What do you want to see out of a New Management Team?

[Crabcakes]

19 hours ago, Hank Moody said:

Hey guys!

 

Canuck fan for over 20 years here, so i've been through the doom-and-gloom of the late 90's and through the highs of the late 2000's... it's been a ride!

 

So I think a lot of us are losing faith in the current management team - For all the things I give credit to them for (building a solid D core, building a solid future inbetween the pipes), there are a lot more things that have left me scratching my head. I was a casual defender of the management team (the type that would hail for everyone to just "give them a chance") until last years Trade Deadline and subsequent draft. Passing on Tkachuk, who I had been dying to draft, for Juolevi who wasn't even the consensus top defenseman in the draft was an absolute head-scratcher. The Hamhuis/Vrbata TDL ordeal was also extremely embarrassing as a Canuck fan to deal with.

 

Now I understand that many of these answers may overlap - for example, you may want a guy who is currently an AGM in a successful system but is also analytics-based. Just pick the one that is MOST important to you as a factor.

 

So my question is - what kind of management do we want to see in whoever evidently takes over for the current group?

 

1) Keep the current management style/team - Let them finish what they started

Do you want to see the current management team finish what they started? They obviously have a long-term plan in place, but some may argue that to this date they haven't shown enough progress to gain the trust of the fanbase yet. Ticket sales are diving, and confidence is very low in the management team currently. But perhaps, it's all for a greater good. Is the hate unjustified?

 

2) Bring in a highly analytics-based management team - a Kyle Dubas type

Are analytics the way of the future? Do you want to see a management team that looks hard at data for major personnel decisions and acts accordingly, perhaps finding gems in the rough that other "old-school" GM's may not have found? 

 

3) Bring in a highly innovative on the back end and off-ice type, a moneyball guy - a la Gillis (sleep doctors, etc)

I guess this one kind of blends with number 2 but Gillis wasn't exactly a massive analytics guy, but more a guy who liked to study the science of players through Sleep Doctors, Mind Rooms and analyzing the way players practice and how it affects their performance. If you have ever read "Ice Storm", which documents the Canucks' journey to the top of the league in 2011, you'd be amazed to find the length that Gillis and ownership went to study and research player performance. Do you believe our players would be better if we would have continued to innovate in these fields?

 

4) Bring in an old-school, Old-boys club style GM who has a ton of experience as GM and reputation around the league - a la Lou Lamariello/Jim Rutherford type

Obviously the two aforementioned guys are not available, but it's possible an old-school GM who has been around the league as a GM for a long time could be available come time for the next Management search to begin. These are the guys that have a steady reputation around the league, you know exactly what you're getting with them, and they have a ton of experience in all situations as a General Manager. From Trade Deadline deals, to asset management, to drafting, most of the time you know what you're getting with them. There's rarely a huge "shock" or question in what they're doing, as they're steady in their decision making.

 

5) Bring in an ex-Canuck, who we know truly cares about the team - a la Naslund

Would you prefer to see a guy who's played a prominent role as a player on the team, and therefore you know would live and breathe Canucks? A guy like a Trevor Linden who may not have the experience as his other competitors, but you know wants to bring a cup to this city more than anyone else probably on this list. 

 

6) Bring in a guy who is familiar with the team, has been in management, and may not have gotten a chance to be GM before - a la Gilman, Tambellini, Henning

Finally, would you prefer to see a guy who's been in our management team as an AGM, VP, Scout, or any other role aside from GM who you may have felt would've been a better fit for GM? A guy like Gilman, who was a cap wizard, or Steve Tambellini who played second fiddle to several of our past GM's before finally taking a job with Edmonton? A guy who's been in the inner workings of the Canuck organization and could seamlessly fill in?

 

7) Bring in a guy from a successful organization that hasn't had a chance to be top guy yet - a la Mike Futa, Paul Fenton, David McNab 

Do you perhaps want to go the Benning route again of finding an experienced AGM from a successful organization in hopes of them being able to take their experience from that organization and having them mimic their current organizations managing style? A guy responsible for several great drafts in LA with Mike Futa, a guy who's been an anchor in Nashville's system under Poile for several years in Paul Fenton, a guy who's been around Anaheim's successful system since the beginning of time with David McNab?

 

 

Personally, i'm going with number 4 - bringing in an old-school, old-boys club style GM. I think we've had our share of experimenting with innovators, scouts, guys who can promise to "do things differently" to get a leg up. I simply want a guy who's been through the trenches and has the years of experience in the top role, no matter how sour the end of his last job may have been. I want the guy who will pick BPA at the draft every time, not go way off the board because he feels he has a "scouts feel" on a certain player and will prove the rest of the league and analysts wrong. I want a guy who can pick up the phone and is respected by GM's around the league, and can deal a player at the deadline, even if for any assets rather than sit on his hands unable to move anyone or anything. 

 

Simply put, give me the Ray Shero's, the Don Maloney's, the Brian Burke's, the Chiarelli's (when he was available) because they have the experience and you know exactly what you're going to get with them. 

 

In my eyes, GM's can learn where they went wrong in their last gig and correct them on this go around with our team on a fresh slate. It's a mistake to bring in fresh new faces who think they can innovate everything by playing more of a scouts role or trying everything under the sun to get a leg up through means of "moneyball" or off-the-board decisions.

 

Just a guy who makes simple, old-school hockey decisions. A rugged veteran. 

 

Excited to hear your thoughts as a collective!
 

 

 

Are you sure #4 isn't really #1?

 

Benning is old school.  Isn't trendy (uses analytics but only as part of his tool box), is not trying to reinvent the wheel, has worked his way up through the trenches, has respect around the league (and won't bite on low ball offers).

 

He builds teams the old fashioned way, from the net on out.   

 

Honestly, who's your favorite GM from around the league?  Shero?  Maloney?  If you put them under the microscope like fans here have done with Benning, they wouldn't look so hot either.  This is a really difficult rebuild because there were few players in their prime who could ease the transition from the Sedin core to the new core.  Now we're getting it.  2-3 years of serious pain while players develop who can carry the team.  

[TheGuardian_]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Well said Alf.   This is a good example of what is out there media wise that is both creating doubt in the fan base and putting pressure on management to do something different.  I am still in the camp that encourages patience and wants both stability and to wait and see what Benning does over the next two drafts and with the Sedins in 2018...But I respect what you are saying.  

What the media says HAS to be taken with a grain of salt, a lot of them are paid by the NHL, teams, or networks that depend upon the good auspices and relations with the league. They have a line that they shouldn't cross. Newspaper guys don't have so much a vested interest, hence different angles on reporting.

 

I am sure your patience will be waning in year 6 or 7 of whatever this is the team is doing, this is year 3 already and this regime hasn't drafted and signed two top six star type players yet, once signed it will take those players 2 or 3 years to develop due to drafting position, then the Sedins will be gone, Burrows gone, Hansen gone, Edler pretty much done, Eriksson at the very end of his career, etc...Horvat, Hutton, and a couple of other players will be the leaders then, groomed in a losing environment, taught how to take losing in stride, what to say to the cameras, how doing just enough is a sure way to get a big raise. Horvat will likely get McKinnon or Tarasenko type money on his next contract and I guess if management will pay 8 million a year for declining skills then I could be a little low.

 

Then they have to be better than 7 other teams in the conference to have a chance at a playoff spot, then lose in the playoffs to learn how to play in the playoffs, then get lucky. 

 

That's going by current management style, BUT it could be accelerated by insightful, daring trades and ingenious cap management.  

 

Wanting to see the team do better as fast as is possible does not make a poster a hater of the team, just the opposite.

Criticizing management for dragging their feet over obvious indecision, out right untruths and lack of leadership, doesn't mean hater of the team, although distrust of management is something else.  

[Me_]

35 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

The ID is definitely what needs shedding.

Haters? Getting a lot of mileage out of that word around here. 

 

Biting, face making, hair pulling, speed bagged, neck breaking, pulled goalie Captain, stick picking up... Rioting loser Vancouver "fans". Ya, losing the team identity would be devastating!  

 

This franchise HAD a proud tradition of respect and playing the game the right way.   Winning was not why it was/is hated. Nobody ran Sakic or Yzerman, but they do the Sedins, it's about respect, but not to CDC, where it's a conspiracy. 

 

 

Sakic and Yzerman played in a different era when other players could come to defend the team's stars. 

 

No one dared touch stars then.

 

"Biting, face making, hair pulling, speed bagged, neck breaking, pulled goalie Captain, stick picking up... Rioting loser Vancouver "fans" is part of Canucks' history as much as any other team's questionable histories.

 

You can't just delete that stuff. So you live with it. Destroying the franchise will do nothing to erase its past.

 

 

[Pete M]

Keep the management team and let them succeed or fail for another 4 more years.

 

Nowadays it's hard to make a trade to improve a team. Most teams are shuffling the deck in order to address a certain need. More often than not, it is stealing from Mary to pay Paul. If a team has accumulated a lot of assets at a particular position, then a trade can be made to improve a team (i.e., recent Columbus/ Nashville trade); but in order to do this a team needs assets.

Therefore, how does a team get assets? Simply, assets are accumulated by having picks at the draft and drafting well. 

 

How does a team get picks and draft well?

1. trading veterans before they've reached their best before date;

2. trading from a position of strength when a team has a lot of prospects that have potential at a certain position (assets) and another team is needing a player at that position;

3. holding onto picks or trading picks in a bad draft year to get more picks in a better draft year;

4. having good scouting to determine point #3 and drafting well;

5. developing players (having a good farm system at the AHL and ECHL levels);

6. not under valuing your players by up selling and being a good salesman;

7. knowing your competition and their needs (see #2);

8. knowing when to trade...getting more picks in a good draft year than a bad draft year and getting the most from an asset in a trade;

9. picking the BPA in the draft vs picking by positional need (the debate continues - see point #2);

10. assessing talent, but also being lucky in the draft;

11. knowing what it takes to build a winner, having a plan and getting those needed assets;

12. having a succession plan to determine point #1 and having a good blend of vets, players in their prime, and young guns;

13. having high draft picks (i.e., knowing that a team may have to get worst before it gets better);

14. having good cap management by getting good value from the assets on the team (i.e, players over performing vs under performing based on pay);

15. add to this list

 

JB has done well on some of these points and not so well on others.

The biggest take away from this post is that elite teams become elite by having high draft picks and drafting well in those years when they have high draft picks. 

One thing going for the Canucks is they have high draft picks not playing in the pro leagues. If these draft picks reach their potential and become elite, then they may have a few more years of drafting high because their high end talent isn't playing on the team yet. The potential will be there to get more high end talent and add to what they already have; a few more years of pain, which will require patience.

If JB builds through the draft by drafting well, then this team will eventually become a contender. The best thing that JB has done is address our defense and goaltending situation. I'm hoping these assets continue to get better and that picks like OJ will be better than expected.

 

The only thing that is concerning is when JB makes a trade and throws in a pick or he throws in a pick and gets a lower pick in return. This is partly due to being a poor salesman or undervaluing assets.

[Freeridebc]

17 hours ago, fanfor42 said:

September 2018 is the focus. What does the team look like in September 2018 once the current vets contracts have expired.

I couldn't agree more. People down play moves this team has made, yet play up the idea of things like trading Tanev for top Tier forward talent. 

 

There's a lot of positive things here, and really this TDL 2017 will be the defining one, imo. 

 

I don't know if we'd have to go full rebuild with a few key moves. 

 

Sedin's SHOULD be dealt to a cup contender. This should yield at minimum a 1st round pick and top prospect. If they get fleeced in the trade. 

 

With players like Sutter, Hansen, Loui, Burrows, Horvat. I feel is enough of a veteran core to mentor younger players. 

 

With all our defensive talent we have coming up, someone should be dealt from our defensive core. Tanev probably more likely than Edler. Either way this should yield high end forward talent and a high draft pick. More so if you were to trade Tanev. Edler could get a decent return in the right scenario. 

 

Focus should be on building around a Boeser/ Horvat era. 

 

If they could trade for a first line center, and add an additional first round pick in 2017/2018. I'd feel a lot more optimistic. And I think that's what their plan probably already is. 

[Salacious Crumb]

15 hours ago, CeeBee51 said:

Alf, you're starting to sound like a broken record.  

@Alflives is the yin to @oldnews yang. The resident Waldorf and Statler of cdc. 

[189lb enforcers?]

On 2016-12-31 at 11:29 AM, TheGuardian_ said:

Wanting to see the team do better as fast as is possible does not make a poster a hater of the team, just the opposite.

Criticizing management for dragging their feet over obvious indecision, out right untruths and lack of leadership, doesn't mean hater of the team, although distrust of management is something else.  

Psst, hey, minus magnet...

This is Pet The Canucks . Com

(You cant ant just go around speaking truths around here)

 

 

 

[Me_]

Whatever moves and non-moves Benning does; 50% of fans won't like it.

 

Especially because such fine blind expectations are put unto the man.

 

"If Benning doesn't trade Edler and Tanev for high picks and prospects to Detroit or Colorado at the trade deadline he should be fired" - type of expectations will only make hearts bleed with hate.

[189lb enforcers?]

On 2016-12-31 at 11:35 AM, Me_ said:

Sakic and Yzerman played in a different era when other players could come to defend the team's stars. 

 

No one dared touch stars then.

 

"Biting, face making, hair pulling, speed bagged, neck breaking, pulled goalie Captain, stick picking up... Rioting loser Vancouver "fans" is part of Canucks' history as much as any other team's questionable histories.

 

You can't just delete that stuff. So you live with it. Destroying the franchise will do nothing to erase its past.

 

 

You have Kane as a Canuck in your Sig.

We don't need any further proof of your take on Character and reputation.

 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

On 2016-12-31 at 11:37 AM, Pete M said:

Keep the management team and let them succeed or fail for another 4 more years.

 

How does a team get picks and draft well?

1. trading veterans before they've reached their best before date;

2. trading from a position of strength when a team has a lot of prospects that have potential at a certain position (assets) and another team is needing a player at that position;

3. holding onto picks or trading picks in a bad draft year to get more picks in a better draft year;

4. having good scouting to determine point #3 and drafting well;

5. developing players (having a good farm system at the AHL and ECHL levels);

6. not under valuing your players by up selling and being a good salesman;

7. knowing your competition and their needs (see #2);

8. knowing when to trade...getting more picks in a good draft year than a bad draft year and getting the most from an asset in a trade;

9. picking the BPA in the draft vs picking by positional need (the debate continues - see point #2);

10. assessing talent, but also being lucky in the draft;

11. knowing what it takes to build a winner, having a plan and getting those needed assets;

12. having a succession plan to determine point #1 and having a good blend of vets, players in their prime, and young guns;

13. having high draft picks (i.e., knowing that a team may have to get worst before it gets better);

14. having good cap management by getting good value from the assets on the team (i.e, players over performing vs under performing based on pay);

15. add to this list

Hater!

Troll!

minus magnet 

 

If you and the rest of us know this methodology, and agree, what's really going on with this management, who *must be almost as hockey-wise as us hacks? 

 

Captain Obvious doesn't seem to fit with this team. 

[appleboy]

45 minutes ago, Pete M said:

Keep the management team and let them succeed or fail for another 4 more years.

 

Nowadays it's hard to make a trade to improve a team. Most teams are shuffling the deck in order to address a certain need. More often than not, it is stealing from Mary to pay Paul. If a team has accumulated a lot of assets at a particular position, then a trade can be made to improve a team (i.e., recent Columbus/ Nashville trade); but in order to do this a team needs assets.

Therefore, how does a team get assets? Simply, assets are accumulated by having picks at the draft and drafting well. 

 

How does a team get picks and draft well?

1. trading veterans before they've reached their best before date;

2. trading from a position of strength when a team has a lot of prospects that have potential at a certain position (assets) and another team is needing a player at that position;

3. holding onto picks or trading picks in a bad draft year to get more picks in a better draft year;

4. having good scouting to determine point #3 and drafting well;

5. developing players (having a good farm system at the AHL and ECHL levels);

6. not under valuing your players by up selling and being a good salesman;

7. knowing your competition and their needs (see #2);

8. knowing when to trade...getting more picks in a good draft year than a bad draft year and getting the most from an asset in a trade;

9. picking the BPA in the draft vs picking by positional need (the debate continues - see point #2);

10. assessing talent, but also being lucky in the draft;

11. knowing what it takes to build a winner, having a plan and getting those needed assets;

12. having a succession plan to determine point #1 and having a good blend of vets, players in their prime, and young guns;

13. having high draft picks (i.e., knowing that a team may have to get worst before it gets better);

14. having good cap management by getting good value from the assets on the team (i.e, players over performing vs under performing based on pay);

15. add to this list

 

JB has done well on some of these points and not so well on others.

The biggest take away from this post is that elite teams become elite by having high draft picks and drafting well in those years when they have high draft picks. 

One thing going for the Canucks is they have high draft picks not playing in the pro leagues. If these draft picks reach their potential and become elite, then they may have a few more years of drafting high because their high end talent isn't playing on the team yet. The potential will be there to get more high end talent and add to what they already have; a few more years of pain, which will require patience.

If JB builds through the draft by drafting well, then this team will eventually become a contender. The best thing that JB has done is address our defense and goaltending situation. I'm hoping these assets continue to get better and that picks like OJ will be better than expected.

 

The only thing that is concerning is when JB makes a trade and throws in a pick or he throws in a pick and gets a lower pick in return. This is partly due to being a poor salesman or undervaluing assets.

When Benning took over he made it clear that this team did not have the 22 to 26 age players. Not on the team and no where in our system. Without that group of players you basically have to put together a team base on UFA's and AHL players. Some picks were moved out to acquire some players to fill the holes. ( not everyone has paned out) We all know about all of the NTC's and NMC which made it difficult to make quick moves.

Does anyone on here think the fans in this city would have put up with a AHL team at this level???

We would have been looking at a team that would have been lucky to win 20 games a year. Toronto was a lot deeper and already had a solid group of players in the range. They are the players that are being built around.

 

Your list makes sense but needs to be implemented based on organizational needs. This club needed to have a basic foundation put in place first. He clearly said that once the basics were put in place then they would be keeping picks and working to acquire more.

[coastal.view]

18 hours ago, fanfor42 said:

September 2018 is the focus. What does the team look like in September 2018 once the current vets contracts have expired.

man you really are a one thought adventure

reposting the same thing again and again

i guess that will make it true ?

[johngould21]

20 hours ago, Hank Moody said:

Hey guys!

 

Canuck fan for over 20 years here, so i've been through the doom-and-gloom of the late 90's and through the highs of the late 2000's... it's been a ride!

 

So I think a lot of us are losing faith in the current management team - For all the things I give credit to them for (building a solid D core, building a solid future inbetween the pipes), there are a lot more things that have left me scratching my head. I was a casual defender of the management team (the type that would hail for everyone to just "give them a chance") until last years Trade Deadline and subsequent draft. Passing on Tkachuk, who I had been dying to draft, for Juolevi who wasn't even the consensus top defenseman in the draft was an absolute head-scratcher. The Hamhuis/Vrbata TDL ordeal was also extremely embarrassing as a Canuck fan to deal with.

 

Now I understand that many of these answers may overlap - for example, you may want a guy who is currently an AGM in a successful system but is also analytics-based. Just pick the one that is MOST important to you as a factor.

 

So my question is - what kind of management do we want to see in whoever evidently takes over for the current group?

 

1) Keep the current management style/team - Let them finish what they started

Do you want to see the current management team finish what they started? They obviously have a long-term plan in place, but some may argue that to this date they haven't shown enough progress to gain the trust of the fanbase yet. Ticket sales are diving, and confidence is very low in the management team currently. But perhaps, it's all for a greater good. Is the hate unjustified?

 

2) Bring in a highly analytics-based management team - a Kyle Dubas type

Are analytics the way of the future? Do you want to see a management team that looks hard at data for major personnel decisions and acts accordingly, perhaps finding gems in the rough that other "old-school" GM's may not have found? 

 

3) Bring in a highly innovative on the back end and off-ice type, a moneyball guy - a la Gillis (sleep doctors, etc)

I guess this one kind of blends with number 2 but Gillis wasn't exactly a massive analytics guy, but more a guy who liked to study the science of players through Sleep Doctors, Mind Rooms and analyzing the way players practice and how it affects their performance. If you have ever read "Ice Storm", which documents the Canucks' journey to the top of the league in 2011, you'd be amazed to find the length that Gillis and ownership went to study and research player performance. Do you believe our players would be better if we would have continued to innovate in these fields?

 

4) Bring in an old-school, Old-boys club style GM who has a ton of experience as GM and reputation around the league - a la Lou Lamariello/Jim Rutherford type

Obviously the two aforementioned guys are not available, but it's possible an old-school GM who has been around the league as a GM for a long time could be available come time for the next Management search to begin. These are the guys that have a steady reputation around the league, you know exactly what you're getting with them, and they have a ton of experience in all situations as a General Manager. From Trade Deadline deals, to asset management, to drafting, most of the time you know what you're getting with them. There's rarely a huge "shock" or question in what they're doing, as they're steady in their decision making.

 

5) Bring in an ex-Canuck, who we know truly cares about the team - a la Naslund

Would you prefer to see a guy who's played a prominent role as a player on the team, and therefore you know would live and breathe Canucks? A guy like a Trevor Linden who may not have the experience as his other competitors, but you know wants to bring a cup to this city more than anyone else probably on this list. 

 

6) Bring in a guy who is familiar with the team, has been in management, and may not have gotten a chance to be GM before - a la Gilman, Tambellini, Henning

Finally, would you prefer to see a guy who's been in our management team as an AGM, VP, Scout, or any other role aside from GM who you may have felt would've been a better fit for GM? A guy like Gilman, who was a cap wizard, or Steve Tambellini who played second fiddle to several of our past GM's before finally taking a job with Edmonton? A guy who's been in the inner workings of the Canuck organization and could seamlessly fill in?

 

7) Bring in a guy from a successful organization that hasn't had a chance to be top guy yet - a la Mike Futa, Paul Fenton, David McNab 

Do you perhaps want to go the Benning route again of finding an experienced AGM from a successful organization in hopes of them being able to take their experience from that organization and having them mimic their current organizations managing style? A guy responsible for several great drafts in LA with Mike Futa, a guy who's been an anchor in Nashville's system under Poile for several years in Paul Fenton, a guy who's been around Anaheim's successful system since the beginning of time with David McNab?

 

 

Personally, i'm going with number 4 - bringing in an old-school, old-boys club style GM. I think we've had our share of experimenting with innovators, scouts, guys who can promise to "do things differently" to get a leg up. I simply want a guy who's been through the trenches and has the years of experience in the top role, no matter how sour the end of his last job may have been. I want the guy who will pick BPA at the draft every time, not go way off the board because he feels he has a "scouts feel" on a certain player and will prove the rest of the league and analysts wrong. I want a guy who can pick up the phone and is respected by GM's around the league, and can deal a player at the deadline, even if for any assets rather than sit on his hands unable to move anyone or anything. 

 

Simply put, give me the Ray Shero's, the Don Maloney's, the Brian Burke's, the Chiarelli's (when he was available) because they have the experience and you know exactly what you're going to get with them. 

 

In my eyes, GM's can learn where they went wrong in their last gig and correct them on this go around with our team on a fresh slate. It's a mistake to bring in fresh new faces who think they can innovate everything by playing more of a scouts role or trying everything under the sun to get a leg up through means of "moneyball" or off-the-board decisions.

 

Just a guy who makes simple, old-school hockey decisions. A rugged veteran. 

 

Excited to hear your thoughts as a collective!
 

 

 

When I read the title, I thought the group were all fired. What a bunch of nonsense! Get a grip people, 30 teams can't win the cup in the same year. PATIENCE!

[smithers joe]

another, lack of patience thread.  people want a management team that will do what the fans want. good luck with that. 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, TheGuardian_ said:

What the media says HAS to be taken with a grain of salt, a lot of them are paid by the NHL, teams, or networks that depend upon the good auspices and relations with the league. They have a line that they shouldn't cross. Newspaper guys don't have so much a vested interest, hence different angles on reporting.

 

I am sure your patience will be waning in year 6 or 7 of whatever this is the team is doing, this is year 3 already and this regime hasn't drafted and signed two top six star type players yet, once signed it will take those players 2 or 3 years to develop due to drafting position, then the Sedins will be gone, Burrows gone, Hansen gone, Edler pretty much done, Eriksson at the very end of his career, etc...Horvat, Hutton, and a couple of other players will be the leaders then, groomed in a losing environment, taught how to take losing in stride, what to say to the cameras, how doing just enough is a sure way to get a big raise. Horvat will likely get McKinnon or Tarasenko type money on his next contract and I guess if management will pay 8 million a year for declining skills then I could be a little low.

 

Then they have to be better than 7 other teams in the conference to have a chance at a playoff spot, then lose in the playoffs to learn how to play in the playoffs, then get lucky. 

 

That's going by current management style, BUT it could be accelerated by insightful, daring trades and ingenious cap management.  

 

Wanting to see the team do better as fast as is possible does not make a poster a hater of the team, just the opposite.

Criticizing management for dragging their feet over obvious indecision, out right untruths and lack of leadership, doesn't mean hater of the team, although distrust of management is something else.  

Understood.  I also pine for a blockbuster trade that will improve this this team.  The Sedins Edler and Tanev are key pieces that are perpetually contimplated on this forum by thousands of fans ...  Rarely with a realistic outcome.  Informed fans understand that since the cap era big trades have all but disappeared...  Core players are locked up and only the auxillary pieces are swapped around.  Poile is the exception managing two big trades the last two years.. Otherwise not much else where before big trades happened regularly especially at the deadline.  The most we can hope for are some high draft picks for expiring contracts....Don't think many teams are interested in why we have to offer and we have Gillis to thank for that.  Nothing wrong with high expectations in fact that is a good thing ... Benning failed with Hamhuis and Vrbata sucked himself out of a trade.  Finally yes my viewpoint will change if the next two drafts go poorly and one of our best assets going forward CAP space is used poorly.  I will save a big pitchfork if it comes to that.

[CanadianRugby]

 

18 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

Every team in the league tries to compete for the playoffs until you reach the trade deadline and management assesses their capability of achieving that goal. The only exceptions to this are the Leafs of last year and the Sabres of the prior year who purposely tanked from their first game. We traded two young 1st round picks as you stated. Granlund has been the superior player to Shinkaruk and will likely have a much better NHL career. McCann was traded to get Gudbranson and you are on record as being a strong advocate of this trade. So what the heck are you trying to say? There is something wrong with Benning switching out players for better players?

 

I think this is his problem with Benning, when comparing to an actual rebuild.

Looking at the top 4 rounds both years Toronto picked 4 times before we got to our 2nd pick.

Vancouver

Toronto

 

Vancouver

Toronto

[timmylu1]

[coastal.view]

3 hours ago, gurn said:

I see a lot of "Gillis left the team in a mess", however GIllis loaded up for a series of cup runs. Made the finals once, then got sacked before he was given a chance to do a rebuild/reload for the future. There is no way to know if he could have done that re tool/ build properly or not.

 

TLDR- Gillis loaded up, took a good run and was fired before being able to load up again.

i agree with this

but we can look at his draft record

and it was awful

at the end he did end up trading schneider for the 9th overall which ended up being bo

that is really the only positive draft step he really achieved

a cup run does drain resources.. but should not entirely bankrupt them

i do appreciate what gillis brought to the cup run however

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Salacious Crumb said:

@Alflives is the yin to @oldnews yang. The resident Waldorf and Statler of cdc. 

Felix and Oscar?

[kingofsurrey]

7 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

 

 

I think this is his problem with Benning, when comparing to an actual rebuild.

Looking at the top 4 rounds both years Toronto picked 4 times before we got to our 2nd pick.

Vancouver

Toronto

 

Vancouver

Toronto

 

A rebuild to most posters would include multiple picks  /  trading for picks.  Trying to get a larger pool of prospects.

 

This is where Benning has  hurt our rebuild .  Not to mention questionable   offensive talent  drafting / development of  Shinky, Virt and McCann.

We need to hit on our first round choices..