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

[Baggins]

3 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

I wanted those high picks so I wasn't mad.  However, you have a 30 out of 31 chance of not being on the bottom.  That's not very tough..  

This is the confusing part of the tanker logic. We want high picks! Well we got some high picks. We sucked for four years! We wouldn't have sucked with your plan? You're bound to hit bottom at some point while rebuilding. Seems to me your issue is we didn't suck bad enough for you guys while still complaining that we sucked. It seems that those that are never happy are, well, never happy.

 

8 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

However true that may be.  A much better job could have been done with what they DID have.  Some players that walked had value, some players that were kept for that one more run.. just lost value over time.  When they goal is the playoffs, and not maximum return on vets then that leaves room for criticism when you end up on the bottom anyways.

How could it have been done better? Add picks and more picks. You guys kept saying Shanny was doing it right in TO. How many of Shanny's added picks have made an impact in the NHL? We'd be in the same boat or worse playing that waiting game.

 

There was no "one more run". That's a fallacy. JB never mentioned one more run. Not once. All he said was we want to "try" and make the playoffs. Once there anything can happen. And it's tough to get maximum return on vets when ntc's are involved. Hamhuis and Vrbata have been beaten to death and you guys still won't acknowledge they used their ntc's to all but block being moved. 

 

15 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Seems like every year 

I wonder why. Is it our systems that make injuries more probable? I don't know. But neither Sutter nor Gudbranson had any injury history before coming here, yet spent an awful lot of time injured. But for the first two years our call up depth wasn't likely to change much. An injury or two you can usually get by. Injuries deal a bigger blow to a rebuilding team than a deep contender and we've had too many and several long term.
 

21 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Ya.  So in hindsignt (and what many of us were calling for from the start), draft picks would have been the better choice over vets. 

Again, tell me about all those extra Shanny picks making an impact in the NHL after five years. Then explain how we'd be further ahead. Unless you're getting a top 5 or 10 pick they are a waiting game.

 

24 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

This reminds me of what was said in some Eastern European countries back in the cold war.  "At least we're not Romania."  

And you'd rather just be Romania for four years.

[Tomatoes11]

5 hours ago, spur1 said:

I agree that JB may not be the best GM out there, however I think that he is one of the better GM,s now that he has been in place for a few years. Yes he made some rookie mistakes but from what I am seeing he has learned from his mistakes and is making much improved decisions. The team has improved in leaps and bounds in the last two seasons. 

What “The Trolls” fail to mention is the handcuffs JB had in the first years not being able to move the Sedins. (A class move by management by the way). 

Bottom line is if Aqua fires JB he won’t be unemployed for long unlike MG. 

LOL sorry but this is too funny. 

 

Crap, I think there is wager opportunity here. I am 500% positive that no one is stupid enough to hire dim Jim after AQ fires him. The question is what type of wager could we possibly make?

 

The TSN Canucks hate is bang on. Do people seriously think we would get ripped by them if our GM was doing a good job? Lol No Canadian team gets ripped except the oilers and us. We all know why the oilers get ripped. But there is a simple reason why we get ripped too. Because we both have terrible management. In fact, the oilers management trained ours.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Tomatoes11

[Tomatoes11]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

This is the confusing part of the tanker logic. We want high picks! Well we got some high picks. We sucked for four years! We wouldn't have sucked with your plan? You're bound to hit bottom at some point while rebuilding. Seems to me your issue is we didn't suck bad enough for you guys while still complaining that we sucked. It seems that those that are never happy are, well, never happy

You Benning lovers have it all twisted. Nothing confusing about it. We want to rebuild by keeping ALL of our draft picks.

 

Dim Jim traded A LOT of our drafts picks in order to NOT suck for 4 years. But we still sucked despite Bennings best efforts, I guess worst efforts would be more fitting but that is beside the point.  So we basically pissed away a crap ton of great picks , great because we finish low so all our picks are high.

 

Its simple. Benning tried not to suck for 4 years by trading away draft picks for overager prospects on the verge of busting and washed up vets in order to not suck, but we still did so we should have kept all of our picks.

 

How hard is that to see? That’s exactly what dim Jim has done for 5 years. Piss away picks for no reason whatsoever. It’s indefensible really. Not sure where people get the he is a good GM crap from because it’s simply not true.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Tomatoes11

[WHL rocks]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

1) It's tough to rebuild an entire team without hitting bottom.

 

2) JB would have needed a better starting point than a team of aging veterans (many with ntc's) on the decline with no prospect pool. 

 

3) With no prospect pool to draw from for call ups we'd need to stay healthy. Instead we've been among the hardest hit with injuries over the past four seasons, particularly among key players.

 

4) Even had JB cleaned house immediately we would have been a team of AHL'ers and low cost ufa rejects. Meaning they would all also need to be replaced guaranteeing us to be a bottom feeder for years regardless of injuries.

 

The simple truth is there was no quick fix for a rebuild. Too many players needed to be replaced and our top prospects in Utica were Guance, Shinkaruk, Jansen and Corrado. None of whom have established themselves as NHL'ers in five years. In all my years following hockey (and I'm older than dirt) I've never seen a GM take over a team in a less enviable situation than Benning got. The moves that seemed to confounded many made sense to me in his situation.

 

At least we haven't become the Oilers:

09/10 30th

10/11 30th

11/12 29th

12/13 24th

13/14 28th

14/15 28th

15/16 29th

 

I'd wager they were firmly the worst team in the league over a 7 year period and likely would be the worst in the league over a nine year period if you added the year before and after that 7 year stretch in. Plus, despite all those high picks and the extra picks they traded for, we just finished ahead of them in the standings. We're on our way up after five years while starting with virtually nothing. 

Great. Let's compare our selves to oilers then. How far back do you wanna go.

 

They have 5 Cups. We have zero..

 

Oilers have been horrible past 7 to 10 years. That's why they've gone thru 5 GMs in past 7 years.

 

If things don't change with Canucks it's hard to see how JB isn't gone next summer.. 

 

He's done well at the draft last couple of years. My concern with him has been his abilities as a roster builder.  Dave Nonis was a terrible roster builder. Gillis was a great roster builder but terrible at drafting.. 

 

This year unless JB does well and makes playoffs I don't think Aqua brings him back. 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by WHL rocks

[Tomatoes11]

1 hour ago, CanadianRugby said:

4) Even had JB cleaned house immediately we would have been a team of AHL'ers and low cost ufa rejects. Meaning they would all also need to be replaced guaranteeing us to be a bottom feeder for years regardless of injuries.

This is exactly what he should have done though. I see nothing wrong with this. We like have finished the same as we did in the last 5 years with higher picks and ALL of our picks we pissed away intact?

 

Seriously?! What’s the issue here? We should have done this and we would have been much better off if we did. Why defend Benning here? His direction screwed us up plain and simple and no, we didn’t have to follow his stupid route. 

[Dazzle]

11 minutes ago, Tomatoes11 said:

This is exactly what he should have done though. I see nothing wrong with this. We like have finished the same as we did in the last 5 years with higher picks and ALL of our picks we pissed away intact?

 

Seriously?! What’s the issue here? We should have done this and we would have been much better off if we did. Why defend Benning here? His direction screwed us up plain and simple and no, we didn’t have to follow his stupid route. 

And what would your "route" involve? We've seen how EDM has run their team. They have literally been the worst team for the past decade. All they have to show is McDavid. That's it.

 

I don't care if we get one McDavid out of all those high drafts. The fact that their team is crapola is NOT WORTH IT.

[Rob_Zepp]

9 hours ago, iceman64 said:

man whats wrong with you? Who the F cares where quality players come from if they help better the team!

THIS is key.   EVERY team that succeeds is based upon a mix of asset acquiring.

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, Tomatoes11 said:

You Benning lovers have it all twisted. Nothing confusing about it. We want to rebuild by keeping ALL of our draft picks.

You realize when you trade a, for example, late first round draft pick for a player who was a first round draft pick that can be not only smart asset management, it is how good teams are built if the latter is actually able to perform better than the pick given up on slot average.   It is most certainly a risk-reward but EVERY GM does this and those who succeed build winning teams.  Your concept is to never make trades and never use an potential asset for a know asset.   That doesn't work in any other aspect of life (e.g. stock market), so why on earth do you think it works in hockey.   

No one arguing with you (if you can call it that, it is like talking to a brick...and not a particularly engaged brick) is a "Benning lover"...the people pointing out the flaws in your logic as your logic is severely flawed.  It wouldn't matter if the Canucks had Toe Blake, Scotty Bowman or any other list of great GMs you want to truck out and try....they ALL would make risk-reward moves.   You can certainly argue on any given move and cherry pick the good or bad ones as you please BUT on balance, given where he started in terms of the cupboard and the aging lineup inclusive of Kesler who gave him no real trade options, AND a President who wanted to "do right by the Sedins" and stay "competitive", Benning has done a commendable job.   Perfect?   Of course not.   Mistakes?   Of course.    Worthy of your incessant whining and hyperbolic narrative towards he is some sort of inserted agent to destroy the franchise - nope, not even close.

 

I am not even sure what bricks like you do when this team turns the corner that they are close to turning (and could be as early as this season).   How will you handle it?   When they were winning Division and League titles did it pain you?   Will it again?    

 

Oh, and to be sporting about this....posting some porn for you below....it may be against the rules but, hey, they must be bendable for someone who is without Benning's love you feel everyone has.

 

[appleboy]

1 minute ago, Rob_Zepp said:

THIS is key.   EVERY team that succeeds is based upon a mix of asset acquiring.

Yes QUALITY assets can be acquired in many ways. 

I know some of you blindly follow everything Jim dose. You just seem to think it is all part of some master plan.

Some of us think he has drafted well and that has truly saved his bacon. 

So please explain to us what his ingenious plan was surrounding  Guddy , LE , Zotto , Sutter , Spooner, Gagner,  Vey , Pizza........

I am sure I have missed some key pieces to the ongoing ever changing master plan. 

We aren't talking about players who were brought in on one year deals to be a stop gap. Were are talking about players who were given term deals and sold as a solution.

Thank the hockey gods that Jim and Bracket have landed a few gems.

[Rob_Zepp]

2 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Yes QUALITY assets can be acquired in many ways. 

I know some of you blindly follow everything Jim dose. You just seem to think it is all part of some master plan.

Some of us think he has drafted well and that has truly saved his bacon. 

So please explain to us what his ingenious plan was surrounding  Guddy , LE , Zotto , Sutter , Spooner, Gagner,  Vey , Pizza........

I am sure I have missed some key pieces to the ongoing ever changing master plan. 

We aren't talking about players who were brought in on one year deals to be a stop gap. Were are talking about players who were given term deals and sold as a solution.

Thank the hockey gods that Jim and Bracket have landed a few gems.

Not sure who "some of you are" but you seem blinded by a lack of understanding that along the way, moves that were bridges were required and some swings of the bat were misses (mistakes) and some were solid hits (wins).   The "plan" as you say is complex for sure in a CAP world but each one of those players had a plan in management's mind and some worked and you some didn't...you clearly cherry picked (as some of YOU) are only seemingly capable of doing.

 

If you have any semblance of a memory, he served under a President who wanted to surround the Sedins with sufficient veteran support.   Benning and that individual clearly didn't mesh and the owner made a choice.   Immediately after that President was gone, you started to see more youth playing, veterans buried in minors and a more transformational change in the lineup in general.

 

Again, you can thank all the gods you want and cherry pick all the moves you want, the fact remains on balance he and his team have done an above average job considering what they inherited, what they were directed to do for some period and what transpired with moves they made (and have to fix their own errors...like any responsible GM).

 

Get over yourself.   Repeating this same old cherry picked moves is lame.   More lame are those who bring up Vey - the kid should be one that is not mentioned given what he went through.   Blaming ownership or management on what happened to that kid is pretty much as low as the cherry picking can get.   

 

[CanadianRugby]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

How could it have been done better? Add picks and more picks. You guys kept saying Shanny was doing it right in TO. How many of Shanny's added picks have made an impact in the NHL? We'd be in the same boat or worse playing that waiting game.

Unless Benning & scouts suddenly forgot how to draft, I assume that this team would have more good prospects if they had a few more 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks.  Kinda stupid to argue that Benning is great at drafting, then saying we'd suck at drafting with extra picks.   At least some of those prospects would have turned out.... riiight about now.  If we had a couple of prospects make our bottom 6 instead of the overpaid vets, we could have added another big piece that we don't have caproom for.  

 

[Tomatoes11]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

And what would your "route" involve? We've seen how EDM has run their team. They have literally been the worst team for the past decade. All they have to show is McDavid. That's it.

 

I don't care if we get one McDavid out of all those high drafts. The fact that their team is crapola is NOT WORTH IT.

That’s the thing. If we went the Edmonton route we would have been 100% better off. If your route is even WORSE than the Edmonton route. Maybe try changing it...

[Tomatoes11]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

You realize when you trade a, for example, late first round draft pick for a player who was a first round draft pick that can be not only smart asset management, it is how good teams are built if the latter is actually able to perform better than the pick given up on slot average.   It is most certainly a risk-reward but EVERY GM does this and those who succeed build winning teams.  Your concept is to never make trades and never use an potential asset for a know asset.   That doesn't work in any other aspect of life (e.g. stock market), so why on earth do you think it works in hockey.   

No one arguing with you (if you can call it that, it is like talking to a brick...and not a particularly engaged brick) is a "Benning lover"...the people pointing out the flaws in your logic as your logic is severely flawed.  It wouldn't matter if the Canucks had Toe Blake, Scotty Bowman or any other list of great GMs you want to truck out and try....they ALL would make risk-reward moves.   You can certainly argue on any given move and cherry pick the good or bad ones as you please BUT on balance, given where he started in terms of the cupboard and the aging lineup inclusive of Kesler who gave him no real trade options, AND a President who wanted to "do right by the Sedins" and stay "competitive", Benning has done a commendable job.   Perfect?   Of course not.   Mistakes?   Of course.    Worthy of your incessant whining and hyperbolic narrative towards he is some sort of inserted agent to destroy the franchise - nope, not even close.

 

I am not even sure what bricks like you do when this team turns the corner that they are close to turning (and could be as early as this season).   How will you handle it?   When they were winning Division and League titles did it pain you?   Will it again?    

 

Oh, and to be sporting about this....posting some porn for you below....it may be against the rules but, hey, they must be bendable for someone who is without Benning's love you feel everyone has.

 

Please. No one is suggesting never to make a trade. There is a logical place to make trades. It’s common sense when you are a buyer and need that extra piece to out you over the top, you buy with your assets. And when you lick complete balls like we do, you logically hoard your picks and hang in to all of your assets until they develop. Not sure how you and dim Jim here can’t see we are buying at the wrong time. 5 years of being a crap team should tell you that now isn’t the time to make stupid risky trades like his trades.

 

We aren’t buyers in any sense of the word but only weirdos would support selling assets at our stage.

 

The proof is right there. Benning has just been spinning his wheels for 5 years. 

[Tomatoes11]

18 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Unless Benning & scouts suddenly forgot how to draft, I assume that this team would have more good prospects if they had a few more 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks.  Kinda stupid to argue that Benning is great at drafting, then saying we'd suck at drafting with extra picks.   At least some of those prospects would have turned out.... riiight about now.  If we had a couple of prospects make our bottom 6 instead of the overpaid vets, we could have added another big piece that we don't have caproom for.  

 

Don’t bother. Zepp and his crew are hopeless as hell if they seriously felt those useless trades were a necessity....sigh. Lol

Edited July 4, 2019 by Tomatoes11

[vannuck59]

Benning gets a B grade from me Could he been  better definitely ,swings and misses yes there has been many. Drafting has had it moments . Free agent signings has a C rating, but this year a B+. I like signings this year. I thing Benning thought that many players would want to play here. And found only if they are over paid. I think JB has a tough time making trades with value. Are we better this year yes. Under a different GM we could be a lot better. JB reminds me of the tortoise and the hare , Can you see a light at the end of the tunnel yup is it the SC maybe in 5 more years.

[Baggins]

9 hours ago, Tomatoes11 said:

You Benning lovers have it all twisted. Nothing confusing about it. We want to rebuild by keeping ALL of our draft picks.

 

Dim Jim traded A LOT of our drafts picks in order to NOT suck for 4 years. But we still sucked despite Bennings best efforts, I guess worst efforts would be more fitting but that is beside the point.  So we basically pissed away a crap ton of great picks , great because we finish low so all our picks are high.

 

Its simple. Benning tried not to suck for 4 years by trading away draft picks for overager prospects on the verge of busting and washed up vets in order to not suck, but we still did so we should have kept all of our picks.

 

How hard is that to see? That’s exactly what dim Jim has done for 5 years. Piss away picks for no reason whatsoever. It’s indefensible really. Not sure where people get the he is a good GM crap from because it’s simply not true.

It's the difference between giving your team a chance and giving them no chance. Every year we've been in the playoff hunt until inuries piled up. Even then we weren't getting blown out game after game. I've actually enjoyed watching the games these past five years. Don't know how many I would have even watched on TV had they been set up to lose. But I definitely wouldn't have spent my money going to games (as I do every year) knowing they'd likely get blown out.

 

You just as easily "piss away" picks using them. Remember how excited many here were about drafting Cassels? How'd he work out? There's no guarantees. Sometimes trades work out great sometimes they don't. Sometimes later picks pan out, more often than not they don't.

 

So how about you list the "doin' it right" Maple Leaf added picks that are making an NHL impact after five years. 

[Baggins]

9 hours ago, WHL rocks said:

Great. Let's compare our selves to oilers then. How far back do you wanna go.

 

They have 5 Cups. We have zero..

 

Oilers have been horrible past 7 to 10 years. That's why they've gone thru 5 GMs in past 7 years.

 

If things don't change with Canucks it's hard to see how JB isn't gone next summer.. 

 

He's done well at the draft last couple of years. My concern with him has been his abilities as a roster builder.  Dave Nonis was a terrible roster builder. Gillis was a great roster builder but terrible at drafting.. 

 

This year unless JB does well and makes playoffs I don't think Aqua brings him back. 

 

 

The Oilers are simply an example of tanking failing miserably. We're the worst team over fours and on our way up. The Oilers are the worst team of the past decade despite several first overall picks. I don't want to be the Oilers. I want to see additions/improvements to the team every year.

 

I'd say with the addition of Pearson, Hughes, Miller, and Myers we've taken a huge step forward over last years starting line-up. Plus there will be more additions to the Utica rosters for call-ups. 

[Baggins]

8 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Unless Benning & scouts suddenly forgot how to draft, I assume that this team would have more good prospects if they had a few more 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks.  Kinda stupid to argue that Benning is great at drafting, then saying we'd suck at drafting with extra picks.   At least some of those prospects would have turned out.... riiight about now.  If we had a couple of prospects make our bottom 6 instead of the overpaid vets, we could have added another big piece that we don't have caproom for.  

 

Who said we'd suck at drafting with extra picks? Nobody that I'm aware of. You love putting words in others mouths. My argument is picks don't come with any more guarantee than trading for prospects. You didn't answer my question: How many Leaf added picks are making an NHL impact after five years? You did keep pointing to the Leafs doing it right by adding picks back then. So tell us great those added picks have been.

[sonoman]

7 hours ago, Tomatoes11 said:

That’s the thing. If we went the Edmonton route we would have been 100% better off. If your route is even WORSE than the Edmonton route. Maybe try changing it...

 

[klw604]

This organization has been a mess since we missed the playoffs 5 years ago, it was time to rebuild from the start, the rebuild just started last year.

 

The previous 4 years they were chasing a playoff spot and they didn't manage the assets 

 

Tanev was worth a 1st rounder is one great example