The TDL Benning Complaint Thread Department

[CanadianRugby]

Benning said he liked our core and would turn the team around in a hurry when hired.   We all know how that went.

 

At this point, the team has been so bad for so long that if he doesn't start making the playoffs soon he'll be fired.  I guess it makes sense why he's still "going for it" instead of rebuilding thought the draft.  

 

I hope Petterson, Horvat & Boeser aren't wasted.  Right now we're starting to look more like the Oilers than a team on the verge of contention.  We have some high picks playing well, horrible defense and bad contracts on 3rd/4th lines.

[canuck73_3]

11 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

That didn't answer my question at all.  I'll move on from Edler and the NTC, sure.

Well the only tradeable assets we had were guys like Hamhuis, Vrbata, Vanek, Burrows and Hansen. Add Edler, Sutter, and Tanev this year.

 

Burrows, traded for a decent return

Hansen, traded for a solid return

Vanek moved for a good return.

Hamhuis, had some deals in place exercised NTC

Vrbata, used his NTC to advantage by listing teams that wouldn't trade for him. 

Sutter being out possibly the rest of the year, and Tanev out for nearly a month weren't going to land us anything, you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. 

Edler, had deals in place he exercised NTC. 

 

I’m happy Benning explored options and I'm not going to fault a GM for players exercising NTC’s nor am I gonna cry about players using them. 

 

 

[canuck73_3]

1 minute ago, The 5th Line said:

Actually Hamhuis waived, Benning failed to pull the trigger.

 

But it's a simple yes or no answer.  Do you like what we have done at the last three deadlines?  

 

Indifferent, and Hamhuis waived to Dallas and they changed their mind and pulled the deal. He did say no to Washington. 

[Samgagner'sface]

4 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

The fact that we have no tradeable assets is the exact reason someone like Edler should of been traded.  Yes I know he didn't waive but you know what, Jim holds the fate of Edlers remaining years right now, he's the one who puts the ink to the paper and if Edler wants to stick around for another 3 years and make bucket loads of more money all while riding in to the beautiful Vancouver  sunset how about do the team a solid and JB throws him a bone during contract talks.  Nyquist just waived his ntc, that's the only one I know of this year but I'm sure there were a few more.  We need to stop letting the swedes run this franchise

We got a discount on edler because of that no trade clause. He negotiated the option to control where he played as a part of his payment. He took under market value to get it. He was asked if he'd move and he said no. Why is that so hard to understand? We saved millions on his last contract in return for the right to say no. Now he's cashing in on that and I'm fine with that. I don't know why he becomes the villain. If he's forced to move anyway, what was the point of leaving all that money on the table to stay with a team he loves? People keep saying its a business, but it's bad business to sign a contract in good faith and go back on it. I'm glad he's still here

[Chris12345]

3 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

This place is ridiculous.  I wouldn't want Edler going to Calgary either but Smurf project?  20 years old 5"11 27 points in 26 games in the AHL

 

Who do we have on our farm team better than this Smurf project?  Nobody.  We just traded away an actual "Smurf project" and he was or future top 6 lw according to most...29 points in 50 games and that was the hope we were hanging on to as our top 6 left winger.  Well on to Gadjovich I guess, maybe we'll take an LW in this years draft and he'll be ready to go by 2022

Who was the prospect?

[Samgagner'sface]

1 hour ago, CanadianRugby said:

That's amazing....ly depressing.

And yet our prospect pool is as deep as I've seen it for quite some time. Nothing to complain about there. You can only ice 18 players at a time. 

[Samgagner'sface]

1 minute ago, The 5th Line said:

Why do people keep using that argument?  We have finished at the bottom, we get better prospects.. When was the last time we drafted this high consecutively?  No duh we have a deep pool now but it's not nearly deep enough

i think it pretty deep, and it gonna get deeper after the draft, even if we don't trade everyone who's worth anything for picks 

[Samgagner'sface]

1 minute ago, The 5th Line said:

Everyone's pool gets deeper after a draft.  There are 30 other teams in the league

That's correct

[vannuck59]

Its time to face the facts ,The Canucks are making lateral moves . JB is obsessed with retreaded tires reclamation projects . As a Free agent I would not come here unless over paid. See the trend? So this year we will pick in 1 to 10 range draft pick hopefully a lottery win in the bottom 3 but if not it looks like we will pick a D-Man great. Now we need to sign a free agent or two that can score and defend one top 6 scorer one top end defender. I don't see anyone any good who would want to sign here unless a massive overpayment. So anther year of middle of the pack.

[5nothincanucksohno]

On 2/25/2019 at 5:19 PM, Warhippy said:

Please feel free to seat yourself in the waiting room provided in the link below for all your ZOMG BENNING related complaints.

 

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/forums/vancouver-canucks.36/

 

Honestly...wtf did you want him to do?  Tanev injured.  Edler wouldn't waive.  We don't yet have the depth to facilitate the trades or returns people seem to expect to happen.  benning has been rebuilding for just over 3 years.  Since he took over he took one of the oldest teams against the cap full of NMC and NTC's and literally zero prospect or roster depth.

 

His first year he traded across for NHL ready youth

His second year he traded across for NHL depth, kept a few

His third year he kept it

His fourth year he kept it

 

Now literally just now we're starting to see the depth of prospects enter the AHL, Still have prospects in Europe and the NCAA and have arguably two of the best young players under the age of 22 on our roster.  We were not supposed to be nearly as good as we are, we weren't supposed to challenge.  People hated Gudbranson when he brought him here, now they hate that he was traded.  people seem to think Benning lost on the DelZaster trade somehow and more.

 

You people literally cannot be pleased or take the time to see what is currently being built.

 

So please have a seat in the provided waiting room and lodge all your complaints there with the rest of the crowd.

 

Thank You

Management.

 

Completely agree

 

The purpose of adding/retaining vets is not necessarily so that they win the Cup but so that guys like Pettersson, Boeser and Horvat (who will drive any Cup aspirations) don't have to fully carry the mental and physical load until they are ready. In all the analytics froth (i.e. acquire picks at all cost) people forget general psychology - young men with millions of dollars in their pocket might need some role models to keep them grounded until they mature (better to add a few young guys each year to a stable NHL group).

 

[Darius]

Edit.

 

[kanucks25]

3 hours ago, 5nothincanucksohno said:

Completely agree

 

The purpose of adding/retaining vets is not necessarily so that they win the Cup but so that guys like Pettersson, Boeser and Horvat (who will drive any Cup aspirations) don't have to fully carry the mental and physical load until they are ready. In all the analytics froth (i.e. acquire picks at all cost) people forget general psychology - young men with millions of dollars in their pocket might need some role models to keep them grounded until they mature (better to add a few young guys each year to a stable NHL group).

You don't need to compromise your cap flexibility / cap space that could be used instead for other teams' cap dumps or trade at a draft pick deficit during a rebuild to insulate your youth.

 

Let's look at the Leafs, for example. Their main rebuild period was from the summer of 2014 (Shanahan takes over) to the summer of 2017.

 

Picks in vs. picks out (net, as in picks that were acquired and then traded away are excluded to show the surplus)

 

Picks out:

2014 4th

 

Picks in:

2015 1st

2016 2nd

2016 3rd

2016 4th

2016 6th

2017 4th

2018 2nd

2018 7th

 

So in the 3 main rebuild years, they acquired 7 more picks than they gave up (equal to an entire draft) and 4 of those extra picks were in the first 3 rounds.

 

This is how rebuilds are done; draft picks are the currency of the NHL. It's like money, if you saved up and now have some extra to spend, you can buy some nice things, like trading a 1st and 2nd for a young starting goalie.

 

During this period, they did acquire some vets as transition / insulation players, but they were all cheap contracts and what they gave up to acquire those players was minimal (Polak, Santorelli, Brewer, Parenteau, Boyes, Grabner, Matthias, Hunwick, Laich, Smith, McElhinney).

[RonMexico]

11 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You don't need to compromise your cap flexibility / cap space that could be used instead for other teams' cap dumps or trade at a draft pick deficit during a rebuild to insulate your youth.

 

Let's look at the Leafs, for example. Their main rebuild period was from the summer of 2014 (Shanahan takes over) to the summer of 2017.

 

Picks in vs. picks out (net, as in picks that were acquired and then traded away are excluded to show the surplus)

 

Picks out:

2014 4th

 

Picks in:

2015 1st

2016 2nd

2016 3rd

2016 4th

2016 6th

2017 4th

2018 2nd

2018 7th

 

So in the 3 main rebuild years, they acquired 7 more picks than they gave up (equal to an entire draft) and 4 of those extra picks were in the first 3 rounds.

 

This is how rebuilds are done; draft picks are the currency of the NHL. It's like money, if you saved up and now have some extra to spend, you can buy some nice things, like trading a 1st and 2nd for a young starting goalie.

 

During this period, they did acquire some vets as transition / insulation players, but they were all cheap contracts and what they gave up to acquire those players was minimal (Polak, Santorelli, Brewer, Parenteau, Boyes, Grabner, Matthias, Hunwick, Laich, Smith, McElhinney).

 

With the exception of Marner, none of those picks are contributing members of the current team. So they acquired a bunch of extra picks that haven't amounted to anything. How does that make their approach any better?

 

 

[kanucks25]

47 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

 

With the exception of Marner, none of those picks are contributing members of the current team. So they acquired a bunch of extra picks that haven't amounted to anything. How does that make their approach any better?

Dumbfounding response, truly. Although I imagine it's just one of those things people say to defend Benning at any cost even though they know it's not right. I mean there are still a select few that argue that the Gudbranson trade was a good one. Gotta die by the sword, I guess. Still, I'll humour you a bit:

 

Anyone paying even the slightest of attention to the NHL can see that the best teams in the league are built upon their own drafted and developed players because they can utilize these players from a very young age at a controlled cost (good players, for a long time, at a cheap cost). The draft in all rounds, for the most part, is like a lottery. And when you're trying to win the lottery, it's better to have more tickets than less. So, assuming you're not one of those very rare teams (like San Jose, for example) that are clearly better than everyone else at drafting, it's best to accumulate draft picks especially during a period of time that you're not expected to contend (AKA rebuild).

[Darius]

 

9 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Dumbfounding response, truly. Although I imagine it's just one of those things people say to defend Benning at any cost even though they know it's not right. I mean there are still a select few that argue that the Gudbranson trade was a good one. Gotta die by the sword, I guess. Still, I'll humour you a bit:

 

Anyone paying even the slightest of attention to the NHL can see that the best teams in the league are built upon their own drafted and developed players because they can utilize these players from a very young age at a controlled cost (good players, for a long time, at a cheap cost). The draft in all rounds, for the most part, is like a lottery. And when you're trying to win the lottery, it's better to have more tickets than less. So, assuming you're not one of those very rare teams (like San Jose, for example) that are clearly better than everyone else at drafting, it's best to accumulate draft picks especially during a period of time that you're not expected to contend (AKA rebuild).

But you didnt answer his question.  36 picks since 2015.  How many of the picks they hoarded have helped turn that team around to where it is today.  In my mind  the draft lotto win, Marner, and having the best UFA to come out in a decade join the team are the biggest impacts.  the fact that they got a bunch of third and fourth rounders in 2015-2016 has had almost zilch of impact.

[Warhippy]

30 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You don't need to compromise your cap flexibility / cap space that could be used instead for other teams' cap dumps or trade at a draft pick deficit during a rebuild to insulate your youth.

 

Let's look at the Leafs, for example. Their main rebuild period was from the summer of 2014 (Shanahan takes over) to the summer of 2017.

 

Picks in vs. picks out (net, as in picks that were acquired and then traded away are excluded to show the surplus)

 

Picks out:

2014 4th

 

Picks in:

2015 1st

2016 2nd

2016 3rd

2016 4th

2016 6th

2017 4th

2018 2nd

2018 7th

 

So in the 3 main rebuild years, they acquired 7 more picks than they gave up (equal to an entire draft) and 4 of those extra picks were in the first 3 rounds.

 

This is how rebuilds are done; draft picks are the currency of the NHL. It's like money, if you saved up and now have some extra to spend, you can buy some nice things, like trading a 1st and 2nd for a young starting goalie.

 

During this period, they did acquire some vets as transition / insulation players, but they were all cheap contracts and what they gave up to acquire those players was minimal (Polak, Santorelli, Brewer, Parenteau, Boyes, Grabner, Matthias, Hunwick, Laich, Smith, McElhinney).

Womp Womp

 

Let's use 2008 as a benchmark shall we

 

From 2008 to Matthews even or 8 years

 

In those 8 drafts the Leafs drafted top 10 6 times, top 5 twice, outside of the top 10 twice and traded two of those picks to Boston which were the 2nd and 9th overall respectively.  2014 being your benchmark, that was the first time the Canucks made the playoffs in a long while.

 

In that same time span from 2008 to 2016

 

The Canucks drafted top 10 4 times, one of those being Hodgson and another via trade in Horvat.  The other 6 times we drafted 23rd or later or had no 1st round pick at all.

 

You can move the paramaters all you'd like.  But the truth is the Leafs are/were actually already 6 years in to their rebuild before we even started, thus having the depth to move pieces out and having the pieces in place to allow for that.  While the Canucks had...nothing.  In that time span our only remaining pick is Gaunce.  Well, I guess Horvat and Virtanen too but you get the idea.

 

It would be a far more fair comparison to have us posted against Chicago.  Or to put edmonton against the Leafs as they had comparable drafting during that period.

 

You're making it seem or sound like a race when the Leafs had a near 6 year head start on us, had the joy of having a near generational 1st overall pick AND another pick earlier than 5.  So it doesn't really square up.  Since 2014 the Leafs may have indeed made better hay than us in regards to trading depth.  But since 2014 we've only missed the playoffs for 3 years.  Thus we've really only been rebuilding for 3 years.

 

Your argument holds no real weight when those simple facts are considered.  Because it's far easier to make trades when you have the pieces to trade, far harder when your only trade chips are either old, need to be traded together or refuse to waive their NTCs

[Warhippy]

13 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Dumbfounding response, truly. Although I imagine it's just one of those things people say to defend Benning at any cost even though they know it's not right. I mean there are still a select few that argue that the Gudbranson trade was a good one. Gotta die by the sword, I guess. Still, I'll humour you a bit:

 

Anyone paying even the slightest of attention to the NHL can see that the best teams in the league are built upon their own drafted and developed players because they can utilize these players from a very young age at a controlled cost (good players, for a long time, at a cheap cost). The draft in all rounds, for the most part, is like a lottery. And when you're trying to win the lottery, it's better to have more tickets than less. So, assuming you're not one of those very rare teams (like San Jose, for example) that are clearly better than everyone else at drafting, it's best to accumulate draft picks especially during a period of time that you're not expected to contend (AKA rebuild).

The Leafs have been effectively rebuilding since 2006

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00008490.html

 

The Canucks have been effectively rebuilding since 2015

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00008756.html

 

Again, a piss poor comparison really.

[RonMexico]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

Dumbfounding response, truly. Although I imagine it's just one of those things people say to defend Benning at any cost even though they know it's not right. I mean there are still a select few that argue that the Gudbranson trade was a good one. Gotta die by the sword, I guess. Still, I'll humour you a bit:

 

Anyone paying even the slightest of attention to the NHL can see that the best teams in the league are built upon their own drafted and developed players because they can utilize these players from a very young age at a controlled cost (good players, for a long time, at a cheap cost). The draft in all rounds, for the most part, is like a lottery. And when you're trying to win the lottery, it's better to have more tickets than less. So, assuming you're not one of those very rare teams (like San Jose, for example) that are clearly better than everyone else at drafting, it's best to accumulate draft picks especially during a period of time that you're not expected to contend (AKA rebuild).

 

All you are basically doing is arguing that quantity is better than quality. Nothing wrong with that but when the quantity doesn't result in quality, it's a hollow argument.

[kanucks25]

41 minutes ago, Darius said:

But you didnt answer his question. 36 picks since 2015.  How many of the picks they hoarded have helped turn that team around to where it is today.  In my mind  the draft lotto win, Marner, and having the best UFA to come out in a decade join the team are the biggest impacts.  the fact that they got a bunch of third and fourth rounders in 2015-2016 has had almost zilch of impact.

 

36 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

All you are basically doing is arguing that quantity is better than quality. Nothing wrong with that but when the quantity doesn't result in quality, it's a hollow argument.

Yes, it's a crapshoot. And it's not quantity over quality (it's not like Benning traded multiple low picks for highs), quantity in general is the best way to go.

 

There are players, even stars, all over the league that have been picked in the 3rd round or later. Suggesting these picks aren't important is asinine. Yes, they have a lower percentage chance of panning out, but that's why you do what you can do improve those chances (acquire more picks).

 

And if you're pro Benning, you're likely arguing that he's good at drafting. So why, then, would anyone think it's good to undermine arguably his only strength as a GM. Accumulate picks to find more Gaudettes and Forslings and Maddens, don't trade them away for Clendenings and Gudbransons.

[Darius]

10 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Yes, it's a crapshoot. And it's not quantity over quality (it's not like Benning traded multiple low picks for highs), quantity in general is the best way to go.

 

There are players, even stars, all over the league that have been picked in the 3rd round or later. Suggesting these picks aren't important is asinine. Yes, they have a lower percentage chance of panning out, but that's why you do what you can do improve those chances (acquire more picks).

 

And if you're pro Benning, you're likely arguing that he's good at drafting. So why, then, would anyone think it's good to undermine arguably his only strength as a GM. Accumulate picks to find more Gaudettes and Forslings and Maddens, don't trade them away for Clendenings and Gudbransons.

But again, Kanucks, you are avoiding the question.  You bring up the leafs as an example of a team that has been rebuilding properly (Warhippy brought up good points regarding when the rebuild actually began) because they have accumulated all those picks.  My question is out of the 36 picks since 2015, if you take out the lotto win and Marner, which of those picks have helped them turn that team around?  How many have played any NHL games?  At the end of the day it doesnt look like their pick hoarding made the biggest impact.  They have been drafting in the top 10 longer, they won a draft lotto, and their #4 pick one year has turned out to be an elite player..  Not to mention that they have been accumulating assets longer because they have been losing for a whole lot longer than we have (as pointed out by hippy).  All those 3rd,4th,5th, etc round picks you wish benning would accumulate have had MINIMAL impact.