don't know them - thanks for replying on topic at least though), not on me posting in and actually discussing a thread.

I might not agree totally on Miller not being a great goalie for some time, but I do agree he's not what he once was and isn't worth what we're paying him at this point unless somehow he really is a master mentor. I'm happy to discuss it even, as much as I've done so extensively in the Miller/Lack threads.

Agreed, perfect example is Luongo. Gillis held out and held out creating a circus. He ended up basically getting the same deal he would have received if he just pulled the trigger.

Benning makes a decision and moves on. The clarity the team receives moving forward is much more valuable than holding out for a "possibly" higher return.

There were plenty of rumours that Gillis was happy to deal with Toronto and might even have had the workings of a deal, but Luongo shut that down thinking he could still get to Florida. Of course, we found out once the deal was eventually made that Florida hadn't even been in a position to ok any kind of deal at that time.

Blaming Gillis for that but lauding Benning for Kesler when Anaheim - Kesler's one approved destination (apart from maybe Chicago, who weren't playing ball) - is pretty much incorrect.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Miller got us Brisebois. No miller signing, means no goalie trade, means no (3rd) Brisebois.

[Gaudette Celly]

I don't think that Lack was a goalie controversy. The controversy (if there was one) was all in the press. None of it was with the team imo.

As always.

The issue was having three goalies that would not pass waivers. JB openly knew this, but decided at the TDL to wait until the draft. One of them had to be dealt, and as mentioned, JB's model is to have a solid veteran #1 with an understudy backup. It was either Markstrom or Lack, and they clearly felt Markstrom had more upside as a potential #1 and likely much less trade value.