The TDL Benning Complaint Thread Department

[Gurn]

I just imagine how bad Toronto would be with out having hit on those 3 or 4 picks out of 36.

[WeneedLumme]

2 hours 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?

You have to wonder how long until one of the Benning haters has an uncharacteristic streak of honesty and actually addresses this point. 

[-DLC-]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

They may never, but it's still important to do it the right way to give yourself the best chance. If it doesn't work, so be it, that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

 

Sometimes the best laid plans go awry. This doesn't justify a bad plan.

But there is no "right way" with a moving parts deal.  SOOO many things factor in - how a team is progressing; injuries (are huge); chemistry between those currently in place; etc.

 

"If it doesn't work" it wasn't the right thing to do.   Not sure how you can argue otherwise.

 

Look, there is but one goal....to lift the cup.  Everything else is irrelevant when you don't.  And, currently, Toronto's proven nothing.  

 

I do agree with the currency deal but I don't think it can be dumbed down to "should/shouldn't".    We didn't know what this team was capable of, how they'd gel, what we'd "need", etc. and to keep stocking the cupboard is fine but it's also good to get an idea of the ingredients you need.   To try to determine holes that do or will need filling.

 

The best laid plans that go awry is just another way of saying "not the best plan" to me.   I do think picks are important, I just don't think you overlook the here and now for down the road in a sense of abandonment.  And developing some sense of what it takes on the ice is an important lesson for some of our up and coming future core.  The experience they are getting under their belt and trying to instill a sense of confidence and momentum is equally important as a "possible' player who may or may not work out.

 

 

[Alflives]

Just now, WeneedLumme said:

You have to wonder how long until one of the Benning haters has an uncharacteristic streak of honesty and actually addresses this point. 

What does TO's success (which was clearly created by their previous GM's, and not by Dubass) have to do with JB anyway?  JB is building us (what I believe will be) a Cup winning team.  I also think JB gave away too many second and third round picks to acquire placeholder players, when he could have just signed UFAs.  I don't see why we can't be happy with JB's total job of work, but still wanting more?

[kanucks25]

36 minutes ago, Darius said:

If they did not pick hoard they would still be a good team today.

Without the Kessel one could argue they don't have Matthews or Andersen.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Without the Kessel one could argue they don't have Matthews or Andersen.

I think they drafted Marner because Hunter (a guy no longer with them) insisted on it.  Dubass has done absolutely nothing to make the team better.  Tavaras was going to sign with the Leafs regardless of who the GM was.  Well, he might have had second thoughts if it was Alf, of course. 

[Darius]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Without the Kessel one could argue they don't have Matthews or Andersen.

not sure how Kessel helped them get Mathews.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, The 5th Line said:

Everyone wants to "build through the draft" but nobody wants to acquire more picks?   We go into drafts with the minimum amount of picks just like 90% of the rest of the league.  How are we supposed to get ahead if we are doing the same damn thing as everybody else?  Jim thinks he can speed it up a bit, and now of course everyone agrees that it's the right thing to do.. if we were acquiring picks like crazy people would be fully on board with that as well I'm sure

I think there was a clear shift in philosophy of the rebuild method (from retool to rebuild) when JB traded Burrows and Hansen.  Certainly I would like to see us with more picks.  I think JB would like that too.  Maybe we move Sutter and Tanev before the draft to get more picks?  I could see JB trading a young prospect (or two) as well, in hopes of getting more picks.  (Virtanen, and Goldobin come to mind)  

[-DLC-]

12 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

Everyone wants to "build through the draft" but nobody wants to acquire more picks?   We go into drafts with the minimum amount of picks just like 90% of the rest of the league.  How are we supposed to get ahead if we are doing the same damn thing as everybody else?  Jim thinks he can speed it up a bit, and now of course everyone agrees that it's the right thing to do.. if we were acquiring picks like crazy people would be fully on board with that as well I'm sure

I LOVE when they acquire picks, I just don't think it's as easy as it seems.

[canuck73_3]

11 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I think there was a clear shift in philosophy of the rebuild method (from retool to rebuild) when JB traded Burrows and Hansen.  Certainly I would like to see us with more picks.  I think JB would like that too.  Maybe we move Sutter and Tanev before the draft to get more picks?  I could see JB trading a young prospect (or two) as well, in hopes of getting more picks.  (Virtanen, and Goldobin come to mind)  

I would like to see us acquire more picks too, but Tanev and Sutter weren't landing us anything worth trading for being on the IR. 

 

And I really don't think teams are knocking down doors to get to expendable pieces like Granlund, Schaller, Pouliot, Biega, Spooner etc. 

 

I don't want to see Jake moved just yet, that really only leaves Goldobin as the only piece left worth anything. 

 

Again I’ve never argued AGAINST acquiring picks, I just understand why they weren't able to given the circumstances. There is still time to move injured deadline players at the draft for picks. Possibly Edler too if talks completely break down and JB makes it clear we're moving on, (unlikely but still a possibility regardless)

[kanucks25]

52 minutes ago, Darius said:

not sure how Kessel helped them get Mathews.

Traded Kessel before the 15/16 season, tanked the 15/16 season, won the Matthews lottery.

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

"If it doesn't work" it wasn't the right thing to do.   Not sure how you can argue otherwise.

 

The best laid plans that go awry is just another way of saying "not the best plan" to me. 

I mean this is turning more into a philosophy than sports discussion but I strongly disagree.

 

There's a best way to do things. If you want to give yourself the best chance at succeeding at something, you do what you know is the best way to do it.

 

You want to walk? You put one foot in front of the other. If a drunk driver hits you while you're walking down the sidewalk and you can't walk anymore, does that mean putting one foot in front of the other was a bad plan? Or is it just that sometimes things you can't control can sabotage a sound plan?

 

I believe the "accumulating draft picks" plan that I outlined is the best way to do the rebuild. If you want to disagree with that, fine. But arguing that something wasn't a good idea because it just didn't work out is a whole other can of worms.

[Darius]

Just now, kanucks25 said:

Traded Kessel before the 15/16 season, tanked the 15/16 season, won the Matthews lottery.

now you are grasping.  the luck of the lotto balls did that, a luxury Benning has never had - his draft position keeps falling most of the time it seems.

 

[189lb enforcers?]

7 minutes ago, Darius said:

now you are grasping.  the luck of the lotto balls did that, a luxury Benning has never had - his draft position keeps falling most of the time it seems.

 

Tanking ensues you have lotto luck, if you can get into the top 7, correct? - Directly proportional impact, IMO.

 

Tank in the AM draft year and maybe get him, which they did.

 

In part, because they got rid of Dion and Phil. Strategic. Getting rid of their stars got them two more in the draft. All luck? Hardly. 

 

Why would you call that grasping anyways? If anything, you being certain of the opposite here suggests you are, at a minimum biased.  

 

[Darius]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Tanking ensues you have lotto luck, if you can get into the top 7, correct? - Directly proportional impact, IMO.

 

Tank in the AM draft year and maybe get him, which they did.

 

In part, because they got rid of Dion and Phil. Strategic. Getting rid of their stars got them two more in the draft. All luck? Hardly. 

 

Why would you call that grasping anyways? If anything, you being certain of the opposite here suggests you are, at a minimum biased.  

 

They had about a 20% chance of winning the first overall, i say its lucky to win first overall when you have an 80% chance of not winning.  How has finishing in the bottom 7 multiple times worked for us draft lottery wise? 

 

2014-2015 Leafs with Phil Kessel 68 points

2015-2016 Leafs without Kessel and win draft lottery 69 points.

 

So did dumping Phil Kessel really get them any worse?  They sucked the year they had Phil worse than the year they got rid of him.

 

Claiming that dumping Phil led to Mathews is a stretch.  

 

Thanks for questioning my objectivity though.

 

 

[Baggins]

4 hours 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).

How many of those "extra picks" are currently making an impact for Leafs, as in an actual difference to their rebuilt team?

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, Darius said:

They had about a 20% chance of winning the first overall, i say its lucky to win first overall when you have an 80% chance of not winning.  How has finishing in the bottom 7 multiple times worked for us draft lottery wise? 

 

2014-2015 Leafs with Phil Kessel 68 points

2015-2016 Leafs without Kessel and win draft lottery 69 points.

 

So did dumping Phil Kessel really get them any worse?  They sucked the year they had Phil worse than the year they got rid of him.

 

Claiming that dumping Phil led to Mathews is a stretch.  

 

Thanks for questioning my objectivity though.

The Canucks are around .500 both with and without Pettersson in the lineup, is he not a difference maker? Are they the same team with and without him in the lineup? Hardly.

 

Phil Kessel is an elite offensive player.

 

The Leafs were considerably a worse team without Kessel. That year they actually played well/hard but didn't have the offensive ability to score enough, Kessel would have helped in that department.

 

2 hours ago, Darius said:

now you are grasping.  the luck of the lotto balls did that, a luxury Benning has never had - his draft position keeps falling most of the time it seems.

 

Was there luck involved? Yes.

 

Did they put themselves in the best possible position to draft Matthews compared to the other 29 teams? Yes.

 

And we come full circle to our earlier philosophical discussion: go with the best plan, give yourself the best chance at success, let the chips fall where they may. If the chips fall your way after you did things right, you deserve it.

 

[canuck73_3]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

The Canucks are around .500 both with and without Pettersson in the lineup, is he not a difference maker? Are they the same team with and without him in the lineup? Hardly.

 

Phil Kessel is an elite offensive player.

 

The Leafs were considerably a worse team without Kessel. That year they actually played well/hard but didn't have the offensive ability to score enough, Kessel would have helped in that department.

 

Was there luck involved? Yes.

 

Did they put themselves in the best possible to draft Matthews compared to the other 29 teams? Yes.

 

And we come full circle to our earlier philosophical discussion: go with the best plan, give yourself the best chance at success, let the chips fall where they may. If the chips fall your way after you did things right, you deserve it.

 

If they finished with 68 points with Kessel and 69 points without, he was inconsequential at best. 

[kanucks25]

33 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

If they finished with 68 points with Kessel and 69 points without, he was inconsequential at best. 

Pettersson is inconsequential.

[canuck73_3]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

Pettersson is inconsequential.

Kessel didn't get them Matthews, that is grasping at straws. To argue otherwise is silly as it is 100% false, there was only a 1 point change in the standings.