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

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Canucks have had a grand total of.... ZERO top 10-15 picks under Benning. 

 

How is he supposed to piss away what he never had? 

What championship rebuild was built predominantly on top 10-15 picks?

 

What a nonsense argument.  

I think you misunderstand...

[kanucks25]

51 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Seperate points there sugar plum.

 

There's no way to calculate the value of sheltering, mentorship etc provided by vets vs picks of players who we have no idea the team would have taken in those spots.

 

But based on statically averages we could, optimistically, assume a couple more depth prospects and if we're lucky, another Gaudette or so, based on the few picks we are even down (which itself is overblown).

 

Your lot like to make like the rebuild would be all but done by now if only we'd kept those few extra picks, when it's highly improbable they would have been anywhere near that impactful. The probable difference isn't worth the vitriol.

 

And again, ignores the positive impact of maintaining a veteran presence.

 

First of all, you assuming that there would be no significant difference is the same as someone else assuming there would be.

 

Second, nobody said Benning had to trade everyone over the age of 20 to do a proper rebuild. You're going to an extreme that nobody in their right mind would suggest.

Edited March 20, 2019 by kanucks25

[CanadianRugby]

12 minutes ago, Generational.EP40 said:

I don’t think he literally meant between 10-15 overall, but top 10 or top 15 as in 1-10 or 1-15.

 

11 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I'm guessing he meant 1-15 not literally between 10-15 (10,11,12,13,14,15).

 

e/ too slow

 

8 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I think you misunderstand...

Well that makes more sense.

 

aGENT, haven't you been arguing that you don't need top picks to rebuild the whole time? 

Sorry if I by accident mistake you for baggins or oldnews.  

[aGENT]

23 minutes ago, Generational.EP40 said:

Tbf you’re missing the point but just strictly to answer your response, of the 4 times we’ve had top10-15 picks, he’s missed twice (Virtanen, Juolevi) and struck gold twice (EP, Hughes). The other time being outside of that range you mention where he struck gold again with Boeser at 23. 

 

...point being had JB had more ammunition in the past which he dealt away himself, we’d certainly have a couple more top prospects. You can’t downplay the value of these picks “losing your cheese” etc. Literally all it takes is 1 right pick to change the fortunes of a franchise just as EP has done. I get he’s at the top of the draft, but there’s still very effective players you get after as evident by Tryamkin, Gaudette, Madden, etc.

How can I miss my own point?

 

Virtanen and Juolevi aren't 'misses' BTW. One's an NHL player and the other is trending to one. They may not be the best picks at those spots, entirely with the gift of hindsight, but that's an entirely different point.

 

Boeser is a late first outlier. Great for us and certainly something you hope for.

 

Why would we 'certainly have more top prospects'? Again, most of those come from 1st rounders and ones predominately in the first half of that round. How many of those has Benning traded away again? Exactly.

 

Yes you get some 'effective' players later in the draft. We actually have quite a few of them. But BY FAR the guys who move the needle in a rebuild, the 'top prospects', come from the top half of the first round.

Edited March 20, 2019 by aGENT

[aGENT]

Just now, CanadianRugby said:

 

 

Well that makes more sense.

 

aGENT, haven't you been arguing that you don't need top picks to rebuild the whole time? 

Sorry if I by accident mistake you for baggins or oldnews.  

I don't think you need to 'tank' and finish bottom 3 (particularly with how the lottery works and this team's luck in it).

 

You do need top 10 and top half of the 1st picks though.

 

Or a metric crap tonne of horse shoes up your arse 

[aGENT]

15 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

First of all, you assuming that there would be no significant difference is the same as someone else assuming there would be.

 

Second, nobody said Benning had to trade every over the age of 20 to do a proper rebuild. You're going to an extreme that nobody in their right mind would suggest.

Decades of statistics isn't really an assumption.

 

Assuming we would have nailed every outlier with those picks, is.

 

No, I didn't actually say that.

[kanucks25]

30 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Decades of statistics isn't really an assumption.

 

Assuming we would have nailed every outlier with those picks, is.

 

No, I didn't actually say that.

So what exactly is the limit for trading away draft picks?

 

What if Benning had also tossed away the 5th that got Gaudette or the 2nd that got Demko.

 

Or does this go back to the perceived utopia where whatever decisions Benning made were the right ones, and the amount of picks he kept was the perfect amount?

 

Both aforementioned players will likely be core pieces going forward despite not being 1st round picks. To suggest that we couldn't have drafted more of these kinds of guys with additional picks is ridiculous, especially if you're in the "Benning is a good drafter" camp.

Edited March 20, 2019 by kanucks25

[lmm]

47 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

First of all, you assuming that there would be no significant difference is the same as someone else assuming there would be.

 

Second, nobody said Benning had to trade every over the age of 20 to do a proper rebuild. You're going to an extreme that nobody in their right mind would suggest.

That is the aGENT way there Sugarplum

scan through this whole tread, if nothing else they is consistant,

and condescending 

[CanadianRugby]

40 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Decades of statistics isn't really an assumption.

 

Assuming we would have nailed every outlier with those picks, is.

 

No, I didn't actually say that.

I don't know how much value decades of statistics have, considering before the salary cap a few rich teams could outbid everyone for the best free agents.  

I'm not saying you're wrong but at least if you're going to say you have decades of statistics to back your claims up maybe list a few statistics.  

Edited March 20, 2019 by CanadianRugby

[lmm]

18 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

So what exactly is the limit for trading away draft picks?

 

What if Benning had also tossed away the 5th that got Gaudette or the 2nd that got Demko.

 

Or does this go back to the perceived utopia where whatever decisions Benning made where the right ones, and the amount of picks he kept was the perfect amount?

 

Both aforementioned players will likely be core pieces going forward despite not being 1st round picks. To suggest that we couldn't have drafted more of these kinds of guys with additional picks is ridiculous, especially if you're in the "Benning is a good drafter" camp.

the beauty of the Benning can do no wrong crowd is that they claim that he is a great drafter, but every pick not in the top 5 always has a 0.00666 chance of playing in the NHL and therefor is worthless. It is the perfect argument really.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

So what exactly is the limit for trading away draft picks?

 

What if Benning had also tossed away the 5th that got Gaudette or the 2nd that got Demko.

 

Or does this go back to the perceived utopia where whatever decisions Benning made were the right ones, and the amount of picks he kept was the perfect amount?

 

Both aforementioned players will likely be core pieces going forward despite not being 1st round picks. To suggest that we couldn't have drafted more of these kinds of guys with additional picks is ridiculous, especially if you're in the "Benning is a good drafter" camp.

Why does there need to be a limit? You make moves that improve your organization based on where it is and where you'd like to be.

 

That can be trading picks in our out, signing UFA's, trading for a vet/trading them away, etc, etc, etc.. All based on wide and varying circumstances of the organization, individual players, cap space etc

 

Setting limits on anything seems pretty silly and might stop you from making moves that would be beneficial.

 

Not particularly interested in playing 'what if' with the past. Little value. That's you whiners territory. Honestly, I love Gaudette and Demko. And while nailing Gaudette with a late pick is great, it's not like this rebuild is one more or less Gaudette away from a cup run. Again the impact 'top prospect' types that drive a rebuild, overwhelmingly come from the 1st and early in it.

 

Goalies are a bit different as all but the absolute STUDS don't generally get taken any earlier than the 2nd. Demko included. And I hate to break it to you but, while certainly no guarantee, it's entirely possible we extend Markstrom and trade Demko next year at the TDL, ahead of the expansion draft and sign/trade for a backup until DiPietro is ready. Next year will be very interesting on who stays or goes.

 

And my argument was never that we couldn't draft more of these type of guys, I in fact stated directly that we'd likely have a couple more depth prospects and maybe even another Gaudette +/-. Those players are great, and needed to round out a roster. But they're not the backbone of a rebuild and we frankly don't really need volumes more of that type of player. We're not short of them.

 

52 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

I don't know how much value decades of statistics have, considering before the salary cap a few rich teams could outbid everyone for the best free agents.  

I'm not saying you're wrong but at least if you're going to say you have decades of statistics to back your claims up maybe list a few statistics.  

https://www.google.com/search?q=success+rate+of+nhl+draft+picks&oq=success+of+NHL&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.4127j0j7&client=ms-android-bell-ca-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Edited March 20, 2019 by aGENT

[canuckledraggin]

This is the 1st time I'm reading this post and I really don't understand the point of the Twitter poster or by extension why anyone would think Benning hasn't done a good job. I look specifically at the net in and net out columns and I wonder how someone could come to the conclusion that the list on the left is better than the list on the right. 

 

For one thing there's a bunch of free agents in the out column. Players who only Aqualini could take exception to , considering he's the one paying their salaries.

 

Put it this way. Say we're in some bizarre fantasy league and I offered you all of the players on the left for the players on the right. Would you do it? I sure would.

 

Quantity of assets is a weak argument to have Benning fired. Just hire an assistant who understands the cap and contract negotiation a bit better and allow Benning to keep building the broken team that he inherited.

[Generational.EP40]

6 hours ago, aGENT said:

Why would we 'certainly have more top prospects'? Again, most of those come from 1st rounders and ones predominately in the first half of that round. How many of those has Benning traded away again? Exactly.

 

Yes you get some 'effective' players later in the draft. We actually have quite a few of them. But BY FAR the guys who move the needle in a rebuild, the 'top prospects', come from the top half of the first round.

Lol I like how you’re making it seem like this is fact when it purely isn’t and something you made up.

 

If you want I can back this up with facts unless you agree. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

 

 

It’s funny because the argument not to long ago was you don’t need to tank and get high draft picks to rebuild. I know I used to make the don’t need high picks argument all the time. That you can rebuild a team through finding later round gems like Benn Keith kucherov, point Boeser.  I guess that opinion flip flops based on the argument of the day. 

 

I guess we should all be happy that the injuries played the biggest part in this teams rebuild, because finishing bottom 6 (3 of the last 4 years) was never the intentional goal. 

 

11 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

 

aGENT, haven't you been arguing that you don't need top picks to rebuild the whole time? 

Sorry if I by accident mistake you for baggins or oldnews.

Edited March 20, 2019 by ForsbergTheGreat

[Toews]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

 

It’s funny because the argument not to long ago was you don’t need to tank and get high draft picks to rebuild. I know I used to make the don’t need high picks argument all the time. That you can rebuild a team through finding later round gems like Benn Keith kucherov, point Boeser.  I guess that opinion flip flops based on the argument of the day. 

 

I guess we should all be happy that the injuries played the biggest part in this teams rebuild, because finishing bottom 6 (3 of the last 4 years) was never the intentional goal. 

 

If you look at things right before Benning was hired, people were talking about rebuilding. There were lots of discussions at the time on CDC over what we can get for different players. Then we decided that we were going to retool and then everyone got on board with that and so did I. I put my faith in this management team even when my head said that not blowing it up was a huge mistake.

 

This was right around the time that anyone voicing this opinion was laughed at and called a stupid person. "Blowing it up? So you want to become the Oilers?" was the patented response. Anyone questioning this organization's direction was ganged up on by the same crowd who are now singing a different time. At that time the dominant narrative was that any time spent wallowing at the bottom of the standings would infest this organization with a pervasively "losing culture". You can tell they latched onto this idea from management who had to come with a reason why their boss had given them a mandate that made no sense. Of course no one brings up the "losing culture" narrative anymore because it's tough to do with all the losing this organization has done over the years.

 

That's the problem with the hive mentality that exists around here where anyone having a different opinion deserves to get ganged upon and shouted down often with condescending posts or memes. I don't need to name any posters. They know who they are and I am sure they will protest till they are blue in the mouth or try to include qualifiers for their previously bad takes. Anyone that has been around for a while is not fooled. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Toews

[UFCanuck]

1 minute ago, Toews said:

If you look at things right before Benning was hired, people were talking about rebuilding. There were lots of discussions at the time on CDC over what we can get for different players. Then we decided that we were going to retool and then everyone got on board with that and so did I. I put my faith in this management team even when my head said that not blowing it up was a huge mistake.

 

This was right around the time that anyone voicing this opinion was laughed at and called a stupid person. "Blowing it up? So you want to become the Oilers?" was the patented response. Anyone questioning this organization's direction was ganged up on by the same crowd who are now singing a different time. At that time the dominant narrative was that any time spent wallowing at the bottom of the standings would infest this organization with a pervasively "losing culture". You can tell they latched onto this idea from management who had to come with a reason why their boss had given them a mandate that made no sense. 

 

That's the problem with the hive mentality that exists around here where anyone having a different opinion deserves to get ganged upon and shouted down often with condescending posts or memes. I don't need to name any posters. They know who they are and I am sure they will protest till they are blue in the mouth or try to include qualifiers for their previously bad takes. Anyone that has been around for a while is not fooled. 

Re-tooling was worth it just to watch the Sedins magic and them retire Canucks.

[Toews]

Just now, playboi19 said:

Re-tooling was worth it just to watch the Sedins magic and them retire Canucks.

I don't think the Sedins have said that they wouldn't have stayed if the team rebuilt properly.

 

What exactly did we give them anyway? One playoff run where we got eliminated by a mediocre Flames team? The rest were lottery teams. Let's stop using the Sedins as crutches. They are not responsible for the bad decisions that were made by this organization. 

[spur1]

Nor were they responsible for the good moves. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

24 minutes ago, Toews said:

If you look at things right before Benning was hired, people were talking about rebuilding. There were lots of discussions at the time on CDC over what we can get for different players. Then we decided that we were going to retool and then everyone got on board with that and so did I. I put my faith in this management team even when my head said that not blowing it up was a huge mistake.

 

Yep well said. Detroit was the example that was always giving that you don’t need to bottom out in order to properly rebuild. 

 

You can see the theory. We had the twins and some other decent prices. If we could find some nhl ready prospects to come in a step up, there could be a smooth transition. As soon as the twins regressesed these new youth pieces would be ready to come in. 

 

So that’s what we did and we even brought in short term assets (vbrata, Miller) to give the twins even more help. The problem was twins regressed earlier than expected and the players we brought in didn’t pan out as hoped. So then we even tried to rush our own prospects in jake and McCann to try and speed up the retool even faster. Again that failed as well. 

 

It really took this team 3 years to finally admit that there was nothing left in the tank and it cost WD a job. We finally understood that no bandaids could keep us afloat and that shortcuts/retools very rarely work out. The attempt at that cost this team a few years in rebuilding. 

 

Quote

This was right around the time that anyone voicing this opinion was laughed at and called a stupid person. "Blowing it up? So you want to become the Oilers?" was the patented response. Anyone questioning this organization's direction was ganged up on by the same crowd who are now singing a different time. At that time the dominant narrative was that any time spent wallowing at the bottom of the standings would infest this organization with a pervasively "losing culture". You can tell they latched onto this idea from management who had to come with a reason why their boss had given them a mandate that made no sense. Of course no one brings up the "losing culture" narrative anymore because it's tough to do with all the losing this organization has done over the years.

 

I can admit, I was in that group, it just took me a bit of discovery to realize I would be a hipocrite if I could claim that bottom out ruins a team whike ignoring the fact that bottoming out is the biggest reason this team is currently trending in the right direction. 

 

Quote

That's the problem with the hive mentality that exists around here where anyone having a different opinion deserves to get ganged upon and shouted down often with condescending posts or memes. I don't need to name any posters. They know who they are and I am sure they will protest till they are blue in the mouth or try to include qualifiers for their previously bad takes. Anyone that has been around for a while is not fooled. 

In fairness it’s a Canucks board so most people here use this as an escape to only praise about the positives.  But i definitely agree. And it’s not just with hockey discussion. All discussions not even here on this board. The world is becoming more and more divided. 

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, playboi19 said:

Re-tooling was worth it just to watch the Sedins magic and them retire Canucks.

Sorry but this is a complete loser's mentality lol