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

[Sedinery33]

My biggest question is; out of all the players/assets sent out whom has had a significant impact on their new team? Out of all the assets brought in, which ones are not better than the assets released, as of today?

 

Looking at this list not a single one of the players that left have made any impact on the team they were traded to (2105 53 OA, will probably be the best given up). Leivo,  Pearson, Motte, Goldy, Baertschi, Brisebois are all making positive contributions for this team. Yeah more assets are great, but I'd rather the list on the right than the list on the left.

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

I'm not one of those people. No wonder you're so confused if you think CDC is some sort of bi-polar hive mind.

Not saying you are.

 

Just saying that some defend Benning by saying he was always rebuilding, and some defend Benning by saying he actually didn't rebuild at the start because of the Sedins/NTCs/owner.

 

Just funny how that works.

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

Also I found an interesting factoid:  Chicago, for all their drafting prowess, acquired a pretty key piece in Patrick Sharp (and Eric Meloche?) for a 3rd round pick (and Matt Ellison).

 

Up until then Sharp was a sub-PPG guy in 3 seasons with Philly’s AHL team (and a cup of coffee / underwhelming stats with the big club).

 

Smells like an age-gap acquisition paying off to me.. but I look forward to the FTG novella telling me otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, tyhee said:

The trade for Sharp was, of course a good one.

 

In any kind of deal, some will work our, some won't.   To say whether a kind of transaction is a good one or not requires looking at a random sample of a larger number of deals.  One deal working for the Chicago Black Hawks over 13 years ago tells us it is possible for such a deal to work out but says nothing, pro or con, about whether that kind of deal made sense for the Canucks over the past 5 seasons.

Yeah, you can find outliers all over the place for different things. Weird stuff happens sometimes.

 

If you think it's a good idea to base your plan around outliers then have it and good luck lol.

 

It's like when people argued that Gudbranson had a ton of potential and would break out because of one singular piece of precedence: Sheldon Souray.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, ilduce39 said:

Also I found an interesting factoid:  Chicago, for all their drafting prowess, acquired a pretty key piece in Patrick Sharp (and Eric Meloche?) for a 3rd round pick (and Matt Ellison).

 

Up until then Sharp was a sub-PPG guy in 3 seasons with Philly’s AHL team (and a cup of coffee / underwhelming stats with the big club).

 

Smells like an age-gap acquisition paying off to me.. but I look forward to the FTG novella telling me otherwise.

 

Sure thing. You might want to check your facts. Sharp was already an nhl regular by the time he got traded.  

 

He made the flyers in the 03/04 getting the call up in December and never got sent back after that point.  He only played in the ahl in 04-05 due to the nhl lockout and was eligible to.

 

During that year lead the phantoms to the Calder cup and winning the Calder cup putting up 21 points in 21 games (second to only his line mate Jeff carter).

 

In 05/06 he again was on the Flyers full time starting the season off in the NHL before getting moved at the quarter game mark. 

 

If your looking for a comparable to linden vey. Look no further than Zac Dalpe. Expect Gillis was able to get him for a 4th round pick. Not a 2nd. 

 

But you had a good day though.  

-shooter macgavin. 

[ilduce39]

28 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Sure thing. You might want to check your facts. Sharp was already an nhl regular by the time he got traded.  

 

He made the flyers in the 03/04 getting the call up in December and never got sent back after that point.  He only played in the ahl in 04-05 due to the nhl lockout and was eligible to.

 

During that year lead the phantoms to the Calder cup and winning the Calder cup putting up 21 points in 21 games (second to only his line mate Jeff carter).

 

In 05/06 he again was on the Flyers full time starting the season off in the NHL before getting moved at the quarter game mark. 

 

If your looking for a comparable to linden vey. Look no further than Zac Dalpe. Expect Gillis was able to get him for a 4th round pick. Not a 2nd. 

 

But you had a good day though.  

-shooter macgavin. 

“Established NHL’er” with 15 points in 63 games... but thanks for not leaving me hanging. 

[ilduce39]

35 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Yeah, you can find outliers all over the place for different things. Weird stuff happens sometimes.

 

If you think it's a good idea to base your plan around outliers then have it and good luck lol.

 

It's like when people argued that Gudbranson had a ton of potential and would break out because of one singular piece of precedence: Sheldon Souray.

For sure.. but no one was planning around that as a “strategy.”  

 

I always thought the Gudbranson aquisition was based on his play in Florida, particularly his last playoffs.  I’ve never heard the Souray comparison.  

Edited March 21, 2019 by ilduce39

[kanucks25]

53 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

For sure.. but no one was planning around that as a “strategy.”   

For sure they were:

 

Vey

Baertschi

Gudbranson

Sbisa

Clendening

Pedan

Etem

Larsen

Pouliot

 

All the same type of acquisitions. That's not just "one here or there", that's what we call the "age-gap" group.

 

53 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

I always thought the Gudbranson aquisition was based on his play in Florida, particularly his last playoffs.  I’ve never heard the Souray comparison.  

Gudbranson's career has been very up and down from the start. Panthers fans had mixed feelings for him the same way Canucks fans did, for the same reasons.

 

Most proponents of the trade pointed to his "tools" and draft position, claiming that he's close to "putting it all together" and it's not too late for him to breakout despite his age and experience because we've seen it before (this is where Souray comes in).

[ilduce39]

41 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

For sure they were:

 

Vey

Baertschi

Gudbranson 

Sbisa

Clendening

Pedan

Etem

Larsen

Pouliot

 

All the same type of acquisitions. That's not just "one here or there", that's what we call the "age-gap" group.

I’m not sure what your point is here.  Is this supposed to show an egregious loss of assets that has set the franchise back? I see 3 2nds and some depth pick change.  I see at minimum some reasonably valuable pieces in Pearson and Baertschi for two of those 2nds.

 

What is an “age gapper” other than an NHL-caliber RFA-aged player?  You can’t get them on waivers and you can’t sign them since they’re restricted.  With the amount of tears shed over UFA contracts the past few years I’m shocked there’s complainig about a few depth picks.

 

The Vey move is a huge outlier in hindsight because a 2nd rounder is a lot of value for a flop.  The rest are fair value and the cost of doing business and shuffling your roster without pulling up kids who aren’t ready or overpaying vets to placehold.  

 

Not saying any of these moves are perfect or ideal, but the net negative impact is negligible unless you’re playing with 20/20 draft hindsight. 

 

Edit: back to the “strategy” comment, in no way can you claim this was their main strategy though... considering their biggest pieces (1st rounders) were never moved for a guy like Drouin for example.  

Edited March 21, 2019 by ilduce39

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, ilduce39 said:

“Established NHL’er” with 15 points in 63 games... but thanks for not leaving me hanging. 

He had played 72 games with the flyers just so you know. It was 3 straight seasons of being considered an NHL player. But don’t let facts like a nhl lock out get in the way of spin job.

 

 

[ilduce39]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

He had played 72 games with the flyers just so you know. It was 3 straight seasons of being considered an NHL player. But don’t let facts like a nhl lock out get in the way of spin job.

 

 

Over 3 seasons, with AHL time in 2 of them.  

 

Obviously not established enough for the Flyers to give him up for pocket change. 

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Not saying you are.

 

Just saying that some defend Benning by saying he was always rebuilding, and some defend Benning by saying he actually didn't rebuild at the start because of the Sedins/NTCs/owner.

 

Just funny how that works.

Funny that different people have different opinions...? 

 

 

[kanucks25]

43 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Funny that different people have different opinions...? 

Yeah it's funny how people on the pro-Benning side are watching the same exact thing yet have very different reasons as to why things were done the way they were done.

 

Which would be fine, if the reasons weren't mutually exclusive.

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, ilduce39 said:

I’m not sure what your point is here.  Is this supposed to show an egregious loss of assets that has set the franchise back? I see 3 2nds and some depth pick change.  I see at minimum some reasonably valuable pieces in Pearson and Baertschi for two of those 2nds.

If you want I can go more in-depth regarding assets in vs. out (because it more egregious than how you illustrate it) but the problem is most of the assets going out were draft picks (and McCann) but that just brings us back to the argument about how valuable said draft picks are.

 

1 hour ago, ilduce39 said:

What is an “age gapper” other than an NHL-caliber RFA-aged player?  You can’t get them on waivers and you can’t sign them since they’re restricted.  With the amount of tears shed over UFA contracts the past few years I’m shocked there’s complainig about a few depth picks

For the most part, 22-25 year-olds that either had not established themselves in the NHL or NHLers that hadn't yet established themselves as good, consistent players but were perceived to have some "untapped potential". This age group was targeted by Benning in hopes of a faster turnaround / retool: players that were young enough to be a part of the "new" core for many years to come but old enough that we wouldn't have to go through the 18-21 development period with them.

 

1 hour ago, ilduce39 said:

The rest are fair value and the cost of doing business and shuffling your roster without pulling up kids who aren’t ready or overpaying vets to placehold.

You don't have to give up draft picks for placeholders, that's asinine.

 

1 hour ago, ilduce39 said:

Edit: back to the “strategy” comment, in no way can you claim this was their main strategy though... considering their biggest pieces (1st rounders) were never moved for a guy like Drouin for example.  

Look at the quantity of moves that fall under the "age-gap" description I outlined above. Benning didn't make any other "type" of move to this extent.

Edited March 21, 2019 by kanucks25

[appleboy]

Oilers boss says they need more talent.  Wow, that was enlightening.  He just told every Oiler fan exactly what they already new.  They have a few players doing all of the heavy lifting.

 

Now how can we apply this to the Canucks?  

 

The Oilers had some great young talent arrive a few years ago and then they decided to try to speed things up. Traded forwards for help on their D. Signed some UFA's to long term deals.

Now they will need to start another rebuild or retool.....LOL

They are stuck in cap purgatory with no quick solutions in site. Their only solution is to draft their way out of it.

 

I love some of the young players we currently have but we are several young stars away from being set. We need management who will see the big picture. Not get caught up in the, we can be a playoff team. Not just yet. Not run off half cocked  and spend on high priced vets . Not just yet. Take another year or two to accumulate more young assets and develop what we have. Find ways to acquire more picks and be content with a couple more high picks.

Clear out as much cap space as possible for some big additions in a couple of years. Get Boeser, Petey and Hughes signed and delivered. 

I know, too much to ask.

Edited March 22, 2019 by appleboy

[ilduce39]

46 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

If you want I can go more in-depth regarding assets in vs. out (because it more egregious than how you illustrate it) but the problem is most of the assets going out were draft picks (and McCann) but that just brings us back to the argument about how valuable said draft picks are.

 

For the most part, 22-25 year-olds that either had not established themselves in the NHL or NHLers that hadn't yet established themselves as good, consistent players but were perceived to have some "untapped potential". This age group was targeted by Benning in hopes of a faster turnaround / retool: players that were young enough to be a part of the "new" core for many years to come but old enough that we wouldn't have to go through the 18-21 development period with them.

 

You don't have to give up draft picks for placeholders, that's asinine.

 

Look at the quantity of moves that fall under the "age-gap" description I outlined above. Benning didn't make any other "type" of move to this extent.

Jesus, it was a bunch of late picks 5 years ago.  Those picks turning into the “place holders” we traded for is usually the best case scenario.

 

There was no conspiracy to “speed things up” with these moves.  Just an organizational reality where we had no prospects to take the reigns.  Some FA signings to keep us out of the cellar and the reality that it would take years to draft a new core.

 

Like Joe said: focus on the positive moves.  That’s why JB still has a job with a notoriously impatient ownership group.  

 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

I am curious what the common ground is for us posters concerning JB’s tenure as GM, post Aquaman’s alleged interferences. 

 

We should look look at one aspect of his work or responsibilities at a time. This is more like chaos, but it’s still entertaining. 

 

Can you imagine the poor poor spouses of some of these posters, seemingly hell-bent on having the last word. I count myself in that group and all. 

 

Personally, you’d need a skidder to move me from my position on the whole “age-gap replacement plan” conversation. 

 

Our threads should be more organized where discussion topics are defined. This way, our conversations don’t follow us around every thread. 

[IBatch]

38 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

If you want I can go more in-depth regarding assets in vs. out (because it more egregious than how you illustrate it) but the problem is most of the assets going out were draft picks (and McCann) but that just brings us back to the argument about how valuable said draft picks are.

 

For the most part, 22-25 year-olds that either had not established themselves in the NHL or NHLers that hadn't yet established themselves as good, consistent players but were perceived to have some "untapped potential". This age group was targeted by Benning in hopes of a faster turnaround / retool: players that were young enough to be a part of the "new" core for many years to come but old enough that we wouldn't have to go through the 18-21 development period with them.

 

You don't have to give up draft picks for placeholders, that's asinine.

 

Look at the quantity of moves that fall under the "age-gap" description I outlined above. Benning didn't make any other "type" of move to this extent.

So in other words the Gudranson, Vey and Bear trades grate on you becuase we could have a few more early picks or Woo/Lind types.

 

At this point does it really matter anymore?  The re-tool was a failure that ended up bring us Boeser, OJ, EP and Hughes in the end, plus what’s also in the pipe.  A few wins or losses either way would have changed our fate, but not by much, but enough to possibly have a very different looking team right now, one without EP and maybe Puljajarvi instead of OJ, and Patrick instead of EP.  

 

Personally I’d rather take what we have now, Bear and Pearson included rather then think about the what if’s.   Truly it’s not worth the typing time, we gave up some picks to get some projects that had more upside than the picks would themselves, yes their is a slim chance we would have done better keeping the picks, just as much as there is we would have done worse by keeping them and getting nothing at all.  

 

What exactly are we talking about in total here? Two seconds and Mccaan? Maybe if we didn’t make those moves Benning wouldn’t have made other moves that added picks - who knows.  

 

Just for fun look into the price NYR paid over the years to stay competitive and contend.  Something like three conference finals and one cup final, and during that span sometimes they didn’t have their first pick until the fourth round.  

 

Even a few years ago things were different and picks were traded more often than they are now.  GMs have come to the conclusion that they need them more then ever to survive the cap era as they need ELCs to balance the books.  Benning couldn’t get a pick from Vanek after he potted more points then Tatar sauce who got a slew of picks from Vegas.  It is what it is...what’s the point in flogging it to death?

 

IMO Benning is acting under a directive, and that was a failure, but not an utter one given what he managed with the picks he did have and he was hedging his bet just in case.  

 

 

Under his watch on three things have happened that range from reprehensible to head scratch worthy...I said yesterday that I wouldn’t bring them up so I won’t.

 

We has an obvious age gap between the vets and future draft picks, trading two second for Bear and a Vey and hitting on one is better odds than using the draft, sure Bears furure is questionable, but he could come back and get carry on with his upward ascension...or he could get knocked out forever.  Either way he’s served his purpose, new blood is finally filtering in, and that should continue for the next couple years.

[189lb enforcers?]

I’d welcome McCann back here. 

Its been nice seeing him succeed in Pittsburgh

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Yeah it's funny how people on the pro-Benning side are watching the same exact thing yet have very different reasons as to why things were done the way they were done.

 

Which would be fine, if the reasons weren't mutually exclusive.

Again, there's no 'pro-Benning side'. CDC is not collective hive mind.

 

And not all opinions are equal or informed.

 

 

[kanucks25]

Just now, aGENT said:

Again, there's no 'pro-Benning side'. CDC is not collective hive mind.

 

And not all opinions are equal or informed.

 

 

When did I say all of CDC is pro-Benning?