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

[180sret]

Yeah, about this Sakic BS. Anyone remember when his head was on the block? Or for those pointing at players having an off year, remember about 8 yrs or so ago,Ovi was struggling and the experts were writing him off as done? The people complaining about 7 wasted years, bad coaching, Dim Jim, etc, while entitled to their opinions are ignoring a lot of context to fit their narrative. It will unfold as it unfolds, but some of these "discussions" give me a headache lol.

 

Sorry, stark facts and figures are for accounting, everything else has context.

[Me_]

No plans to change is the best plan for this team.

 

Never was a Canucks team so rich in youth.

 

Benning is best fit for the “build within” era of savvy drafting.

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Me_

[Honky Cat]

21 hours ago, Fred65 said:

You know it might serve some purpose that I am unaware of but in 2011 we lost the SC  to Boston, well guess  what Boston  has remained a top team including a in flight rebuild and currently sit tied for second O/A. Colorado since the arrival of Sakic have gone from pretender to performer. Chicago are way above us. Many Club chnaging their roster over are doing better,, we're not exactly the beacon of hope.  I hasten to add IMO

Embarrassing yourself again I see'

 In 2014, Sakic inherited, O' Reilly, Barrie, Landeskog, Duchene, MacKinnon. Prime young assets to rebuild an organization.

What prime young assets did we have in 2014.?

I might even consider trading the entire 2014-15 Canucks team for Nathan MacKinnon alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Honky Cat

[NewbieCanuckFan]

16 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Embarrassing yourself again I see'

 In 2014, Sakic inherited, O' Reilly, Barrie, Landeskog, Duchene, MacKinnon. Prime young assets to rebuild an organization.

What prime young assets did we have in 2014.?

I might even consider trading the entire 2014-15 Canucks team for Nathan MacKinnon alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll take a 24 year old Tanev & Markstrom over MacKinnon.  Build from the back end out.  Granted I only say this because Benning drafted a legit 1C in EP.

[the grinder]

3 hours ago, 180sret said:

Yeah, about this Sakic BS. Anyone remember when his head was on the block? Or for those pointing at players having an off year, remember about 8 yrs or so ago,Ovi was struggling and the experts were writing him off as done? The people complaining about 7 wasted years, bad coaching, Dim Jim, etc, while entitled to their opinions are ignoring a lot of context to fit their narrative. It will unfold as it unfolds, but some of these "discussions" give me a headache lol.

 

Sorry, stark facts and figures are for accounting, everything else has context.

 

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

Embarrassing yourself again I see'

 In 2014, Sakic inherited, O' Reilly, Barrie, Landeskog, Duchene, MacKinnon. Prime young assets to rebuild an organization.

What prime young assets did we have in 2014.?

I might even consider trading the entire 2014-15 Canucks team for Nathan MacKinnon alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

exactly sakic has had 7 years as a gm  with prime assets to start with , lost in the first round of the playoffs then  3 seasons of not even making the playoffs with those assets and then only has  made the 2 nd round of the  playoffs  in the last 2 years , and thats a good GM ?  thats like saying with the Canucks current core you should Ok with 3 more losing seasons  in row then   after making the playoffs because that what  sakic's team did after he took over , wonder how Fred is going spin this one lol

 

[kanucks25]

On 2/18/2021 at 6:08 PM, iceman64 said:

yeah and that was one of the years I referred to.. gdo you read or what you want to read.. and that year we had no business being there but because of goalies who stood on their head like Demko did last season's playoffs.. if you have to rely on the goalie to that degree, the team simply isn't good enough.. 

A team that was 5th in goals, 4th on the PP, had the Selke winner and the Art Ross & Ted Lindsey winner was simply not good enough and relied too much on goaltending?

 

I was right, you never even watched hockey at that time lmao

[kanucks25]

On 2/18/2021 at 7:29 PM, aGENT said:

No, no.. we've clearly drafted poorly after the first. We've only been able to develop those bad picks REALLY well.

 

 

What non 1st round picks contributed to the Canucks in any meaningful way in Benning's first 5 seasons here? 6 seasons if you exclude the playoffs last year.

 

Or does every NHL player have a 5-6 pre-NHL development curve?

Edited February 21, 2021 by kanucks25

[kanucks25]

On 2/18/2021 at 5:23 PM, Dazzle said:

Kesler handcuffed the team/Benning - so your point is moot right from the get-go.

Why is it moot? Why do you consider it an irrefutable fact that another (better) GM couldn't do more with the Kesler situation?

 

On 2/18/2021 at 5:23 PM, Dazzle said:

Hansen was worth Goldobin - would you say that Benning got full value for Hansen? I would say so. If he let Hansen go, you'd include him on your list anyway.

Goldobin's in Russia.

 

On 2/18/2021 at 5:23 PM, Dazzle said:

wasn't Benning's fault that Dahlin was a drama queen

Didn't Benning target and acquire the player?

 

On 2/18/2021 at 5:23 PM, Dazzle said:

Garrison was an atrociously bad FA signing for GIllis. LOL. It's on the same lines of Eriksson.

Is it? Garrison had a better PPG as a Canuck than Eriksson, and he was a D-man.

 

A good team then actively (nobody forced them) traded for him and he was a regular contributor for virtually 3 full years, including the one year in which they were 2 wins away from the Cup.

 

So no, they aren't really alike. And when you make comments such as these (and the other guy who claimed the 2011 team was a product of goaltending), it's really hard to take anything you say seriously. "WADR"

Edited February 21, 2021 by kanucks25

[aGENT]

15 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

What non 1st round picks contributed to the Canucks in any meaningful way in Benning's first 5 seasons here? 6 seasons if you exclude the playoffs last year.

 

Or does every NHL player have a 5-6 pre-NHL development curve?

Why don't you go back through all our 2nd round picks you keep complaining about and tell us what your problem with all their development is.

[kanucks25]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Why don't you go back through all our 2nd round picks you keep complaining about and tell us what your problem with all their development is.

So a dodge.

 

Would also love a list of players that provided any meaningful contribution drafted outside the top 40.

 

Looking forward to it.

Edited February 21, 2021 by kanucks25

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

So a dodge.

 

Would also love a list of players that provided any meaningful contribution drafted outside the top 40.

 

Looking forward to it.

You're the one making the claim. Back it up.

 

And recently drafted players usually don't make meaningful NHL contributions early. Particularly ones not from early in the first round. 3-5 years of development there Captain Impatient.

Edited February 21, 2021 by aGENT

[Dazzle]

14 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Why is it moot? Why do you consider it an irrefutable fact that another (better) GM couldn't do more with the Kesler situation?

 

Goldobin's in Russia.

 

Didn't Benning target and acquire the player?

 

Is it? Garrison had a better PPG as a Canuck than Eriksson, and he was a D-man.

 

A good team then actively (nobody forced them) traded for him and he was a regular contributor for virtually 3 full years, including the one year in which they were 2 wins away from the Cup.

 

So no, they aren't really alike. And when you make comments such as these (and the other guy who claimed the 2011 team was a product of goaltending), it's really hard to take anything you say seriously. "WADR"

We can see an example of Gillis using Grabner - and paying a 1st rounder on top of this to get Keith Ballard. Not a complete equivalent, but from a position of 'strength' and squandering it.

 

Goldobin was still a 1st rounder that undoubtedly had a lot of skill. It didn't work out. Guess what? Lots of 1st rounders don't pan out.

 

Garrison played on a STACKED Canucks team. LOL. Did you know your boy Gillis had to ask him to waive his NTC? Oh btw, Gillis handed out a BUNCH of NTCs that put him in a similar type of situation as Benning. Too much money tied in to players that were essentially untradable.

 

You're right - GIllis wasn't handcuffed by the Grabner trade, but still paid a 1st rounder to get Ballard. And... Ballard got bought out.

 

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/ballard-buyout-process-begins

 

It's clear that you don't care about ANY of the evidence that goes against your perspective.

[the grinder]

11 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

So a dodge.

 

Would also love a list of players that provided any meaningful contribution drafted outside the top 40.

 

Looking forward to it.

trymakn 3 rd round  demko was 36 th  over all  gaudette in the 5 th round   lockwood 3rd rd  and rathibone   5 th  rd both 1 st year pros  and the coupe de grace    hoglander at 40 th over all    

 

 

[kanucks25]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

You're the one making the claim. Back it up.

 

And recently drafted players usually don't make meaningful NHL contributions early. Particularly ones not from early in the first round. 3-5 years of development there Captain Impatient.

I already have:

 

On 2/14/2021 at 5:28 PM, kanucks25 said:

Benning's ability to draft outside the top-10 is grossly overexaggerated. Here are a couple facts:

1) It took 6 years (Demko) for any of Benning's 2nd round picks to play games in the NHL

2) No draft pick after the 2nd round (Demko, Hoglander) has made any sort of significant impact on this team.

- Gaudette has a decent amount of GP but as a depth player and is still struggling to establish his role or himself as player

- Tryamkin played 1 season as a depth D-man and hasn't been seen since, that was several years ago when we were just starting the dumpster fire years
- EDIT: Forsling has played NHL games... none for the Canucks, because he was traded for a nothing player.

Is it early for some picks that were drafted 1,2,3 years ago? Sure.

 

But until any of these guys actually come up and make an impact, everything above holds true.

 

Once Benning actually proves his drafting is not just a product of picking a lot in the top 10, I'll giving him credit. Magical beans mean nothing.

[kanucks25]

6 minutes ago, the grinder said:

trymakn 3 rd round  demko was 36 th  over all  gaudette in the 5 th round   lockwood 3rd rd  and rathibone   5 th  rd both 1 st year pros  and the coupe de grace    hoglander at 40 th over all    

Well I appreciate the effort but it's clear you either didn't read the post or didn't comprehend it for whatever reason.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

On 2/18/2021 at 5:23 PM, Dazzle said:

Garrison was an atrociously bad FA signing for GIllis. LOL. It's on the same lines of Eriksson.

At no point would anybody offer a 2nd round pick (which Benning got for Garrison) for Eriksson.  Not to say it wasn't bad signing by Gillis, but at least Garrison had some value (and thats after a HORRIBLE season under Torts).  Keith Ballard is more like on the lines of Eriksson (another horrible Gillis trade).  Garrison actually played #4D minutes for the Bolts for a season or two after they acquired him.  

Edited February 21, 2021 by NewbieCanuckFan

[kanucks25]

14 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

We can see an example of Gillis using Grabner - and paying a 1st rounder on top of this to get Keith Ballard. Not a complete equivalent, but from a position of 'strength' and squandering it.

Okay... your point?

 

15 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

It didn't work out.

I sense a theme.

 

15 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Garrison played on a STACKED Canucks team. LOL. Did you know your boy Gillis had to ask him to waive his NTC? Oh btw, Gillis handed out a BUNCH of NTCs that put him in a similar type of situation as Benning. Too much money tied in to players that were essentially untradable.

Didn't Benning trade Garrison?

 

16 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You're right - GIllis wasn't handcuffed by the Grabner trade, but still paid a 1st rounder to get Ballard. And... Ballard got bought out.

 

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/ballard-buyout-process-begins

 

It's clear that you don't care about ANY of the evidence that goes against your perspective.

Again, your point?

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

I already have:

 

Is it early for some picks that were drafted 1,2,3 years ago? Sure.

 

But until any of these guys actually come up and make an impact, everything above holds true.

 

Once Benning actually proves his drafting is not just a product of picking a lot in the top 10, I'll giving him credit. Magical beans mean nothing.

It seems to me that you'll give the scouts all the credit for the picks, while giving Benning nothing. This is why I've identified that you have a clear bias. If you cared about having a rational discussion, you'd see that:

 

Demko was picked in the 2nd round - a Benning pick, FYI. He's now a 1A and a potential starter for this team. Drafted AND developed under Benning. He's already proven his drafting on this player alone. But oh wait, you'll say that the scouts did his job, right?

 

Gaudette.

 

Hoglander

 

Juolevi

 

Other notables: Lockwood, Lind, Woo, etc etc.

 

People gave Benning crap for picking Pettersson. Much like people gave him crap for picking Juolevi.

 

I'm still waiting to hear what you have to say about drafting and player development because I clearly mentioned they were two inseparable processes.

[kanucks25]

Just now, NewbieCanuckFan said:

At no point would anybody offer a 2nd round pick (which Benning got for Garrison) for Eriksson.  Not to say it wasn't bad signing by Gillis, but at least Garrison had some value (and thats after a HORRIBLE season under Torts).  Keith Ballard is more like on the lines of Eriksson (another horrible Gillis trade).  Garrison actually played #4D minutes for the Bolts for a season or two after they acquired him.  

Generally I would say a post like this deserves no real praise because I was under the impression that its contents were pretty well-known and straightforward, but it seems we've stumbled onto lands that are completely devoid of simple logic.

 

So have a beer.

[the grinder]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

Well I appreciate the effort but it's clear you either didn't read the post or didn't comprehend it for whatever reason.

lol   nice try   

 

26 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

So a dodge.

 

Would also love a list of players that provided any meaningful contribution drafted outside the top 40.

 

Looking forward to it.

 

45 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

What non 1st round picks contributed to the Canucks in any meaningful way in Benning's first 5 seasons here? 6 seasons if you exclude the playoffs last year.

 

Or does every NHL player have a 5-6 pre-NHL development curve?

i provided the facts   demko hoglander and gaudette  all fit  the criteria  of being 2 rounders or under  that do contribute  to the team , and you say i didn't comprehend it , lol    that makes you look real bad now