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

[kanucks25]

10 hours ago, iceman64 said:

truth hurts? it's called reality..  you want to go back where we were as a high skilled soft cream puff team or not? answer the question then.. at least JB knew we lacked toughness but everytime he recognizes a need he at least goes after it and actually have a core built team and incoming assets to surround them with and he's almost done and Aq is smart enough to let him get it done.. like it or not, end of story.. 

Answer what question? Would I prefer the team that won Presidents Trophies over the one that's been bottom-feeding for the majority of the last 7 years?

 

Is this a serious question?

[NewbieCanuckFan]

10 hours ago, iceman64 said:

truth hurts? it's called reality..  you want to go back where we were as a high skilled soft cream puff team or not? answer the question then.. at least JB knew we lacked toughness but everytime he recognizes a need he at least goes after it and actually have a core built team and incoming assets to surround them with and he's almost done and Aq is smart enough to let him get it done.. like it or not, end of story.. 

Team still is a very high skilled soft cream puff team.  Or at least has a coach that says "don't retaliate, let them cheapshot you".  (think that applied to each of the two head coaches Benning has hired).

Edited February 18, 2021 by NewbieCanuckFan

[lmm]

On 2/16/2021 at 6:08 PM, oldnews said:

I think you're brighter than this tbh.

The axis of your 'doomed to fail' assumption is a hopelessly oversimplified one-liner.

 

And for someone that raises and defends Linden - (that was you, was it not?) - one would think you might remember two critical things;

1) Linden hired Benning, and

2) Linden was given full jurisdiction over hockey decisions - stated publicly by FA (probably in part as a reassurance that he himself was not dictating hockey decisions, after the bizarre, and radically failed Tortorella experiment, which had virtually no 'MIke Gillis' sense to it)

 

The idea that Benning came in colluding with or simply as an opportunist, to serve a doomed to fail owner - is absurd.

 

And you need to work on your facts.

The first three moves Benning made:

1) Garrison, Costello, and a 7th to Tampa for a 2nd round pick

2) Dorsett for a 3rd

3) Kesler and 3rd for a 1st, Bonino and Sbisa.

 

Which of those moves is still having a 'strong effect on what's happening now?

 

 

 

 

I thought they was talking about first 3 years , not the first 3 moves

but it is unclear

[BlastPast]

20 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Are you really this naive ? GMs talk all sorts of bull$&!# publicly, it doesn't mean there aren't different conversations going on internally that involved the possibility of failure. When was the last time you heard a GM say, there is a chance things could go sour this year if certain things don't/ do happen. Also, that team did get turned around quickly; it just didn't persist as the team was old/injured and didn't have legs. I've never understood why that is so controversial. The only explanation I can think of is naivety. It's unreasonable for fans to expect 100% candor from GMs. Coaches are more honest but GMs have a different function that has more of a PR aspect to it. For example, when Doug Wilson talked about how confident he was in his goaltending after acquiring Dubnyk, do you think he believed a word of that nonsense? 

[iceman64]

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Answer what question? Would I prefer the team that won Presidents Trophies over the one that's been bottom-feeding for the majority of the last 7 years?

 

Is this a serious question?

I'd rather have a team that has a shot at the cup and has a GM that's working in that direction rather than a PC trophy team that can't make it past the first round.. (again for the 42nd time)  ok 40th if you want to be technical, 2 times we took a decent run with no depth (hence no cup)  geeez that was so much fun over and over again...

Yeah that was really f'n working for us wasn't it? 

[Dazzle]

20 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

You talking about that team that was mostly composed of the apparent "wasteland" Benning inherited?

 

What a concept.

 

Crazy how a 101 point playoff team can be made up of players that allegedly have no value.

Actually, it's a FACT that the prospect cupboard was bare. That is undeniably on Gillis (and possibly FA).  Just because you have current players that caused the team to score 100+ points doesn't mean the future will be. In fact, the fact that Virtanen was the highest ceiling prospect we had in a long time (along with Shinkaruk) says a lot about how poor our propsect development has been. Benning's done some bad things, but prospect development is not one of them. It's not surprising you're too blind to see the difference through your irrational hate on Benning.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Dazzle

[kanucks25]

57 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Actually, it's a FACT that the prospect cupboard was bare.

Actually, it's a FACT that we weren't even talking about the prospect pool?

 

57 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Just because you have current players that caused the team to score 100+ points doesn't mean the future will be.

Okay? Never said otherwise.

 

57 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Benning's done some bad things, but prospect development is not one of them

I never said it was.

 

58 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 It's not surprising you're too blind to see the difference through your irrational hate on Benning.

Honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Your post had like nothing to do with my post that you quoted; seems like you just felt like ranting randomly.

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, iceman64 said:

I'd rather have a team that has a shot at the cup and has a GM that's working in that direction rather than a PC trophy team that can't make it past the first round.. (again for the 42nd time)  ok 40th if you want to be technical, 2 times we took a decent run with no depth (hence no cup)  geeez that was so much fun over and over again...

Yeah that was really f'n working for us wasn't it? 

I guess we can just agree to disagree on the merits of sports masochism.

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Actually, it's a FACT that we weren't even talking about the prospect pool?

 

Okay? Never said otherwise.

 

I never said it was.

 

Honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Your post had like nothing to do with my post that you quoted; seems like you just felt like ranting randomly.

Actually, having read your discussion, you have been trying to discredit the idea that Benning inherited this "wasteland" of the team. What I've simply pointed out was that you didn't include a discussion of the prospect pool. What I'm state is that it is dishonest to talk about a team that was successfully run, WITHOUT talking about the young guns that would come in to replace those elite players. Gillis (or perhaps FA) mortgaged the future for those annual playoff runs. To restate what I said earlier, under Gillis, player development was very poor, even with the draft picks he did have. As a result, we have an enthusiastic owner who wants to make the playoffs, and a GM who tried to "retool" on the fly.
 

It's not a random rant. Benning DID inherit a wasteland. We are still paying the price of having next to no prospects and a "stale" team that hasn't recovered since the 2011 run. Fortunately, we have a bright future.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Dazzle

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

I never said it was.

You've (incorrectly) been criticizing the drafting/development of 2nd round and later picks throughout this thread.

[iceman64]

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

I guess we can just agree to disagree on the merits of sports masochism.

No I just want a team that has a legit shot at the cup every year instead of depending on right circumstances to appear like 94 and 2011 to come by once in a blue moon.. you can't do that any other way but bringing in players 1 by 1 as needed, which was what JB inherited and that's all he can do, most fans think, oh we can just trade this guy for that guy or sign the ufa or that one without even a thought of willing to come here at all with the history or you have to overpay them.. that's been the story all along until we finally have a core that's bait for someone to actually WANT to come here for a change and that's where we are NOW, because we proved it last year that we're not far off... maybe you just want to see something else rather than reality like the actual players do as they have said in person to media numerous times but if you want to believe otherwise, fine.. you can keep it up but the core is pretty much JB's doing and like it or not it's here to stay..  

Edited February 18, 2021 by iceman64

[kanucks25]

59 minutes ago, aGENT said:

You've (correctly) been criticizing the drafting/development of 2nd round and later picks throughout this thread.

Yes, but that wasn't part of the discussion I was having in the post he quoted.

 

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Actually, having read your discussion, you have been trying to discredit the idea that Benning inherited this "wasteland" of the team. What I've simply pointed out was that you didn't include a discussion of the prospect pool. What I'm state is that it is dishonest to talk about a team that was successfully run, WITHOUT talking about the young guns that would come in to replace those elite players. Gillis (or perhaps FA) mortgaged the future for those annual playoff runs. To restate what I said earlier, under Gillis, player development was very poor, even with the draft picks he did have. As a result, we have an enthusiastic owner who wants to make the playoffs, and a GM who tried to "retool" on the fly.
 

It's not a random rant. Benning DID inherit a wasteland. We are still paying the price of having next to no prospects and a "stale" team that hasn't recovered since the 2011 run. Fortunately, we have a bright future.

Previous management was contending and not picking in the top-10 every year.

 

It's rather unrealistic to expect a team to both be a serious contender and have a pool of young players ready to create their own new core, at least not one that's going to be good enough to legitimately contend in 4-5 years after the previous core.

 

I never argued that Benning inherited an organization rich and overflowing with tradeable valuable assets, just that he inherited a lot more than some may believe.

 

1 hour ago, iceman64 said:

No I just want a team that has a legit shot at the cup every year instead of depending on right circumstances to appear like 94 and 2011 to come by once in a blue moon.. you can't do that any other way but bringing in players 1 by 1 as needed, which was what JB inherited and that's all he can do, most fans think, oh we can just trade this guy for that guy or sign the ufa or that one without even a thought of willing to come here at all with the history or you have to overpay them.. that's been the story all along until we finally have a core that's bait for someone to actually WANT to come here for a change and that's where we are NOW, because we proved it last year that we're not far off... maybe you just want to see something else rather than reality like the actual players do as they have said in person to media numerous times but if you want to believe otherwise, fine.. you can keep it up but the core is pretty much JB's doing and like it or not it's here to stay..  

I have no problem with the core of young guys Benning has hit on (EP, Boeser, Hughes, Hoglander, Demko). I would hope they're here to stay.

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Yes, but that wasn't part of the discussion I was having in the post he quoted.

But it was. The other posters wrote:

 

4 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Benning's done some bad things, but prospect development is not one of them. 

You replied:

 

3 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

I never said it was.

Which is a lie. You've incorrectly been criticizing it all thread. Including your cheeky little edit of my post.

[Dazzle]

9 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Yes, but that wasn't part of the discussion I was having in the post he quoted.

 

Previous management was contending and not picking in the top-10 every year.

 

It's rather unrealistic to expect a team to both be a serious contender and have a pool of young players ready to create their own new core, at least not one that's going to be good enough to legitimately contend in 4-5 years after the previous core.

 

I never argued that Benning inherited an organization rich and overflowing with tradeable valuable assets, just that he inherited a lot more than some may believe.

 

I have no problem with the core of young guys Benning has hit on (EP, Boeser, Hughes, Hoglander, Demko). I would hope they're here to stay.

What exactly did he inherit?

[kanucks25]

37 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Which is a lie. You've incorrectly been criticizing it all thread. Including your cheeky little edit of my post.

I didn't say anything about his prospect development, I was talking about his drafting.

[kanucks25]

39 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

What exactly did he inherit?

On 2/15/2021 at 9:24 PM, 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)

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

I didn't say anything about his prospect development, I was talking about his drafting.

 

I'll let you figure out why that's so ironically funny...

[kanucks25]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

 

I'll let you figure out why that's so ironically funny...

Well, I don't get it (I'm told I'm not very bright).

 

But I understand why you want to end the back-and-forth in such an ambiguous way.

[Dazzle]

57 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Well, I don't get it (I'm told I'm not very bright).

 

But I understand why you want to end the back-and-forth in such an ambiguous way.

Drafting and prospect development are basically inseparable processes. People were right. You aren't very bright.

[kanucks25]

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Drafting and prospect development are basically inseparable processes. People were right. You aren't very bright.

Related, but not the same.

 

Scouting a player and estimating their progression/ceiling when they're 16, 17, 18 years-old is different than nurturing and developing an 18+ year-old when he's already drafted to the NHL and in your organization.