The TDL Benning Complaint Thread Department

[Smashian Kassian]

6 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

 

JB had very little to work with when he got here and a lot of fans have very little patience. It was a match made in heaven from the start  

 

 

 

I've generally agreed with this. But I'd like to maybe put that to the test.

 

When Benning came in, they did have alot of no-trade contracts. But they were able to move alot of them without much trouble. Garrison was moved right away, Kesler was moved right away, Bieksa moved the next year. They botched the Hamhuis thing but they could have moved him. Hansen was moved, Burrows was moved.

 

For prospects your definitely right. They didn't have alot. Horvat was the top guy, Hutton/Shinkaruk/Jensen/Gaunce people were hopeful about. 

 

But the thing about it is, Benning is still relying on alot of the Gillis guys 5 years later. Markstrom is the backbone of this team, 3 of the top 4 D are Gillis regime guys, then of course Horvat is the leader.

 

They were also able to get good assets for alot of those guys they moved. 2nd rounder for Garrison (wasted on Vey), 2nd rounder for Bieksa (traded for Sutter), 1st+2 roster players for Kesler, Dahlen for Burr, Goldobin for Hansen. They ended up getting decent assets for those guys, they just used alot of them in other trades. 

 

What was the worst contract JB inherited? Bieksa/Garrison maybe? I don't think any of the ones he inherited were worse than the one he added in Eriksson. Or even the Beagle contract. Unless I'm missing an obvious one. 

 

 

[Silky mitts]

Benning has failed to weaponize cap space, made some poor trades , traded picks, some terrible signings . Held onto assets , failed too acquire additional picks . Its only right fans can be uneasy over this rebuild, which Has been a poor half assed one so far . 

 

Jimbo should hoepfully get replaced and  stays on for scouting ,but heck brackett might be the brains behind that too.

[aGENT]

35 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Except they've done exactly that. They've tried every quick fix. 

 

How can you say its been about patience & no quick fixes the entire time, when its literially taken the draft being in Vancouver for them to decide that holding onto draft picks is a good idea.

 

The last 4 years combined we've been the worst team in the NHL. And we've had less than the allotted 7 draft picks per year. Name another rebuild that has had less than the allotted 7 picks per season over the course of the process. 

 

I think very highly of Quinn Hughes but hoping he's the guy next year that vaults us to the playoffs is optimistic to say the least. It'll take more work on our backend, and honestly when your leaning on Edler/Tanev who are always injured to be the backbone of it, that's not a good plan IMO.

 

And that's not even getting into how much we are lacking on the wings. 

 

 

No. It hasn't been a rebuild the entire time. Benning said at the beginning that he thought they could turn things around quickly. The goal was to make the playoffs.

 

The message at the beginning was the team will turn around quickly. After they missed playoffs in the 2nd year, they tried to get back to being a playoff team through trade/free agency. Which led to Eriksson, Gudbranson & almost trading our #5 pick as part of a PK Subban trade. Those are not rebuilding moves. 

 

Its only after that all failed & they had no more expendable assets, that they fully accepted the rebuild.

 

They've spent assets for nothing. They've let their assets age & devalue, for nothing. The asset management hasn't been great at all. And on the pro-side their work has been mostly bad with trades & free agency.

 

This is why I bring up a plan & a timeline. They have a good core but the team is still far away, and the problem is they don't have a boatload of assets.

 

They are going to have to hit a home run this summer through trade (if they even can), or else free agency. And if they do go swinging again in free agency like we all expect, they can't sign another anchor like Eriksson or buy high on 4th line players like Beagle & Schaller.

 

 

Stop gaps aren't 'quick fixes'.

 

They haven't moved any 1sts, the backbone of any rebuild.

 

Frankly I don't feel like regurgitating this same tired argument that's been nonsense since it started. Apparently we have a top 3 prospect pool 'without actually rebuilding' according to your ilk. If you're going to come at me with that tired nonsense...  Good night.

[oldnews]

8 hours ago, riffraff said:

I admit I have been less committed to cdc lately lol....mainly in part due to the:

 

this team is dead last again

fire green

hire quenville

blah blah blah

 

the posts here lately are the equivalent of head vs brick wall.

a hiatus is good for mental health. 

 

I didn't miss the whinge around here at all while away.

 

I have no problem with critical thinking or reasoned disagreement with what the team does, but that's a rarity unfortunately.

[oldnews]

11 hours ago, canucksnihilist said:

 Beagle terrible on 4th line - outscored 2 to 1 when he is on the ice.   And we have 3 more years ofthose 2 players... ugh...,Really the FA signings are a joke. 

 

 

2 hours ago, canucksnihilist said:

“You dont get”...  can we have a conversation about facts without getting personal?  I know pushing buttons is fun... but come on...

 

beagle:  lets debate.  Another stat is 2:1 goals against:for when he is on the ice.  Maybe that stat doesnt mean anything based on his minutes?  It seems to.... but what do you think?

 

Sure - but wadr your post wasn't "debate" material - it was a factually incorrect, embellished misrepresentation of the player that doesn't respect what he actually brings.

 

So I responded in the tone you used - and it aint "personal" - but I did provide what I considered the relevent "debate" counterpoints - that recognize the actual role he plays.   No one judges shutdown players on goal differentials - at least no one that understands the game - which is what you did, while sandbagging the player based on a red herring.

[Smashian Kassian]

19 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Stop gaps aren't 'quick fixes'.

 

They haven't moved any 1sts, the backbone of any rebuild.

 

Frankly I don't feel like regurgitating this same tired argument that's been nonsense since it started. Apparently we have a top 3 prospect pool 'without actually rebuilding' according to your ilk. If you're going to come at me with that tired nonsense...  Good night.

What...??

 

Benning didn't say they could turn it around quickly??? They haven't had less than the allotted 7 picks per year??? They didn't trade assets for Gudbranson??? They didn't sign Eriksson??? They didn't try to trade a top 5 pick for a quick fix???

 

Reclamation projects are attempts at quick fixes. Adam Clendening was a stop gap? Andrey Pedan was a stop gap? Linden Vey was meant to be a stop gap? If its just stop gaps then how many times do they need to trade draft picks for replacement level players that they could have just signed? That doesn't help your argument.

 

Now that Pettersson, Demko & Gaudette are NHL players, & Dahlen is gone. Is it top 3 anymore beyond that?

 

Of course you just try to lump me into an "ilk" of fan. So that you don't have to try & respond to legitimate criticisms I've made. (I do give Benning credit for the improved drafting & other good moves I think he's made)

 

 

Don't come at me anymore then about management if your not going to answer my responses. 

 

 

 

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

What...??

 

Benning didn't say they could turn it around quickly??? They haven't had less than the allotted 7 picks per year??? They didn't trade assets for Gudbranson??? They didn't sign Eriksson??? They didn't try to trade a top 5 pick for a quick fix???

 

Reclamation projects are attempts at quick fixes. Adam Clendening was a stop gap? Andrey Pedan was a stop gap? Linden Vey was meant to be a stop gap? If its just stop gaps then how many times do they need to trade draft picks for replacement level players that they could have just signed? That doesn't help your argument.

 

Now that Pettersson, Demko & Gaudette are NHL players, & Dahlen is gone. Is it top 3 anymore beyond that?

 

Of course you just try to lump me into an "ilk" of fan. So that you don't have to try & respond to legitimate criticisms I've made.

 

Don't come at me anymore then on this topic if your not going to answer my responses. 

 

 

 

Not interested in the tired regurgitation.

[Smashian Kassian]

Just now, aGENT said:

Not interested in the tired regurgitation.

In otherwords, you don't have a response. 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Smashian Kassian said:

In otherwords, you don't have a response. 

Nope. Plenty of them. Feel free to look them up.

[appleboy]

Linden and Benning admitted that they didn't think it needed to be rebuilt when they arrived. They wouldn't even say the word. Every thing they did was to prop it up, Band-Aids.  We are still seeing the same agenda. 

Why didn't they move Guddy for a pick or picks and just keep MacEwen?

[Smashian Kassian]

15 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nope. Plenty of them. Feel free to look them up.

None to me.

 

I'm not spending time searching for your posts because you can't formulate a response. If you have a post or a thread containing your posts please do pull them up.

 

Otherwise don't quote me anymore in these Benning threads, if your just gonna ignorantly punt on the discussion.

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

None to me.

 

I'm not spending time searching for your posts because you can't formulate a response. If you have a post or a thread containing your posts please do pull them up.

 

Otherwise don't quote me anymore in these Benning threads, if your just gonna ignorantly punt on the discussion.

Feel free to go through my post history. There's plenty there. It's a tired discussion 

[Baggins]

7 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Reclamation projects are attempts at quick fixes. Adam Clendening was a stop gap? Andrey Pedan was a stop gap? Linden Vey was meant to be a stop gap? If its just stop gaps then how many times do they need to trade draft picks for replacement level players that they could have just signed? That doesn't help your argument.

Those were prospects. Young players. Which are rebuilding moves. They certainly weren't shoot for the cup moves. More young guys added each season. That's not rebuilding. A franchise record for rookies playing there first NHL game in season. Not rebuilding at all. That first season had 2 rookies on the roster and 4 others play games. The 2nd season had 3 rookies on the roster and 7 others play games. The third season sported 3 rookies on the roster and 10 others play games. That's 7 rookies on the roster in the first three years. Doesn't sound like a rebuild to me. That's the stuff you do if you're shooting for a cup run.

 

Yes Benning said he felt he could turn the team around quickly and get back to the playoffs. It only worked the first season, but he did it. That goal would get more difficult as the team rebuilt and more youth was added. He also said they were going to "transition to a younger team", which you guys always seem to skip over. They said repeatedly they wanted to try and compete for a playoff spot while transitioning to a younger team. Most of us understood that to mean rebuilding without intentionally tanking the team. 

 

You say "rebuild" nowadays and most take it to mean "intentionally tank the team". Which they weren't going to do. Unless you're Edmonton or TO that word makes season ticket holder run for the hills. I don't blame them for avoiding the 'R' word as long as possible. Linden finally used the 'R' to clear it up for those that couldn't figure out what "transition to a younger team" meant.

[Smashian Kassian]

6 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Those were prospects. Young players. Which are rebuilding moves. They certainly weren't shoot for the cup moves. More young guys added each season. That's not rebuilding. A franchise record for rookies playing there first NHL game in season. Not rebuilding at all. That first season had 2 rookies on the roster and 4 others play games. The 2nd season had 3 rookies on the roster and 7 others play games. The third season sported 3 rookies on the roster and 10 others play games. That's 7 rookies on the roster in the first three years. Doesn't sound like a rebuild to me. That's the stuff you do if you're shooting for a cup run.

 

Yes Benning said he felt he could turn the team around quickly and get back to the playoffs. It only worked the first season, but he did it. That goal would get more difficult as the team rebuilt and more youth was added. He also said they were going to "transition to a younger team", which you guys always seem to skip over. They said repeatedly they wanted to try and compete for a playoff spot while transitioning to a younger team. Most of us understood that to mean rebuilding without intentionally tanking the team. 

 

You say "rebuild" nowadays and most take it to mean "intentionally tank the team". Which they weren't going to do. Unless you're Edmonton or TO that word makes season ticket holder run for the hills. I don't blame them for avoiding the 'R' word as long as possible. Linden finally used the 'R' to clear it up for those that couldn't figure out what "transition to a younger team" meant.

 

I don't think we should "intentionally tank the team", I don't want to watch games where the team doesn't try. But at the same time trading draft picks away seems counterproductive to me, especially when this regime has done such a great job of drafting. 

 

They were young players, but they were reclamation projects. If they were going to be guys to carry a team they wouldn't be available for trade. Or atleast for the level picks we were trading for some of them. To me when it came to a Larsen or a Clendening that was trying to gamble on a RH guy to help the PP in the short-term. (as an example) Successful or not it wasn't going to move the needle long term or short term.

 

Sometimes it fine making those moves, I didn't have a problem with the Baertschi trade. But when your constantly going back to that well I think your better off just to draft. They've done a good enough job that these picks can mean more than just taking a short-term flyer on a Larsen, or a Vey, or a Pouliot. exc.

 

Appreciate the response Baggins. 

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

 

 

 

Quote

No. It hasn't been a rebuild the entire time. Benning said at the beginning that he thought they could turn things around quickly. The goal was to make the playoffs.

 

The message at the beginning was the team will turn around quickly. After they missed playoffs in the 2nd year, they tried to get back to being a playoff team through trade/free agency. Which led to Eriksson, Gudbranson & almost trading our #5 pick as part of a PK Subban trade. Those are not rebuilding moves. 

Yep and the moves at the start of his tenure supported that.  The excuse used to be "we needed to fill the age gap" and the question is why?  Why trade for more developed closer to NHL ready talent?  Why not just keep those picks and bring up the players through our own system?  Once people started to dig into that question ,you quickly can come to the realization that filling that "age gap" revolves around the idea of....SPEEDING things up.   

 

I agree with the idea that signing short term, depth players as stop gaps is a sign of showing patience.  They don't typically affect the cap since rebuilding teams tend to have space, they don't typically take up roster spots since they are easily waived/moved and they are easy to acquire as we don't have to give up assets to obtain.  Their only job is literally, fill a role until someone younger takes that spot away from them.   Stop gaps are win/wins.

 

But with that said I don't know how someone can say it's been slow and steady was always the course without having to blatantly ignoring some of the moves made in the first few years.  between 2014-16. We traded away three 2nd round picks, two 3rd round picks, two 4th round picks, two 5th round picks and a 6th round pick....and all we have to show for those 10 picks is, Baertschi, Pouliot and now Pearson.....who are essentially just stop gaps... I mean almost everyone believes that JB is a solid drafter and that his batting average is better than most why wouldn't people want more picks.

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

 

Yep and the moves at the start of his tenure supported that.  The excuse used to be "we needed to fill the age gap" and the question is why?  Why trade for more developed closer to NHL ready talent?  Why not just keep those picks and bring up the players through our own system?  Once people started to dig into that question ,you quickly can come to the realization that filling that "age gap" revolves around the idea of....SPEEDING things up.   

 

I agree with the idea that signing short term, depth players as stop gaps is a sign of showing patience.  They don't typically affect the cap since rebuilding teams tend to have space, they don't typically take up roster spots since they are easily waived/moved and they are easy to acquire as we don't have to give up assets to obtain.  Their only job is literally, fill a role until someone younger takes that spot away from them.   Stop gaps are win/wins.

 

But with that said I don't know how someone can say it's been slow and steady was always the course without having to blatantly ignoring some of the moves made in the first few years.  between 2014-16. We traded away three 2nd round picks, two 3rd round picks, two 4th round picks, two 5th round picks and a 6th round pick....and all we have to show for those 10 picks is, Baertschi, Pouliot and now Pearson.....who are essentially just stop gaps... I mean almost everyone believes that JB is a solid drafter and that his batting average is better than most why wouldn't people want more picks.

I agree with you 100%.

 

to answer your question.  Benning is arrogant.  He believes, as proven by his willingness to trade away picks during a rebuilding phase, that he can out draft the other teams with far fewer picks.  This, IMO, is his tragic flaw, and will ultimately lead to his demise.  

Reading Macbeth, while drinking scotch (Macbeth - scotch) makes me write like this.  

[Smashian Kassian]

57 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Feel free to go through my post history. There's plenty there. It's a tired discussion 

That's fine aGENT. I'm over it. I'll keep an eye out if I come across other management related threads.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Smashian Kassian said:

That's fine aGENT. I'm over it. I'll keep an eye out if I come across other management related threads.

Baggins did a half decent summary for you. But this horse has been beaten ad nauseum. Have zero desire to rehash it yet again. Sorry.

[Smashian Kassian]

30 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

 

Yep and the moves at the start of his tenure supported that.  The excuse used to be "we needed to fill the age gap" and the question is why?  Why trade for more developed closer to NHL ready talent?  Why not just keep those picks and bring up the players through our own system?  Once people started to dig into that question ,you quickly can come to the realization that filling that "age gap" revolves around the idea of....SPEEDING things up.   

 

I agree with the idea that signing short term, depth players as stop gaps is a sign of showing patience.  They don't typically affect the cap since rebuilding teams tend to have space, they don't typically take up roster spots since they are easily waived/moved and they are easy to acquire as we don't have to give up assets to obtain.  Their only job is literally, fill a role until someone younger takes that spot away from them.   Stop gaps are win/wins.

 

But with that said I don't know how someone can say it's been slow and steady was always the course without having to blatantly ignoring some of the moves made in the first few years.  between 2014-16. We traded away three 2nd round picks, two 3rd round picks, two 4th round picks, two 5th round picks and a 6th round pick....and all we have to show for those 10 picks is, Baertschi, Pouliot and now Pearson.....who are essentially just stop gaps... I mean almost everyone believes that JB is a solid drafter and that his batting average is better than most why wouldn't people want more picks.

 

I agree completely. And people bring up Edmonton, but part of the problem in Edmonton has been they haven't hit on almost any of there picks outside the first round. Sure we haven't traded away a 1st (even though they almost did in 16' & they traded McCann), but those picks outside the first round are just as important.

 

In our case, if we are trading them away, we don't even have the chance. And we've been alot better at drafting than Edmonton. 

[Smashian Kassian]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Baggins did a half decent summary for you. But this horse has been beaten ad nauseum. Have zero desire to rehash it yet again. Sorry.

Yeah that's fair, I can understand that. Had people coming at me on HF for basically saying that I don't mind having Beagle in his 4th line faceoff/PK role, despite acknowledging the contract is bad. It can get tiring.