Provost Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, The Lock said: Before the finals, yes. After the finals, he was an abysmal GM. It's like the finals changed him. I don't want Gillis because I don't know if we'd get the Gillis before or after those finals at this point. The fact that we got Horvat and Markstrom out of it might be the one saving grace, but Markstrom took years to get better and Horvat could have gone wrong like all of Gillis' other 1st round picks. To me, none of that excuses how the goalie situation was handled, and that's just one of the things that Gillis did poorly afterwards. Gillis did become bad after the Finals. He second guessed how he had to build a team. The league as a whole was giving a last gasp of pushback for “old school hockey” run by a select old boys club against the new faster skill game. No one wanted to see the Canucks win, that isn’t crazy conspiracy theory nonsense. Every broadcast and every fan base was rooting for Boston and their “honest” brand of hockey. Even teams that hated Boston and called them dirty beforehand. Gillis then started to chase that style of hockey, and it made the team worse at what it was good at and the team got stuck in the middle with no identity. 5 years later the league had changed and that Canucks team was what everyone was trying to be. I don’t want Gillis back, but sometimes when a guy acts like he is the smartest guy in the room, it is because he is. Edited February 8, 2021 by Provost 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 Hughes isn't a problem. His size is a detriment to defending, but his smarts and skill offset that. What he is, is an elite offensive defenseman who we are lucky to have. He just needs a solid defensive partner who can cover when he pinches. Tanev was that guy - and now, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 (edited) 15 hours ago, aGENT said: Problem is, the players are clearly in their own heads. We're better off hiring a sports psychologist to come in, than a new coach. A coach today need to be both. In the medieval times it was enough to bully and intimidate players. Edited February 8, 2021 by Timråfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 8 hours ago, canuck73_3 said: Dahlen sucks get over it. It's a pity you don't bother about Bennings mediocracy. Why? It should be a concern for every true fan of this team to demand greatness from a GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shapo Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 On 2/7/2021 at 3:36 PM, Arrow 1983 said: Did Tanev hid his flaws, I say yes. minus 12 as of today. Did he drop to 7th where Benning was a sucker to pick him. I say yes. If Benning had not taken him he would have drop to 8th and who knows where he would have landed If Hughes creates 10 goals but causes 20 does the math add up. Did Tanev protect the Canucks from Hughes mistake. I say yes. Tanev is that responsible with and without the puck. Can a small Defenseman play defense few and far between. Is Hughes one of them? I say NO. Can Benning acquire a new Tanev. I say hell no. Benning can not make a trade for the life of this team never mind find a new Tanev. Hamonic is no Tanev Which leads to the real question can we afford to keep Hughes as a defensive liability and at the ridiculous cost he can command. I say NO. Sell now well his price is high or feel the Wrath of his future contract for years to come. Disclaimer I recommend you read to the the first post of the 5th page before commenting this thread was to make a point or not it is up to you Ok so we selling Hughes, whats coming our way in return???????.How about a different approach, we actually hire a decent defense coach, im sure all agree we give up way way way way too many shots per game, last couple of years Marky been stealing games for us but not his problem anymore. In my opinion we had cap space a couple of seasons ago and should have taken someones bad contract for a draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaninMex Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 On 2/7/2021 at 5:36 AM, Arrow 1983 said: Did Tanev hid his flaws, I say yes. minus 12 as of today. Did he drop to 7th where Benning was a sucker to pick him. I say yes. If Benning had not taken him he would have drop to 8th and who knows where he would have landed If Hughes creates 10 goals but causes 20 does the math add up. Did Tanev protect the Canucks from Hughes mistake. I say yes. Tanev is that responsible with and without the puck. Can a small Defenseman play defense few and far between. Is Hughes one of them? I say NO. Can Benning acquire a new Tanev. I say hell no. Benning can not make a trade for the life of this team never mind find a new Tanev. Hamonic is no Tanev Which leads to the real question can we afford to keep Hughes as a defensive liability and at the ridiculous cost he can command. I say NO. Sell now well his price is high or feel the Wrath of his future contract for years to come. Disclaimer I recommend you read to the the first post of the 5th page before commenting this thread was to make a point or not it is up to you I can say that I read the first two pages and what I noticed is the names that posted. Never before has this board been this unified about something since maybe 2011. I salute you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaninMex Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 2 hours ago, Timråfan said: It's a pity you don't bother about Bennings mediocracy. Why? It should be a concern for every true fan of this team to demand greatness from a GM. You're the guy in beer league that, after getting hit, follows the player around and gives out a cheap shot, aren't you? Benning traded your favourite player and you ramble on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarnBurner Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 (edited) Clutch... is that really you? Edit: Btw, thanks for the laugh! This is absolutely stupid funny. Are you one of those trolls from 1040 radio? Edited February 8, 2021 by BarnBurner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 Hughes has never played under a defensive coach who is qualified to hold his position at this level. Maybe we should be placing the blame where it belongs: on Baumgartner. Our entire D group is struggling right now and it's pretty obvious that the easiest solution is to replace the imbecile we have coaching that group with someone without a severe mental handicap. Even under an incompetent coach, Hughes played well enough last year to give hope that he can hold his own in his own end. He's not a Barrie/Rielley/DeAngelo who isn't capable of playing defense, and doesn't care to learn how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patel Bure Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 (edited) On 2/6/2021 at 8:36 PM, Arrow 1983 said: Did Tanev hid his flaws, I say yes. minus 12 as of today. Did he drop to 7th where Benning was a sucker to pick him. I say yes. If Benning had not taken him he would have drop to 8th and who knows where he would have landed If Hughes creates 10 goals but causes 20 does the math add up. Did Tanev protect the Canucks from Hughes mistake. I say yes. Tanev is that responsible with and without the puck. Can a small Defenseman play defense few and far between. Is Hughes one of them? I say NO. Can Benning acquire a new Tanev. I say hell no. Benning can not make a trade for the life of this team never mind find a new Tanev. Hamonic is no Tanev Which leads to the real question can we afford to keep Hughes as a defensive liability and at the ridiculous cost he can command. I say NO. Sell now well his price is high or feel the Wrath of his future contract for years to come. Disclaimer I recommend you read to the the first post of the 5th page before commenting this thread was to make a point or not it is up to you Think big picture. Instead of getting rid of a unique asset like Hughes, why not bring in a newer and younger version of Tanev? Perhaps there’s a Russian giant within our system that’s waiting to come back here to fulfill that role? Perhaps this was Benning’s plan all along as lots of cap will be off the books at the end of this season? (Edler, Sutter, Pearson, etc.). You want to know what’s so ironic? Many years ago, Benning was vehemently criticized because people saw him as being “short term focused” without considering the bigger picture. He was criticized for overpaying veterans without people considering the fact that the kids within the system weren’t ready to take on those roles. Now at present day, it’s clear (and was clear all along), that Benning and this management group clearly had the long term in mind and clearly desired to have young kids within the system take on roles once they were ready. -Demko instead of Markstrom -Tryamkin over Tanev -Hoglander over Toffoli -Podkolzin over Pearson (likely scenario) And now people, all of a sudden, are upset. Think big picture. Our long term Tanev replacement will be here soon enough. Edited February 8, 2021 by DarkIndianRises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarnBurner Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 On 2/7/2021 at 1:07 AM, Arrow 1983 said: This is a fire Benning thread It took you four pages to say that? You are too funny. You should be in the comedy business. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 53 minutes ago, FaninMex said: You're the guy in beer league that, after getting hit, follows the player around and gives out a cheap shot, aren't you? Benning traded your favourite player and you ramble on. Yeah, off course I bother about Dahlen. I'm glad he is in Timrå. Is it so hard to understand? If I got to choose where Petey should play it's Timrå. So I'm not sad about Dahlen not in the NHL. Not everything is about NHL. My complaint is about Benning. The issue withDahlen showed Bennings true colors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patel Bure Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 5 hours ago, Provost said: Gillis did become bad after the Finals. He second guessed how he had to build a team. The league as a whole was giving a last gasp of pushback for “old school hockey” run by a select old boys club against the new faster skill game. No one wanted to see the Canucks win, that isn’t crazy conspiracy theory nonsense. Every broadcast and every fan base was rooting for Boston and their “honest” brand of hockey. Even teams that hated Boston and called them dirty beforehand. Gillis then started to chase that style of hockey, and it made the team worse at what it was good at and the team got stuck in the middle with no identity. 5 years later the league had changed and that Canucks team was what everyone was trying to be. I don’t want Gillis back, but sometimes when a guy acts like he is the smartest guy in the room, it is because he is. In Gillis’ defense, it was ownership that wanted him to “evolve” the identity of the team and not commit to a full rebuild in 2012 after we lost to the Kings. Gillis wanted to commit to a full on rebuild and sell off our top players while their values were still at a premium ownership refused. Yes - Gillis and his regime did a horrible job of drafting and developing young talent in our system but Gillis was correct that the correct time to do a scorched earth rebuild was in 2012 when our top players were still close to their primes and weren’t handicapped by NTC’s/NMC’s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 8 hours ago, Provost said: Gillis did become bad after the Finals. He second guessed how he had to build a team. The league as a whole was giving a last gasp of pushback for “old school hockey” run by a select old boys club against the new faster skill game. No one wanted to see the Canucks win, that isn’t crazy conspiracy theory nonsense. Every broadcast and every fan base was rooting for Boston and their “honest” brand of hockey. Even teams that hated Boston and called them dirty beforehand. Gillis then started to chase that style of hockey, and it made the team worse at what it was good at and the team got stuck in the middle with no identity. 5 years later the league had changed and that Canucks team was what everyone was trying to be. I don’t want Gillis back, but sometimes when a guy acts like he is the smartest guy in the room, it is because he is. Just because someone's smart though, it doesn't mean they'll make the right decisions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeneedLumme Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 3 hours ago, Timråfan said: Yeah, off course I bother about Dahlen. I'm glad he is in Timrå. Is it so hard to understand? If I got to choose where Petey should play it's Timrå. So I'm not sad about Dahlen not in the NHL. Not everything is about NHL. My complaint is about Benning. The issue withDahlen showed Bennings true colors. Yes, it did show JB's true colours. He was completely honest, as he is known to be (having been fined 50k a few years ago for being excessively honest). Clearly honesty is not something you value. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Timråfan said: Yeah, off course I bother about Dahlen. I'm glad he is in Timrå. Is it so hard to understand? If I got to choose where Petey should play it's Timrå. So I'm not sad about Dahlen not in the NHL. Not everything is about NHL. My complaint is about Benning. The issue withDahlen showed Bennings true colors. Given Dahlen's in Timra and not in the NHL is evidence that Benning made the right decision. You can complain all you want about Benning and claiming he showed his "true colours", but you are wrong in this case because the evidence goes against you. Not that you're going to agree with me. You're too stubborn to do that. Edited February 8, 2021 by The Lock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 28 minutes ago, The Lock said: Given Dahlen's in Timra and not in the NHL is evidence that Benning made the right decision. You can complain all you want about Benning and claiming he showed his "true colours", but you are wrong in this case because the evidence goes against you. Not that you're going to agree with me. You're too stubborn to do that. What evidence are you talking about? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 36 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said: Yes, it did show JB's true colours. He was completely honest, as he is known to be (having been fined 50k a few years ago for being excessively honest). Clearly honesty is not something you value. So you really think Benning is honest all the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 2 minutes ago, Timråfan said: What evidence are you talking about? I just gave it to you. He's in Timra. You've probably even seen him there in person. That's called evidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 On 2/6/2021 at 8:42 PM, Pickly said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now