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

[Davathor]

Cringy thread. Nobody really knows what's going to happen - I made a thread about the media underestimating us at the start of the year, but they were right and we're terrible... And since your highlighting stats, Calgary is noticeably better defensively (re: Markstrom/Tanev), and we are where we are because of noticeably worse defence. "YoU guYs wAs wRonG aBouT cAlGarY" 

 

So were a lot of people who get paid to predict and report on the NHL.

 

Making a thread to "rub it in" to specific posters when the seasons barely half over, and we're on par with Ottawa for worst Canadian team, as well as bottom 5 league wide is really kind of pathetic. Lost respect. I'm out of this trash fire.

[Dazzle]

6 minutes ago, Davathor said:

Cringy thread. Nobody really knows what's going to happen - I made a thread about the media underestimating us at the start of the year, but they were right and we're terrible... And since your highlighting stats, Calgary is noticeably better defensively (re: Markstrom/Tanev), and we are where we are because of noticeably worse defence. "YoU guYs wAs wRonG aBouT cAlGarY" 

 

So were a lot of people who get paid to predict and report on the NHL.

 

Making a thread to "rub it in" to specific posters when the seasons barely half over, and we're on par with Ottawa for worst Canadian team, as well as bottom 5 league wide is really kind of pathetic. Lost respect. I'm out of this trash fire.

You missed my point. I was highlighting the "overreaction" by people who claimed Calgary was massively improved because of the acquisitions of Tanev and Markstrom - yet they could barely help a team get 2 points more than us, and we were supposed to have taken a step back.

 

I am not crapping on Tanev and Markstrom. I'm just saying that signing players long term has this risk that they won't perform. It's a cautionary tale not to read too much into "10" percent of the season as being indicative of reality.

 

No, we're not doing well at all. It's plain to see. Calgary and Montreal aren't doing much better. Toffoli is doing amazing though, but if we could pick and choose all the best case scenarios and eliminate all the bad ones, that is called hindsight GMing.

 

If one were to re-do the last year's draft, I'm sure lots of GMs would pick Hoglander much higher than he was last year. See my point?

[AK_19]

18 hours ago, Dazzle said:

  

 

 

 

This is just a sample of the opinions that don't look very smart after about a month.

Notice where Montreal and Calgary stand - marginally above us, despite our 'major' setback this offseason. Long term, letting Tanev/Markstrom go was the right decision. Whoever the next GM is, they need to get rid of the current coaching staff and let the contracts expire so the team can start relatively fresh.
 

Unlike Montreal and Calgary,  we don't have their long-term contracts. So much for them being "cup contenders".

 

Benning's made plenty of mistakes, such as keeping on WD and TG (and staff). This roster's a lot better than what these coaches are getting out of.

Stale systems, mind-numbing roster decisions, and no adaptation.

Once we get a set of proven NHL coaches, I'm sure this team will do a lot better next year.

 

C'mon man, you're a better poster than that. Being 5 points behind with the other team having 5 games in hand is a MASSIVE lead on us. Montreal is not merely "marginally above us". Even if I accepted your position that Calgary is only "marginally above us", which I don't, what does that prove? That we're better than 6th place and instead a 5th place team that still doesn't make the playoffs? I'd rather be 6th at that point and get the better draft lottery odds. 

[Dazzle]

14 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

C'mon man, you're a better poster than that. Being 5 points behind with the other team having 5 games in hand is a MASSIVE lead on us. Montreal is not merely "marginally above us". Even if I accepted your position that Calgary is only "marginally above us", which I don't, what does that prove? That we're better than 6th place and instead a 5th place team that still doesn't make the playoffs? I'd rather be 6th at that point and get the better draft lottery odds. 

I'm saying we aren't doing good at all, and neither is Calgary/Montreal. What I'm highlighting is that you can't buy your way out of mediocrity. What I'm saying is that we cannot just assume that are no risks to signing long term contracts. What I'm also saying is that 5 games in hand (in the case of Montreal) does change IF they win all their games. But given their downward spiral, along with ours, it doesn't seem likely.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Dazzle

[AV.]

13 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

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.

Another classic case of projecting from Dazzle.

 

Again, I have not once brought up Gillis' name (at least not unsolicited) nor am I "defending a legacy".  I've repeatedly stated this is not a Benning vs Gillis thing but you insist on making it one because that's the only thing you can do to defend Benning or "own his haterz" since your bogus thread has fallen short (to the surprise of absolutely nobody).  If you knew how to interpret what you were reading, you would see that my original comment stated that it was erroneous to suggest Benning inherited "nothing" as he quite literally inherited his future captain and long-time starting goalie from the old regime.  That's not defending the old regime nor is it undermining the current regime; it's simply a statement of facts.  If you want to interpret that as an indirect way of protecting Gillis, then by all means, but just know you're wasting your time by doing so and you've been warned about it three times now.

[AV.]

7 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I'm saying we aren't doing good at all, and neither is Calgary/Montreal. What I'm highlighting is that you can't buy your way out of mediocrity. What I'm saying is that we cannot just assume that are no risks to signing long term contracts. What I'm also saying is that 5 games in hand (in the case of Montreal) does change IF they win all their games. But given their downright spiral, along with ours, it doesn't seem likely.

Funny how you say with regards to other teams but still insist that Benning isn't the problem when he has failed in all of these aspects himself (long-term signings, buying his way out of mediocrity)

 

Makes you wonder...

[Dazzle]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Funny how you say with regards to other teams but still insist that Benning isn't the problem when he has failed in all of these aspects himself (long-term signings, buying his way out of mediocrity)

 

Makes you wonder...

And it makes you wonder that he didn't commit himself to signing Tanev and Markstrom (and Toffoli), despite the fact that all three of them would be over 30.

 

This is a similar criticism that people have been making about spending too much money on bottom 6 forwards that are anchoring the roster... and given how age is so exaggerated as a reason for performance decline, it is a risky move to make for a team when there's no guarantee for success.

What happens if all three players begin to decline? For christ sake, we see Eriksson right in front of us. We had a ton of data on players like Neal, Lucic and Eriksson. All three were taken off the FA market for 6 mill each. Neal may be the only one who's marginally more useful to his team than the other. Yet all three are considered FA failures.

 

I think you've made the case for me that Benning has learned from his mistakes.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by Dazzle

[AK_19]

14 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I'm saying we aren't doing good at all, and neither is Calgary/Montreal. What I'm highlighting is that you can't buy your way out of mediocrity. What I'm saying is that we cannot just assume that are no risks to signing long term contracts. What I'm also saying is that 5 games in hand (in the case of Montreal) does change IF they win all their games. But given their downright spiral, along with ours, it doesn't seem likely.

1. Who is arguing that "there are no risks to signing long term contracts"? It's a benign point to make to fans of a team who currently employ Louie Eriksson.

 

2. Why would Montreal need to win all five games to no longer be "marginally above us"? You think a team is no longer "marginally above us" if we're halfway through a shortened season and 15 points above us? What a ridiculous standard to have. Even if they lost every game 5 points ahead is a big margin all things considered. Also, if that is your standard why didn't you just say every team except Toronto is marginally above us?

 

Bottom line is regardless of opinion, we are closer to being worse than the Ottawa Senators than better than the Montreal Canadiens points wise this season at this point in time.

Edited March 4, 2021 by AK_19

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

And it makes you wonder that he didn't commit himself to signing Tanev and Markstrom (and Toffoli), despite the fact that all three of them would be over 30.

 

This is a similar criticism that people have been making about spending too much money on bottom 6 forwards that are anchoring the roster... and given how age is so exaggerated as a reason for performance decline, it is a risky move to make for a team when there's no guarantee for success.

 

I think you've made the case for me that Benning has learned from his mistakes.

 

 

Or, as I correctly stated earlier, he had no money to even consider giving extensions because he gave it all away in previous years to 4th line players.

[Dazzle]

Just now, AK_19 said:

1. Who is arguing that "there are no risks to signing long term contracts"? It's a benign point to make to fans of a team who currently employ Louie Eriksson.

 

2. Why would Montreal need to win all five games to no longer be "marginally above us"? You think a team is no longer "marginally above us" if we're halfway through a shortened season and 15 points above us? What a ridiculous standard to have. Even if they lost every game 5 points ahead is a big margin all things considered. Also, if that is your standard why didn't you just say every team except Toronto is marginally above us?

1. It's not a benign point at all. We have Eriksson and he is the cautionary tale. Do you want two more cautionary tales? Tanev being injury prone, and to some extent Markstrom, both of whom are over the age of 30. Tanev's contract isn't terrible, but Markstrom is 6 x 6.

 

2. Montreal just fired all their staff. I think it says a lot about their panicked state. They are not certainly taking your approach, "well we do have 5 games in hand". They obviously see the writing on the wall - or rather Bergevin has. I'm guessing if Montreal doesn't make the playoffs, he's getting canned.

 

You see, Montreal's last 10 game record isn't great. We can only analyze trends and form opinions. GIven we are half done and Montreal is "just" a few points above us, I don't think that's much of an accomplishment, considering how many moves they've made this offseason.

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Or, as I correctly stated earlier, he had no money to even consider giving extensions because he gave it all away in previous years to 4th line players.

No, he could've picked one of the three. Instead, he took the safer approach of letting all three because of the expansion draft. You do realize that if we committed to one of these players, we would lose a valuable asset, namely Demko (if we chose Markstrom).

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

No, he could've picked one of the three. Instead, he took the safer approach of letting all three because of the expansion draft. You do realize that if we committed to one of these players, we would lose a valuable asset, namely Demko (if we chose Markstrom).

Lol, you Benning bros kill me with your conveyor belt of excuses.  The expansion draft?  Really?

 

This is the first I'm hearing of this but hey, anything to protect Jim.

 

[khay]

2 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Like Dazzle, you've missed the point.

Sorry. What is the point?

 

 Benning sucks? 

[AV.]

Just now, khay said:

Sorry. What is the point?

 

 Benning sucks? 

Your words, not mine.

[AK_19]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

1. It's not a benign point at all. We have Eriksson and he is the cautionary tale. Do you want two more cautionary tales? Tanev being injury prone, and to some extent Markstrom, both of whom are over the age of 30. Tanev's contract isn't terrible, but Markstrom is 6 x 6.

 

2. Montreal just fired all their staff. I think it says a lot about their panicked state. They are not certainly taking your approach, "well we do have 5 games in hand". They obviously see the writing on the wall - or rather Bergevin has. I'm guessing if Montreal doesn't make the playoffs, he's getting canned.

 

You see, Montreal's last 10 game record isn't great. We can only analyze trends and form opinions. GIven we are half done and Montreal is "just" a few points above us, I don't think that's much of an accomplishment, considering how many moves they've made this offseason.

Now you're moving goalposts from your earlier post. 

 

1. I called it a benign point because your position was a more vague one in your earlier post. If this is specifically to basically gloat, "see, it's a good thing we didn't sign Tanev/Markstrom, look how the Flames are still terrible", fine. I don't think Tanev's contract is terrible especially since we had no one to fill the void and the negative impact him leaving has had on Hughes. I mean, we basically have to search for another Tanev now. If our GM managed the salary cap better, I don't think Tanev would have been a casualty. I'd rather have Tanev/cheap back up goalie over Virtanen/Holtby. Markstrom, sure, that was a contract we should have walked away from. 

 

2. You are misconstruing my position. I never said Montreal was a good team, I said they were a better team than the Canucks. The fact that they fired their coaches with a better record is an indictment on our team that our owners hold us to a lower standard than the Montreal owner does for them. This is despite us being a better regular season team last year and going further in the playoffs than Montreal. The reality is that this should be happening to us as well but most likely FA is too cheap to pay for two coaches at the same time and would rather ride it out. I suspect this is also true of Benning and the GM position.

[Dazzle]

5 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Lol, you Benning bros kill me with your conveyor belt of excuses.  The expansion draft?  Really?

 

This is the first I'm hearing of this but hey, anything to protect Jim.

 

You do realize that the expansion draft would've exposed Demko right, if we had taken Markstrom? This is a no brainer really to let him walk.

Now the decision is between Tanev and Toffoli.

[khay]

2 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Your words, not mine.

I’m serious. What was the point?

[AV.]

9 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You do realize that the expansion draft would've exposed Demko right, if we had taken Markstrom? This is a no brainer really to let him walk.

Now the decision is between Tanev and Toffoli.

"Exposed" only in name.  By committing money and term to Markstrom, what would they need Demko for?  Team would have 100% moved him before the expansion draft and acquired a different goalie (i.e Domingue tier) to expose.  Don't be naive.

 

7 minutes ago, khay said:

I’m serious. What was the point?

It was factually wrong for Dazzle to say that Benning inherited "nothing".

Edited March 4, 2021 by Alain Vigneault

[kanucks25]

24 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

No, he could've picked one of the three. Instead, he took the safer approach of letting all three because of the expansion draft. You do realize that if we committed to one of these players, we would lose a valuable asset, namely Demko (if we chose Markstrom).

Unless he kept Markstrom and then traded Demko for something valuable that couldn't be exposed in the draft.

 

But there's never been any sort of creativity with this management group so who knows if a scenario like that even crossed their minds.

Edited March 4, 2021 by kanucks25

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, AK_19 said:

Now you're moving goalposts from your earlier post. 

 

1. I called it a benign point because your position was a more vague one in your earlier post. If this is specifically to basically gloat, "see, it's a good thing we didn't sign Tanev/Markstrom, look how the Flames are still terrible", fine. I don't think Tanev's contract is terrible especially since we had no one to fill the void and the negative impact him leaving has had on Hughes. I mean, we basically have to search for another Tanev now. If our GM managed the salary cap better, I don't think Tanev would have been a casualty. I'd rather have Tanev/cheap back up goalie over Virtanen/Holtby. Markstrom, sure, that was a contract we should have walked away from. 

 

2. You are misconstruing my position. I never said Montreal was a good team, I said they were a better team than the Canucks. The fact that they fired their coaches with a better record is an indictment on our team that our owners hold us to a lower standard than the Montreal owner does for them. This is despite us being a better regular season team last year and going further in the playoffs than Montreal. The reality is that this should be happening to us as well but most likely FA is too cheap to pay for two coaches at the same time and would rather ride it out. I suspect this is also true of Benning and the GM position.

I'm really not moving goalposts at all.

 

Well, that's funny you say "see, this is why." Because none of us - everyone really - has the ability to see the future. We don't know if a decision is any good until we see the results after it. For example, if we chose Pettersson in 2017 and he turned out to be a bust, can you imagine the backlash on here?

 

I don't think Tanev's contract is terrible either. So really, the decision was between Tanev and Toffoli. But we also have to keep in mind the expansion draft.

 

2. You know what? I agree with part of your points. I would've liked to see the Canucks try out new coaches this year. That being said, why does he have to shell out a couple of million extra to sign some coaches that he hasn't an interview process with?

As an owner, you don't want to burn money, which Benning has done plenty of. I think if you look at it from this perspective, you wouldn't want to pay coaches to leave. I think it's awfully generous to expect people to pay for $&!# that you probably wouldn't pay for yourself. Imagine throwing away 1 million dollars for nothing.