JohnTavares Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, Darius71 said: Actually, I read it and it makes good sense to me. Really? Because almost 95% of his "facts" aren't facts. It's extremely biased, he picks his spots and argues certain things and excludes certain things, like this: "35% of THIS years cap has gone to players on a bad team. We are a bad team. We're not Oilers bad, or Buffalo bad but we're a bad team. But wait, 8 weeks ago before all the injuries we were actually a middle of the pack team sitting at 1 point below .500" You can't pick and choose when to pull up standings. Injuries happen, that's part of the game. A fully healthy Canucks team just got their asses handed to them by the Buffalo Sabres yesterday. YESTERDAY. We are right up there with the Sabres and Oilers. This is even better: "You made grand claims wide sweeping statements about how Benning was awful and why, about OMG this team did this and that team is better for this. yet not ONCE stated a single fact or reason why. We are on technical year 2 of a rebuild and looking far better than we ever have moving forward. I asked you true or false is this team more well positioned in cap space, prospects and youth for the future than ever before. You said false. You can't even remotely claim this is somehow not true" What...? What is a "technical year 2" of a rebuild? You're just making $&!# up as you go. Looking far better than we ever have moving forward? Currently 4th last in the NHL, one spot better than last year. The team is not well positioned in cap space because we have 35% tied to marginal players on the team. I have already explained that and used "facts". This is my evidence to claim that this is not true... where's your head at man? Too many concussions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 5 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: Really? Because almost 95% of his "facts" aren't facts. It's extremely biased, he picks his spots and argues certain things and excludes certain things, like this: "35% of THIS years cap has gone to players on a bad team. We are a bad team. We're not Oilers bad, or Buffalo bad but we're a bad team. But wait, 8 weeks ago before all the injuries we were actually a middle of the pack team sitting at 1 point below .500" You can't pick and choose when to pull up standings. Injuries happen, that's part of the game. A fully healthy Canucks team just got their asses handed to them by the Buffalo Sabres yesterday. YESTERDAY. We are right up there with the Sabres and Oilers. Lmmfao Ok. Refute it WITH FACTS. You "think" 95% are not facts. Even with the links to back them up. Prove it 8 weeks ago we were 1 point below .500 I added that link for proof. I cant pick and choose? Ya we lost last night. But prior to that we stomped the crap out of LA Now if you think im wrong. Prove it. Use facts. Not opinion. Or...you know. Play the life card and just claim you are right. Maybe drop in a fake news for fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 12 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: Really? Because almost 95% of his "facts" aren't facts. It's extremely biased, he picks his spots and argues certain things and excludes certain things, like this: "35% of THIS years cap has gone to players on a bad team. We are a bad team. We're not Oilers bad, or Buffalo bad but we're a bad team. But wait, 8 weeks ago before all the injuries we were actually a middle of the pack team sitting at 1 point below .500" You can't pick and choose when to pull up standings. Injuries happen, that's part of the game. A fully healthy Canucks team just got their asses handed to them by the Buffalo Sabres yesterday. YESTERDAY. We are right up there with the Sabres and Oilers. Listen man, you seem very angry about this and I try not to waste my time discussing things with people that jump into an argument and call most of the fan base and participants in this forum stupid. Ill summarize, in short, what I think and move on here... While I dont agree 100% with what he said, I dont think JB is nearly the buffoon that you try and make him out to be and his perspective is closer to the way I see it. His drafting has been pretty good (maybe he flubbed up Jake, but arguments can be made for that pick at the time) and its far to early to tell what Juolevi will turn out to be. Brock is competing for the Calder, Pettersson is really lighting it up in the SEL in almost unprecedented fashion. Not only that some of the latter round picks have been excellent ( Gaudette in the cream of the crop in the NCAA, Lind putting up more points that Glass, Demko top 5 in the AHL for save percentage, Dipietro tops in the OHL for save percentage etc etc) Its a pretty good haul in his first 3 drafts - more than one impressive pick in the latter rounds in a short period of time. Even if Jake is a flub precedence shows us that about 40% of players taken at his position never amount to more than 4th liners, so there is some element of crap shoot to this - all teams flub up draft picks nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnTavares Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 Just now, Darius71 said: Listen man, you seem very angry about this and I try not to waste my time discussing things with people that jump into an argument and call most of the fan base and participants in this forum stupid. Ill summarize, in short, what I think and move on here... While I dont agree 100% with what he said, I dont think JB is nearly the buffoon that you try and make him out to be. His drafting has been pretty good (maybe he flubbed up Jake, but arguments can be made for that pick at the time) and its far to early to tell what Juolevi will turn out to be. Brock is competing for the Calder, Pettersson is really lighting it up in the SEL in almost unprecedented fashion. Not only that some of the latter round picks have been excellent ( Gaudette in the cream of the crop in the NCAA, Lind putting up more points that Glass, Demko top 5 in the AHL for save percentage, Dipietro tops in the OHL for save percentage etc etc) Its a pretty good haul in his first 3 drafts - more than one impressive pick in the latter rounds in a short period of time. Even if Jake is a flub precedence shows us that about 40% of players taken at his position never amount to more than 4th liners, so there is some element of crap shoot to this - all teams flub up draft picks nothing new. I'm not angry at all, I'm just confused as to why people can't see the big picture? As an owner, Jim Benning has come in and wasted your $ and failed to retool on the fly. Not only this, but he is on the verge of THREE consecutive bottom five finishes while... spending the maximum money you could possibly spend as a General Manager. On a Macro level, that is a failure beyond epic proportions. There is no justification or dispute on these "facts". He tried this half-ass "retool on the fly" and targeted players 22-27 to "accelerate" the process. It was a poor choice of strategy and even worse execution. Why is he still being heralded by Canucks fans? He is a bottom 10 GM at best, on a good sunny day. I think JB is good at evaluating amateur talent, and that's about it. A General Manager needs to be able to do way more than that. He hasn't proven he has NHL GM capabilities outside of his amateur scouting. He does not have the cap management skills, asset management skills and the pedigree. The Subban comments were an example of Jim just not being the right person for this job. He's not a buffoon but he's been horrendous by all measures except for the draft. Why would you draft a player like Forsling/McCann and then trade them shortly after? There's just way too many inconsistencies and unexplained actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnTavares Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 9 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Lmmfao Ok. Refute it WITH FACTS. You "think" 95% are not facts. Even with the links to back them up. Prove it 8 weeks ago we were 1 point below .500 I added that link for proof. I cant pick and choose? Ya we lost last night. But prior to that we stomped the crap out of LA Now if you think im wrong. Prove it. Use facts. Not opinion. Or...you know. Play the life card and just claim you are right. Maybe drop in a fake news for fun "35% of THIS years cap has gone to players on a bad team. We are a bad team. We're not Oilers bad, or Buffalo bad but we're a bad team. But wait, 8 weeks ago before all the injuries we were actually a middle of the pack team sitting at 1 point below .500" Oilers have 47 points in 49 games. Canucks have 44 points in 49 games What are you even talking about? You are literally discrediting real life facts and forming your own inaccurate opinions. This is as close to Trump as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 1 minute ago, JohnTavares said: I'm not angry at all, I'm just confused as to why people can't see the big picture? As an owner, Jim Benning has come in and wasted your $ and failed to retool on the fly. Not only this, but he is on the verge of THREE consecutive bottom five finishes while... spending the maximum money you could possibly spend as a General Manager. On a Macro level, that is a failure beyond epic proportions. There is no justification or dispute on these "facts". He tried this half-ass "retool on the fly" and targeted players 22-27 to "accelerate" the process. It was a poor choice of strategy and even worse execution. Why is he still being heralded by Canucks fans? He is a bottom 10 GM at best, on a good sunny day. I think JB is good at evaluating amateur talent, and that's about it. A General Manager needs to be able to do way more than that. He hasn't proven he has NHL GM capabilities outside of his amateur scouting. He does not have the cap management skills, asset management skills and the pedigree. The Subban comments were an example of Jim just not being the right person for this job. He's not a buffoon but he's been horrendous by all measures except for the draft. Why would you draft a player like Forsling/McCann and then trade them shortly after? There's just way too many inconsistencies and unexplained actions. I dont think he is perfect, he has made some errors. Speaking of big pictures... Im not sure when you started watching this team, but Ive been following them religiously since 1982. I know enough and seen enough to know that when JB took over this team it was absolutely barren when it comes to prospects. I could count the number of impact players on the team, that were under 25 years old on HALF of one hand. The previous regimes had spent latter round picks to the max in order to bolster the core of the day in preparation for playoff runs. I also know that he was hindered with multiple no trade clauses given to key core players by the previous regime. Under these circumstances, and after having watched this team for decades go through various cycles -along with other teams-- i knew it would take 5 or more years to get this team to be competitive again. In essence I dont think anyone could have turned that team ,and that organizational depth, around in 3.5 years. I did not expect quick results. The teams people point to as having quick turn arounds usually have the benefit of having prospect pools built up through the previous decade. That simply was not the case here. What I do see now is one of the top prospect pools in the NHL and a whole lot of cap about to be relieved - the core that has been here for a long time is going to start to melt away into history. Couple that with this draft and I see better times ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 16 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: "35% of THIS years cap has gone to players on a bad team. We are a bad team. We're not Oilers bad, or Buffalo bad but we're a bad team. But wait, 8 weeks ago before all the injuries we were actually a middle of the pack team sitting at 1 point below .500" Oilers have 47 points in 49 games. Canucks have 44 points in 49 games What are you even talking about? You are literally discrediting real life facts and forming your own inaccurate opinions. This is as close to Trump as it gets. That 35% of this years cap statement Was actually yours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 38 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: Really? Because almost 95% of his "facts" aren't facts. It's extremely biased, he picks his spots and argues certain things and excludes certain things, like this: "35% of THIS years cap has gone to players on a bad team. We are a bad team. We're not Oilers bad, or Buffalo bad but we're a bad team. But wait, 8 weeks ago before all the injuries we were actually a middle of the pack team sitting at 1 point below .500" You can't pick and choose when to pull up standings. Injuries happen, that's part of the game. A fully healthy Canucks team just got their asses handed to them by the Buffalo Sabres yesterday. YESTERDAY. We are right up there with the Sabres and Oilers. This is even better: "You made grand claims wide sweeping statements about how Benning was awful and why, about OMG this team did this and that team is better for this. yet not ONCE stated a single fact or reason why. We are on technical year 2 of a rebuild and looking far better than we ever have moving forward. I asked you true or false is this team more well positioned in cap space, prospects and youth for the future than ever before. You said false. You can't even remotely claim this is somehow not true" What...? What is a "technical year 2" of a rebuild? You're just making $&!# up as you go. Looking far better than we ever have moving forward? Currently 4th last in the NHL, one spot better than last year. The team is not well positioned in cap space because we have 35% tied to marginal players on the team. I have already explained that and used "facts". This is my evidence to claim that this is not true... where's your head at man? Too many concussions? To quote Yes, Prime Minister: "So my facts are just statistics, and your statistics are facts?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnTavares Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Darius71 said: I dont think he is perfect, he has made some errors. Speaking of big pictures... Im not sure when you started watching this team, but Ive been following them religiously since 1982. I know enough and seen enough to know that when JB took over this team it was absolutely barren when it comes to prospects. I could count the number of impact players on the team, that were under 25 years old on HALF of one hand. The previous regimes had spent latter round picks to the max in order to bolster the core of the day in preparation for playoff runs. I also know that he was hindered with multiple no trade clauses given to key core players by the previous regime. Under these circumstances, and after having watched this team for decades go through various cycles -along with other teams-- i knew it would take 5 or more years to get this team to be competitive again. In essence I dont think anyone could have turned that team ,and that organizational depth, around in 3.5 years. I did not expect quick results. The teams people point to as having quick turn arounds usually have the benefit of having prospect pools built up through the previous decade. That simply was not the case here. What I do see now is one of the top prospect pools in the NHL and a whole lot of cap about to be relieved - the core that has been here for a long time is going to start to melt away into history. Couple that with this draft and I see better times ahead. That’s fair. It seems like you’re a half glass full type of guy. There were a lot of things that Benning didnt do/did do that set this rebuild back by 2-3 years IMO. By the way when Gillis got canned, it wasn’t as barren as stated. That’s a huge exaggeration that many people like to believe to justify this timeline. Horvat, Tanev and Hutton are still three pieces that are important in our future left by Gillis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 2 hours ago, JohnTavares said: No need. Eriksson, Sutter, Gudbranson, Gagner, Markstrom, Nilsson and MDZ comprise of 26.2 million dollars. None of these players are even a legitimate top six forward or a top four defenseman or an average starting goalie. 35% of our cap money has gone into below average players on TERM. This is beyond pathetic. Over a third of our cap goes into, more or less trash players. So honestly you can take those 23k posts and shove it where the sun don’t shine. Probably better off taking some time off the computer for once. 20 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: "35% of THIS years cap has gone to players on a bad team. We are a bad team. We're not Oilers bad, or Buffalo bad but we're a bad team. But wait, 8 weeks ago before all the injuries we were actually a middle of the pack team sitting at 1 point below .500" Oilers have 47 points in 49 games. Canucks have 44 points in 49 games What are you even talking about? You are literally discrediting real life facts and forming your own inaccurate opinions. This is as close to Trump as it gets. Yes...what are you even talking about I actually, happen to be the only one between us that has posted...facts. So not sure who you think is discrediting facts, when you have posted your opinion only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnTavares Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Yes...what are you even talking about I actually, happen to be the only one between us that has posted...facts. So not sure who you think is discrediting facts, when you have posted your opinion only You said we aren’t Oilers bad. Oilers have 47 points in 49 games. Canucks have 44 points in 49 games. What? Some interesting “facts” you got there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: That’s fair. It seems like you’re a half glass full type of guy. There were a lot of things that Benning didnt do/did do that set this rebuild back by 2-3 years IMO. By the way when Gillis got canned, it wasn’t as barren as stated. That’s a huge exaggeration that many people like to believe to justify this timeline. Horvat, Tanev and Hutton are still three pieces that are important in our future left by Gillis. He's been here 3 full season including this one. 4 drafts. This is technical year 2 of a rebuild as we made the playoffs under his watch. How has he set this team back 2-3 years outside of your opinion Again, your opinion only. And when Gillis got canned we had our most exciting draft since 2005. Our only prospect was Horvat, then Shinkaruk, Cassels, Subban.....12 total NTCs and spent to the cap. We were barren Gillis was arguably our best GM but he went all in and it didn't work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: That’s fair. It seems like you’re a half glass full type of guy. There were a lot of things that Benning didnt do/did do that set this rebuild back by 2-3 years IMO. By the way when Gillis got canned, it wasn’t as barren as stated. That’s a huge exaggeration that many people like to believe to justify this timeline. Horvat, Tanev and Hutton are still three pieces that are important in our future left by Gillis. Fair enough. Horvat was a great young player, Tanev a great top pair D man, but at the time I dont know how much of an impact Hutton could make. But the prospect pool was barren. Who did we have? Jensen and Cody Hodgson? I can dig it up, it was ranked in the bottom 5 of the NHL. The deck was stacked against JB. We can agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: You said we aren’t Oilers bad. Oilers have 47 points in 49 games. Canucks have 44 points in 49 games. What? Some interesting “facts” you got there. Oilers have had 4 1st overall picks since 2010, drafted exactly 3 times outside of the top 10 since 2006, have exactly 3 players drafted outside of the top 10 since 2006 that have become NHL players that have played more than 100 games, Oilers have spent to the cap and were without question cup threats this year after a magical year last year with McJesus "the next one" The Canucks...were expected to draft top 5 again. Those are, again facts. We aren't Oilers bad. edit* Look man, I don't get why you're arguing with me. You made grand statements. I proved them wrong or at least to be based on opinion only. You don't get to make grand sweeping all encompassing statements then get angry when someone proves you wrong. If you don't like Benning fine, but don't invent issues where there are none to suit your narrative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: Oilers have had 4 1st overall picks since 2010, drafted exactly 3 times outside of the top 10 since 2006, have exactly 3 players drafted outside of the top 10 since 2006 that have become NHL players that have played more than 100 games, Oilers have spent to the cap and were without question cup threats this year after a magical year last year with McJesus "the next one" The Canucks...were expected to draft top 5 again. Those are, again facts. We aren't Oilers bad Oilers had a coach that was beginning to turn that mess into something (Ralph Krueger). For reasons unknown, Lowe & co. decided to replace him with Dallas Eakins. That set back that franchise a number of years (not just turfing a good coach but replacing him with an awful one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said: Oilers had a coach that was beginning to turn that mess into something (Ralph Krueger). For reasons unknown, Lowe & co. decided to replace him with Dallas Eakins. That set back that franchise a number of years (not just turfing a good coach but replacing him with an awful one). Apparently (I cannot believe the reports) but they're considering turfing McLellan. The rumours are with the hiring of coffey as skills coach that McLellan may be let go with the full hire of Coffey in the off season for the head coaching position. I don't get it, how is Charelli not the one getting turfed. With rumours of RNH now on the block as well, that's a guy who in 6 years could possibly have traded or released one 2nd overall pick and three 1st overall picks and the pick representing this years potential calder winner as a GM if it happens.... For...Reinhardt, Strome and Larsson.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, JohnTavares said: There is so much wrong in this post I don't even know where to begin.... Most of the stuff here is gibberish and formulated by opinions without any evidence whatsoever. Not to mention the constant spelling errors and incoherent sentences. Honestly, my eyes hurt attempting to read all that. This is so poorly written that really, nobody is gonna give a damn or care about what you said. I stopped responding halfway because there was just too much trash in there. Lazy cop out reply... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Apparently (I cannot believe the reports) but they're considering turfing McLellan. The rumours are with the hiring of coffey as skills coach that McLellan may be let go with the full hire of Coffey in the off season for the head coaching position. I don't get it, how is Charelli not the one getting turfed. With rumours of RNH now on the block as well, that's a guy who in 6 years could possibly have traded or released one 2nd overall pick and three 1st overall picks and the pick representing this years potential calder winner as a GM if it happens.... For...Reinhardt, Strome and Larsson.... The Coffey hiring smacks of meddling by Katz. Or people who have his ear. I mean the old boys who were put into positions where they could do no more harm (Lowe, MacTavish etc) FWIW Coffey's has been a coach for the Toronto Marlborough's midget AAA team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solinar Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 11 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Apparently (I cannot believe the reports) but they're considering turfing McLellan. The rumours are with the hiring of coffey as skills coach that McLellan may be let go with the full hire of Coffey in the off season for the head coaching position. I don't get it, how is Charelli not the one getting turfed. With rumours of RNH now on the block as well, that's a guy who in 6 years could possibly have traded or released one 2nd overall pick and three 1st overall picks and the pick representing this years potential calder winner as a GM if it happens.... For...Reinhardt, Strome and Larsson.... I have to agree with you, and many here should, because Benning is crucified for some of his trades, and yet Chiarelli has made trades that make ours looks like home runs. I mean, if I was the owner, I'd never let him call the Islanders again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 Just now, Crabcakes said: The Coffey hiring smacks of meddling by Katz. Or people who have his ear. I mean the old boys who were put into positions where they could do no more harm (Lowe, MacTavish etc) FWIW Coffey's has been a coach for the Toronto Marlborough's midget AAA team That makes sense...but man what an absolute waste of potential Imagine that line up with McDavid, Hall, eberle, barzal, RNH...possibly Yakupov with Kassian Lucic and Maroon still. As a hockey fan I cringe at organizations like the Oilers, Sabres, Yotes etc. it's frightening to know what could have been but ownership/management seem dead set against success Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.