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

[The Lock]

6 hours ago, Timråfan said:

Marky has the same statistics since he started over 30 games per season for the Canucks. 

He is maybe the reason why  Green is coach now because Utica came to the finals Calder Cup, because of Marky.

So if you count Markys AHL season it is close to 6 season he's been really good. 

 

Tell me again, what players have played defence in front of Marky during those 6 years?

If you look at goalies like Holtby they got a great team in front of them when they did good. 

First of all, Marky doesn't have the same statistics since he started.

 

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=112727

 

His first couple of years here were abyssmal. He was playing as 3rd goalie behind Lack and Miller and ended up with a save percentage of 0.868 and 0.879. This was also before we went full rebuild and still had a reasonable team in front. I remember those games and people wanted him traded out big time during that time.

 

His progression was very gradual and, considering he's 31 now, he was a little late in developing. This is common for goalies, but this also shows that he does NOT have the same statistics even since he started at over 30 games per season. It was still a more gradual progression. He looked good in some games, but looked downright terrible in others.

 

To answer your defense question, it kind of gradually got worse in front of him before gradually getting better. As the team got better in front of Marky, so did Marky. So if what you are saying about Holtby's true, we can also say the same about Marky since Marky theoretically has better defense in Calgary and is putting up the best save percentage in his life thus far over there.

 

So yes, defense makes a difference, but we've also now proved that Marky's not everything either.

 

 

[Timråfan]

45 minutes ago, The Lock said:

First of all, Marky doesn't have the same statistics since he started.

 

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=112727

 

His first couple of years here were abyssmal. He was playing as 3rd goalie behind Lack and Miller and ended up with a save percentage of 0.868 and 0.879. This was also before we went full rebuild and still had a reasonable team in front. I remember those games and people wanted him traded out big time during that time.

 

His progression was very gradual and, considering he's 31 now, he was a little late in developing. This is common for goalies, but this also shows that he does NOT have the same statistics even since he started at over 30 games per season. It was still a more gradual progression. He looked good in some games, but looked downright terrible in others.

 

To answer your defense question, it kind of gradually got worse in front of him before gradually getting better. As the team got better in front of Marky, so did Marky. So if what you are saying about Holtby's true, we can also say the same about Marky since Marky theoretically has better defense in Calgary and is putting up the best save percentage in his life thus far over there.

 

So yes, defense makes a difference, but we've also now proved that Marky's not everything either.

 

 

Pretty impressive, you grade a player that played seven games in total under 2 years. 

What did he do the third season when he played 33 games? And the four seasons he played after that?

You managed to lie with statistics when you didn't bother about Markys five seasons with similar stats and only one of those where he was the second goalie. 

[The Lock]

6 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

Pretty impressive, you grade a player that played seven games in total under 2 years. 

What did he do the third season when he played 33 games? And the four seasons he played after that?

You managed to lie with statistics when you didn't bother about Markys five seasons with similar stats and only one of those where he was the second goalie. 

Prove to me how I'm lying. I mentioned the 33 games in my post, maybe not specifically saying 33 games, but I mentioned it with when he became the starter. Did you read it?

 

Besides, if you're going to cherry pick and only talk about when he started with 30 games a season without talking about the part beforehand, that opens it up for me to talk about the time beforehand. Why? Because BENNING WAS AROUND DURING THAT TIME. Not the whole time, but still during part of that time. Given we're talking about what Benning inherited, it absolutely counts.

 

The ball's in your court to prove me otherwise dude.

Edited February 16, 2021 by The Lock

[Timråfan]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

Prove to me how I'm lying. I mentioned the 33 games in my post, maybe not specifically saying 33 games, but I mentioned it with when he became the starter. Did you read it?

 

The ball's in your court to prove me otherwise dude.

Marky had 0,915 save percentage and 2.73 ga when he played 33 games.

His last season he had 0,918 save percentage and 2,78 ga. 

Big difference... Don't bother try to prove anything anymore. You're quite an dishonest poster. 

[Gurn]

53 minutes ago, The Lock said:

this also shows that he does NOT have the same statistics even since he started at over 30 games per season.

Get ready for "By the same I meant in the .900 save range."

 

Goal post moving, almost as prevalent as the outright falsehoods around this place.

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

Marky had 0,915 save percentage and 2.73 ga when he played 33 games.

His last season he had 0,918 save percentage and 2,78 ga. 

Big difference... Don't bother try to prove anything anymore. You're quite an dishonest poster. 

Benning was around during the time before that though. We're talking about what he inheirited, which was a Lack and Marky tandem. He then signed Miller.

 

Whatever you're trying to prove here is beyond me. Also, if you think I'm dishonest, you have a lot to learn about how to debate. lol

Edited February 16, 2021 by The Lock

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

Marky had 0,915 save percentage and 2.73 ga when he played 33 games.

His last season he had 0,918 save percentage and 2,78 ga. 

Big difference... Don't bother try to prove anything anymore. You're quite an dishonest poster. 

 

1 minute ago, gurn said:

Get ready for "By the same I meant in the .900 save range."

 

Goal post moving, almost as prevalent as the outright falsehoods around this place.

Well, what a surprise!

roflmao

[The Lock]

3 minutes ago, gurn said:

 

Well, what a surprise!

roflmao

I will admit, I tend to groan whenever I see a notification that Timrafan replied. I'm at least impressed that he stated a statistic. Has no context, but at least it's slightly less lazy than the usual.

[24K PureCool]

41 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I will admit, I tend to groan whenever I see a notification that Timrafan replied. I'm at least impressed that he stated a statistic. Has no context, but at least it's slightly less lazy than the usual.

He is at the line of my ignore list and the only other guy on there is the Jordan Peterson guy that just can't stop linking everything to communism. 

[The Lock]

Just now, 24K PureCool said:

He is at the line of my ignore list and the only other guy on there is the Jordan Peterson guy that just can't stop linking everything to communism. 

Yeah I've only ever ignored anyone once and it was only temporary to get the guy out of my hair. lol

 

There are a few people I've considered though.

[oldnews]

22 hours ago, dank.sinatra said:

They literally are. Pettersson and Hughes might improve a bit. Podz and Hog will get better and be contributors.

 

Demko still has a lot to prove.

 

But other than that everyone isn't about to get any better. Horvat is 25. He's not getting better anytime soon. Miller 27. Boeser 23.

 

Other than Hughes the whole d-core is either old or uninspiring.

 

This team needs to get competitive asap or they run the risk of flubbing their best players' prime years.

 

The scary part is there's no realistic ways they can improve the roster in the next few years.

 

I'm sorry you're rampant, delusional homerisms prevent you from seeing that. 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

As per Elliotte Friedman in his 31 Thoughts:

 

Quote

14. I’ve heard the rumours that Vancouver GM Jim Benning’s contract is not guaranteed beyond this season. I’ve looked into it. There is pushback on that from a couple of sources, who say it is guaranteed for two more years.

15. Didn’t mind Canuck owner Francesco Aquilini’s Saturday tweetstorm in defence of Benning, Travis Green and the process. Rumours were swirling, and I do think that has an effect on players — there’s nothing wrong with calming the waters. Some votes of confidence aren’t worth the bandwidth they waste, but I do buy this one. There is a desire to see how this season plays out, there’s no appetite to add salary, and I’m not sure you could do an intensive search/hiring process if you wanted to. Let’s see where everything stands in a few months.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/31-thoughts-tavares-gagner-blazing-trail-minor-hockey-involvement/

[oldnews]

On 2/14/2021 at 7:52 PM, Tony Romo said:

If you would take our roster and prospects over ours then fair, I hope you are right and I am wrong! Nothing would make me happier. 

 

They outplayed us 7/9 periods in my opinion. but we must look for different things while watching games, i thought they outplayed us, you did not, but everyone watches games differently. I thought being outscored 7-3, 5-1, and 3-1 would help my case. But sure we out played them in the 1st and 2nd period in game 3. Small sample size yes, so can't read too much into it. But through a quarter of this season they are 9 points ahead of us with games in hand, and we are playing the same competition. 

 

The prospect thing is just what I read from a couple of prospect guys I get my information from, Scott Wheeler and Corey Pronman. Scott had us ranked 18th and Toronto ranked 13th. But if you get your prospect information from other sources we will have a differing of opinions there. 

 

Not many teams win championships period. So any type of roster building philosophy works infrequently.  Although Kane, Toews, Hossa, Keith ,Seabrook all cost a lot of money, Im pretty sure close to a percentage of the cap in 2013 that the leafs have in their top players, Crosby Letang Malkin also cost a lot of money. But it is hard to win , so most ways will fail. 

 

I believe that the playoffs are quite random, a hot goalie here and a tough bounce in overtime there wins a series for someone, so I want as many kicks in the can as possible, so I would take 4 straight first round exits where we look like real contenders if we could beat the Bruins in the first round the last 4 years over having the second worst winning percentage in the league just ahead of Buffalo for a couple years stretch until last year where we had one playoff run(may have not made it if not for the virus) and now are back to waiting out bad contracts til we can contend again in 2 years. 

 

That is just my philosophy, I am rooting for you to be right and me to be wrong!

 

 

The one thing I'd say - particularly if you're still active in fantasy hockey - is that I wouldn't rely at all on Pronman - as one of our CDCGML peers (who is far more adept than Pronman) aptly put it = "he's not a scout".

 

I didn't comment on the 9 periods - so assuming I "did not" isn't accurate (what I pointed out is that they were dominated 27-7 in shots through 40 in the 3rd game - and were lucky to get a victory - not advisable to 'toy' with many teams that way).   Whether I think they have a better prospect pool (or even roster depth) are the principal points.  I don't put a lot of stock in first month covid results....as I mentioned, the Leafs have been projecting themselves as SCC the first month of every season for the past 5 years...second half of the season - not so much.  We'll see if Manny can work wonders with them.

Edited February 16, 2021 by oldnews

[kanucks25]

12 hours ago, The Lock said:

First of all, he said "worst position since Quinn". That doesn't mean that Benning didn't inheirit "some" tradable assets unless if Quinn had nothing. If Quinn had nothing, perhaps you can enlighten. I'd genuinely be curious.

"Even Burke inherited some tradable assets"

 

That is what tells me he thinks Benning didn't inherit any.

 

12 hours ago, The Lock said:

First of all, he said "worst position since Quinn". That doesn't mean that Benning didn't inheirit "some" tradable assets unless if Quinn had nothing. If Quinn had nothing, perhaps you can enlighten. I'd genuinely be curious.

 

It matters because Markstrom's trade value now is higher than it was back then. Remember that Markstrom was traded with Matthias for Luongo, who requested a trade (so immediately that's a hit on what would have got for Luongo) and Anthony (who really was a body going the other way more than anything else). Markstrom's value now could also be considered Luougo's value back then (if Luongo had not requested a trade). Markstrom's value has risen since Benning inheirited him.

 

The same could be said with Horvat. Remember than when Benning came in, Horvat hadn't even played a game yet. He had a season with the London Knights after being drafted. There was hope he'd be good, but there were also people who really wanted Nishchuskin as well as people who were upset over the trading of Schneider. Horvat was rumoured to be worth around the 16th overall pick. We picked him 9th. Obviously a good draft pick in the end given he has the "C" as you've mentioned, but we had no way of really knowing he'd become that at the time. Even in his first year, he showed promise with the faceoff circle giving him a niche on the team, but he still was a bit of an x factor.

 

Trade value's often weird as a lot of the time a pick can be pretty valuable. Then as soon as that pick is chosen, the value drops a bit since the ability to select someone is gone. Then it's up to the player's performance to determine the value after that.

 

This obviously all falls in line with what you've said regarding assets not going to be at peak value, but that also means what he's inheirited has also increased in value since. This could have gone the other way. They could have also decreased in value. For example, I have doubts Tryamkin (and yes, he wasn't inheirited, he was drafted by Benning) would get us much now mostly given his situation, but when he started playing in the league, I bet you he had a pretty good value when he was showing promise. Gaunce had some value at one point that Benning inheirited. Not a lot of value, but still some value. Shinakaruk probably has no value now but we got Baertchshi out of it.

 

It's not about not inheiriting anything. It's about how much has Benning inheirited compared with what we should expect from that as well as compared with what other GM's have done with what they've inheirited.

 

You obviously are upset with how long things have taken. Let me ask you this: if we did fire Benning and hired someone else. What moves would you want that GM to make? What in your mind would make us better? Do you want a full regutting again? Do you want certain pieces added? What is it that you want?

 

(and now seriously to bed lol)

Sorry, I'm not really sure what your point is here.

 

I guess to keep thing short & simple: my overall point is that what Benning inherited (or lack thereof according to others) is not an excuse for how long the rebuild has taken, how long it will take (apparently nobody even knows) or any of the blunders/bad trades Benning has made.

 

As for Benning's future, I know that because of what has been done to the cap structure, no GM is going to be able to make significant changes until next year's summer (2022) because pretty much everyone we would consider moving out is either on an expiring contract and/or doesn't hold much value. The team does not need another teardown at all, I fully agree that we have a good young core to build around. I just don't have the confidence in Benning to be the guy to take us to the top.

 

[The Lock]

25 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

"Even Burke inherited some tradable assets"

 

That is what tells me he thinks Benning didn't inherit any.

 

Sorry, I'm not really sure what your point is here.

 

I guess to keep thing short & simple: my overall point is that what Benning inherited (or lack thereof according to others) is not an excuse for how long the rebuild has taken, how long it will take (apparently nobody even knows) or any of the blunders/bad trades Benning has made.

 

As for Benning's future, I know that because of what has been done to the cap structure, no GM is going to be able to make significant changes until next year's summer (2022) because pretty much everyone we would consider moving out is either on an expiring contract and/or doesn't hold much value. The team does not need another teardown at all, I fully agree that we have a good young core to build around. I just don't have the confidence in Benning to be the guy to take us to the top.

 

It's not the full reasoning as to why it's taken so long. It's only part of the reasoning.

 

Part of it's also due to the fact that initially we weren't trying a rebuild. We were trying to do a retool. This may have been what Benning wanted to do. This may have also been more to do with the Acquilinis. We know that Linden wanted a rebuild, but I haven't really heard evidence on what the other 2 have wanted so that whole thing is up for debate at the end of the day.

 

Remember that in 2015, we picked Boeser at 23rd overall. We made the playoffs that year and picked later. While that turned out great in the end since we got Brock, had we been doing a rebuild before then, we probably would have picked higher than year. I also perhaps think that trading away draft picks also had some merit in things taking longer, but we still had 1st round picks for the most part so maybe not at the same time.

 

So this then ties into what Benning had to begin with. He was left with a core that was aging with a Kesler who wanted out. He was left with a Markstrom who at the time was decent in the AHL but each time he had a shot with the team he was terrible. He was left with a Horvat who was an unknown. I'm sure there was hope then and Benning did praise him at the time, but still an unknown. Ultimately, he was left with the decision on how to go from a "has been" team to a "new and fresh" team. There was a sliver of hope that he could have done a retool. A lot of the older players were still on the team and Benning did have a good drafting track record going into the position.

 

That sliver of hope was what ultimately let to a longer rebuild than usual. It led to the Eriksson signing. It led to the holding on of our older players. It led to a lot of things that didn't involve just gutting the team and starting over. Having those older assets while having very few youngers assets left way for it to deceptively look like there was enough to keep going, when really there wasn't enough to keep going.

 

That's what has made the rebuild take longer and that is why this is not just an excuse. It's actually part of the equation to all of this.

 

To be honest, I don't even really care how long a team takes. I tend to view things more as "do we make it or do we not?" Because, even if we take longer, if we still become a contender, who really cares how we got to that point? If we win a cup, are you still going to care that it took 8 or 9 or 10 years or 20 years to get to that point? We won the cup out of a league of 32 teams. That's the goal, not how long it takes. Your results seems to be about how long it takes. My results that I want to see are what happens when we get there. I'm personally pretty chill about it up until that point.

Edited February 16, 2021 by The Lock

[Fred65]

Quote

To be honest, I don't even really care how long a team takes.

It's good to be young. Time is not on every ones side.

 

However if 7 years is not enough then I'm not sure if 10-15 years will be  any better 

[WeneedLumme]

I was listening to the hosts on AM650 yammering about how this slump unquestionably meant that JB is history, just a question of when, this week or next, when they got the breaking news about Aquaman' supporting tweets. 

 

It was hilarious how annoyed they were that the owner had shot down their nonsensical speculations. It was obvious that they had planned the bulk of their show to be about who will be JB's replacement, so they more or less ignored Aqua's statement, to continue with the same nonsense.

 

This thread reminds me of that; a small handful of Benning hating clowns, repeating nonsense endlessly, ignoring facts, logic and context. And a group of Canucks fans taking the bait and trying to reason with the haters.

[Honky Cat]

14 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Markstrom is one of the best goalies in the league and was inherited from Gillis. It's a simple fact.

 

Also, tell me who has Benning used as his top 2 D-men for like 90% of his tenure?

 

And who wears the C?

 

Just because Benning botched a bunch of trades and let good players walk for nothing doesn't mean he wasn't left with anything. Here's a list of assets that Benning inherited and what we have to show for it:

 

Tanev

Hamhuis

Bieksa

Kesler

Burrows

Hansen

Markstrom

Higgins

Garrison

6th overall pick

Sedins

Horvat

Edler

 

----------------------

 

Virtanen

Pearson

Sutter

Years of watching Sbisa and Gudbranson attempt to play defence that I'll never get back (not to mention the high 2nd round pick we had to package with McCann for Gudbranson's quality services)

Again, Markstrom was a failing prospect in 2014, passed through waivers the following year

Most of the players here were 30+ at the time, their value tanked by the Torts season

Tanev was the only impact player in his prime,

Also, add in a barren prospect pool

This was not going to be fixed in 2-3 years.

[kanucks25]

10 minutes ago, The Lock said:

It's not the full reasoning as to why it's taken so long. It's only part of the reasoning.

 

Part of it's also due to the fact that initially we weren't trying a rebuild. We were trying to do a retool. This may have been what Benning wanted to do. This may have also been more to do with the Acquilinis. We know that Linden wanted a rebuild, but I haven't really heard evidence on what the other 2 have wanted so that whole thing is up for debate at the end of the day.

Whoever the "mastermind" behind that early plan was is irrelevant, IMO; it's a part of Benning's history one way or another. For what it's worth, I think it's true that Linden wanted to go the slower route whereas Benning and Aquilini were on the same page with the "improve the team ASAP, add players and spend cap as necessary" route. 

 

19 minutes ago, The Lock said:

That's what has made the rebuild take longer and that is why this is not just an excuse. It's actually part of the equation to all of this.

Failing at the original plan is not a good reason, though. That's exactly why I don't have faith in Benning's "plan".

 

31 minutes ago, The Lock said:

To be honest, I don't even really care how long a team takes.

Think of all the poor Canucks fans that die every year without seeing their team win the Cup

 

32 minutes ago, The Lock said:

If we win a cup, are you still going to care that it took 8 or 9 or 10 years or 20 years to get to that point? We won the cup out of a league of 32 teams. That's the goal, not how long it takes. Your results seems to be about how long it takes. My results that I want to see are what happens when we get there. I'm personally pretty chill about it up until that point.

I don't disagree. If we win the cup in say, 15 years instead of 7 or 8, I'll obviously take it. 50+ years and no cup, I'm not going to be picky about another handful of years.

 

That's not the point though. If Benning could somehow guarantee me the Cup in the near future I'd be ecstatic for him to remain as GM but that obviously can't happen. So, between now and when he's fired or wins, we're left to debate. I've personally seen enough to convince me that Benning simply isn't the man for the job.

[The Lock]

17 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Whoever the "mastermind" behind that early plan was is irrelevant, IMO; it's a part of Benning's history one way or another. For what it's worth, I think it's true that Linden wanted to go the slower route whereas Benning and Aquilini were on the same page with the "improve the team ASAP, add players and spend cap as necessary" route. 

 

Failing at the original plan is not a good reason, though. That's exactly why I don't have faith in Benning's "plan".

 

Think of all the poor Canucks fans that die every year without seeing their team win the Cup

 

I don't disagree. If we win the cup in say, 15 years instead of 7 or 8, I'll obviously take it. 50+ years and no cup, I'm not going to be picky about another handful of years.

 

That's not the point though. If Benning could somehow guarantee me the Cup in the near future I'd be ecstatic for him to remain as GM but that obviously can't happen. So, between now and when he's fired or wins, we're left to debate. I've personally seen enough to convince me that Benning simply isn't the man for the job.

How is it irrelevant? Can you provide me with evidence on how that history is irrelevant rather than just stating it as such?

 

A reason doesn't have to be a "good reason" for it to be the reason. You can not like Benning for what he did the first 2 years for this to take longer. That's fine and I can agree with that even, but since you have said it's not a good reason then I'm assuming you don't agree it's because of the first couple of years.

 

What do Canuck fans dying every year have to do with all of this? If you want to talk about mere "excuses" and then come up with this.... lol Building a team fast or slow will never guarantee you the cup nor even guarantee you a playoff team. So if we rushed a rebuild and didn't have a good team, then we take longer anyway. Then you're making those poor poor fans wait longer with even more of them dying! The horror!

 

It's exactly the point. No GM will ever be able to guarantee you a cup. Not one. If you're expecting a guarantee, that's just an unrealistic expectation. We can hope we have a good contender after a rebuild that possibly brings us the cup. A guarantee though? Good luck with that.

Edited February 16, 2021 by The Lock