Benning on Team 1040 December 9

[CanadianRugby]

9 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

 

How about considering what the roster would look like had the trades not been made.  No Dorsett, Baertschi, Granlund, Gudbranson, and Pedan but instead Jensen, Shinkaruk, Grenier, McEneny, and Subban?  You'd really prefer that?  You also seem unable to grasp the concept of placeholders and upgrades.

You could have signed placeholders in free agency and kept your draft picks.  Maybe we'd have Matthews or McDavid (plus more prospects by keeping picks) if we did that.  What has Pedan & Baertschi done for this team.  Team would be awful without them, it's awful with them and will continue to be awful unless we get way more quality forward prospects than Boeser. 

[oldnews]

12 minutes ago, hlinkas wrister said:

Exactly, Shanaplan engaged? Hey I know, Maybe instead of signing win-now vets to play with the kids we should get a young, fancy stats GM like Chayka who obviously would know that teams who are rebuilding should just let the kids play. There's no way he would go out and sign 33 year old Alex Goligoski for 5 years at almost 6 AAV, right?     

Exactly.

Let alone buy out a Vermette only to sign a Vrbata.  

Makes no sense.

No one knowz howda rebill.

[coryberg]

39 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Maybe we'd have Matthews or McDavid (plus more prospects by keeping picks)

Sounds magical!

[bohoforpresident]

27 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Exactly.

Let alone buy out a Vermette only to sign a Vrbata.  

Makes no sense.

No one knowz howda rebill.

We all saw money ball. The Oakland A's dont win the world series therefore the coyotes never win the cup and this is proof analytics have no place in the world of sports. yeah...........

 

Everyones acting like there's a how to book on a rebuild. Im surprised some of us aren't NHL GMs this thread is packed full of experience and wisdom ...

 

Lol at the thought of Mike Gilli's being in the thread secretly defending his moves. Not like he has anything better to do.

[oldnews]

12 minutes ago, coryberg said:

Sounds magical!

Yes.

Benning killed the magic.

Without him we'da won the lodderee.

[Crabcakes]

2 take aways for me from the interview.

 

1.  Wants to limit speculation from the media I presume on trade talk for key players.  Who are they?

      Sedin, Sedin, Eriksson, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, Miller .....am I correct that Tanev has a NTC kicking in next season?

 

According to Benning this is the core leadership group (I guess you could add a couple more players) but other than the quiet one, Edler, I would agree.  The point that I am wanting to make about these guys is that Benning said that they drive winning and are important to the development of the young players.

 

2.  On the Expansion Draft.  Benning is expecting a lot of trades at the trade deadline as teams try to protect assets and secure something in return for assets they won't be able to protect.  

 

Now, is it just me or, are other people hearing something in Bennings voice that says he is anticipating the opportunity to pick up players at a really good price?

 

Benning certainly wants to leave himself in a position to take advantage of a good deal.  He said he doesn't want to deal draft picks so that leaves players who don't have NTC's.  In other words, we won't be seeing Benning make any deals before the deadline.

[Crabcakes]

21 hours ago, on the cycle said:

The whole not asking guys to waive their NTC or not shopping them so we can rebuild is silly.

 

Sutter's NTC doesn't kick in until 19-20 so what obligation does Benning have to him. I hate that Benning would rather lose someone for nothing than trade someone on the last year of their contract.

 

Benning should trade guys like Hansen and Burrows at the TDL so we can protect Granlund and Baertschi from expansion.

 

Let Burrows go play for a contender even if you only get a 2nd or 3rd round pick. I'm sure Burrows would come back next season if he were offered a deal.

One could easily argue just the opposite.  Benning said in the interview that he wants the leadership group around for the benefit of the development of young players.  

 

If you examine the rosters of the teams who did the full tear down rebuild, they have added back veteran players for this purpose.  Why get rid of the culture that already exists because it's a good one.  You hear that comment time and again from players who have been in the organization.  The Canucks have a very good leadership group.  

 

People forget why Shanahan cleaned house in the first place.  It was because front office and many of the core players were dysfunctional and the only way to move forward in a positive way was to get rid of them.  The same has been done in Edmonton.  Front office has been made over and players like Taylor Hall and Nail Yakupov have been moved along.  Addition by subtraction.  The Canucks just aren't in the same boat as these teams.

 

 

 

[Salacious Crumb]

1 minute ago, Crabcakes said:

One could easily argue just the opposite.  Benning said in the interview that he wants the leadership group around for the benefit of the development of young players.  

 

If you examine the rosters of the teams who did the full tear down rebuild, they have added back veteran players for this purpose.  Why get rid of the culture that already exists because it's a good one.  You hear that comment time and again from players who have been in the organization.  People forget why Shanahan cleaned house in the first place.  It was because front office and many of the core players were dysfunctional and the only way to move forward in a positive way was to get rid of them.  The same has been done in Edmonton.  Front office has been made over and players like Taylor Hall and Nail Yakupov have been moved along.  Addition by subtraction.  The Canucks just aren't in the same boat as these teams.

Nice post Crabby. Some here love the Toronto model but the Leafs turfed Phanuef, Kessel and Clarkson. Pretty easy for most to see they needed to go.

[appleboy]

13 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

2 take aways for me from the interview.

 

1.  Wants to limit speculation from the media I presume on trade talk for key players.  Who are they?

      Sedin, Sedin, Eriksson, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, Miller .....am I correct that Tanev has a NTC kicking in next season?

 

According to Benning this is the core leadership group (I guess you could add a couple more players) but other than the quiet one, Edler, I would agree.  The point that I am wanting to make about these guys is that Benning said that they drive winning and are important to the development of the young players.

 

2.  On the Expansion Draft.  Benning is expecting a lot of trades at the trade deadline as teams try to protect assets and secure something in return for assets they won't be able to protect.  

 

Now, is it just me or, are other people hearing something in Bennings voice that says he is anticipating the opportunity to pick up players at a really good price?

 

Benning certainly wants to leave himself in a position to take advantage of a good deal.  He said he doesn't want to deal draft picks so that leaves players who don't have NTC's.  In other words, we won't be seeing Benning make any deals before the deadline.

Mr Benning has learned a lot as to dealing with media. He used to be straight up and speak his thoughts just to have everything turned around and used against him latter. Now they use the media to further their own agenda. Both Linden and Benning have been looking for interviews lately and have had a very set message.

 

I went back and watched their end of the year media scrum and was surprised to hear nothing about being a playoff team but rather saying that it would be about developing, yet trying to keep a veteran presence . There is a huge difference between being competitive and thinking that you are a playoff team.

[Phil_314]

Out of the players with clauses, I think Miller, Hansen, Burr and Sbisa (last two more hopeful than anything) should be moved.  Markstrom and a fringe starter who doesn't make starter money as the tandem in net should suffice IMO, since Marky would need the playing time to grow into the starter's role (or maybe trade Miller to Dallas for Lehtonen, Dickinson and pick?  Have Kari ride the bench while alternating starts with Jacob).  As well, Burr can be a depth veteran complementary player for a contender as his contract is expiring.  Hansen should be moved so another expansion spot can be kept for one of Sven, Granlund or Rodin, and the way that fringe top-6 guys have been dealt, maybe he could yield a couple of 2nd's if not a late 1st.  If Sbisa keeps up his good start we might find a taker for him?  We'll see.  

Twins, Eriksson, Edler, Sutter should be kept (I think Eriksson should be kept since if he hasn't been off to the best start and teams might try to undercut his value 1) for his rough start and 2) for the length of the deal remaining, which is a lot of cap) unless the right deal came along.  Twins for a couple of near NHL-ready prospects and 1st and 2nd?  Yes please, maybe eat an albatross deal to get a 2nd 1st round pick even.  Edler should be dealt with Hutton and Tryamkin emerging on the left side, he could yield some good value too.  Sutter I think should be kept, he's been a solid Swiss Army knife type of player who's versatile, still young and capable of contributing.

Hopefully with moves involving Miller, Hansen, Edler and the Twins the team can really revamp and hopefully bring back some lesser but still capable vets to insulate the current youth while bringing in an influx of young talent and assets.  Your move, Jim.         

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, appleboy said:

Mr Benning has learned a lot as to dealing with media. He used to be straight up and speak his thoughts just to have everything turned around and used against him latter. Now they use the media to further their own agenda. Both Linden and Benning have been looking for interviews lately and have had a very set message.

 

I went back and watched their end of the year media scrum and was surprised to hear nothing about being a playoff team but rather saying that it would be about developing, yet trying to keep a veteran presence . There is a huge difference between being competitive and thinking that you are a playoff team.

This isn't surprising.  If there are going to be two spokesmen for the team, they should say the same thing.  Rather than saying a similar thing or repeating their own take on what was said in a meeting.  The media and fans take out their microscopes and weigh the nuance of every word they say after all.    JB and TL are learning.

 

Case in point, "being competitive" vs. "being a playoff team".  I have always thought that Benning wants the team to be playing as many "meaningful games" as possible.   That's "being competitive".   Because meaningful games (to both teams) are important for the development of players and also equally important, for the evaluation of players.  An example would be when in the year before Benning arrived, Kassian scored a bunch of goals at the end of the season after the Canucks had been eliminated from the playoffs.  People were saying, wow, Kassian has turned the corner.  Benning threw cold water on that notion when he said that for him, those games can't be used to evaluate the player because they weren't meaningful.  The following year, before being traded, Kassian went on to play as inconsistently as ever and produced sporadically.  He had not turned any corners, as Benning had rightly doubted.

 

Linden has said he "wants to make the playoffs".  Of course he does.  But he isn't saying that he thinks this team is a playoff team.  He is really saying he wants the team to be competitive and play in meaningful games.  The media hears the word "playoffs" and jumps to conclusions.  Linden needs to chose his words more carefully and the words he uses should be the same as the ones Benning uses because the media will be all over it.

[Canuck Surfer]

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 6:53 AM, J.R. said:

 

I doubt Edler gets moved until his last year. Maybe next year (if at all).

 

My money is on Tanev this summer.

 

I remain not a fan of trading Tanev.  He was our only effective RHD last year.  Yup, we have added Stetcher and Guddy this year. So we have gone from a dire position to an effective one.  But with no depth or trail coming in to support any loss. Unless you believe Subban is ready?

 

It is not having Hutton, Sbisa, Tryamkin already here. Plus Brisbois and Juolevi on their way all behind Edler. 

 

What I am suggesting is that if there is room to make a trade > it is a left handed one.

[CeeBee51]

4 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

 

I remain not a fan of trading Tanev.  He was our only effective RHD last year.  Yup, we have added Stetcher and Guddy this year. So we have gone from a dire position to an effective one.  But with no depth or trail coming in to support any loss. Unless you believe Subban is ready?

 

It is not having Hutton, Sbisa, Tryamkin already here. Plus Brisbois and Juolevi on their way all behind Edler. 

 

What I am suggesting is that if there is room to make a trade > it is a left handed one.

Yeah, makes sense. Time to break on through to the other side 

[Canuck Surfer]

32 minutes ago, CeeBee51 said:

Yeah, makes sense. Time to break on through to the other side 

 

Hello, I love you, let me jump in your game!  (Don't take that too literally...)

[LaBamba]

5 hours ago, Grumpy Canuckat said:

Well they also have 3 different rookies that have more points than all our rookies combined.  Our top rookie would be 7th in rookie scoring on their team.  They also had a ton more draft picks last couple of years compared to Vancouver and the draft coming up too.  If they were to "win now" it would be because of their rookies, not past their prime vets.  You're talking like Toronto has been bleeding draft picks to bring in their old guys.  Apples oranges.  Shanahan from the start was talking rebuild.  Linden from the start was talking competitive environment & playoffs.  Different philosophies completely. 

 

Very nice post and it brings up some good points. 

[elvis15]

18 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Pedan was a 3rd round pick cost that we risked loosing on waivers.  Larsen was a 5th round pick.  Depth players shouldn't cost you picks when you can get them as a UFA.  I like Pedan but if were going to use him as depth, he's not worth a 3rd round pick.  

 

I think JB is good at building, he's been good at being able to find FA and slowly develop some players but how this has all started isn't about JB's building ability.  It's that I said I think he needs to hold up on the trading draft picks on high risk or unproven players.  In that area there is far more misses than hits.  Rebuilding teams can't afford to take risks unless they have an abundance of an assets, which we don't.  They way JB drafts we should be stock piling those picks rather than using them for 1 year stop gaps,  stop gaps that don't make us more competitive, or make us strong in the future.  

So that's two players, both of which we hoped to see more upside out of than we have. Typically the 'free' UFA signings aren't expected to be anything other than what you know they are, like with Cracknell last year and Skille this year. Sometimes the ones you trade for don't work out, but that's why you don't risk much in getting them.

 

We've also acquired the other players I mentioned, many of which are doing well if not important or even integral parts of the team. They are not stop gaps, one year or otherwise. That was the point about filling that missing age range, where drafting players wouldn't even have the chance to use them in the NHL for several years.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Canuck Surfer said:

 

I remain not a fan of trading Tanev.  He was our only effective RHD last year.  Yup, we have added Stetcher and Guddy this year. So we have gone from a dire position to an effective one.  But with no depth or trail coming in to support any loss. Unless you believe Subban is ready?

 

It is not having Hutton, Sbisa, Tryamkin already here. Plus Brisbois and Juolevi on their way all behind Edler. 

 

What I am suggesting is that if there is room to make a trade > it is a left handed one.

 

Tryamkin plays right side comfortably too. (As can Sbisa if he's still here.)

 

So you've got at least Stetcher, Gudbranson and Tryamkin, plus Biega as current right side depth. Next year will also have a one more year developed Subban and whichever one of Neill and Olsen were RHD (I can't remember).

 

We can also sign or trade for another depth 7/8 guy like Larsen if it's deemed necessary. 

 

I'd prefer to take advantage of his high value this spring or summer while he's still relatively healthy and his NTC hasn't kicked in yet.

 

He's going to be on the down swing by the time were contending again (if his injuries/play style don't catch up with him sooner). We've got capable bodies to fill in during the transition and he's likely never going to be worth more than he is this year, moving forward. 

[Gaudette Celly]

15 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

 

Fair comment but there have been a lot of placeholder and/or promising younger players over the past few years who could have been had for nothing but a contract too. 

 

We could have likely found upgrades over every one of those players other than Gudbranson and possibly Baertschi.

 

I don't disagree with the moves on a whole but free players plus those picks was another option that would have put us in a better overall position.

 

Sure but that's what's debatable, and ultimately speculative.  "Free players" -- Roman Polak?  Mason Raymond?  Rene Bourque?  Christian Ehrhoff?  Whoever we got with the saved picks are certainly no guarantee and multiple years away at best.  And what "found upgrades"?  Benning upgraded Shinkaruk to Granlund, Jensen to Etem, Mallet to Pedan, etc.  Considering he has an entire wall in his office of every team's roster and is always on the phone, it's pretty safe to say he's thorough in scouring for upgrades.

Sure we could do nothing more than plug holes just to have a full roster, with a team full of scrubs just so that we could keep a couple more mid or late picks.  But the players acquired were transitional and/or for the future; that is, they filled holes but also had upside to them that they could be here longer term.

[on the cycle]

5 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

One could easily argue just the opposite.  Benning said in the interview that he wants the leadership group around for the benefit of the development of young players.  

 

If you examine the rosters of the teams who did the full tear down rebuild, they have added back veteran players for this purpose.  Why get rid of the culture that already exists because it's a good one.  You hear that comment time and again from players who have been in the organization.  The Canucks have a very good leadership group.  

 

People forget why Shanahan cleaned house in the first place.  It was because front office and many of the core players were dysfunctional and the only way to move forward in a positive way was to get rid of them.  The same has been done in Edmonton.  Front office has been made over and players like Taylor Hall and Nail Yakupov have been moved along.  Addition by subtraction.  The Canucks just aren't in the same boat as these teams.

 

 

 

Benning's answer all sound like cop outs. I'm soo tired of hearing about "intangibles" look where those have gotten us.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

 

Sure but that's what's debatable, and ultimately speculative.  "Free players" -- Roman Polak?  Mason Raymond?  Rene Bourque?  Christian Ehrhoff?  Whoever we got with the saved picks are certainly no guarantee and multiple years away at best.  And what "found upgrades"?  Benning upgraded Shinkaruk to Granlund, Jensen to Etem, Mallet to Pedan, etc.  Considering he has an entire wall in his office of every team's roster and is always on the phone, it's pretty safe to say he's thorough in scouring for upgrades.

Sure we could do nothing more than plug holes just to have a full roster, with a team full of scrubs just so that we could keep a couple more mid or late picks.  But the players acquired were transitional and/or for the future; that is, they filled holes but also had upside to them that they could be here longer term.

 

I hate the argument that 2nd round or 3rd round picks are not sure things its better to get rid of them for waiver fodder guys.

 

The same caliber of players are available every year for cheap. If they are placeholders then just sign some for free instead and keep the picks or package them to get true upgrades not long shots.

 

If a signed bargain player doesn't work out and you waive them it's no loss at all. Paying a second for guys you let walk away is just wasteful for a team in our position when you can sign comparable ones for nothing.