The TDL Benning Complaint Thread Department

[Tomatoes11]

8 hours ago, Baggins said:

Particularly when it comes to players with ntc's. When you're limited to specific teams you're limited to what those teams are willing to give up. For example, Kesler could have got a royal return had there been some competition to get him. With only one trade option I'm impressed Benning got what he did.

 

The flip side of course is the team that says we'll give you this pick or this prospect. Then you have to weigh what the pick can get you versus where the prospect is in development. Sometimes the prospect is the better bet. Sometimes you'd rather swing for the fence even though you're more likely to strike out.

He botched the kesler trade by getting older pieces instead of younger pieces. I am pretty sure Anaheim would have been happy to trade a raw prospect instead of Bonino for their cup run. We didn’t really need any established players at that point. Should have been purely prospects and picks. We got two roster players which I am sure Anaheim would have no issues keeping for their cup run. Heck, that was the sole reason they went after Kesler. 

 

Okay, maybe they wouldn’t want to keep Sbisa but they probably definitely wanted to keep Bonino and give us a prospect instead.

[Baggins]

10 hours ago, Tomatoes11 said:

He botched the kesler trade by getting older pieces instead of younger pieces. I am pretty sure Anaheim would have been happy to trade a raw prospect instead of Bonino for their cup run. We didn’t really need any established players at that point. Should have been purely prospects and picks. We got two roster players which I am sure Anaheim would have no issues keeping for their cup run. Heck, that was the sole reason they went after Kesler. 

 

Okay, maybe they wouldn’t want to keep Sbisa but they probably definitely wanted to keep Bonino and give us a prospect instead.

Easy to say he botched it, but the reality is with only one team to trade with, and they know it, you're limited to what they are willing to give up. I was actually surprised we got their first in the deal. I don't think Benning was happy with the return, but had to weigh that against another long term Luongo fiasco.

 

You're completely speculating on what they "could have" got. I'm on the opposite end. Taking on Kesler's salary they likely wanted salary going the other way as well. Free agency was coming up and had to be considered for them as a contender. Given the circumstance, one trade partner option, I was ok with what Benning got back. Even if Kesler had given two interested options I think the return would have been much better. He was worth more than what we got in my mind, but without that competition to get him, you get what you can.

[WeneedLumme]

11 hours ago, Tomatoes11 said:

He botched the kesler trade by getting older pieces instead of younger pieces. I am pretty sure Anaheim would have been happy to trade a raw prospect instead of Bonino for their cup run. We didn’t really need any established players at that point. Should have been purely prospects and picks. We got two roster players which I am sure Anaheim would have no issues keeping for their cup run. Heck, that was the sole reason they went after Kesler. 

 

Okay, maybe they wouldn’t want to keep Sbisa but they probably definitely wanted to keep Bonino and give us a prospect instead.

You are pretty sure about many things you know nothing at all about. Thanks so much for sharing. By the way, have you heard about roster limits and salary caps? And where exactly did you get your mind reading training?

 

If I could read minds the way you do, I don't think I would waste that ability reading the minds of NHL GMs (unless I was one myself). I think I would be more inclined to read the minds of stock market insiders.

[CjZizzari]

while in the midst of this tank we've found ourselves in. Let's remember the good times. I made something to commemorate the Sedins. hope you enjoy.

 

[kanucks25]

On 2/28/2019 at 3:50 PM, The Lock said:

Because as a result of not being "complete ass", we allowed for players like Horvat to have leadership from the Sedins and other veterans. Who's to say that your method wouldn't turn us into the next Edmonton or Arizona or Florida? Instead, we're already surprising people. We might not be in the playoffs, but we are showing streaks of what we will likely become in the future, unlike what a lot of these other teams are showing.

 

You want to completely tank and get picks I'm assuming? Expect a lot more seasons of "Out of Playoffs" compared with what we likely will have now because getting lucky in the draft is a thing and Vancouver has not exactly had that luck and is STILL doing better.

"Because as a result of not being complete ass"?

 

I think you missed the entire point of the post. We have sucked: this will be the 4th year in a row that we will be a bottom-10 team.

 

There is zero argument against us having a losing environment for Benning's entire tenure other than year 1 when most of the team wasn't his.

[kanucks25]

On 2/28/2019 at 7:48 PM, Warhippy said:

So...by that token, Benning kept the twins traded nobody and won the Petterson lottery.  Right?  Or...is that not how this works now?

Trading away players to give yourself the best chance at drafting #1 isn't the same as whatever you just described lol.

 

On 2/28/2019 at 7:48 PM, Warhippy said:

Petterson as of last nights game is directly or indirectly the cause of now 16 game winning or tying goals that have lead to overtime.  Without Petterson in the lineup the Canucks are or would be without that minimum 16 points, 2 points behind Ottawa for last in the NHL and therefore first for best odds in the hunt for Hughes.

 

Inconsequential though I am sure.

 

now I have a post of yours I need to find and address, brb

I was clearly being facetious but ok.

[kanucks25]

On 2/28/2019 at 8:12 PM, Warhippy said:

Shanahan came in the same year as Benning.  At the helm of one of the youngest teams in the league.  benning at the helm of one of the oldest.  Shanahan with the Leafs missing the playoffs for I believe 9 of the prior 10 years, Benning with the Canucks missing the playoffs twice over the same span.  benning inherited 3 defensemen.  Shanahan inherited what again?  Just reilly, Kadri and Gardiner?

 

You completely and intentionally ignore the paramters of those timelines.  And why it is important.  Shanahan had a scorched earth policy?  Benning had NTCs and literally no depth at all to speak of.  Subban, Horvat, Cassels?  Like come on man.  You know how far you're reaching and you just refuse to admit it.

 

Shanahan has been at the helm of the leafs since 2014.  benning since 2014.  Keep that in mind as it's the same amount of time but with vastly different organizational situations

When Shanahan took over the leafs had missed the playoffs all but 1 year since the lockout.

When Benning took over the Canucks had been effectively drafting 20-29 for the same time period.

 

To pretend for even a second that competing at that high level did not affect the organization or the depth they had to play with is such a weak way to try to argue your point.  It's like having a race where you spot the guy a 50 foot head start.

 

Shanahan took over a young Leafs team that had effectively 2 big NTCs in Phaneuf and Kessel.  Benning took over and had Burrows, Hansen, Sedins, Edler, Hamhuis, Kesler or effectively every possible piece of value at his disposal tied up with no options on when and where they went.

 

The two are so vastly different it isn't even approachable.  Now you want to claim somehow it's only a 3 year window as though THAt matters?  OK lets use that 3 year window shall we, from Matthews to 2018 the Leafs had more picks which is all well and good.  But what has come of them?  One could argue the canucks already have more NHL or potential NHL players with far less.  So while more picks may have helped it also may not have which would have lead n doubt to statements like "dim jim can't draft" or some such nonsense.

 

The sad comparison between the Leafs and Canucks over the last 3 drafts/years without looking at ALL at what either team had availabe at the times is simple cherry picking and anyone with half a brain can see through it.  Sure people like Ronning on Empty and Y2KCanucks will claim otherwise, but it doesn't make it any less of a steaming pile of Burkie dog induced BS. 

 

If you'd like to seriouly make your case, why don't you look at the teams in 2014 through last draft.  Look at the average age of the players, the cap hits (including the use of robidas island) the NTCs and NMCs afforded as well as the amount of depth each organization had and THEN start making your argument.  because without all that you're simply giving us a highlight reel argument without any context or backstory, and give me enough time and I can make a highlight reel that makes Gudbranson look like a superstar scoring defenseman.

First off, I personally believe that the NTCs didn't totally hamper Benning's ability to fix the team.

 

Only two players were traded out: 1 who wanted out (Kesler) and one who Benning wanted out and the player accepted (Garrison). We don't know what Benning could have done if he tried to trade other players out or if he even asked. Yes we know the Sedins and Edler wouldn't have waived, but what about the rest? I mean the year Hamhuis was an upcoming UFA he did waive and the Canucks couldn't get a deal done.

 

But that's besides the point. We can argue about the NTCs until the cows come home but it's hard to come to a conclusion when we aren't privy to the organization's interactions with the players behind closed doors. 

 

 

The more important thing here is that Benning implemented his retool / age-gap plan and it had nothing to do with the NTCs. His plan was to keep some of our good players and try to trade for other teams' NHL ready young players so we didn't have to go through a full rebuild. The Gudbranson trade was a prime example of this, and it along with the plan in general blew up in Benning's face. If he had succeeded, we'd be a contender right now, not bottom-feeding again.

 

The NTCs and veterans he acquired didn't force him to trade picks and prospects for other teams' failing young players, Benning did that himself deliberately.

[kanucks25]

20 hours ago, Tomatoes11 said:

He botched the kesler trade by getting older pieces instead of younger pieces. I am pretty sure Anaheim would have been happy to trade a raw prospect instead of Bonino for their cup run. We didn’t really need any established players at that point. Should have been purely prospects and picks. We got two roster players which I am sure Anaheim would have no issues keeping for their cup run. Heck, that was the sole reason they went after Kesler. 

 

Okay, maybe they wouldn’t want to keep Sbisa but they probably definitely wanted to keep Bonino and give us a prospect instead.

10 hours ago, Baggins said:

Easy to say he botched it, but the reality is with only one team to trade with, and they know it, you're limited to what they are willing to give up. I was actually surprised we got their first in the deal. I don't think Benning was happy with the return, but had to weigh that against another long term Luongo fiasco.

 

You're completely speculating on what they "could have" got. I'm on the opposite end. Taking on Kesler's salary they likely wanted salary going the other way as well. Free agency was coming up and had to be considered for them as a contender. Given the circumstance, one trade partner option, I was ok with what Benning got back. Even if Kesler had given two interested options I think the return would have been much better. He was worth more than what we got in my mind, but without that competition to get him, you get what you can.

9 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

You are pretty sure about many things you know nothing at all about. Thanks so much for sharing. By the way, have you heard about roster limits and salary caps? And where exactly did you get your mind reading training?

 

If I could read minds the way you do, I don't think I would waste that ability reading the minds of NHL GMs (unless I was one myself). I think I would be more inclined to read the minds of stock market insiders.

There's zero arguing that the Kesler trade was botched.

 

Benning didn't get a poor return because his hands were tied, he got a poor return because his "age-gap plan" was a complete disaster.

 

When Benning got the job, he made it a point to acquire players in the their low-mid 20's because he wanted to quickly turn the team around instead of going through a full rebuild. He specifically said he saw Sbisa as a future top-4 D-man.

 

There's no reason to believe he couldn't have gotten a picks/prospect package instead. Just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't have.

[The Lock]

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

"Because as a result of not being complete ass"?

 

I think you missed the entire point of the post. We have sucked: this will be the 4th year in a row that we will be a bottom-10 team.

 

There is zero argument against us having a losing environment for Benning's entire tenure other than year 1 when most of the team wasn't his.

There's ample people coming at you with facts and everything in this thread that explains otherwise.

 

So I'm not going to sit here in a circular argument with someone who's clearly here to merely say "I'm right your wrong." It's a shame really. You seem like a smart person otherwise.

[BlastPast]

Re: the Kesler trade , taking Kesler off the roster left a hole at centre that had to be filled with a player. The roster JB inherited had Jeremy Welsh play like 20 games. Think about that for a minute, and that's not to mention some other lower quality forwards that played that season.  You have to ice a team and those players have to come from somewhere.  There was no one in the org. that could step in and the UFA crop at C that year was terrible so there weren't any real options there either. It's almost as if some people don't even consider the roster before judging certain moves.

[Baggins]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

There's no reason to believe he couldn't have gotten a picks/prospect package instead. Just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't have.

Nor does it mean he could. Without being a part of the trade talks it's pure speculation. Which was my point. You simply choose to believe he could without a shred of evidence.

 

But for what it's worth, for 14/15 Anaheim had 2.5m cap space left. Now you can argue they could have given us prospects and picks and then easily traded players to get under the cap before the season started. But every GM out there would know they needed to get under the cap putting them at a negotiating disadvantage. As a GM which choice would you make: Make full use of your advantage over the Canucks giving up what you want to get Kesler, or trade what Benning wants (despite having no other trade options) and put yourself in a weaker trade position needing to move players to get under the cap? I know what direction I'd go as GM. I'd rather use my advantage than give it up and put myself at a disadvantage. This is why I was surprised we actually got their 1st in that deal. 

[Gurn]

Kesler, and a third,got traded for

 

 Sbisa- who was 24 

Bonino who was 26

and a first

and a third.

 

So 2 picks, a just entering prime d man, and a decent depth center.

This looks very close to a picks and prospect trade to me.

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, gurn said:

Kesler, and a third,got traded for

 

 Sbisa- who was 24 

Bonino who was 26

and a first

and a third.

 

So 2 picks, a just entering prime d man, and a decent depth center.

This looks very close to a picks and prospect trade to me.

the revisionist history going on here about Kesler's trade is laughable. His agent screwed us by letting the hockey world know Kes had just 2 teams he'd go to. We're lucky to get what we did. 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

13 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

First off, I personally believe that the NTCs didn't totally hamper Benning's ability to fix the team.

 

Only two players were traded out: 1 who wanted out (Kesler) and one who Benning wanted out and the player accepted (Garrison). We don't know what Benning could have done if he tried to trade other players out or if he even asked. Yes we know the Sedins and Edler wouldn't have waived, but what about the rest? I mean the year Hamhuis was an upcoming UFA he did waive and the Canucks couldn't get a deal done.

 

But that's besides the point. We can argue about the NTCs until the cows come home but it's hard to come to a conclusion when we aren't privy to the organization's interactions with the players behind closed doors. 

 

 

The more important thing here is that Benning implemented his retool / age-gap plan and it had nothing to do with the NTCs. His plan was to keep some of our good players and try to trade for other teams' NHL ready young players so we didn't have to go through a full rebuild. The Gudbranson trade was a prime example of this, and it along with the plan in general blew up in Benning's face. If he had succeeded, we'd be a contender right now, not bottom-feeding again.

 

The NTCs and veterans he acquired didn't force him to trade picks and prospects for other teams' failing young players, Benning did that himself deliberately.

There is nothing in this post that wouldn’t be a consensus opinion of the hockey world, IMO.

Seems spot-on for anything I’ve seen written or said about the team, outside this market and forum. 

[spur1]

13 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

There's zero arguing that the Kesler trade was botched.

 

Benning didn't get a poor return because his hands were tied, he got a poor return because his "age-gap plan" was a complete disaster.

 

When Benning got the job, he made it a point to acquire players in the their low-mid 20's because he wanted to quickly turn the team around instead of going through a full rebuild. He specifically said he saw Sbisa as a future top-4 D-man.

 

There's no reason to believe he couldn't have gotten a picks/prospect package instead. Just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't have.

Edler trade botched? Give your head a shake. Thankful we got rid of the clown. A bag or pucks would have been a win. 

Oops I meant Kesler. Grey moment. 

[189lb enforcers?]

52 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the revisionist history going on here about Kesler's trade is laughable. His agent screwed us by letting the hockey world know Kes had just 2 teams he'd go to. We're lucky to get what we did. 

 

How do you know any more than anyone else does about how lucky they were to get what they did? That’s just feelz. 

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

How do you know any more than anyone else does about how lucky they were to get what they did? That’s just feelz. 

I know when you have only 2/29 teams to trade with your options are limited. No feels about it. 

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the revisionist history going on here about Kesler's trade is laughable. His agent screwed us by letting the hockey world know Kes had just 2 teams he'd go to. We're lucky to get what we did. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I know when you have only 2/29 teams to trade with your options are limited. No feels about it. 

Benning didn't have a 2 team restriction, he had a 2 team request. If Benning wanted to play hardball, he could have. Kesler didn't have the "right" to get out of town, Benning granted it.

[kanucks25]

3 hours ago, gurn said:

Kesler, and a third,got traded for

 

 Sbisa- who was 24 

Bonino who was 26

and a first

and a third.

 

So 2 picks, a just entering prime d man, and a decent depth center.

This looks very close to a picks and prospect trade to me.

First of all we gave a (higher) third back.

 

2nd of all, "just entering a prime D-man" ????????????????????????

 

???????????????

 

SBISA????????????

[kanucks25]

13 hours ago, The Lock said:

There's ample people coming at you with facts and everything in this thread that explains otherwise.

 

So I'm not going to sit here in a circular argument with someone who's clearly here to merely say "I'm right your wrong." It's a shame really. You seem like a smart person otherwise.

It's a discussion forum, I'm discussing.

 

If I'm not smart for not conceding to group think then so be it.