CANUCKS are NOT the WORST TEAM in the NHL

[Dazzle]

18 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I never said Gillis was perfect. I was actually, at the time, in favour of firing Gillis but since then have realized that it was the wrong move (albeit at the time I wasn't aware of the owner's involvement near the end of Gillis's tenure).

 

When it comes to Benning vs Gillis, I don't much care for the comparison. I only bring it up when someone argues that Gillis didn't leave Benning with enough assets. I'm more concerned about what Benning has/hasn't done instead on his own volition instead of what he's done compared to Gillis.

But the evidence speaks for itself that Gillis didn't leave a lot of assets for Benning to work with. Trying to rehash your previous arguments that have already been addressed by others doesn't generate anything new. In summary, the pieces left behind did not/would not have helped with a full out rebuild. By this, I am saying that trading pieces like Hansen/Burrows would not (and did not) result in top 10 picks.

 

If you recall top10 picks is the standard that you have chosen to dictate how successful a GM is at rebuilding. The more he has of them, the more likely you'll say that he was 'gifted' star prospects through high picks. As you can see, the only one you could say Gillis helped with was number 6 - Virtanen. Most people will say this wasn't a great pick in hindsight. Yet most people before the draft, except pundits like Craig Button, did put Virtanen somewhere before top 15. Ultimately, many of these first round picks didn't shape out to be franchise players. That's why scouting/developing players, though seperate processes, are critical to the longevity of the team.

 

This goes into post-Gillis time. Gillis left no such young pieces. To argue that Gillis developed young player successfully is easily refuted. Horvat is the only player to be credited to Gillis because the others are gone and haven't struck gold elsewhere.

 

The state of the team arguably contributed to the significantly poor rebuild time. Now, whether the owner had any involvement throughout this entire process is not really well known to people like us. However, it can be safely assumed that the owner did have plenty of input on the direction of the team - why not? It's his team that he owns and he pays the bills.

 

So whether you choose to believe it or not, we can all see where you stand on the issue, and you do not have a genuine desire to look at evidence that doesn't support what you've been saying all along. None of the information I've mentioned here is new because you haven't been able to explain why Gillis produced no young players aside from Horvat who was acquired through a risky trade involving Schneider. It worked out in hindsight, but the trade would've been really bad if Horvat did not improve his skating.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Dazzle

[kanucks25]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

But the evidence speaks for itself that Gillis didn't leave a lot of assets for Benning to work with. Trying to rehash your previous arguments that have already been addressed by my others doesn't generate anything new. In summary, the pieces left behind did not/would not have helped with a full out rebuild. By this, I am saying that trading pieces like Hansen/Burrows would not (and did not) result in top 10 picks.

 

If you recall top10 picks is the standard that you have chosen to dictate how successful a GM is at rebuilding. The more he has of them, the more likely you'll say that he was 'gifted' star prospects through high picks. As you can see, the only one you could say Gillis helped with was number 6 - Virtanen. Most people will say this wasn't a great pick in hindsight. Yet most people before the draft, except pundits like Craig Button, did put Virtanen somewhere before top 15. Ultimately, many of these first round picks didn't shape out to be franchise players. That's why scouting/developing players, though seperate processes, are critical to the longevity of the team.

 

This goes into post-Gillis time. Gillis left no such young pieces. To argue that Gillis developed young player successfully is easily refuted. Horvat is the only player to be credited to Gillis because the others are gone and haven't struck gold elsewhere.

 

The state of the team arguably contributed to the significantly pooe rebuild time. Now, whether the owner had any involvement throughout this entire process is not really well known to people like us. However, it can be safely assumed that the owner did have plenty of input on the direction of the team - why not? It's his team that he owns and he pays the bills.

 

So whether you choose to believe it or not, we can all see where you stand on the issue, and you do not have a genuine desire to look at evidence that doesn't support what you've been saying all along. None of the information I've mentioned here is new because you haven't been able to explain why Gillis produced no young players aside from Horvat who was acquired through a risky trade involving Schneider. It worked out in hindsight, but the trade would've been really bad if Horvat did not improve his skating.

We can agree to disagree on what the "evidence" supports.

[Dazzle]

Just now, kanucks25 said:

We can agree to disagree on what the "evidence" supports.

Yes, we can. I have yet to be persuaded by your arguments that players that you deemed to be so valuable didn't get the return you expected.

 

Everyone knows that we should take it and run if teams offered a 1st round pick for Beagle or any player on our roster we deem to be expendable. What about Tyler Motte? Or Gaudette? These are examples of supplementary pieces. The problem was that those pieces that Gillis had (not Motte/Gaudette) were not valuable enough to get decent picks to restart a proper rebuild.

 

There's also the argument that picks alone would not have been enough. We can look at Gillis' handling of prospect development. Some highly touted prospects like Hodgson did fairly good, and some just faded into obscurity. The evidence suggests that Gillis did very poorly in this area.

 

My point is: if you have to ignore evidence to 'disagree' on things, then you are not inclined for a proper discussion on things. Maybe what you need is to find people who agree with you unquestioningly.

[kanucks25]

4 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Yes, we can. I have yet to be persuaded by your arguments that players that you deemed to be so valuable didn't get the return you expected.

 

Everyone knows that we should take it and run if teams offered a 1st round pick for Beagle or any player on our roster we deem to be expendable. What about Tyler Motte? Or Gaudette? These are examples of supplementary pieces. The problem was that those pieces that Gillis had (not Motte/Gaudette) were not valuable enough to get decent picks to restart a proper rebuild.

 

There's also the argument that picks alone would not have been enough. We can look at Gillis' handling of prospect development. Some highly touted prospects like Hodgson did fairly good, and some just faded into obscurity. The evidence suggests that Gillis did very poorly in this area.

 

My point is: if you have to ignore evidence to 'disagree' on things, then you are not inclined for a proper discussion on things. Maybe what you need is to find people who agree with you unquestioningly.

Honestly don't even know what you're going on about.

 

I keep saying I don't really care about Gillis and more about the moves Benning has made and you keep talking about why Gillis sucked.

 

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

My point is: if you have to ignore evidence to 'disagree' on things, then you are not inclined for a proper discussion on things. 

Goes both ways.

 

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Maybe what you need is to find people who agree with you unquestioningly.

Why? I don't care if you agree with me or not.

 

Not many here agree with me in general, but that's not the point... it's a discussion forum.

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Honestly don't even know what you're going on about.

 

I keep saying I don't really care about Gillis and more about the moves Benning has made and you keep talking about why Gillis sucked.

 

Goes both ways.

 

Why? I don't care if you agree with me or not.

 

Not many here agree with me in general, but that's not the point... it's a discussion forum.

If you don't really care about what Gillis did compared to Benning, you will have no frame of reference on what is good and bad. In other words, if you don't look at the overall situation, there is NO WAY for you to say that someone succeeded or failed.

Here's an example: if someone is timed at 13.76 seconds at the 100m, you might think this person wouldn't be successful. If you look at the bigger picture and see that he was in a wheelchair, THEN you see, OH, that's what happened. 13.76 is the world record from what I looked up.

 

The time itself is not representative of success or failure. Similarly, you cannot judge a situation purely from one time period. You obviously do know how to make comparisons because you've made it all the time, but you've deliberately avoided the ones that weaken your argument.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Dazzle

[kanucks25]

7 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

If you don't really care about what Gillis did compared to Benning, you will have no frame of reference on what is good and bad. In other words, if you don't look at the overall situation, there is NO WAY for you to say that someone succeeded or failed.

Here's an example: if someone is timed at 13.76 seconds at the 100m, you might think this person wouldn't be successful. If you look at the bigger picture and see that he was in a wheelchair, THEN you see, OH, that's what happened.

 

The time itself is not representative of success or failure. Similarly, you cannot judge a situation purely from one time period. You obviously do know how to make comparisons because you've made it all the time, but you've deliberately avoided the ones that weaken your argument.

I know what Gillis did/left had an effect on Benning. But we'll have to agree to disagree on the value what was inherited.

 

What I'm saying is, I have enough gripes with Benning outside of the Gillis-related stuff that I believe warrant his firing. That's why the Benning vs Gillis comparison is irrelevant to me in this context.

Edited February 22, 2021 by kanucks25

[Dazzle]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I know what Gillis did/left had an effect on Benning. But we'll have to agree to disagree on the value what was inherited.

 

What I'm saying is, I have enough gripes with Benning outside of the Gillis-related stuff that I believe warrant his firing. That's why the Benning vs Gillis comparison is irrelevant to me in this context.

So what are some things that Benning did or didn't do that make you believe he should be fired? What are some things that Benning did do well in? You have to include both things if the discussion is to be balanced and analytical.

[RU SERIOUS]

12 hours ago, IBatch said:

Nobody is doing that.   31/32 teams in the league...celebrate math and send your complaints to NHL headquarters.   We are the bridesmaids compared to a lot of teams over the last 50 years.    At least we have that - if we didn't we'd be well...TO. 

 

Well, I'd like to believe you that we're the bridesmaid team over the last 50 years but if the stats GritGrinder posted earlier are true (Re-quoted below again), then we're the 3rd worst team ever in the entire national Hockey League over the last half century.   That's a very grim honor indeed !

 

 

On 2/15/2021 at 10:13 AM, GritGrinder said:

3rd worst team overall this season and the 3rd worst team in league history overall. Well at least they are showing some consistency for the first time in a few seasons.  

 

 

Don't worry though. The Canes would need to get 71pts this season and the Canucks 48 for them to drop to 2nd worst. And that can't possibly happen...right?

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by RU SERIOUS

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

 

Well, I'd like to believe you that we're the bridesmaid team over the last 50 years but if the stats GritGrinder posted earlier are true (Re-quoted below again), then we're the 3rd worst team ever in the entire national Hockey League over the last half century.   That's a very grim honor indeed !

 

 

 

Highs have been very high (and heartbreaking), lows have been very low - that said we have made the final 3 times....TO zero ... Buffalo was it twice?  Once with Hulls goals and once against PHI.. St. Louis got their bear off their back so lucky them.   WNP/ARI - don't remember then making the final - but one can say at least they have some AVCO cups to keep them company.    It is hard to find many teams that have sucked as much as we have - that's for sure...THN voted us first for fan suffrage over the decades.   Buffalo second, TO third.   It's not easy being a Canucks fan is it?  

[Davathor]

You guys shouldn't celebrate being above Ottawa and Detroit so hard... Seattle gets 3rd overall so if we can't be worse than Detroit it's wherever the lotto balls demote us from 4th to. And with the talk about changing the draft lotto again, I'm expecting the bottom 3 teams to have higher odds of staying top 3 this year.

[RU SERIOUS]

7 hours ago, Davathor said:

You guys shouldn't celebrate being above Ottawa and Detroit so hard... Seattle gets 3rd overall so if we can't be worse than Detroit it's wherever the lotto balls demote us from 4th to. And with the talk about changing the draft lotto again, I'm expecting the bottom 3 teams to have higher odds of staying top 3 this year.

Well, the good news is that if we keep playing at this rate with just 2 OR wins in the last 18 games and Ottawa & Detroit keep their ways up, we will mathematically finish Dead Last as Worst team in the entire National Hockey league and get 1st shot at the lottery.  Then all JB has to do is resign all our old - over 30 players to hefty $ Long term contracts and lock TG and his Special Teams coaches up on eternal contracts and we'll be guaranteed another 10 years of 1st round lottery balls.  That should make Aqua-Lini happy!

Edited February 23, 2021 by RU SERIOUS

[mll]

10 hours ago, Davathor said:

You guys shouldn't celebrate being above Ottawa and Detroit so hard... Seattle gets 3rd overall so if we can't be worse than Detroit it's wherever the lotto balls demote us from 4th to. And with the talk about changing the draft lotto again, I'm expecting the bottom 3 teams to have higher odds of staying top 3 this year.

Seattle get the same lottery odds as the 3rd team and could drop to 6th.  

[Dumb Nuck]

It’s really quite simple:

 

Fire green = win cup

Don’t fire Green = pain

[UKNuck96]

On 2/15/2021 at 6:13 PM, GritGrinder said:

3rd worst team overall this season and the 3rd worst team in league history overall. Well at least they are showing some consistency for the first time in a few seasons.  

 

 

Don't worry though. The Canes would need to get 71pts this season and the Canucks 48 for them to drop to 2nd worst. And that can't possibly happen...right?

At least the canes have a cup!

 

although I am surprised that we are below Florida, but I’m guessing that’s partly down to smaller sample size so their winning seasons early on have a greater weight

 

[cuporbust]

And that's supposed to be comforting?

[Dumb Nuck]

After some intensive polling I have come to the conclusion I’m not the worst guy my wife’s ever been with, I am so proud of myself.

[RU SERIOUS]

On 2/23/2021 at 12:37 AM, Dumb Nuck said:

It’s really quite simple:

 

Fire green = win cup

Don’t fire Green = pain

So after tonight's second loss to the Oilers, we are now in a very precarious situation - in that if either Ottawa and/or Detroit (who are the only two teams worse than us) win one more game and we lose one more, they surpass the Canucks with a better points percentage of .369 leaving us in second last (or last - if both of them win) position - in the entire National Hockey League with only .360. 

 

 I suspected there would be some price to pay after JB got rid of 1/4 of our team in the off season but never thought we'd get so bad that we'd actually hit Rock Bottom and become THE LAUGHING STOCK & WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE - but that's how close we are.    Very Sad indeed!   

 

Wonder if hitting the absolute bottom of the barrel will cause Aqua-Lini to WAKE UP & DO SOMETHING  or will he stick by his "AQUA-LINI Motto" for the last decade..........

[DownUndaCanuck]

Ottawa just spanked Calgary, beat Montreal and are trending upwards. Detroit sure do suck but we're 3rd last in terms of points percentage, and surely soon Ottawa will surpass us as well.

 

2nd worse in the NHL to Detroit, I wonder who would win if we played each other. We are certainly close to the worst team in the league and sadly this is the worst the Canucks have ever played in their history. I know there were some dark days in the late 80s/90s but they had a shocking roster. Our roster is decent, we're against the cap and we're playing average opponents in the North divison (Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa especially when they were all bad) but we're still heading for the overall 1st pick.

[SergioMomesso]

If you ain't first you're worst

[spur1]

On 2/23/2021 at 2:31 AM, Dumb Nuck said:

After some intensive polling I have come to the conclusion I’m not the worst guy my wife’s ever been with, I am so proud of myself.

Give your wife my condolences.