JB has thrown away far too many assets - needs to be replaced as GM

[kanucks25]

49 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

This is your first mistake....you have NO idea what would/would have happened.  

 

So many things factor in to winning - health/injuries; goaltending; streaks; officiating.  

 

Quit stating your opinion like it's factual.  

All I'm saying is that a team wouldn't have won without half+ of their best players.

 

I don't think that's much of a hot take.

[kanucks25]

49 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Teams piss away “assets” all the time.  Washington trades a 2nd and 3rd round pick in 2015 for Curtis Glencross.  That lack of depth cost them a championship?  They also moved out a 3rd for Mike Weber.  A 2nd for Winnik. A 4th for Tim Gleason. A 6th and two 7ths for Eddie Pasquale.  A first and conditional 2nd plus prospects for Shattenkirk.  A 5th for Graovac.

 

Is anyone whining about assets?

 

I like what Joe did in the other thread and focused on the positives - really, that’s where the emphasis should be.  Washington DID land Oshie and Eller.  Those guys helped. 

 

Dont bother responding with the fact they’re in a different position than us.  In this day and age every team needs young guys to constantly retool their roster.  Moreover, the point is depth picks are often a lateral move at best.  If you think you can add a slightly better player they’re hardly untouchable.

Except they were in a very different position than us and not every team should be making the same type of transactions. There's a reason why contenders buy at the deadline and bad teams sell.

 

Gillis traded away picks to supplement his core to lead us to great success, which is what Washington tried to do.

 

Benning was not in that same position. His job was to build a new core with draft picks, not trade them away to supplement the tire-fire he iced.

Edited March 20, 2019 by kanucks25

[-DLC-]

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

All I'm saying is that a team wouldn't have won without half+ of their best players.

 

I don't think that's much of a hot take.

Except that if they didn't have "those" players, they'd have others and you just don't know how they'd do.

 

 

[HerrDrFunk]

I'll just point out that before the Canucks traded that 7th for Mazanec (which was a surplus pick thanks to the Del Zotto trade), the last pick they moved was a 4th in 2017. 

 

Saying JB should be fired because he traded 2nds 3+ years ago is ridiculous. 

[kanucks25]

39 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Except that if they didn't have "those" players, they'd have others and you just don't know how they'd do.

Except what we know, is what happened, is that these players were indeed vital to their team's success.

 

Given that this method has produced great success in recent and relevant times, I think it's a good way to go.

[ilduce39]

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Except they were in a very different position than us and not every team should be making the same type of transactions. There's a reason why contenders buy at the deadline and bad teams sell.

 

Gillis traded away picks to supplement his core to lead us to great success, which is what Washington tried to do.

 

Benning was not in that same position. His job was to build a new core with draft picks, not trade them away to supplement the tire-fire he iced.

I admitted it was a different situation, but you said no one wastes picks.  Washington threw them around like candy years before winning a cup.  We aren’t chasing a cup but our roster needed veteran leadership and NHL ready prospects to create internal competition for spots.  When JB took over there was NOTHING to bring up to the NHL to replace the vets he shipped out.

 

IMO it worked - most of our young guys have made gains and the team isn’t a sideshow despite some bad seasons.  If anything, they overachieve.  That’s worth some depth picks.

 

As for the purpose of draft picks: JB still has top rookies and still has a deep prospect pool - there isn’t anything to complain about on that end.

6 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I'll just point out that before the Canucks traded that 7th for Mazanec (which was a surplus pick thanks to the Del Zotto trade), the last pick they moved was a 4th in 2017. 

 

Saying JB should be fired because he traded 2nds 3+ years ago is ridiculous. 

I think this is the crux of it. These guys aren’t going to let it go.  Ever.  That the rebuild didn’t go the way they wanted in the beginning.   Even though it’s turned out just fine so far. 

[lmm]

On 3/18/2019 at 4:49 PM, spur1 said:

 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by lmm

[canuck73_3]

5 minutes ago, lmm said:

the trading of Kassian just proves that Mind Check is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

It meant something to Bieksa while he was here, but it live on because it would be emarassing to walk away from

I disagree Kassian was trending heavily down here and considering how much he's improved off ice since his wake up call in Montreal the trade was in his best interest. 

[vannuck59]

At best to win you need

1. two top Centers 1a and 1b
2. one top end goal scoring winger 30 to 40 goals a year
3. two wingers with speed grit and size in the 20 goal range
4. a 50 point puck moving D man 
5. two big defenders with mobility and grit
6. top faceoff center penalty kill machine
7.  two bottom wingers with grit speed 

 

[-DLC-]

17 minutes ago, lmm said:

the trading of Kassian just proves that Mind Check is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

It meant something to Bieksa while he was here, but it live on because it would be emarassing to walk away from

So untrue.

 

If you understand things like Mind Check and substance abuse, you understand that sometimes you are an enabler and have to address things through tough love and cutting ties if you've reached a dead end.  Which is what we did and what, ultimately, ended up being a case of hitting bottom and then starting the recovery process.

 

Please don't ever undermine MH efforts and programs.

[Toews]

Just now, vannuck59 said:

At best to win you need

1. two top Centers 1a and 1b
2. one top end goal scoring winger 30 to 40 goals a year
3. two wingers with speed grit and size in the 20 goal range
4. a 50 point puck moving D man 
5. two big defenders with mobility and grit
6. top faceoff center penalty kill machine
7.  two bottom wingers with grit speed 

 

In the past the Hawks got away without a legitimate 2nd line center behind Toews. The Penguins got away with a mediocre defense but looking at this Tampa juggernaut, you need a complete roster and then some luck on top of that to have a shot against them.

[ilduce39]

4 minutes ago, vannuck59 said:

At best to win you need

1. two top Centers 1a and 1b
2. one top end goal scoring winger 30 to 40 goals a year
3. two wingers with speed grit and size in the 20 goal range
4. a 50 point puck moving D man 
5. two big defenders with mobility and grit
6. top faceoff center penalty kill machine
7.  two bottom wingers with grit speed 

 

We aren’t that far off up front.  On the back end we have a ways to go, but with Hughes /Juolevi and a possible Tryamkin return we also have some “outs.”

 

When you think about it, we were icing a defence with Biega, Schenn, Sautner and Brisebois on it and beat a playoff-hunt hawks team at home... that’s insane.

[kanucks25]

59 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

We aren’t chasing a cup but our roster needed veteran leadership

All we had was veteran leadership lol

 

59 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

NHL ready prospects to create internal competition for spots.

You don't need NHL ready prospects to compete for spots when you aren't anywhere close to winning. Having them 5+ years before you're ready to compete is just wasting years of their best and cheapest hockey.

 

59 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

IMO it worked - most of our young guys have made gains and the team isn’t a sideshow despite some bad seasons.  If anything, they overachieve.  That’s worth some depth picks.

And guys like Clendening, Vey and Brandon "I have big balls but never actually play" Sutter are the reason some of our young players are improving? Or is it because that's just what good young players do? Benning inherited a group of veterans that did everything but win the Cup and were top-notch professionals off the ice. He already had the players he needed to mentor prospects.

Edited March 20, 2019 by kanucks25

[-DLC-]

 

35 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Except they were in a very different position than us and not every team should be making the same type of transactions.

So let's apply that always.  When you have teams full of individuals, different management and coaching personnel, injuries, players who get a say (to some degree), chemistry or lack there of, needs and wants, etc. a one size fits all doesn't work.  So not sure why you should get to veer from this when you want it to work in support of your opinion.

[ilduce39]

Just now, kanucks25 said:

All we had was veteran leadership lol

 

You don't need NHL ready prospects to compete for spots when you aren't anywhere close to winning. Having them 5+ years before you're ready to compete is just wasting years some of their best and cheapest hockey.

 

And guys like Clendening, Vey and Brandon "I have big balls but never actually play" Sutter are the reason some of our young players are improving? Or is it because that's just what good young players do? Benning inherited a group of veterans that did everything but win the Cup and were top-notch professionals off the ice. He already had the players he needed to mentor prospects.

I could walk you through the minutia of why 20-something leadership is important over 30-something for connecting with young players but you’re just going to spin off in another myopic, binary direction. Some moves were for leadership, some were for competition, some were a swing for the fence, hoping they’d turn into a home run. Not all the moves panned out but the overall movement has been positive. 

 

and the point is, as far as development and team building: it’s working.

[-DLC-]

14 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You don't need NHL ready prospects to compete for spots when you aren't anywhere close to winning.

You don't know how close you'll be until you try.  See how that works?  There's that old hindsight jumping in to support your theory again.

And who cares if you're "close" to winning?  Toronto may be close to winning right now but when they don't (again), does it matter?   Close means nothing in this game...it's all or nothing.  

So we're working towards the all part.  You do need prospects to compete for spots, it's how you determine what you've got, where players are at, etc., how they gel, etc.

[ilduce39]

4 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

You don't know how close you'll be until you try.  See how that works?  There's that old hindsight jumping in to support your theory again.

And who cares if you're "close" to winning?  Toronto may be close to winning right now but when they don't (again), does it matter?   Close means nothing in this game...it's all or nothing.  

So we're working towards the all part.  You do need prospects to compete for spots, it's how you determine what you've got, where players are at, etc., how they gel, etc.

Yeah that part made no sense.  

 

Developing teams absolutely need competition to hold each other accountable.  The last thing you want are a bunch of young entitled underachievers.  

 

Bo and Vey had almost identical stats in their first seasons with the Canucks.  I’d bet anything Bo wanted to overtake Vey’s spot up the lineup.  

 

Would he have turned out anyways?  Probably.  But that internal competition is exactly what it’s all about. It wasn’t handed to him.  He trained hard and outperformed Vey to move up the lineup.  That’s important and all too easily dismissed by some.

[Toews]

6 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

I could walk you through the minutia of why 20-something leadership is important over 30-something for connecting with young players but you’re just going to spin off in another myopic, binary direction. Some moves were for leadership, some were for competition, some were a swing for the fence, hoping they’d turn into a home run. Not all the moves panned out but the overall movement has been positive. 

 

and the point is, as far as development and team building: it’s working.

You can get 20 something players in free agency if that is your goal. You can sign a Gagne, a Roussel and a Schaller. You can even find many 20 something year olds who get placed on waivers like Reid Boucher. There is no justifying the assets we threw away for mediocrity. 

[ilduce39]

3 minutes ago, Toews said:

You can get 20 something players in free agency if that is your goal. You can sign a Gagne, a Roussel and a Schaller. You can even find many 20 something year olds who get placed on waivers like Reid Boucher. There is no justifying the assets we threw away for mediocrity. 

Keeping those assets does little to move the needle away from mediocrity.  

 

See my last post about Vey.. even in a failed gamble he had value as a goal for Bo to overtake.  Legitimately as well, not against a UFA on a 3 year multi million deal.  I see value there.  Not to say picks don’t have it, but those age gap guys had value as well.

Edited March 20, 2019 by ilduce39

[kanucks25]

48 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

and the point is, as far as development and team building: it’s working.

All that's "worked" is 1st round picks that came from the team being a tire-fire and players that were inherited.

 

All Benning has to show really outside the expected is Stecher, Leivo, Roussel and Baertschi (if he's even playing anymore). All decent players, but not enough for 5 years of "work".