Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, canuktravella said:

 tanevs career as a canuck other than 2011-2012 yrs  might have been canucks worst 9 yrs ever for losses

What a laughably horrible take

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Telling the truth about how an era ended =/= glossing over failures.

And likewise, I am speaking the truth that Gillis left the team in a poor position. People like Kanucks25 (and yourself too) claimed the team was not as poor as I or others have suggested. How do you justify that there are no NHL players aside from Horvat that have gone on to play for either the Canucks or other teams in a meaningful way?

 

Kanucks25 keeps bringing up Kassian and it's laughable. He's 30 years and he's a fringe forward at this point. If one were to check his stats, you'd see how shockingly bare they have been. Maybe he's had demons to fight, but that will be a different discussion.

 

Your unwillingness to accept or entertain this conclusion, despite the clear evidence, is why I said you've been making all sorts of excuses for Gillis, while sparing nothing for Benning.

 

The only thing we can maybe agree on is that both GMs have their share of screwups, although I haven't yet seen your opinion that Gillis screwed the pooch. My point has always been that Gillis has done more damage to this team than most people want to admit, regardless of his near Stanley Cup win. All of it came at a prohibitive price. A price we are still paying for.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, canuktravella said:

 tanevs career as a canuck other than 2011-2012 yrs  might have been canucks worst 9 yrs ever for losses

Except this ignores the entire context of the situation and just focuses on a single player instead. We were going through a retool/rebuild, so I don't see the point in blaming the 9 years exclusively on a single player.

 

I'd actually argue that Tanev had the opposite effect in those 9 years. Without Tanev, our record would have been worse. If we had a better team, Tanev would also have had to block less shots; thus, also get injured less.

 

Do not mistaken the reason why we have had those 9 years that you are mentioning for what they are. They're not because of a single player. They're because of a situation we were in.. If anything, the opposite is true in this case where Tanev was arguably our best defender a lot of nights and kept us in games we shouldn't have been in in the first place.

 

I get wanting to bash on a player we don't have anymore. I really do understand that. But it's kind of silly in this case in my opinion. Blame things such as WD preferring Megna over actual prospects instead. Now that would have actual traction, because really, it was a accumulation of events that happened during the retool/rebuild, some good and some bad, that have got us to where we are today

Edited by The Lock
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dazzle said:

And likewise, I am speaking the truth that Gillis left the team in a poor position. People like Kanucks25 (and yourself too) claimed the team was not as poor as I or others have suggested. How do you justify that there are no NHL players aside from Horvat that have gone on to play for either the Canucks or other teams in a meaningful way?

 

Kanucks25 keeps bringing up Kassian and it's laughable. He's 30 years and he's a fringe forward at this point. If one were to check his stats, you'd see how shockingly bare they have been. Maybe he's had demons to fight, but that will be a different discussion.

 

Your unwillingness to accept or entertain this conclusion, despite the clear evidence, is why I said you've been making all sorts of excuses for Gillis, while sparing nothing for Benning.

 

The only thing we can maybe agree on is that both GMs have their share of screwups, although I haven't yet seen your opinion that Gillis screwed the pooch. My point has always been that Gillis has done more damage to this team than most people want to admit, regardless of his near Stanley Cup win. All of it came at a prohibitive price. A price we are still paying for.

I mean, I'm not sure a team getting 100+ regular season points in 2015 (which was composed of 85% of the same players that it had the previous season) was "in a poor position". 

 

Again, these aren't excuses.  These are just facts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I mean, I'm not sure a team getting 100+ regular season points in 2015 (which was composed of 85% of the same players that it had the previous season) was "in a poor position". 

 

Again, these aren't excuses.  These are just facts.

You're dodging the question. I've asked you to justify the drafting. This was why I've always suspected you of making excuses for Gillis.

 

No one is criticizing the roster Gillis had during the cup run and the ones immediately after. However there was NO apparent plan post 2011. There were NO replacements for the Twins. Hell, there wasn't anyone like Hoglander in the system. I've already listed the players that seen to be promising now (but haven't made the NHL yet). There were no such players under Gillis.

 

For anyone stepping in after Gillis, they had to start from scratch. WD did good the first year, but you start to see the staleness as time went by. It really is an indictment on Gillis not to have any player that be drafted step in, aside from Horvat, a top 10 pick acquired through a trade.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You're dodging the question. I've asked you to justify the drafting. This was why I've always suspected you of making excuses for Gillis.

 

No one is criticizing the roster Gillis had during the cup run and the ones immediately after. However there was NO apparent plan post 2011. There were NO replacements for the Twins. Hell, there wasn't anyone like Hoglander in the system. I've already listed the players that seen to be promising now (but haven't made the NHL yet). There were no such players under Gillis.

 

For anyone stepping in after Gillis, they had to start from scratch. WD did good the first year, but you start to see the staleness as time went by. It really is an indictment on Gillis not to have any player that be drafted step in, aside from Horvat, a top 10 pick acquired through a trade.

I don't know what you want me to say.  Like, yes, it sucked (in hindsight), maybe they should have found Judd Brackett in 2011.  But once more, the facts are that Gillis was drafting in the latter half of the entry drafts every season while Benning has been drafting in the top 10 for the majority of his tenure, where it's typically easier to find good players (i.e. replacements for the Sedins).  Traditionally, it's easier to scoop great young players at, for example, pick 8 and pick 39 as opposed to pick 27 and pick 58, so on and so forth.  Now, before you get all pouty, this isn't a defence of Gillis, these are just facts and patterns that most hockey minds would agree with in regards to drafting.

 

As for your comments about the prospects, that is simply all opinion on your end.  The prospects you think are promising now are no different to the prospects that Gillis had put into place.  Until they play NHL games and establish themselves, they are not "better" no matter how many times you state so or try to revise history.  As an aside, since you seem to think NHL Central Scouting rankings = draft order (going back to the Virtanen thread), Hunter Shinkaruk was ranked 6th and ahead of Horvat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NHL_Entry_Draft). Hardly a "bad" prospect (according to the same logic that you used with Virtanen) to inherit at the time of Benning taking over, even if hindsight proves differently.

 

Finally, stop bringing up Gillis.  You made a thread about how the teams around us sucking = Benning not doing as horrible job as the "haterz" thought.  Stick to your thread and stop derailing it to protect your cult leader.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I don't know what you want me to say.  Like, yes, it sucked (in hindsight), maybe they should have found Judd Brackett in 2011.  But once more, the facts are that Gillis was drafting in the latter half of the entry drafts every season while Benning has been drafting in the top 10 for the majority of his tenure, where it's typically easier to find good players (i.e. replacements for the Sedins).  Traditionally, it's easier to scoop great young players at, for example, pick 8 and pick 39 as opposed to pick 27 and pick 58, so on and so forth.  Now, before you get all pouty, this isn't a defence of Gillis, these are just facts and patterns that most hockey minds would agree with in regards to drafting.

 

As for your comments about the prospects, that is simply all opinion on your end.  The prospects you think are promising now are no different to the prospects that Gillis had put into place.  Until they play NHL games and establish themselves, they are not "better" no matter how many times you state so or try to revise history.  As an aside, since you seem to think NHL Central Scouting rankings = draft order (going back to the Virtanen thread), Hunter Shinkaruk was ranked 6th and ahead of Horvat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NHL_Entry_Draft). Hardly a "bad" prospect (according to the same logic that you used with Virtanen) to inherit at the time of Benning taking over, even if hindsight proves differently.

 

Finally, stop bringing up Gillis.  You made a thread about how the teams around us sucking = Benning not doing as horrible job as the "haterz" thought.  Stick to your thread and stop derailing it to protect your cult leader.

See, there's always a "but" attached to Gillis with you, like, "But Benning has drafted top 10 most of his career, and Gillis hasn't!"

 

What about any of the 2nd round picks and later? Who is still playing in the NHL that could possibly be tied to Gillis' drafting and development?

 

I was a big fan of Shinkaruk, fyi. He was Gillis' best prospect by far, and it wasn't even close. His skating was good, and his shot was better. When he got injured, he wasn't the same. But when you don't provide depth, one injury will devastate whatever plan you have.

 

Gillis' failure to set the team up for the future past 2014 has been an Achilles heel for this team.

 

The way you say "it is all my opinion" is to downplay the lack of prospects and (valuable) players that Gillis left behind. You can overrate the value of players like Kassian all you want, but the reality was that the market doesn't agree. 

 

If you were a rebuilding team and if someone offered a late first for a player like Gaudette, would you take it? I think most people on the board would let him go if that were the case. Similarly, for players like Jensen, Shinkaruk and Kassian, if they could have been swapped for someone with equal or better value, the trades would've already happened. 

 

We've seen just how bad Gillis was with trading. Anytime he made trades, he'd get bent over. The problem was the reputation he had around the league because he was essentially blackballed.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the title of the thread is half time evaluation. Some players has underperformed and we have been missing a solid defense to keep the numbers down. Offensively i dont see an issue, its been our losses with 2 dmen and a top goalie combined with corona-motivation and shortened prep. The end result is what u see...a ton of goals has gone in and its hard to get Ws when ur always struggling to get a game between the goalie, the D and up to the forwards. in short...we are lagging behind and cant get back up. We are simply too far behind and its a bit a of a miracle if u can get into the playoffs. Demko has had a few games where hes been great but still has issues being consistent. The D needs to be better at communicating and covering for eachother as well as making the plays between eachother and the forwards. 

 

All in all evaluation: We are a team that belongs in the bottom 4

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

See, there's always a "but" attached to Gillis with you, like, "But Benning has drafted top 10 most of his career, and Gillis hasn't!"

 

What about any of the 2nd round picks and later? Who is still playing in the NHL that could possibly be tied to Gillis' drafting and development?

 

I was a big fan of Shinkaruk, fyi. He was Gillis' best prospect by far, and it wasn't even close. His skating was good, and his shot was better. When he got injured, he wasn't the same. But when you don't provide depth, one injury will devastate whatever plan you have.

 

Gillis' failure to set the team up for the future past 2014 has been an Achilles heel for this team.

 

The way you say "it is all my opinion" is to downplay the lack of prospects and (valuable) players that Gillis left behind. You can overrate the value of players like Kassian all you want, but the reality was that the market doesn't agree. 

 

If you were a rebuilding team and if someone offered a late first for a player like Gaudette, would you take it? I think most people on the board would let him go if that were the case. Similarly, for players like Jensen, Shinkaruk and Kassian, if they could have been swapped for someone with equal or better value, the trades would've already happened. 

 

We've seen just how bad Gillis was with trading. Anytime he made trades, he'd get bent over. The problem was the reputation he had around the league because he was essentially blackballed.

Lol, what a waste of text.

 

You're so deluded and out of touch with reality, it's not even funny.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Kanucks25 keeps bringing up Kassian and it's laughable.

When lol? Don't even remember the last time I mentioned him here.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I don't know what you want me to say.  Like, yes, it sucked (in hindsight), maybe they should have found Judd Brackett in 2011.  But once more, the facts are that Gillis was drafting in the latter half of the entry drafts every season while Benning has been drafting in the top 10 for the majority of his tenure, where it's typically easier to find good players (i.e. replacements for the Sedins).  Traditionally, it's easier to scoop great young players at, for example, pick 8 and pick 39 as opposed to pick 27 and pick 58, so on and so forth.  Now, before you get all pouty, this isn't a defence of Gillis, these are just facts and patterns that most hockey minds would agree with in regards to drafting.

 

As for your comments about the prospects, that is simply all opinion on your end.  The prospects you think are promising now are no different to the prospects that Gillis had put into place.  Until they play NHL games and establish themselves, they are not "better" no matter how many times you state so or try to revise history.  As an aside, since you seem to think NHL Central Scouting rankings = draft order (going back to the Virtanen thread), Hunter Shinkaruk was ranked 6th and ahead of Horvat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NHL_Entry_Draft). Hardly a "bad" prospect (according to the same logic that you used with Virtanen) to inherit at the time of Benning taking over, even if hindsight proves differently.

 

Finally, stop bringing up Gillis.  You made a thread about how the teams around us sucking = Benning not doing as horrible job as the "haterz" thought.  Stick to your thread and stop derailing it to protect your cult leader.

This is laughably false, Gillis had six 1st round draft picks (granted most of them were later), and three 2nd round picks . Where is his Brock Boeser, Thatcher Demko, Adam Gaudette,Nils Hoglander, Jack Rathbone etc.

Other than Bo Horvat, Gillis batted almost 100% fail on almost all his picks

Other elite teams at the time, (Hawks and Kings) drafted excellent 'impact' players after the 1st round.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dazzle said:

 

For anyone stepping in after Gillis, they had to start from scratch. WD did good the first year, but you start to see the staleness as time went by. It really is an indictment on Gillis not to have any player that be drafted step in, aside from Horvat, a top 10 pick acquired through a trade.

Bo Horvat, Markstrom, Tanev, Edler, A tradeable 2C, and a 100pt playoff team. Cap space. the 'Nothing' that Gillis left for Benning ended up propping his teams up the last few years and made up 2 of his top 4D. 

 

Jim was not starting from scratch, he benefited from the acquisitions Gillis made and yes, the lack of a succession plan from the Sedins was why a lot of us wanted to rebuild back then, to get a shot at Matthews or McDavid rather than try and make the playoffs. 

 

If we wanna compare drafts, you have to keep in mind Benning was also picking in spots so high that an average fan with an NHL mag could have landed hits too. A comparison in drafting should be picks made in similar draft positions (i.e compare Gillis picks in range 50-75 with Benning picks in 50-75) I think Benning does better still but not by much. )

Edited by DSVII
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DSVII said:

Bo Horvat, Markstrom, Tanev, Edler, A tradeable 2C, and a 100pt playoff team. Cap space. the 'Nothing' that Gillis left for Benning ended up propping his teams up the last few years and made up 2 of his top 4D. 

 

Jim was not starting from scratch, he benefited from the acquisitions Gillis made and yes, the lack of a succession plan from the Sedins was why a lot of us wanted to rebuild back then, to get a shot at Matthews or McDavid rather than try and make the playoffs. 

 

If we wanna compare drafts, you have to keep in mind Benning was also picking in spots so high that an average fan with an NHL mag could have landed hits too. A comparison in drafting should be picks made in similar draft positions (i.e compare Gillis picks in range 50-75 with Benning picks in 50-75) I think Benning does better still but not by much. )

Draft picks and prospect development. Horvat is the only one you mentioned.

 

Also, it should be noted that every GM will inherit a roster from previous predecessors. Edler was passed down from Nonis' regime. 

 

Tradable 2C, I assume you meant Kesler. Kesler wasn't Gillis' pick either, and the fact that Kesler had such a limited NTC that any good value was nuked.

 

100pt playoff team is kinda meaningless because the Canucks never could repeat that again.

 

I haven't even been talking about first round picks. Gillis has nothing to show from 2nd round to after. Gillis threw away a lot of the first round picks that probably would've been late first in all likelihood. In any case, not a good look for a GM that doesn't make full use of the draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Lock said:

Except this ignores the entire context of the situation and just focuses on a single player instead. We were going through a retool/rebuild, so I don't see the point in blaming the 9 years exclusively on a single player.

 

I'd actually argue that Tanev had the opposite effect in those 9 years. Without Tanev, our record would have been worse. If we had a better team, Tanev would also have had to block less shots; thus, also get injured less.

 

Do not mistaken the reason why we have had those 9 years that you are mentioning for what they are. They're not because of a single player. They're because of a situation we were in.. If anything, the opposite is true in this case where Tanev was arguably our best defender a lot of nights and kept us in games we shouldn't have been in in the first place.

 

I get wanting to bash on a player we don't have anymore. I really do understand that. But it's kind of silly in this case in my opinion. Blame things such as WD preferring Megna over actual prospects instead. Now that would have actual traction, because really, it was a accumulation of events that happened during the retool/rebuild, some good and some bad, that have got us to where we are today

 ya at the same time u dont give a 29-30 yr old 18 mill over 4 yrs if thats all he does  

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

 ya at the same time u dont give a 29-30 yr old 18 mill over 4 yrs if thats all he does  

Tanev does far more than block shots

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, canuktravella said:

 ya at the same time u dont give a 29-30 yr old 18 mill over 4 yrs if thats all he does  

What is "all he does" exactly?

 

I literally mentioned how he was our best defender often times and how he would often keep us in games. You merely stating that's "all he does" doesn't really say much here.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...