Calgary/Vancouver Evaluation - updated 3/29/21 - CAL TIED WITH VAN

[kanucks25]

17 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

No but there's a team that has been through 3 GM's during his tenure. So changing a GM isn't always going to get the results you want.

I didn't think that would be hard to understand. 

And the Penguins changed their GM and won 2 more.

 

And the Caps changed their GM and won their first.

 

So like, I don't know what point you were trying to make.

 

Of course there's a chance we don't win if we fire Benning, but why aim low?

[Dazzle]

5 hours ago, iceman64 said:

Blah f'n blah.. first off and last off because I'm not even going farther than the stupidity of your sample opinions.. which made me laugh and honestly, if you or anyone else doesn't like the way things are headed then f off and go cheer for the Oilers or Flames..  No wonder people think most Canucks fans are the lamest in the league, I disagree with "most" but a lot have their head up their _____ and listen to too much media.    

 This is getting old...................

So I take it you have no valid response to reality?

 

You should take your own advice.

[lmm]

57 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

I'm sorry was Tavares even remotely interested in signing in Vancouver? 

Did Loui?

it seens he just held out til the numbers got too big to turn down

[AV.]

7 hours ago, Dazzle said:

So using your logic, if O'Reilly was so successful, how did St. Louis end up so bad to begin with? Logic is supposed to work at all times, not when you think it's convenient.

 

Benning did inherit nothing. List the number of assets that Gillis left behind, including the number of draft picks that remained on the team before the transition. Ok?

 

You're missing the point and deflecting (to the surprise of nobody).  I won't answer this.  I will say, however, that Benning, based on the standings, free-agent signings, and draft output of many seasons, has been a failure for the larger part of seven years, so why is he still here?  Where's the logic there?

 

As for what Gillis left behind, every draft selection in 2014...and the future captain and future starting goaltender.  Keep in mind, that isn't even counting the prospects like Gaunce, Jensen, Shroeder, Kassian, and Shinkaruk, all of whom had value (whether you choose to wake up and acknowledge that) in those years.  And yes, contrary to what Benning might have brainwashed poor souls like you with, players like the Sedins, Burrows, Higgins, Hamhuis, Bieksa, etc., all had value too.  Just because Benning didn't capitalize on moving veterans doesn't mean they had no value.

 

I'm still not sure why you insist this is a Gillis vs Benning thing.  Gillis' Canucks were competing for cups, his job wasn't to bring in stud prospects and have elite young guys lying around.  The point is, and always has been, that Benning didn't inherit "nothing".  He inherited a declining team, sure, but he had more than enough assets (players, prospects, picks) in the system to have turned things around in 4-5 years if he was even the slightest bit competent.  It's 7 years gone by and the best he has to show for it is 2015 (80% of the Canucks were not guys he brought in) and a mickey-mouse playoff appearance in 2020 (which again, going back to March of 2020, the Canucks were free-falling down the standings and poised to miss the playoffs).

 

Benning is a lame duck in my eyes.  It's a matter of when and not if in regards to his dismissal.

[Dazzle]

53 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

You're missing the point and deflecting (to the surprise of nobody).  I won't answer this.  I will say, however, that Benning, based on the standings, free-agent signings, and draft output of many seasons, has been a failure for the larger part of seven years, so why is he still here?  Where's the logic there?

 

As for what Gillis left behind, every draft selection in 2014...and the future captain and future starting goaltender.  Keep in mind, that isn't even counting the prospects like Gaunce, Jensen, Shroeder, Kassian, and Shinkaruk, all of whom had value (whether you choose to wake up and acknowledge that) in those years.  And yes, contrary to what Benning might have brainwashed poor souls like you with, players like the Sedins, Burrows, Higgins, Hamhuis, Bieksa, etc., all had value too.  Just because Benning didn't capitalize on moving veterans doesn't mean they had no value.

 

I'm still not sure why you insist this is a Gillis vs Benning thing.  Gillis' Canucks were competing for cups, his job wasn't to bring in stud prospects and have elite young guys lying around.  The point is, and always has been, that Benning didn't inherit "nothing".  He inherited a declining team, sure, but he had more than enough assets (players, prospects, picks) in the system to have turned things around in 4-5 years if he was even the slightest bit competent.  It's 7 years gone by and the best he has to show for it is 2015 (80% of the Canucks were not guys he brought in) and a mickey-mouse playoff appearance in 2020 (which again, going back to March of 2020, the Canucks were free-falling down the standings and poised to miss the playoffs).

 

Benning is a lame duck in my eyes.  It's a matter of when and not if in regards to his dismissal.

You DO realize that Demko was a Benning pick right?

 

LOL they had 'value' - but obviously not a lot to rebuild a team with.  Your excuses are endless.

 

Gillis wrecked this team in pursuit of this cup. Maybe the owner had given him permission to do it. But through this process, the team was left with little in the cupboards (if at all). At no point in this time did Gillis have the kind of depth that Benning has on the drafting.

 

But of course, your excuses for Gillis will be endless because you don't care about seeing evidence that contradicts your own viewpoints.

[AV.]

Just now, Dazzle said:

You DO realize that Demko was a Benning pick right?

 

LOL they had 'value' - but obviously not a lot to rebuild a team with.  Your excuses are endless.

 

Gillis wrecked this team in pursuit of this cup. Maybe the owner had given him permission to do it. But through this process, the team was left with little in the cupboards (if at all). At no point in this time did Gillis have the kind of depth that Benning has on the drafting.

 

But of course, your excuses for Gillis will be endless because you don't care about seeing evidence that contradicts your own viewpoints.

Stop being obtuse.  It's quite clear I've been referring to Markstrom and not Demko at any point.  But anything to try and get your "gotcha" moment, I guess.  How embarrassing but certainly not surprising.  Very cringe on your part.

 

Gillis traded less picks and less prospects in his tenure than Benning has in his tenure, despite both GMs being on the opposite end of the win/loss spectrum.  With this in mind, you may want to rethink this notion that he "wrecked the team" in a pursuit of the cup for future references.  

 

Again, at no point in this thread has this ever been a Gillis vs Benning thing so I'm really not sure why you continue to turn it into one.  Is it to protect your precious Benning?  In any event, Gillis is long gone and was rightfully dismissed for some of his moves at the end of his tenure.  Benning's time, while long overdue, should hopefully come to an end soon.  Hopefully FA gets over his fear of being seen as a trigger-happy owner and cans Benning soon.

[AV.]

Speaking of Benning...when was the last time we've heard from that guy?

 

No radio hits, no press conferences, mystery interviews where he "ran out of time"..

 

It might be curtains for him.

[Dazzle]

10 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Stop being obtuse.  It's quite clear I've been referring to Markstrom and not Demko at any point.  But anything to try and get your "gotcha" moment, I guess.  How embarrassing but certainly not surprising.  Very cringe on your part.

 

Gillis traded less picks and less prospects in his tenure than Benning has in his tenure, despite both GMs being on the opposite end of the win/loss spectrum.  With this in mind, you may want to rethink this notion that he "wrecked the team" in a pursuit of the cup for future references.  

 

Again, at no point in this thread has this ever been a Gillis vs Benning thing so I'm really not sure why you continue to turn it into one.  Is it to protect your precious Benning?  In any event, Gillis is long gone and was rightfully dismissed for some of his moves at the end of his tenure.  Benning's time, while long overdue, should hopefully come to an end soon.  Hopefully FA gets over his fear of being seen as a trigger-happy owner and cans Benning soon.

Actually, I've been criticizing Benning for keeping some lame duck coaches for as long as he did. It's clear that WD wasn't good, yet TG has had a much more talented roster and STILL has a similar win/loss record. This is on Benning. WD/Green hasn't adapted their approaches, minus some games in the playoffs.

 

FA did the right thing not to fire anyone because that will reek of desperation. Whoever the GM is, they need to replace the coaches. Green's not getting extended, obviously. Baumer sucks at D.That's my angle.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Dazzle

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Actually, I've been criticizing Benning for keeping some lame duck coaches for as long as he did. It's clear that WD wasn't good, yet TG has had a much more talented roster and STILL have a similar win/loss record. This is on Benning. WD/Green hasn't adapted their approaches, minus some games in the playoffs.

 

FA did the right thing not to fire anyone because that will reek of desperation. Whoever the GM is, they need to replace the coaches. Green's not getting extended, obviously. Baumer sucks at D.That's my angle.

To each their own but the core of the issues with this team go beyond coaching.  That much, I am certain.

[canuktravella]

14 hours ago, mll said:

They have been 2 of their best players.   Btw Myers and Tanev are born less than 2 months apart and both have 3.5 years left on their deal but Myers makes 1.5M more.  

 

When Benning signed Ryan Miller at age 34 to a 3 year x 6M contract that brought him to age 37, he explained that he was confident he would perform because goalies can play longer.  If he is correct, then Markstrom signed to the same age as Miller shouldn’t be an issue for Calgary.  Unlike Vancouver they didn’t have a young goalie pushing for the starter’s net.

demko is better and younger thats why we went with him. Tanev is the most overrated dman we have ever had  doesnt hit does nt produce offense  you dont pay 4.5 mill for a shot blocker 

[khay]

My half time evaluation is that we have a promising future but without fixing the poor team defence that we have, that promising future may not be realized.

 

Our defensive system, be it coaching or personnel, needs a lot of improvement. We play a great game, only to make a couple of mistakes and the game is out of reach. The most important thing to do for the rest of the season is to determine if the problem is personnel or coaching (or both) and address it accordingly in the off season.

 

Having said that, I think defence is coachable whereas offence isn't. You either have the players that can go to the scoring areas and have the skillset to bury the puck or you don't.

 

It's clear that we have those offensive players. EP lead the way and we have Boeser, Horvat, Miller, and now Hoglander. I see a bit of Marchand in Hoglander. If Hogz can improve on his shooting and playmaking, I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes a first line scorer.

 

The offence from the back end is led by one-of-a-kind player in Hughes with Schmidt and Myers having the ability to chip in offensively. I think Juolevi with his wrist shot and puck moving will get there too. 

 

I don't want to understate the importance of defence in winning but one good coach might already be able to make a lot of difference in implementing a defensive structure that works for your team. Also, bringing in forwards that can improve team defence and to help tighten things up is easier than bringing in a 30 goal scorer. Having an all-around top pairing defenceman would be ideal but those players aren't usually available so we will just have to add defensively sound players both up front and back to improve the overall team defence.

 

I think the lessons learned this season will help us to be better next season. We might be able to add significant pieces to the team from within, like Podkolzin, Lind, Rathbone, Tryamkin. We have some trade pieces like Gaudette and Virtanen that can help us bring in defensively responsible top 9 forwards. And the draft pick from this year may end up getting us that all-around defenceman that can help us win in the playoffs.

 

[khay]

2 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

You're missing the point and deflecting (to the surprise of nobody).  I won't answer this.  I will say, however, that Benning, based on the standings, free-agent signings, and draft output of many seasons, has been a failure for the larger part of seven years, so why is he still here?  Where's the logic there?

 

As for what Gillis left behind, every draft selection in 2014...and the future captain and future starting goaltender.  Keep in mind, that isn't even counting the prospects like Gaunce, Jensen, Shroeder, Kassian, and Shinkaruk, all of whom had value (whether you choose to wake up and acknowledge that) in those years.  And yes, contrary to what Benning might have brainwashed poor souls like you with, players like the Sedins, Burrows, Higgins, Hamhuis, Bieksa, etc., all had value too.  Just because Benning didn't capitalize on moving veterans doesn't mean they had no value.

 

I'm still not sure why you insist this is a Gillis vs Benning thing.  Gillis' Canucks were competing for cups, his job wasn't to bring in stud prospects and have elite young guys lying around.  The point is, and always has been, that Benning didn't inherit "nothing".  He inherited a declining team, sure, but he had more than enough assets (players, prospects, picks) in the system to have turned things around in 4-5 years if he was even the slightest bit competent.  It's 7 years gone by and the best he has to show for it is 2015 (80% of the Canucks were not guys he brought in) and a mickey-mouse playoff appearance in 2020 (which again, going back to March of 2020, the Canucks were free-falling down the standings and poised to miss the playoffs).

 

Benning is a lame duck in my eyes.  It's a matter of when and not if in regards to his dismissal.

He left every draft selection in 2014? Well, he didn't have to work very hard for that... I mean, anyone could've done that.

 

Yes, he did give us a future captain but Markstrom? I mean, if you are going to give credit to Gillis for getting a very raw and broken Markstrom, then you have to give JB credit for creating an environment to nurture and develop Jacob. Getting Miller to mentor him, letting him dominate the AHL patiently for example.

 

- Kassian had alcohol problem and had very little value.

- Gaunce was at best 4LW, with noticeably slow feet but no offensive upside. They tried so hard to give him every opportunity but he didn't deliver.

- Jensen was soft and didn't have enough compete to last in the NHL.

- Schroder and Shinkaruk were undersized and while skilled, not skilled enough to overcome their size limitations.

 

Almost all of those players, Sedins etc had a NMC or NTC that limited trading them. And he did trade 35+ year olds Burr and Bieksa for a prospect and a 2nd.

 

I don't want to argue about Benning, I agree he did make some key mistakes. But man, you gotta admit Gillis really left us nothing. He built a great team but to do so, he left the farm barren and ultimately cost him his job too. We didn't need him to draft a superstar, a solid middle 6 player with potential for top 6 role or a top 4 would have been nice to given the old core a push. None came. Why couldn't he have drafted Hoglander type player in the 2nd round? or Brock Boeser with the late 1st round pick? or Jack Rathbone in the 4th round? or Thatcher Demko in the 2nd round? or Tryamkin in the 3rd round? 

 

Oh, I guess he did draft Hutton and Corrado in the 5th round.

 

 

 

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, khay said:

He left every draft selection in 2014? Well, he didn't have to work very hard for that... I mean, anyone could've done that.

 

Yes, he did give us a future captain but Markstrom? I mean, if you are going to give credit to Gillis for getting a very raw and broken Markstrom, then you have to give JB credit for creating an environment to nurture and develop Jacob. Getting Miller to mentor him, letting him dominate the AHL patiently for example.

 

- Kassian had alcohol problem and had very little value.

- Gaunce was at best 4LW, with noticeably slow feet but no offensive upside. They tried so hard to give him every opportunity but he didn't deliver.

- Jensen was soft and didn't have enough compete to last in the NHL.

- Schroder and Shinkaruk were undersized and while skilled, not skilled enough to overcome their size limitations.

 

Almost all of those players, Sedins etc had a NMC or NTC that limited trading them. And he did trade 35+ year olds Burr and Bieksa for a prospect and a 2nd.

 

I don't want to argue about Benning, I agree he did make some key mistakes. But man, you gotta admit Gillis really left us nothing. He built a great team but to do so, he left the farm barren and ultimately cost him his job too. We didn't need him to draft a superstar, a solid middle 6 player with potential for top 6 role or a top 4 would have been nice to given the old core a push. None came. Why couldn't he have drafted Hoglander type player in the 2nd round? or Brock Boeser with the late 1st round pick? or Jack Rathbone in the 4th round? or Thatcher Demko in the 2nd round? or Tryamkin in the 3rd round? 

 

Oh, I guess he did draft Hutton and Corrado in the 5th round.

 

 

 

Like Dazzle, you've missed the point.

[mll]

22 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

demko is better and younger thats why we went with him. Tanev is the most overrated dman we have ever had  doesnt hit does nt produce offense  you dont pay 4.5 mill for a shot blocker 

Tanev was reliable defensively and brought elements that the Canucks now look to be missing.  Those numbers are using tracking technology.   

 

[canuktravella]

8 minutes ago, mll said:

Tanev was reliable defensively and brought elements that the Canucks now look to be missing.  Those numbers are using tracking technology.   

 

 ya u dont pay 4.5 for 4 yrs for that  more like a 2.5 mill salary

[canuktravella]

Just now, canuktravella said:

 ya u dont pay 4.5 for 4 yrs for that  more like a 2.5 mill salary

hes injury prone wait til he breaks his foot blocking a shot 

[canuck73_3]

8 hours ago, lmm said:

yes you can

Toronto signed Tavares

Jim signed Loui

spot the difference

That is a completely asinine comparison. They weren't even signed in remotely the same year. And that is not even including the fact that Tavares wanted to play in his home town. Quite frankly awful and ridiculous comparison. 

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, canuktravella said:

you dont pay 4.5 mill for a shot blocker 

It's not Tanev's fault that you only have a very basic understanding of the game and what makes a player valuable, especially in the modern NHL.

[Gurn]

9 hours ago, lmm said:

yes you can

Toronto signed Tavares

Jim signed Loui

spot the difference

Tavares  $11 mill for 4 more years NMC 

Loui           $6 mill for  1 more year M-NTC

1 hour ago, canuktravella said:

demko is better and younger thats why we went with him. Tanev is the most overrated dman we have ever had  doesnt hit does nt produce offense  you dont pay 4.5 mill for a shot blocker 

Tanev is more than a shot blocker, arguably the best shut down d man the Canucks ever had. 

I still wouldn't give him the contract Calgary did though.

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Like Dazzle, you've missed the point.

I think when you said "to each their own", that was maybe the most reasonable thing you've stated in recent memory. I can accept that you have a different opinion, provided that you can defend it. However, I didn't "miss the point".

 

Too much credit has been given to Gillis and his winning years. While he did bring the Canucks very close to winning it all, the price he made the team pay is what I have always been trying to highlight.

 

All those players you mentioned, namely Kassian, Jensen, Shinkaruk, etc etc. aren't playing or flourishing on NHL teams. Maybe this was unlucky - or maybe, based on evidence, they weren't cut out for the NHL. Kassian may be playing for the Oilers, but this is what he's doing this season.

 

1 goal, 2 assists, 3 points. 9th overall 2009 pick. Great asset. He's 30 years old.

 

13

1

2

3

-3

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

8.3

 

https://oilersnation.com/2021/02/08/whats-wrong-with-edmonton-oilers-zack-kassian/

 

"But the Oilers signed him to a four-year, $3.2-million contract last year and simply put, his production hasn’t matched his expectations."

 

This is a signing that is really bad in hindsight. So much talk about Benning putting too much money for useless parts, and little is said about this. I really don't know what else to say, Alain. I don't know why you continue to defend Gillis' legacy because his drafting and developing, based on evidence, has not helped this team, regardless if Benning took over or not. It's so plain to see.

 

Another way of looking at this: if Shinkaruk was worth a 1st or a 2nd, wouldn't any one of us as GMs just trade them away and rebuild the team since we're all so knowledgeable about how to rebuild a team?

 

Obviously, their values weren't worth nearly as much (if at all) what Gillis had started off with vs. when he was fired.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Dazzle