[Report] Benn Wants out of Dallas

[Provost]

4 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Are there any actual rumors though? I don't think this is being talked about outside of our market. 

 

Personally, I'd much rather pay Skinner $8-9M and keep our assets. He's also 3 years younger than Benn.

It originally came from a Dallas beat writer, but no follow up from any other sources confirming it.

 

[Nucksfollower1983]

On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 8:32 AM, artemchubarov said:

If I'm Benning I'm on the phone right now making this happen. Offer Bo, offer Brock, offer whatever. This team has shown over the past two years we can't compete with the big boys so we need someone with playoff experience. 

welcome back fedor

[The Lock]

21 hours ago, Provost said:

It originally came from a Dallas beat writer, but no follow up from any other sources confirming it.

So basically one of THEIR media trying to create clickbait. lol

[Provost]

8 minutes ago, The Lock said:

So basically one of THEIR media trying to create clickbait. lol

Could be, that is life in May when you are out of the playoffs. 

 

It is pretty much the only kind of thing we have to talk about.... possible draft scenarios have been exhausted and no UFA signings to discuss.

 

 

[R3aL]

Haven’t read whole thread so maybe thrown out by someone else but Benn for Subban might work something like that 

[The Lock]

How about this? Have Dallas buy out Benn's contract and then we sign him for $1mil!

 

I know. I'm a genius.

[Shirotashi]

ppl so quick to give up on Juolevi, and Virtanin when those two players value if they reach their potential would far out value what Benn would bring in the short term. Dallas asking for Horvat as the starting price LOL! Good one!

Edited May 21, 2019 by Shirotashi

[theo5789]

4 hours ago, Shirotashi said:

ppl so quick to give up on Juolevi, and Virtanin when those two players value if they reach their potential would far out value what Benn would bring in the short term. Dallas asking for Horvat as the starting price LOL! Good one!

While I don't disagree with not giving up on Juolevi and Virtanen because I think they do have more to offer, you can't look at potential alone in making a deal. We could've kept Shinkaruk for his potential, but he hasn't amounted to anything while Granlund has at least given us a decent season or two and IMO is still a good utility player. We could've kept Patrick White for his 1st round "potential" (whatever management saw in him) and not have looked at the short term gain. If the right deal is to be made, then you take what you can because if your players never live up to their potential, then you may have lost out on someone that could've provided more even if it's not long term.

[Dazzle]

14 hours ago, theo5789 said:

While I don't disagree with not giving up on Juolevi and Virtanen because I think they do have more to offer, you can't look at potential alone in making a deal. We could've kept Shinkaruk for his potential, but he hasn't amounted to anything while Granlund has at least given us a decent season or two and IMO is still a good utility player. We could've kept Patrick White for his 1st round "potential" (whatever management saw in him) and not have looked at the short term gain. If the right deal is to be made, then you take what you can because if your players never live up to their potential, then you may have lost out on someone that could've provided more even if it's not long term.

Or maybe if you're too trigger happy to make a trade that you lose out on a player whose POTENTIAL was fulfilled on another team...

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Or maybe if you're too trigger happy to make a trade that you lose out on a player whose POTENTIAL was fulfilled on another team...

That's why you have to look at the trade beyond the surface of it. If a player is moved whose potential is filled elsewhere (which could mean that they may never have blossomed here and found the right situation elsewhere), you have to consider what you're getting in return. We may get a guy that is decent for a few years, but maybe we need to better ourselves those years to push the team over the hump. Does the trade fill a need that would expedite a position of need that while one could draft and wait, it might take too long and other pieces start falling by the wayside. So I reiterate my point in that you cannot look at potential alone when making any type of deal.

[Rob_Zepp]

On 5/15/2019 at 8:32 AM, artemchubarov said:

If I'm Benning I'm on the phone right now making this happen. Offer Bo, offer Brock, offer whatever. This team has shown over the past two years we can't compete with the big boys so we need someone with playoff experience. 

If you're Benning right now, you are fired for two reasons:

1. Having an insane under valuation of your own current assets
2. Creating yet another CDC name and persona while being a member of Canuck management - and bashing yourself relentlessly too boot

[Dazzle]

3 hours ago, theo5789 said:

That's why you have to look at the trade beyond the surface of it. If a player is moved whose potential is filled elsewhere (which could mean that they may never have blossomed here and found the right situation elsewhere), you have to consider what you're getting in return. We may get a guy that is decent for a few years, but maybe we need to better ourselves those years to push the team over the hump. Does the trade fill a need that would expedite a position of need that while one could draft and wait, it might take too long and other pieces start falling by the wayside. So I reiterate my point in that you cannot look at potential alone when making any type of deal.

I feel you are contradicting yourself.

 

If Juolevi flourishes elsewhere, that doesn't necessarily mean he WOULDN'T have flourished here. You simply didn't give him a chance to. (You traded him off for his "potential", which is something you don't seem to value as much as something that is more known - i.e. Clendenning).

 

Furthermore, you can't trade off a guy whose potential you don't value (as much) to get someone BETTER than him. That's not how it works. The second player is BETTER because he has proven something. Juolevi isn't worth that much in the same way as Puljarvi (sp) isn't worth what his current pick is - or even Yakupov, if EDM still had his rights in the past.

 

Thirdly, a player who has potential may or may not get better, but unless you have a crystal ball, there is no way of knowing. At best, you can look at his current toolset/skills and make an educated guess.

How would you know if Juolevi will or will not exceed his expectations? We will have to see. Maybe he is a top 4 defenceman as predicted, but until that happens, trading him away is a MISTAKE.

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

I feel you are contradicting yourself.

 

If Juolevi flourishes elsewhere, that doesn't necessarily mean he WOULDN'T have flourished here. You simply didn't give him a chance to. (You traded him off for his "potential", which is something you don't seem to value as much as something that is more known - i.e. Clendenning).

 

Furthermore, you can't trade off a guy whose potential you don't value (as much) to get someone BETTER than him. That's not how it works. The second player is BETTER because he has proven something. Juolevi isn't worth that much in the same way as Puljarvi (sp) isn't worth what his current pick is - or even Yakupov, if EDM still had his rights in the past.

 

Thirdly, a player who has potential may or may not get better, but unless you have a crystal ball, there is no way of knowing. At best, you can look at his current toolset/skills and make an educated guess.

How would you know if Juolevi will or will not exceed his expectations? We will have to see. Maybe he is a top 4 defenceman as predicted, but until that happens, trading him away is a MISTAKE.

And you are replying in response to nothing that I'm talking about.

 

I have said that you cannot look at only potential alone (for both sides) when making a deal. There are other factors in play. A potential top 4 defender may not get the same opportunities on a team that is already set for their top 4 (or perhaps they have a good set up and can cycle through dmen and gain assets in moving the older ones out), so they will value that player's potential differently than another team in need of that potential. A player flourishing eventually doesn't necessarily mean it was just a matter of time and it would've happened no matter what. Some teams can offer the minutes and some teams do a better job sheltering their guys until their ready. Every team has a different set up to how they develop their players, so who knows which system a certain individual will fit into better.

 

With all the said, I've said I wouldn't trade Juolevi just yet, so I'm not sure why you continue to reiterate that it would be a mistake to trade him in response to me.

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

And you are replying in response to nothing that I'm talking about.

 

I have said that you cannot look at only potential alone (for both sides) when making a deal. There are other factors in play. A potential top 4 defender may not get the same opportunities on a team that is already set for their top 4 (or perhaps they have a good set up and can cycle through dmen and gain assets in moving the older ones out), so they will value that player's potential differently than another team in need of that potential. A player flourishing eventually doesn't necessarily mean it was just a matter of time and it would've happened no matter what. Some teams can offer the minutes and some teams do a better job sheltering their guys until their ready. Every team has a different set up to how they develop their players, so who knows which system a certain individual will fit into better.

 

With all the said, I've said I wouldn't trade Juolevi just yet, so I'm not sure why you continue to reiterate that it would be a mistake to trade him in response to me.

You may not have openly called for Juolevi, but your explanation doesn't make sense. The posts are out of order when quoting these, FWIW.

 

22 hours ago, theo5789 said:

While I don't disagree with not giving up on Juolevi and Virtanen because I think they do have more to offer, you can't look at potential alone in making a deal. We could've kept Shinkaruk for his potential, but he hasn't amounted to anything while Granlund has at least given us a decent season or two and IMO is still a good utility player. We could've kept Patrick White for his 1st round "potential" (whatever management saw in him) and not have looked at the short term gain. If the right deal is to be made, then you take what you can because if your players never live up to their potential, then you may have lost out on someone that could've provided more even if it's not long term.

6 hours ago, theo5789 said:

That's why you have to look at the trade beyond the surface of it. If a player is moved whose potential is filled elsewhere (which could mean that they may never have blossomed here and found the right situation elsewhere), you have to consider what you're getting in return. We may get a guy that is decent for a few years, but maybe we need to better ourselves those years to push the team over the hump. Does the trade fill a need that would expedite a position of need that while one could draft and wait, it might take too long and other pieces start falling by the wayside. So I reiterate my point in that you cannot look at potential alone when making any type of deal.

I believe the Shinkaruk trade was Benning selling a mistake to somebody else and winning on that trade. For whatever reason, Shinkaruk did not succeed at the NHL level (and arguably the AHL level).

The Patrick White trade was basically a dump. San Jose didn't even qualify him so they got a 2nd round pick out of it and traded away Ehrhoff to us in the process.

Neither Calgary nor San Jose benefited from the players we traded away. On the other hand, Forsling was traded to Chicago in exchange for Clendenning (a player that you would probably have argued could have helped us over the hump). From a stats point of view, the trade seemed to make sense. Clendenning looked like he was on the cusp of playing in the NHL because of his sublime AHL stats. And we know what happened with him. He has never made an NHL team full-time. Meanwhile, Forsling continues to thrive at the NHL level as a young defenseman. It was a loss for us for sure.
 

It goes without saying that you can't trade players too quickly.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Dazzle

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

You may not have openly called for Juolevi, but your explanation doesn't make sense. The posts are out of order when quoting these, FWIW.

 

I believe the Shinkaruk trade was Benning selling a mistake to somebody else and winning on that trade. For whatever reason, Shinkaruk did not succeed at the NHL level (and arguably the AHL level).

The Patrick White trade was basically a dump. San Jose didn't even qualify him so they got a 2nd round pick out of it and traded away Ehrhoff to us in the process.

Neither Calgary nor San Jose benefited from the players we traded away. On the other hand, Forsling was traded to Chicago in exchange for Clendenning (a player that you would probably have argued could have helped us over the hump). From a stats point of view, the trade seemed to make sense. Clendenning looked like he was on the cusp of playing in the NHL because of his sublime AHL stats. And we know what happened with him. He has never made an NHL team full-time. Meanwhile, Forsling continues to thrive at the NHL level as a young defenseman. It was a loss for us for sure.
 

It goes without saying that you can't trade players too quickly.

So I said I wouldn't give up on Juolevi just yet and talked about looking at more than just potential alone when looking to make deals. I don't even know what your point that you're trying to bring up that is for or against or anything in regards to what I'm saying.

 

Those deals when looking at potential alone can be skewed as to not make those deals (former 1st rounders for a former lower pick and a short term vet), but there is more than potential alone when looking at those deals. Forsling has gotten a taste of the NHL, that doesn't mean he would've taken us over the hump and besides if looking at potential alone, how many would've predicted a 5th round pick would be where he is today anyway. Beyond potential alone, the deal was made because we wanted supposedly a more NHL ready player (to reiterate that there is more to look at than just potential when analyzing a trade).

 

You can use hindsight to suggest Benning or whoever made the "right" or "wrong" deal. You win some, you lose some. There's no set rule of making a deal or not, even if it's dealing a player too quickly. Sometimes a player just isn't fitting into your system and flourishes in another system. William Karlsson is an example of this off the top of my head. Would he had become the player he has become had he stayed in Columbus and simply waited another year?

[Dazzle]

9 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

So I said I wouldn't give up on Juolevi just yet and talked about looking at more than just potential alone when looking to make deals. I don't even know what your point that you're trying to bring up that is for or against or anything in regards to what I'm saying.

 

Those deals when looking at potential alone can be skewed as to not make those deals (former 1st rounders for a former lower pick and a short term vet), but there is more than potential alone when looking at those deals. Forsling has gotten a taste of the NHL, that doesn't mean he would've taken us over the hump and besides if looking at potential alone, how many would've predicted a 5th round pick would be where he is today anyway. Beyond potential alone, the deal was made because we wanted supposedly a more NHL ready player (to reiterate that there is more to look at than just potential when analyzing a trade).

 

You can use hindsight to suggest Benning or whoever made the "right" or "wrong" deal. You win some, you lose some. There's no set rule of making a deal or not, even if it's dealing a player too quickly. Sometimes a player just isn't fitting into your system and flourishes in another system. William Karlsson is an example of this off the top of my head. Would he had become the player he has become had he stayed in Columbus and simply waited another year?

Nobody knows.

 

The entire LV team from 2017-2018 could attest to how talent can be underappreciated. Then again, you can throw minutes at a player *cough* Vey, Megna, Chaput - and they still can't produce. You can't say any one of those three didn't get opportunities. Opportunities alone don't tell the whole story.

 

I think we can also see Eriksson be such a poor fit for Vancouver, when he has produced at least 30 goals a few times. It's weird to see him struggle to score.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Dazzle

[flickyoursedin]

I am still a Juolevi fan and think he can become a really good number 2 dman. However he is a guy that needs to be protected and I’m not sure Vancouver uses a spot for him. In saying that I’d definitely be down to move to good pieces for one great one. I’d like that piece to be a little younger than 29 though! Benn will be out of his prime by the time we’re in our window.

[RRypien37]

On 5/20/2019 at 5:33 PM, Shirotashi said:

ppl so quick to give up on Juolevi, and Virtanin when those two players value if they reach their potential would far out value what Benn would bring in the short term. Dallas asking for Horvat as the starting price LOL! Good one!

Virtanen has now played 210 games and was drafted 5 full years ago. I hardly consider that giving up quickly. He will be 23 before the season starts. It is now a very young mans game. This isn't the NHL of old where players only began to emerge in their mid 20's. 

 

Juolevi on the other hand has yet to play an NHL game so completely different story. 

[mephnick]

9 hours ago, RRypien37 said:

Virtanen has now played 210 games and was drafted 5 full years ago. I hardly consider that giving up quickly. He will be 23 before the season starts. It is now a very young mans game. This isn't the NHL of old where players only began to emerge in their mid 20's. 

Yep, Virt is what he is. If he can get a bit more consistent he can be a valuable depth winger. That's it, though.

[VegasCanuck]

On 5/22/2019 at 7:07 PM, RRypien37 said:

Virtanen has now played 210 games and was drafted 5 full years ago. I hardly consider that giving up quickly. He will be 23 before the season starts. It is now a very young mans game. This isn't the NHL of old where players only began to emerge in their mid 20's. 

 

Juolevi on the other hand has yet to play an NHL game so completely different story. 

About the exact age where Bertuzzi started to break out.