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

[lmm]

36 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

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. 

You are missing the part where kassian is an alcoholic and was trending down because of it

and where he was in an auto accident in Montreal

"the Trade" was not the crucial point in his recovery 

[kanucks25]

35 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

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 

Vey was crucial in Bo's development.

 

Now I've heard everything.

[ilduce39]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

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".

Again, what did he give up?  

 

Statistically: likely nothing. 

[Toews]

Just now, ilduce39 said:

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.

I don't want to be insulting to Vey especially after reading his entire story but the only reason he  has anything close to Bo's numbers is because Willie treated him like a long lost son. I think there was responsiblity on Willie as I think he endorsed the Vey acquisition. Vey used to get o-zone faceoffs after TV timeouts with the team down by a goal. Choice ice time for the coach's favourite while the rookie had to settle for scraps. Thank God Willie D is gone.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

You might not have a cup team without some of those depth pick players (again, nobody's saying that you don't need some of them...once again, you folks can't seem to grasp the concept, much like the 'competitive' one). You however absolutely don't have a cup team without the top picks.

 

So then why was this team chasing playoffs during our so called “rebuilding” years. Even you now admit that top 10 picks are are must. Good thing we have the excuse of injuries to take credit for this teams rebuild then.  

 

What you cant seem to grasp is it’s not about finding depth players with the later picks it’s about striking gold with just one. Jon cooper was talking about that just this morning on the nhl radio stating while lightning could have maybe made the team better by moving out some picks for depth. But 7 years ago that second round pick was kucherov. And 4 years ago that 3rd round pick was bradyen point. Teams get too focused on the short term and loose track of the long term value of picks those trade away. 

 

Dan Rosen followed that up with the talking about the path NYR and DET are heading today by accumulating picks. All they need it one of those picks to be a gold mine for there franchises to turn around dramatically.... and then they made fun of the leafs for trading away the pick that ended up becoming Roman Josi. 

 

 

[ilduce39]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

Vey was crucial in Bo's development.

 

Now I've heard everything.

Vey allowed Willie to deploy Bo down the lineup as a rookie.  Bo outplayed Vey and is now fantastic. I didn’t say “crucial” I said he’d probably have turned out anyways, but you can’t say it didn’t work the way it played out.  

 

Its just an example, but it makes sense as to the value of the age-gap acquisitions beyond hoping they’d turn into stars IMO.

[kanucks25]

37 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Again, what did he give up?  

 

Statistically: likely nothing. 

If you live in the Benning utopia, then sure.

[ilduce39]

2 minutes ago, Toews said:

I don't want to be insulting to Vey especially after reading his entire story but the only reason he  has anything close to Bo's numbers is because Willie treated him like a long lost son. I think there was responsiblity on Willie as I think he endorsed the Vey acquisition. Vey used to get o-zone faceoffs after TV timeouts with the team down by a goal. Choice ice time for the coach's favourite while the rookie had to settle for scraps. Thank God Willie D is gone.

I don’t disagree with that - just saying there’s a difference between leapfrogging cheap a RFA placeholder fighting for his job and a UFA placeholder who has a lot more guarantees in his contract.

[kanucks25]

35 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Vey allowed Willie to deploy Bo down the lineup as a rookie.  Bo outplayed Vey and is now fantastic. I didn’t say “crucial” I said he’d probably have turned out anyways, but you can’t say it didn’t work the way it played out.  

 

Its just an example, but it makes sense as to the value of the age-gap acquisitions beyond hoping they’d turn into stars IMO.

You can sign a Vey in free-agency or pick him up on waivers, you don't have to trade a 2nd rounder for him.

 

I don't argue the worth of internal competition. But to suggest it was a good idea to give up assets to acquire replaceable level players to create that internal competition is utterly laughable.

[ilduce39]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

You can sign a Vey in free-agency or pick him up on waivers, you don't have to trade a 2nd rounder for him.

 

I don't argue the worth of internal competition. But to suggest it was a good idea to give up assets to acquire replaceable level players to create that internal competition is utterly laughable.

The example was for internal competition, not the value of a Linden Vey who I said was a failed acquisition.  

 

In any case, I’ve had this discussion too many times.  

 

JB’s early moving of picks didn’t set the franchise back enough (if at all) to whinge about 5 years later.  Recently, his moves should be a lot more palatable on that front to even his harsher critics.  

 

I remain optimistic about about the direction of the franchise.

[Toews]

8 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

I don’t disagree with that - just saying there’s a difference between leapfrogging cheap a RFA placeholder fighting for his job and a UFA placeholder who has a lot more guarantees in his contract.

It's tough to say. Development is difficult to assess. Maybe Bo actually does a lot better under a coach who has confidence in his abilities and deploys him as our 3rd line center from day one. We had Hank and Bonino taking the tough minutes, why didn't Willie deploy Bo in a sheltered offensive role? Maybe it's just me but the way Horvat was handled makes me think we depressed his rookie total. He came into camp more ready than just about any rookie I have seen got hurt and for some reason the coach only saw him as a bottom 6 project. The most infuriating part was when he put Bo on the 4th line the next year to start the season. That was when I lost a ton of faith in the guy. Too intent on grinding out wins than developing and giving confidence to young players.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Toews

[ForsbergTheGreat]

15 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You can sign a Vey in free-agency or pick him up on waivers, you don't have to trade a 2nd rounder for him.

 

Or just keep santo instead of letting him walk. Heck dalpe and Schroeder could have accomplished as much as vey. 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by ForsbergTheGreat

[kanucks25]

40 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

The example was for internal competition, not the value of a Linden Vey who I said was a failed acquisition.  

 

In any case, I’ve had this discussion too many times.  

 

JB’s early moving of picks didn’t set the franchise back enough (if at all) to whinge about 5 years later.  Recently, his moves should be a lot more palatable on that front to even his harsher critics.  

 

I remain optimistic about about the direction of the franchise.

There's no doubt the Vey and Benning's other similar moves from 3-5 years ago are sunk costs.

 

However, that doesn't mean that we couldn't have been in a much different (better) position today if a different (better) plan was in place from the start.

 

In other words, we could have been closer to turning it around in year 5 instead of still bottom-feeding.

 

Yes, there are pieces in place that are cause for optimism going forward. However, it might not be until year 8 or 9 (starting from when Benning was hired) that we see a real team, and I don't know if Benning's leash is that long. 

[Toews]

3 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

The example was for internal competition, not the value of a Linden Vey who I said was a failed acquisition.  

 

In any case, I’ve had this discussion too many times.  

 

JB’s early moving of picks didn’t set the franchise back enough (if at all) to whinge about 5 years later.

 

Recently, his moves should be a lot more palatable on that front to even his harsher critics.  

 

I remain optimistic about about the direction of the franchise.

I disagree with the first bolded comment. No one can know how far it has set us back unless they have seen our draft board for all 4 years Benning has been here.

 

I agree with the second bolded comment but it's not enough for me. For me Benning's supposed strengths fail to compensate for his glaring shortcomings.

[smithers joe]

i guess, in a couple of years we’ll know which opinions bore the most fruit. we’ll know which side is eating steak and which one is eating beans. i hope JB is still here by then. 

[Tre Mac]

47 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Not even going to read it because you're just barreling along.... ^^^

You should because there is a lot more substance than this:

 

53 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

You call it a mess...I'm not sure it is.  My good God, every single GM on earth would love to have Petey on their roster.   Look how Marky's improved??  Part of what a GM does is based on what "develops" over time...not just in a hit the panic button way.   And GM's have to support what the entire staff is doing...so you want to give everyone credit for EP but pile everything negative on JB?  How the hell does that work?

 

They're building chemistry - it's not an immediate thing but it sure is important.  You acquire players,  develop players, insert them, see what you've got and then determine what you need.   AND find ways to get holes filled.  

 

I heard Tony G on the radio this morning and people are starting to sound like him.  

 

"You guys are blind"?  Or, we just possibly don't share your opinion.

 

 

My good God, we're actually STILL in a very minute possible playoff picture...it's highly unlikely...but we were supposed to be at the bottom.  Now people are freaking out like 'OMG LET'S FIRE PEOPLE'???   We're actually ahead of the curve in my view.

 

My opinion:  I have zero faith in this management to make the right decisions moving forward. 

Your take on that:   I have no patience fire everyone.

 

This has nothing to do with patience, timelines, or curves.  Benning will eventually get fired, possibly as early as next season, so I just think the sooner they bring in his replacement the better.  The scouting staff will remain the same so I don't get why everyone defends this guy. 

[ilduce39]

8 minutes ago, Toews said:

It's tough to say. Development is difficult to assess. Maybe Bo actually does a lot better under a coach who has confidence in his abilities and deploys him as our 3rd line center from day one. We had Hank and Bonino taking the tough minutes, why didn't Willie deploy Bo in a sheltered offensive role? Maybe it's just me but the way Horvat was handled makes me think we depressed his rookie total. He came into camp more ready than just about any rookie I have seen got hurt and for some reason the coach only saw him as a bottom 6 project. The most infuriating part was when he put Bo on the 4th line the next year to start the season. That was when I lost a ton of faith in the guy. Too intent on grinding out wins than developing and giving confidence to young players.

It absolutely is - and even when you’re a part of the process it’s a lot of speculation since we have no idea how things would have turned out otherwise. Everyone’s different.  That’s why I also don’t take for granted when things DO turn out, though.  At the very least, we didn’t break him.  (Bo’s pretty sturdy though.)

 

For Bo, though, it doesn’t surprise me he turned out.  Guys a beauty. He probably didn’t like it at the time but seems like the type to thrive on being challenged.

 

Starting the next year on the 4th was annoying.  I’m sure I defended it at the time since I’m actually a bigger coach homer than management homer but Bo was obviously ready to take on more (and I think he did by the end of the season?  Willie was sllloooow to change.) 

[ilduce39]

4 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

i guess, in a couple of years we’ll know which opinions bore the most fruit. we’ll know which side is eating steak and which one is eating beans. i hope JB is still here by then. 

I like that line.

[Tre Mac]

5 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

i guess, in a couple of years we’ll know which opinions bore the most fruit. we’ll know which side is eating steak and which one is eating beans. i hope JB is still here by then. 

I am pretty sure I'll be munching on a medium rare ribeye by then lol. 

[lmm]

35 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

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.

I deleted my post because I did not want to defend it, but alas you and 73-3 were too quick for me.

 

Enabling would be the part where we faked a back injury for 1/2 a season to keep things quiet

Tough love would have been when we suspended him and made public his rehab (not because making it public is the issue, but because you can not suspend a player without a reason). Making it public is when the Canucks face the embarrassment and deal with the problem. 

Tough love was carried out by Bergeon and the Canadiens, not the Canucks

Ironically, or maybe not, Kassain's rehab was stalled in Vancouver, just like the rebuild, because Jim was not commited to it soon enough

 

Your example is tantamout to saying, "I have a dog that I let run in the street, when it gets hit by a car it will learn never to do that again. I am training my dog."

 

I am not "undermining the program," I am questioning the Canucks sincerety.  Jack Kassian provided the Canuck an opportunity to show leadership in this cause, they did not.  

 

If you want to see examples of teams dealing with similar problem look at Nashville and Austin Watson or New Jersey and Ken Daneyko

here is a snippit

In the late 1990s, Daneyko struggled with alcoholism while general manager Lou Lamoriello and Devils owner John McMullen stood by him and checked him into rehab.^[6] Daneyko recovered and played every game of New Jersey's successful 2000 playoffs, winning the Bill Masterton Trophy in 2000.