Francesco Aquilini says "I have no plans to make changes."

[kanucks25]

14 minutes ago, Provost said:

Yes... a step back because they had a bad roster.  I think we may be defining what a bad roster is very differently.

I consider lack of depth, lack of the right role players, and overall lack of winning games as a bad roster... regardless of any great individual pieces we have.

If you think great high end talent pieces to build on, regardless of on ice success makes something "not a bad roster".. then I agree with you, I just don't define it that way.

I would rather have our bad roster than a lot of the other bad teams in the league because we at least have some key pieces, and you need the elite talent to win... and that talent is a lot harder to find than the right players to surround them with.  We could be very much like Toronto and Edmonton, who have turned a corner by figuring out those right extra pieces after years of having badly balanced teams and no success.

Well put.

 

Not all of what Benning has done is bad: Pettersson, Hughes and (hopefully) Demko to build the team around ain't something to complain about.

 

But there's a lot more to being a successful GM. Benning hasn't shown anything that suggests he knows how to construct a good team both when it comes to the roster on paper and how it all fits under the cap. Until he required Schmidt, which took 7 years, his D-man targets overall on the pro side have been nothing but atrocious on the whole. Unless you're an anomaly like the Pens a few years ago, you don't get winning hockey from the types of defenses Benning has put "together".

[Timråfan]

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

Benning is what he is, but one thing he did really well was draft and bring in high character people, and when guys like this are starting to crack its worrisome. 

 

 

What Benning is doing is taking the players high charachter and flush it down the toilet.

I’ve tried for a couple of years now to explain how management can make the players loose strenght, fatique.

Psychology is more important than people think.

The drafted players were the hard work from scouts on the ground. Benning just made the final descision after a lot of people already told him who is best. 

[Coda]

The Blueberry Boys are on the verge of messing up the team for the prime years of its core players.  If they don't sell for the future this season (aiming to compete for the cup in 2-3 years time) the Canucks are going to be mediocre at best for years to come.  

[TheCustodian]

21 hours ago, aGENT said:

The bottom 6 haven't particularly been the 'problem' and the guys that are, aren't the 'old, overpaid guys' people generally complain about (Beagle and Sutter). An injured Motte and Gaudette/Virtanen are the biggest issues there.

 

Our 'elite' guys (other than Boeser) are having poor seasons full of low confidence, frustration, poor execution and giveaways.

Could it be ... possibly ... that players like Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes are struggling because everyone else not named Horvat (and probably Demko and Pearson) basically sucks on this team? The entire bottom six is just brutal and don't even get me started on the blue line. These guys have literally no one to play with now that Miller is terrible and there is an abnormal amount of salary not on the ice. We've had Virtanen and Eriksson in our top six this year ... and I don't think anyone would mistake them for top six players.

Edited February 27, 2021 by TheCustodian

[dank.sinatra]

On 2/15/2021 at 4:44 PM, bbllpp said:

Fact:

 

Other than Edler and Horvat every player on this team has been brought in under JB administration.  Gillis his key pieces from Burke and Nonis.  Burke inherited his key pieces from Quinn and Keenan 

 

Go away and think about the implications of that

 

Yes, and you're still trying to argue he's a good GM? I'm confused.

[ilduce39]

22 hours ago, Coda said:

The Blueberry Boys are on the verge of messing up the team for the prime years of its core players.  If they don't sell for the future this season (aiming to compete for the cup in 2-3 years time) the Canucks are going to be mediocre at best for years to come.  

I’ve said I’d like to see us rent out our expiring FAs this year too but let’s not forget how excited we got around Goldobin or Dahlen.  Most of the time these “shrewd” moves are all hype. 
 

What do you expect to get in return for Sutter and Pearson that bumps us from mediocre to contender?

[combover]

Worst start since the messier era. Lol.

I’ve always said the three worst gms are 

1 keenan

2 nonis 

3 benning. 
 

Jimmie solidifying his place in Canuck history 

as a failure. 

 

 

 

[Provost]

22 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

I’ve said I’d like to see us rent out our expiring FAs this year too but let’s not forget how excited we got around Goldobin or Dahlen.  Most of the time these “shrewd” moves are all hype. 
 

What do you expect to get in return for Sutter and Pearson that bumps us from mediocre to contender?

Cap space.

... and no one suggests moving them bumps us from being mediocre (I guess being a bottom 3 team in the league is mediocre?) to contender, that is just a false premise.  There hasn't been a trade in league history that, on its own has taken a team from the bottom of the standings to the top without a bunch of other moves along the way as well.  Most of the time it is just a few dozen little incremental improvements that add up over time.

That is the reverse of what has been happening with our team lately, which is a series of dozens of "slightly" bad moves that have made us worse over time.  Each of those 2nd/3rd round picks we gave away when we weren't in a winning window, each $1 million a year extra we paid a player more than they were worth on the market, each extra year we gave those UFAs that other teams weren't willing to and have come back to bite us on the butt, etc.  No GM is perfect, but you can't make a bunch of those mistakes without them adding up badly.

In the case of these rentals, the return just has to be better than what you lose to make it an incremental improvement.

What we lose by moving on from them... 20-30 meaningless games in a season where we are sitting at a 97.5% chance of missing the playoffs.

What we gain:
1.  Cap space for the rest of this year.  Even if we could waive those rentals and get nothing in return... we win those moves because the cap space makes a huge difference this year.  If we shed enough cap, we can pay the $4.7 million in ELC bonuses that are currently going to be pushed into next year.  What we can get with an extra $4.7 million next year (or maybe more importantly.. what extra depth we won't have to lose) will be more valuable than having those players for a few more games.
2.  Mid round picks.  A 3rd round pick has a 25-33% chance of playing 100 games in the NHL.  Nothing says they will be a star or a significant contributor... but having that extra ticket increases your chances.
3.  The chance to see what some of the younger guys can do.  We are already losing 10 of 12 games WITH those guys, how much worse can it get if you put a couple of Hawyrluk, Bailey, and Michaelis in?

[NHL97OneTimer]

On 2/20/2021 at 4:37 AM, Timråfan said:

It's probably because we have different views on what a GM are.

For me a GM is the entrpreneur that sells a vision and take responsibility from the shoulders of the rest in the org. 

The GM has a whole organisation working with drafting, scouting etc... So the GM are not the scout. 

I find it amazing that a GM for a company that has a value of 725 million dollars is supposed to do doing petty stuff. 

 

Mike Gillis took over Canucks when the value was 236 mill dollar and left when the value was 800 dollar. 

That is exactly what a GM is supposed to do. 

Then the GM has other people looking at all the different aspects of the Canucks. 

But we care about the on-ice product.  MG found it tough to deal with other managers because of his history as an agent and apparently some of his tactics (which I don't recall well).  If other teams don't want to deal with you, that's a tough starting point in any deal.

[kanucks25]

J-Pat:

 

"I know for a fact that requests have been made to the Canucks media relation department to hear from Jim Benning at some point here around the midway mark. We have not heard from Benning in a Zoom setting since the 1st day of training camp."

 

Wonder whose decision it is for Benning to hide.

[D-Money]

6 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

J-Pat:

 

"I know for a fact that requests have been made to the Canucks media relation department to hear from Jim Benning at some point here around the midway mark. We have not heard from Benning in a Zoom setting since the 1st day of training camp."

 

Wonder whose decision it is for Benning to hide.

Benning's?

 

[EP Phone Home]

11 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

J-Pat:

 

"I know for a fact that requests have been made to the Canucks media relation department to hear from Jim Benning at some point here around the midway mark. We have not heard from Benning in a Zoom setting since the 1st day of training camp."

 

Wonder whose decision it is for Benning to hide.

Apparently he will be on SN650 at 11AM tomorrow. I have also been wondering where he has been as his last media availability was a month ago when his infamous “ran out of time” was said. But he’s breaking the silence tomorrow at 11AM. Couldn’t be with a more safe and bland host in Scotty Rintoul but hey Jim is going to speak!