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

Canucks Four Biggest Non-Mistakes Over the Last Year


IBatch

Recommended Posts

 

"Multi year deal" was Lindens words. He never said how many years.

Garrison had the 2nd highest cap hit among our D and was moved for cap space to sign Miller and Vrbata.

Just to be clear: I have no problem with using 2nd round picks. But I'm a realist regarding their odds of becoming anything in the nhl. It's like buying a lottery ticket, i know what the odds are but I still play from time to time. But trading that pick for an already developed player is a better option than rolling the dice on the pick and waiting three or four years to see if you've got a winner.

 

I think that's my biggest problem. Like I said, I don't mind having Miller....I just never liked his contract. The trickle down effect has forced us to lose Garrison and Lack. And I don't understand why benning got rid of Garrison so quickly....he could have been a little more patient, he had time. His cap may have been the 2nd highest, but it was still a good contract.

We are on opposite sides when it comes to 2nd round picks.... especially when it comes to trading that pick for a player that is waiver eligible. I don't like the risks involved with a player we will lose if he still needs time to develop or he isn't making a difference in the NHL. Vey is exactly this type of player.... any other prospect that we brought up would have been sent down had he performed like Vey did and he certainly wouldn't be gifted PP time. Risking a 2nd round pick for a player who is unproven and waiver eligible is high risk....

And, since these GMs are forced to trade the player or lose him in waivers, shouldn't we be able to acquire this player at a discounted rate? Lots of people say that benning didn't have much of an option because he was also forced to trade or had to deal with a NTC? I value 2nd round picks and if that's all we're getting for our top 4 Dmen.... I don't see how we can trade that pick for a player that isn't good enough on another team and he's waiver eligible.

Basically, we traded Garrison for Vey....I would never do this deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

I think that's my biggest problem. Like I said, I don't mind having Miller....I just never liked his contract. The trickle down effect has forced us to lose Garrison and Lack. And I don't understand why benning got rid of Garrison so quickly....he could have been a little more patient, he had time. His cap may have been the 2nd highest, but it was still a good contract.

We are on opposite sides when it comes to 2nd round picks.... especially when it comes to trading that pick for a player that is waiver eligible. I don't like the risks involved with a player we will lose if he still needs time to develop or he isn't making a difference in the NHL. Vey is exactly this type of player.... any other prospect that we brought up would have been sent down had he performed like Vey did and he certainly wouldn't be gifted PP time. Risking a 2nd round pick for a player who is unproven and waiver eligible is high risk....

And, since these GMs are forced to trade the player or lose him in waivers, shouldn't we be able to acquire this player at a discounted rate? Lots of people say that benning didn't have much of an option because he was also forced to trade or had to deal with a NTC? I value 2nd round picks and if that's all we're getting for our top 4 Dmen.... I don't see how we can trade that pick for a player that isn't good enough on another team and he's waiver eligible.

Basically, we traded Garrison for Vey....I would never do this deal.

We needed cap space and teams recognized that which is why we had to move Garrison.

We also got Vrbata and Miller, both of which were brought here to help keep us competitive and did so. One of which wouldn't of been here without moving a player.

Vey is a WD trade. I doubt we even trade for him if we never had connection with WD.

At the time Vey looked promising averaging a ppg in his last two AHL seasons. Vey was definitely worthy for a shot in the bigs but things do not always turn out the way you want them to. He has his issues and has stated that he will work on them in the off-season.

I also wouldn't call Vey a lost cause since this he will get another shot under better conditions than his rookie year. Vey did have a much better 2nd season in the AHL so he will be an interesting player to watch over the course of the season.

I really wouldn't stress over the past that much when what is ahead is much more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That was knee jerk. Having read the rest of your novel, I take it back. It wasn't the worst post.....

Fair call pal. I'll stop teasing you.

 

It's all good... I can't say that I'm not guilty of the same.

Glad it's not rated the worst anymore....I know we completely disagree on what's been happening with the Canucks, so I can accept 2nd worst in your eyes ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're deliberately ignoring my exact words to misdirect from the original argument you find yourself floundering in. I said "A player's value is what another team will pay for him". That doesn't mean the GM just sits there and whines about how bad a player is or that the GM doesn't negotiate to get the best deal possible. It means that after all factors are considered a player's value is what another GM will pay for him period. How hard is that to understand?

 

No. I understood what you said perfectly well and there's no misdirection. I completely understand that a player's value is what another GM will pay him period.

What I DON'T understand is how you can't see that the other GM's perception of said player can be greatly influenced by marketing techniques alone. Like the example I gave you.... GMMG played Hodgson with favorable ice time, allowing Hodgson to score goals and look like an elite NHLer and have his defensive liabilities be overlooked. But, you obviously didn't grasp the point of the example...

Another thing I DON'T understand is how people like you can't fathom that an individuals personality and negotiating skills greatly influence the outcome of deal... there are good negotiators and bad ones. A good negotiator has the ability to get deals done and end up with more than his opponent. This is another factor that will effect the final "price" or trade value...

For example, if you are negotiating with a person like Trump.... I think that you'd be fleeced and he will get exactly what he wants in the deal. Basically, you will end up paying more than you expected because his negotiating skills are greater than yours...

Perception: This is another factor. If GMs have the perception that benning will always pay the "extra" price for what he wants or to get a deal done.... It makes dealing with benning much easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We needed cap space and teams recognized that which is why we had to move Garrison.

We also got Vrbata and Miller, both of which were brought here to help keep us competitive and did so. One of which wouldn't of been here without moving a player.

Vey is a WD trade. I doubt we even trade for him if we never had connection with WD.

At the time Vey looked promising averaging a ppg in his last two AHL seasons. Vey was definitely worthy for a shot in the bigs but things do not always turn out the way you want them to. He has his issues and has stated that he will work on them in the off-season.

I also wouldn't call Vey a lost cause since this he will get another shot under better conditions than his rookie year. Vey did have a much better 2nd season in the AHL so he will be an interesting player to watch over the course of the season.

I really wouldn't stress over the past that much when what is ahead is much more important.

 

Wait a second... we needed cap space and teams recognized this so this is why we got so little for a top 4 Dman? This is what you're saying....

Let's start with the fact that we needed cap space because benning foolishly gave Miller such a huge contract after an abysmal performance with St. Louis. No other GMs were even talking to Miller.... and we gave him a NTC to go with his high salary, so you may be right that we needed cap space, but that falls on bennings shoulders. And we had all summer to move him, benning didn't have to trade him so quick. Blame still falls on benning.

HOWEVER, didn't benning know that the Ducks were forced to trade Vey or lose him in waivers? How come you guys never look at both angles and only use the same narrative when it supports your argument? Benning is forced to trade so a poor deal is acceptable, other GMs are in the same situation of being forced to trade and benning pays top dollar? This is acceptable? You don't see the double standards here...

Vrbata and Miller were meant to help the organization and that's fine...I agree. It still boils down to the fact that benning paid Miller too much and we were forced to trade Garrison and Lack. Blame is still on benning because of this overpayment.

Vey is a WD trade so... what's your point? benning makes the final decision...don't try and deflect blame away from benning again, this is all benning.

I have no problems with Vey....this is not personal for me. My issue is that we got a 2nd for a top4 Dman and we gave away a 2nd for a prospect that is waiver eligible....a prospect that we knew the other GM HAD to trade. Not only that, but this is a high risk maneuver because if Vey doesn't perform well...we have to keep playing him and CAN'T send him down to elevate his game or to develop more. Not only do we have to gift him playing time, we don't have the opportunity to give our other deserving prospects a chance to get some NHL experience because Vey has taken their spot. This actually hinders our abilities to develop our own prospects.

The fact that you agree and said, "He has his issues and has stated that he will work on them in the off-season." points out that he still isn't NHL ready....ANY prospect that is NOT NHL ready should be working on his deficiencies on the farm team and not GIFTED a spot in the NHL. This is the Oilers motto and we are developing Vey in the exact same way....

I don't think Vey is a lost cause....but I don't think he's worth a 2nd round pick either. Even with his "better" performance in his 2nd season, I STILL wouldn't give up a 2nd round pick for him..... do you think any GM in the league will give us a 2nd round pick now for Vey after his "improvement"?

He's an Ok player to watch and I REALLY hope he proves me wrong....but I also have more loyalty to prospects that we picked and developed on our own. I think there are multiple prospects in our system that would be more interesting to watch playing with the Canucks than Vey....

I wouldn't really be stressing so much over the individual deals that has taken place.... save for the Miller contract. However, when you compile all these deals and keep adding to it.... the anxiety levels increase naturally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

No. I understood what you said perfectly well and there's no misdirection. I completely understand that a player's value is what another GM will pay him period.

What I DON'T understand is how you can't see that the other GM's perception of said player can be greatly influenced by marketing techniques alone. Like the example I gave you.... GMMG played Hodgson with favorable ice time, allowing Hodgson to score goals and look like an elite NHLer and have his defensive liabilities be overlooked. But, you obviously didn't grasp the point of the example...

Another thing I DON'T understand is how people like you can't fathom that an individuals personality and negotiating skills greatly influence the outcome of deal... there are good negotiators and bad ones. A good negotiator has the ability to get deals done and end up with more than his opponent. This is another factor that will effect the final "price" or trade value...

For example, if you are negotiating with a person like Trump.... I think that you'd be fleeced and he will get exactly what he wants in the deal. Basically, you will end up paying more than you expected because his negotiating skills are greater than yours...

Perception: This is another factor. If GMs have the perception that benning will always pay the "extra" price for what he wants or to get a deal done.... It makes dealing with benning much easier.

Please point out where I stated that marketing and negotiation have no impact on the final price agreed upon. Don't put words in my mouth. Me saying "Someone is only worth what another is willing to pay for him" is a literal statement, it means that someone is only worth what another is WILLING to pay for him. GM's can increase the price they're willing to pay if a player is negotiated or marketed well, but the fact still stands that a player is worth what someone else is willing to pay period. It doesn't mean that nothing goes into trying to increase the offer the other GM is willing to pay. You just assumed that and have tried to muddle your way through this pointless argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

I think that's my biggest problem. Like I said, I don't mind having Miller....I just never liked his contract. The trickle down effect has forced us to lose Garrison and Lack. And I don't understand why benning got rid of Garrison so quickly....he could have been a little more patient, he had time. His cap may have been the 2nd highest, but it was still a good contract.

We are on opposite sides when it comes to 2nd round picks.... especially when it comes to trading that pick for a player that is waiver eligible. I don't like the risks involved with a player we will lose if he still needs time to develop or he isn't making a difference in the NHL. Vey is exactly this type of player.... any other prospect that we brought up would have been sent down had he performed like Vey did and he certainly wouldn't be gifted PP time. Risking a 2nd round pick for a player who is unproven and waiver eligible is high risk....

And, since these GMs are forced to trade the player or lose him in waivers, shouldn't we be able to acquire this player at a discounted rate? Lots of people say that benning didn't have much of an option because he was also forced to trade or had to deal with a NTC? I value 2nd round picks and if that's all we're getting for our top 4 Dmen.... I don't see how we can trade that pick for a player that isn't good enough on another team and he's waiver eligible.

Basically, we traded Garrison for Vey....I would never do this deal.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on Millers contract. I don't see it as elite goalie pay and thus not an over payment for a veteran.

It has nothing to do with being "good enough". We traded Grabner for the exact same reason Vey was on the market. Waiver eligible and no roster spot. Was it better for us to trade Raymond coming off a career season to make room for Grabner, who had yet to prove himself in the NHL, or as a contender keep Raymond and move Grabner? You could argue keeping Grabner in hindsight only. Vey was in the same position on a team that is a contender. It's proven versus unproven and waiver eligible. The odds are unproven and waiver eligible will be the one moved. It certainly doesn't mean "not good enough". personally I think you're writing Vey off far too quickly.

There's no guarantees when it comes to prospects and picks. But I'd trade a 2nd (particularly a bottom end 2nd) for any guy with Vey's ahl numbers every time if I was rebuilding. It's less of a gamble than using the pick and speeds up the rebuilding process. If I was offered 10k (Vey) for my lottery ticket I'd make that trade every time. Because I know the odds of a winner (elite player) is extremely small, while the odds are quite high of getting nothing at all. A bird in the in the hand....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for keeping this thread interesting. Good arguments both ways as to the validity of the Miller signing (and contract terms) and the trickle down effects. Enjoy reading the new posts daily....can't wait for the season to start though - or the front office to do something new to keep the summer ticking along towards the end of the worst time to get a hockey fix. Benning was slammed in the recent edition of the Hockey News Yearbook and Vancouver predicted to place 6th in the division (nothing new here though, even when we had a team of stars a few years back we were never really given many props, and last year they predicted us 5th and out of a playoff spot) which mirrors much of the CDC complaints on this forum. Preseason couldn't come quick enough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

Wait a second... we needed cap space and teams recognized this so this is why we got so little for a top 4 Dman? This is what you're saying....

I forgot to mention the biggest reason for the poor return which was Garrison's NTC

Let's start with the fact that we needed cap space because benning foolishly gave Miller such a huge contract after an abysmal performance with St. Louis. No other GMs were even talking to Miller.... and we gave him a NTC to go with his high salary, so you may be right that we needed cap space, but that falls on bennings shoulders. And we had all summer to move him, benning didn't have to trade him so quick. Blame still falls on benning.

-Miller is not even Benning's biggest contract and as a team that's transitional from old to new cap space won't be a huge issue moving forward.

HOWEVER, didn't benning know that the Ducks were forced to trade Vey or lose him in waivers? How come you guys never look at both angles and only use the same narrative when it supports your argument? Benning is forced to trade so a poor deal is acceptable, other GMs are in the same situation of being forced to trade and benning pays top dollar? This is acceptable? You don't see the double standards here...

-We are taking a chance on another teams prospect. It is common practice in the NHL.

Also Kings had Vey

Vrbata and Miller were meant to help the organization and that's fine...I agree. It still boils down to the fact that benning paid Miller too much and we were forced to trade Garrison and Lack. Blame is still on benning because of this overpayment.

-We chose Markstrom to be a part of the new core over Lack. Miller is just here for a part of this transition while helping keeping us competitive and helping mentor Markstrom.

Vey is a WD trade so... what's your point? benning makes the final decision...don't try and deflect blame away from benning again, this is all benning.

- It was a major factor in why we traded for Vey that's why.

I have no problems with Vey....this is not personal for me. My issue is that we got a 2nd for a top4 Dman and we gave away a 2nd for a prospect that is waiver eligible....a prospect that we knew the other GM HAD to trade. Not only that, but this is a high risk maneuver because if Vey doesn't perform well...we have to keep playing him and CAN'T send him down to elevate his game or to develop more. Not only do we have to gift him playing time, we don't have the opportunity to give our other deserving prospects a chance to get some NHL experience because Vey has taken their spot. This actually hinders our abilities to develop our own prospects.

Our prospects will have to be ready in order to get a chance to play and we will have to wait till TC to find out. Until then they are not deserving.

The fact that you agree and said, "He has his issues and has stated that he will work on them in the off-season." points out that he still isn't NHL ready....ANY prospect that is NOT NHL ready should be working on his deficiencies on the farm team and not GIFTED a spot in the NHL. This is the Oilers motto and we are developing Vey in the exact same way....

Hindsight^^ How was Benning suppose to know at the time?

I don't think Vey is a lost cause....but I don't think he's worth a 2nd round pick either. Even with his "better" performance in his 2nd season, I STILL wouldn't give up a 2nd round pick for him..... do you think any GM in the league will give us a 2nd round pick now for Vey after his "improvement"?

This doesn't matter since we never knew what Vey would accomplish in the NHL at that time. A bit of hindsight again.

He's an Ok player to watch and I REALLY hope he proves me wrong....but I also have more loyalty to prospects that we picked and developed on our own. I think there are multiple prospects in our system that would be more interesting to watch playing with the Canucks than Vey....

Your loyalty means nothing. We need prospects and it certainly doesn't matter if we draft them or trade for them. Also prospects need to be ready in order to play. This time last year Vey looked ready to get his shot.

I wouldn't really be stressing so much over the individual deals that has taken place.... save for the Miller contract. However, when you compile all these deals and keep adding to it.... the anxiety levels increase naturally.These things are of little significance in comparison in the grand scheme of things.

Garrison also had a NTC too, which I forgot to mention. That would play a bigger factor then teams recognizing our cap situation.

-Garrison had to be traded. Someone must of been moved for the Miller and Vrbata signings.

It wasn't Vey for Garrison. It was Vey + cap space for Garrison.

Miller's contract isn't huge, it is not even Bennings biggest signing. He is only here for 2 more years maybe more if Markstrom needs another year. We are a transitional team so cap will not be an issue moving forward. Expect more moves to ship out veterans to make room for youth Miller is here for the benefit of Markstrom and to also keep us competitive.

-Miller did help keep us competitive. 29 wins in 45 games is not something to be overlooked. Yeah his GAA and save % might not of been the greatest but if he can help us acquire a good amount of wins then he is doing his job.

At that point Vey looked like a promising prospect. 67 points in 74 AHL games in his 2nd last AHL season, 48 points in 43 games in his last AHL season. He also put up huge numbers during his last WHL year.

- Because of the history WD had with Vey and Vey's success at the AHL level Vey was a player the Canucks wanted and Benning paid accordingly. This also fits the course of moves Benning has made to get more prospects that are ready or close to it.

- Vey looked like a good prospect at the time, you cannot deny that. Hindsight for saying he wasn't ready since how was Benning suppose to know? The kid put up a ppg over the course of two AHL seasons at the time.

Yes Vey was a risk/reward move being a player the coach wanted. Next season we shall see whether or not he can turn things around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nuck luck.

You have a shortened perspective which is why your making a huge deal over Miller's contract, Garrison and Vey. All of which to me are of little significance.

I personally see things on a bigger scale which is why I don't make that big of deal on what you're stressing about because I know they are of little significance when looking at the big picture.

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

I see that he brought in the perfect type of coach who is going to roll 4 lines and cares about our youth and development.

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

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

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

Until then you should add a little, just a little, more optimism in your views because they are very pessimistic. It should, hopefully anyway, open up your perspective a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Keslerplayslikeacanadian going soft? Are you secretly a swiss defenceman?

Actually, there was supposed to be a direct insult in there, just wasn't clear enough. Still aiming for acidic jerk.

(To be fair, Nuck Luck has made some good points. Not that I agree, but fair's fair. I don't get the fuss about Garrison. His first PP shift he got a pass that handcuffed him and he got caught between going for the puck and backing up and gave up a goal. He never got another PP shift until Torts came along. I thought we got a huge return for that July 1st mistake. He's actually a smart defender, but stone-ass hands, and not tough. And for me, any critique of Vey is premature. Give a rookie a chance. He stood in line and earned a spot. People are either mad about "gifting", or mad that we don't have all young guys.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

Wait a second... we needed cap space and teams recognized this so this is why we got so little for a top 4 Dman? This is what you're saying....

Let's start with the fact that we needed cap space because benning foolishly gave Miller such a huge contract after an abysmal performance with St. Louis. No other GMs were even talking to Miller.... and we gave him a NTC to go with his high salary, so you may be right that we needed cap space, but that falls on bennings shoulders. And we had all summer to move him, benning didn't have to trade him so quick. Blame still falls on benning.

HOWEVER, didn't benning know that the Ducks were forced to trade Vey or lose him in waivers? How come you guys never look at both angles and only use the same narrative when it supports your argument? Benning is forced to trade so a poor deal is acceptable, other GMs are in the same situation of being forced to trade and benning pays top dollar? This is acceptable? You don't see the double standards here...

Vrbata and Miller were meant to help the organization and that's fine...I agree. It still boils down to the fact that benning paid Miller too much and we were forced to trade Garrison and Lack. Blame is still on benning because of this overpayment.

Vey is a WD trade so... what's your point? benning makes the final decision...don't try and deflect blame away from benning again, this is all benning.

I have no problems with Vey....this is not personal for me. My issue is that we got a 2nd for a top4 Dman and we gave away a 2nd for a prospect that is waiver eligible....a prospect that we knew the other GM HAD to trade. Not only that, but this is a high risk maneuver because if Vey doesn't perform well...we have to keep playing him and CAN'T send him down to elevate his game or to develop more. Not only do we have to gift him playing time, we don't have the opportunity to give our other deserving prospects a chance to get some NHL experience because Vey has taken their spot. This actually hinders our abilities to develop our own prospects.

The fact that you agree and said, "He has his issues and has stated that he will work on them in the off-season." points out that he still isn't NHL ready....ANY prospect that is NOT NHL ready should be working on his deficiencies on the farm team and not GIFTED a spot in the NHL. This is the Oilers motto and we are developing Vey in the exact same way....

I don't think Vey is a lost cause....but I don't think he's worth a 2nd round pick either. Even with his "better" performance in his 2nd season, I STILL wouldn't give up a 2nd round pick for him..... do you think any GM in the league will give us a 2nd round pick now for Vey after his "improvement"?

He's an Ok player to watch and I REALLY hope he proves me wrong....but I also have more loyalty to prospects that we picked and developed on our own. I think there are multiple prospects in our system that would be more interesting to watch playing with the Canucks than Vey....

I wouldn't really be stressing so much over the individual deals that has taken place.... save for the Miller contract. However, when you compile all these deals and keep adding to it.... the anxiety levels increase naturally.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in the space of 2 days.

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please point out where I stated that marketing and negotiation have no impact on the final price agreed upon. Don't put words in my mouth. Me saying "Someone is only worth what another is willing to pay for him" is a literal statement, it means that someone is only worth what another is WILLING to pay for him. GM's can increase the price they're willing to pay if a player is negotiated or marketed well, but the fact still stands that a player is worth what someone else is willing to pay period. It doesn't mean that nothing goes into trying to increase the offer the other GM is willing to pay. You just assumed that and have tried to muddle your way through this pointless argument.

 

Hold on....

Nobodys putting words in your mouth. You wrote, "Someone is only worth what another is willing to pay for him" and you wrote this because you are implying that benning got the best deal possible, basically you were defending benning on the deal. And I'm saying that he could've have gotten a better deal if he was more savvy at marketing and a better negotiator. A better marketer and negotiator will increase the price the other person is willing to pay....which actually increases the returns or value for the player. Don't you see the relevance?

If you don't see the relevance than it's a comprehension issue...if you do see it, than own up to what you imply or write. Nobody's muddling through anything here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Garrison also had a NTC too, which I forgot to mention. That would play a bigger factor then teams recognizing our cap situation.

-Garrison had to be traded. Someone must of been moved for the Miller and Vrbata signings.

It wasn't Vey for Garrison. It was Vey + cap space for Garrison.

Miller's contract isn't huge, it is not even Bennings biggest signing. He is only here for 2 more years maybe more if Markstrom needs another year. We are a transitional team so cap will not be an issue moving forward. Expect more moves to ship out veterans to make room for youth Miller is here for the benefit of Markstrom and to also keep us competitive.

-Miller did help keep us competitive. 29 wins in 45 games is not something to be overlooked. Yeah his GAA and save % might not of been the greatest but if he can help us acquire a good amount of wins then he is doing his job.

At that point Vey looked like a promising prospect. 67 points in 74 AHL games in his 2nd last AHL season, 48 points in 43 games in his last AHL season. He also put up huge numbers during his last WHL year.

- Because of the history WD had with Vey and Vey's success at the AHL level Vey was a player the Canucks wanted and Benning paid accordingly. This also fits the course of moves Benning has made to get more prospects that are ready or close to it.

- Vey looked like a good prospect at the time, you cannot deny that. Hindsight for saying he wasn't ready since how was Benning suppose to know? The kid put up a ppg over the course of two AHL seasons at the time.

Yes Vey was a risk/reward move being a player the coach wanted. Next season we shall see whether or not he can turn things around.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

nuck luck.

You have a shortened perspective which is why your making a huge deal over Miller's contract, Garrison and Vey. All of which to me are of little significance.

I personally see things on a bigger scale which is why I don't make that big of deal on what you're stressing about because I know they are of little significance when looking at the big picture.

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

I see that he brought in the perfect type of coach who is going to roll 4 lines and cares about our youth and development.

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

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

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

Until then you should add a little, just a little, more optimism in your views because they are very pessimistic. It should, hopefully anyway, open up your perspective a bit.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in the space of 2 days.

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

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

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

 

Actually, I mentioned something about "Trader Jim" last year too.... Everyone thought that MG inherited his team and didn't deserve any credit for the players that were here prior to his arrival. My thoughts were the complete opposite. I actually appreciated MG moves (or non-moves) to keep players and not try to make the Canucks "his" team and build on what he had to work with if the parts fit. He obviously did his homework and made assessments on each player and kept them or got rid of them if they didn't fit his overall plans. The results proved that he made the right decision.

What I saw with benning was the complete opposite. It seems like he didn't research this team and made his assessments from the few times we played against him....or the Playoff Finals. benning wants to make this "his" team and he just dumped some players to do that.... he didn't get a good return as a result of his haste. We discussed Garrison already so I won't go there...but what about Santorelli? He was a very useful player and should have been signed for 2 years at a minimum. Lack....I know I kept a close eye on Lack and I believed in his abilities from what I saw. I also saw that he was treated unfairly by Torts and would have performed much better had he been given a backup who the coach would actually play.

I know change was needed with this aging group.... but did it have to be so sudden and couldn't we have waited for more optimal deals. If benning's moves results in similar returns like MG's (in a reasonable time frame) than I will eat crow....x 10. I'll own up to what I've said...

Kesler deal.... I wasn't complaining on this one. I thought Kes screwed us over and I didn't fault benning for what he got....I just faulted him for the contract he gave Sbisa and trading Bonino for Sutter and a 5th. McCann....I really like him.

I'm not against everything "benning"....just 3 areas like I mentioned in the above post. However, I do agree that some important goals were met....I just don't give much credit for improving on the "season of Torts". Really....when you have that many players performing at career lows, it's not a players issue and falls on the coach.

You and the others I've replied to all have made some valid points...but as we go further, if these deals and contracts signings don't improve than I can't see how this team will ever compete. Cap space is crucial for a team spending to the cap each year and we can't keep giving away picks/overpay for every trade because it will eat away our future prospects as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Of course ntc has an effect. You have limited trade partners and some of the teams the player says he will go to may not be interested at all. It comes to how many teams are willing to make an offer. If it's only one you likely won't get as good a return as you would if there were five interested teams. It comes down to what available trade partners are willing to offer. And that doesn't even take into consideration how many here overvalue our players in the first place.

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

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

WD wanted Vey so it's not bennings fault? Yes

Vey is not 'high risk'. He may not have blazing speed but he's not slow either. Everything else he's excelled at in both junior and the ahl. He was a rookie last season. You have no patience.

Using the 2nd is a higher risk than players that have excelled in the ahl. But you'll just continue to ignore that.

Are you telling us LA contacted Willie about Vey being available? lol. Of course Benning would ask Willie what he thought of a player he had previously coached. But at least you've got one thing right - it's ultimately Bennings decision.

It still boils down to the contract.... it was just stupid if there were no other contenders bidding on Miller.

Who ever said there was nobody else interested in Miller? Benning got calls about his availability before Lack was moved, despite his outrageous contract (you're opinion). What does that tell you about his contract?

Just because benning believes something it doesn't make it a good move

Just because you believe something else doesn't make them bad moves either. As with all things time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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