Contrasting Views

[Wilbur]

If Virtanen, Boeser, Tryamkin, and Hutton all become pretty high impact players this rebuild will go smoothly.  They could be a free agent centre (to replace Henrik) away from being cup contenders.

 

It's a lot to ask but not unrealistic either.

[Mathew Barzal]

8 hours ago, oldnews said:

Uh, do you have a single example of a player Benning acquired that has failed or stalled in their development for 4-5 years lol?

Clendening, Vey and soon to be Etem.

[Camel Toe Drag]

48 minutes ago, Mathew Barzal said:

Clendening, Vey and soon to be Etem.

We all know Vey had Willie D written all over it. We can't blame Benning and considering he was only a 2nd round pick and was able to stay on the team and produce at a 3rd-4th line rate. I'll admit I wasn't a fan of him though. Clendening is a 6-7 defenceman was aquired for a non ready NHL defenceman (Forsling). Considering we had injuries at the time and needed someone to fill in, I can justify that move.

 

As for Etem, I'm not sure how you can write him off yet. At the end of last year he looked like he was playing the style we expected him to play when we first aquired him. He's fast, can skate, and is physical. And again we barely have up anything to bring him here. There is definite method behind these moves and acquisitions. They're not random and did help the team at the time. 

 

We can all agree that not everything Benning touches is a home run. But you have to respect his vision, and him following through on it. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Camel Toe Drag said:

We all know Vey had Willie D written all over it. We can't blame Benning and considering he was only a 2nd round pick and was able to stay on the team and produce at a 3rd-4th line rate. I'll admit I wasn't a fan of him though. Clendening is a 6-7 defenceman was aquired for a non ready NHL defenceman (Forsling). Considering we had injuries at the time and needed someone to fill in, I can justify that move.

 

As for Etem, I'm not sure how you can write him off yet. At the end of last year he looked like he was playing the style we expected him to play when we first aquired him. He's fast, can skate, and is physical. And again we barely have up anything to bring him here. There is definite method behind these moves and acquisitions. They're not random and did help the team at the time. 

 

We can all agree that not everything Benning touches is a home run. But you have to respect his vision, and him following through on it. 

Is it JB's vision, or Aquilini's?

[Camel Toe Drag]

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Is it JB's vision, or Aquilini's?

Benning and Aqua man both believe in making the playoffs we know that. 

[Aircool]

10 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

I'm not convinced that Toronto is going to be miles ahead of the Canucks during these next few years..Also,we can not really judge  a parallel situation until our previous picks, Juolevi,Boeser and Demko are in the lineup (2017-18),...all things being even.....Marner and Nylander are not exactly rugged,so we will get a good look at them this year (they could wind up looking like a bunch of Mason Raymonds in their rookie debuts)...Matthews I'm sure will be great....The Leafs have to get their D sorted out,and who knows if Andersen will be good enough to be a #1.

 

Canucks have their own work cut out in the next few years,especially acquiring a replacement for Henrik...but I like the way JB is constructing the team ...If Demko projects like he should,we will be set in goal for the next decade and more (and that will make or break you in the playoffs)...Horvat,Virtanen,Gudbranson bring a physical element...Juolevi and Baertschi will bring a skill element.

I don't see how you can argue this.. C'mon. Don't be a homer, and stop being a contrarian. Nylander and Marner don't need to be rugged. They play in the east, and they are scoring line players. That's what their role players who surround them need to be. Are Sidney Crosby or Steven Stamkos rugged? I mean those players don't have that upside, but the point still stands. Your offensive players don't NEED to be rugged... Also, if our prospects all turn out at their potential, the difference between the two prospect cores is essentially that we're short a 1C and they're not. And then Boeser is different to Marner, and Horvat is different to Nylander. There is no way our prospect core is currently better.

[oldnews]

6 hours ago, Mathew Barzal said:

Clendening, Vey and soon to be Etem.

LOL.

[Alflives]

2 hours ago, Aircool said:

I don't see how you can argue this.. C'mon. Don't be a homer, and stop being a contrarian. Nylander and Marner don't need to be rugged. They play in the east, and they are scoring line players. That's what their role players who surround them need to be. Are Sidney Crosby or Steven Stamkos rugged? I mean those players don't have that upside, but the point still stands. Your offensive players don't NEED to be rugged... Also, if our prospects all turn out at their potential, the difference between the two prospect cores is essentially that we're short a 1C and they're not. And then Boeser is different to Marner, and Horvat is different to Nylander. There is no way our prospect core is currently better.

We are behind A LOT of teams, when comparing elite future core guys, unfortunately.  IMHAO, of course. In our own division aren't we behind Edmonton, Calgary, and Colorado? 

[Honky Cat]

2 hours ago, Aircool said:

I don't see how you can argue this.. C'mon. Don't be a homer, and stop being a contrarian. Nylander and Marner don't need to be rugged. They play in the east, and they are scoring line players. That's what their role players who surround them need to be. Are Sidney Crosby or Steven Stamkos rugged? I mean those players don't have that upside, but the point still stands. Your offensive players don't NEED to be rugged... Also, if our prospects all turn out at their potential, the difference between the two prospect cores is essentially that we're short a 1C and they're not. And then Boeser is different to Marner, and Horvat is different to Nylander. There is no way our prospect core is currently better.

So what you're saying is that top end players don't need to be rugged?..Stamkos,Crosby,even the twins are all tough players,who are fearless on the boards..The knock on Nylander is his peripheral play..and we have yet to see how Marner fares in the NHL at 164lbs.....I'm not knocking the Leaf players at all,just trying to point out to you that VAN and TO are two teams that are being constructed differently......

 

There's a reason why JB selected Jake Virtanen over Willie Nylander...A combination of size, speed,shot,hitting..... it's pretty hard to pass that up....

 

Don't put words into my mouth,..where did I say our prospect pool was 'better"..?....I said that I'm not convinced TO is miles ahead of us...Yes,we will need a 1C down the road.....Our future D is looking good ..and future goaltending is looking great (Demko is a prize prospect).

[Honky Cat]

41 minutes ago, Alflives said:

We are behind A LOT of teams, when comparing elite future core guys, unfortunately.  IMHAO, of course. In our own division aren't we behind Edmonton, Calgary, and Colorado? 

Calgary..1 playoff appearance in 7 years

Edmonton...0 playoffs in 10 years

Colorado...2 playoff appearances in 8 years

 

All of these teams have had more' future' elite players than the Canucks for years on end...Why do they annually keep finishing at the bottom of the standings?

[Crabcakes]

15 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Calgary..1 playoff appearance in 7 years

Edmonton...0 playoffs in 10 years

Colorado...2 playoff appearances in 8 years

 

All of these teams have had more' future' elite players than the Canucks for years on end...Why do they annually keep finishing at the bottom of the standings?

This is the question that Tank Nation can't seem to answer.  It's a head scratcher alright.

[Crabcakes]

18 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

We all want a cup in vancouver.

 

We just disagree on the best path to that objective.

 

Most plans will work to one degree or another.  Some will take longer than others.

 

The guy with 25 years of experience and 3 rebuilds under his belt (98/99 Buff SCF, 06/07 Buff Presidents Trophy, 10/11 Bos SC) is calling the shots and he's getting a better result each time. 

 

However, regardless of whether he has chosen the best plan, God help us if he changes the plan half way through it's execution.  That is the sure path to Limbo-land, Nowhere's Ville or Mediocrity City .

[CanadianRugby]

On ‎2016‎-‎07‎-‎25 at 4:59 PM, JamesB said:

Overall:

Positive: This team is improved in important areas and will surprise a lot of people. I expect the Canucks to make the playoffs and maybe win a round or two this year.

Negative: This team won’t score enough to even contend for the playoffs. Looking forward to next year’s draft. Just hope Benning doesn’t trade away more picks.

 

Gave a thumbs up because it summed up the positive/negative views well.  Nice post!  Until this part.  More delusional than positive.

[Phat Fingers]

On July 26, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Aircool said:

I think you sum this up reasonably well, but I think you really miss the point that people like myself have who are considered to have the "negative opinions"...

 

People on these forums like to say things like, Sedins now have Eriksson and will put up 100 points... People have said that... Complete nonsense obviously... Even if you say they will be better, I simply ask what is your justification for that? Who says one of them isn't out for the season by the second week of the season... The "positive" opinions on CDC are essentially, "Sedins will be better this year because they have a better linemate." while ignoring the potential for regression, severe injury, or the general impact of being a one line team.. IE, the other team always only has to match up against your only good line. The point being, it might be better to play Eriksson on the 2nd line.

 

A GM's job isn't to say, "well they'll be better, because Eriksson" and then when they're worse say, "we had a lot of injuries"... A GM is supposed to consider the REALISTIC possibilities that can occur, such as one Sedin being injured for 2-3+ months, or the Sedins regressing, and to plan for that. If your team is contingent upon EVERYTHING going right, it begs the question as to whether your decision-making is correct. Anyone can sign Eriksson and make happy-go-lucky claims as to the dominance of the Sedins this season... That's not hard, GMs are paid to do more.

We should not even be close to the Leafs in terms of prospect depth, when you consider how many top 10 picks they have had over the last ten years.  Burke really wasted Toronto with the Kessel deal. Seguin and Hamilton....  

 

They have an edge, manly because of Mathews, but we have a Horvat, who hopefully will be able to handle playing against the Mathews of the league. 

 

    The Nylander vs Virtanenn debate will eventually get settled (hopefully with Virtannen knocking Nylander back into the SHL;) but it is far too soon to tell. 

 

    If Marner and Boeser both pan out, both teams do very well, but I wonder if both Marner and Nylander will succeed on the same roster. Both skilled and slight. Marner gets the edge, as he plays with one. 

 

   Reilly, well he is legit, hopefully Juolevi pans out, but edge Toronto. Do they have anyone like Hutton (don't say Corrado, lol) or Trymakin on their roster?  

 

      In goal, well Markstrom is looking like he will live up to his hype, and Demko is really promising.  Lots of questions about Anderson, or Benier 2.0. One day the Burke effect will finally abate in Toronto.  

    

    We are closer than our draft positions should allow. Not sure if it has been because of our drafting, or Toronto's. 

 

[CanadianRugby]

1 hour ago, Crabcakes said:

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

Calgary..1 playoff appearance in 7 years

Edmonton...0 playoffs in 10 years

Colorado...2 playoff appearances in 8 years

 

All of these teams have had more' future' elite players than the Canucks for years on end...Why do they annually keep finishing at the bottom of the standings?

This is the question that Tank Nation can't seem to answer.  It's a head scratcher alright.

Pittsburgh.. 2 Stanley Cups in last 8 years

Chicago.. 3 Stanley Cups in last 7 years

Los Angeles.. 2 Stanley Cups in last 5 years

 

OMG, it's almost like... if you tank and have good management.. you can win the cup.  If you tank and have crappy management, you end up like Edmonton. 

 

If tanking doesn't work.  Why have 7 out of the last 8 champions been tanking teams?  This is the question that Anti-Tank Nation can't seem to answer.  It's a head scratcher alright. 

[Crabcakes]

9 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Pittsburgh.. 2 Stanley Cups in last 8 years

Chicago.. 3 Stanley Cups in last 7 years

Los Angeles.. 2 Stanley Cups in last 5 years

 

OMG, it's almost like... if you tank and have good management.. you can win the cup.  If you tank and have crappy management, you end up like Edmonton. 

 

If tanking doesn't work.  Why have 7 out of the last 8 champions been tanking teams?  This is the question that Anti-Tank Nation can't seem to answer.  It's a head scratcher alright. 

Ha ha, yes, I was being glib.  You are right.  It takes good management.  I think a lot of Tank Nation thinks that great picks automatically become great players.  All the great picks in the world add up to squat if they aren't developed well in a good environment.

 

Having said that, I would be surprised if Calgary, Edmonton and Colorado finished ahead of the Canucks this year.  One may, all 3?  I doubt it.

 

 

 

[Honky Cat]

2 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Pittsburgh.. 2 Stanley Cups in last 8 years

Chicago.. 3 Stanley Cups in last 7 years

Los Angeles.. 2 Stanley Cups in last 5 years

 

OMG, it's almost like... if you tank and have good management.. you can win the cup.  If you tank and have crappy management, you end up like Edmonton. 

 

If tanking doesn't work.  Why have 7 out of the last 8 champions been tanking teams?  This is the question that Anti-Tank Nation can't seem to answer.  It's a head scratcher alright. 

None of these teams did a "pre-meditated" tank (like present era Toronto or Buffalo).They just plain flat out sucked....The Penguins were almost sold and relocated,the Hawks were playing to 5,000 peeps in the United Centre,and nobody gave a crap in LA....

 

 

 

 

[Aircool]

3 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

So what you're saying is that top end players don't need to be rugged?..Stamkos,Crosby,even the twins are all tough players,who are fearless on the boards..The knock on Nylander is his peripheral play..and we have yet to see how Marner fares in the NHL at 164lbs.....I'm not knocking the Leaf players at all,just trying to point out to you that VAN and TO are two teams that are being constructed differently......

 

There's a reason why JB selected Jake Virtanen over Willie Nylander...A combination of size, speed,shot,hitting..... it's pretty hard to pass that up....

 

Don't put words into my mouth,..where did I say our prospect pool was 'better"..?....I said that I'm not convinced TO is miles ahead of us...Yes,we will need a 1C down the road.....Our future D is looking good ..and future goaltending is looking great (Demko is a prize prospect).

It's impossible to argue with you, because you don't concede anything and you don't see any of the validity in other people's arguments. Now rugged means, well they aren't physical just they can hold their own. This is the game you are going to play? Really? Constantly walking the line on the definition of the words you use, such that you can never be wrong. You used rugged SPECIFICALLY because we have Virtanen, Horvat, Tryamkin, players like that, and we don't have finesse players like Nylander or Marner. That is why you used it, you didn't use it to say well "Crosby is tough.. or Stamkos is tough..."...... Just keep walking the line then, I'm not going to waste my time with someone who is as disingenuous as you.

 

I think Virtanen may well have a bright future ahead, but presently, Toronto would say no to a 1 for 1 trade for Nylander. That may change in the future, but PRESENTLY that is the case. Nylander is currently the better player.

 

You tried to compare our prospect pool to Toronto's... That's a huge waste of time, clearly we are nowhere near them.

 

2 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

We should not even be close to the Leafs in terms of prospect depth, when you consider how many top 10 picks they have had over the last ten years.  Burke really wasted Toronto with the Kessel deal. Seguin and Hamilton....  

 

They have an edge, manly because of Mathews, but we have a Horvat, who hopefully will be able to handle playing against the Mathews of the league. 

 

    The Nylander vs Virtanenn debate will eventually get settled (hopefully with Virtannen knocking Nylander back into the SHL;) but it is far too soon to tell. 

 

    If Marner and Boeser both pan out, both teams do very well, but I wonder if both Marner and Nylander will succeed on the same roster. Both skilled and slight. Marner gets the edge, as he plays with one. 

 

   Reilly, well he is legit, hopefully Juolevi pans out, but edge Toronto. Do they have anyone like Hutton (don't say Corrado, lol) or Trymakin on their roster?  

 

      In goal, well Markstrom is looking like he will live up to his hype, and Demko is really promising.  Lots of questions about Anderson, or Benier 2.0. One day the Burke effect will finally abate in Toronto.  

    

    We are closer than our draft positions should allow. Not sure if it has been because of our drafting, or Toronto's. 

 

I agree that we shouldn't be close to the Leafs, I didn't say we should, I was just refuting someone who was delusional enough to think our prospect core was even worth comparing to theirs. 

 

I do agree that we have drafted well, we just need more high end prospects. It's my contention that it is easier to build a team around a core of drafted high end players, than it is to draft role players and try to acquire the stars to carry them. I think that's obvious, and I just think that Toronto is closer to having that core of high end players, that they STILL need to supplement with the supporting cast. So maybe they don't have a Tryamkin or Hutton yet, but those are a LOT easier to acquire than the Rielly or the Juolevi (we hope)... Any team in the league could accomplish that, except Edmonton from '06-'15... Somehow...

[Aircool]

9 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

None of these teams did a "pre-meditated" tank (like present era Toronto or Buffalo).They just plain flat out sucked....The Penguins were almost sold and relocated,the Hawks were playing to 5,000 peeps in the United Centre,and nobody gave a crap in LA....

It doesn't matter if they did a "pre-meditated" tank or not... When you look at cup winners and their best players are Top-3 picks... How can you refute the value of a Top-3 pick... It's that simple. Cup contention HINGES upon having players of that caliber. Sometimes they aren't drafted that high, and bloom late, but that's a lot harder to do with any sort of regularity.

[kingofsurrey]

1 minute ago, Aircool said:

It doesn't matter if they did a "pre-meditated" tank or not... When you look at cup winners and their best players are Top-3 picks... How can you refute the value of a Top-3 pick... It's that simple. Cup contention HINGES upon having players of that caliber. Sometimes they aren't drafted that high, and bloom late, but that's a lot harder to do with any sort of regularity.

Especially when you are a rebuild club that not gather extra draft  picks at the TDL  or  through trades....

 

Less picks equals less chances to find a gem in the mid to later rounds....