Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

[Aladeen]

4 minutes ago, Josepho said:

That suggests that Aquilini is a bad owner, which I think most people would agree with.

Is he though? He seems willing to spend whatever money is necessary on the team unlike some owners who are always pinching pennies. He seems to be a fan of the team and doesn’t just use it as another source of revenue like corporate ownerships do. 
 

He seems to be available to media and fans at least to a degree you could expect of a Billionaire. Maybe he isn’t the greatest owner ever but he is definitely far from the worst.

 

Ultimately if he is the problem then firing JB and all the moves everyone wants to make are all pointless until someone is willing to pony up the cash that would entice FA to sell the team.

[CupIsComing]

On 3/26/2021 at 11:51 AM, mll said:

This was April 2016.  Benning was already holding a rebuilding discourse although without saying the word rebuilding.  He talks of needing to find the next core players and hoping to be among the top teams by year 5 on the job (that was year 2).  Excerpts:

 

https://vancouversun.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/iain-macintyre-if-losing-doesnt-get-canucks-gm-jim-benning-the-misinformation-will

 

“We’ve never once said this was going to be easy or fast,” Benning insisted before the Canucks returned home Friday from their final road trip. “What we said is our goal every year is try to be competitive and make the playoffs. But we’ve never once mentioned the Stanley Cup or had any illusions about where we are as a team. If you don’t have the goal to be a playoff team, what’s the sense of even playing the games?”

 

“In Boston, when I got there we were the fifth-worst team in the league,” Benning said. “And by drafting well, making a couple of good trades and signing Zdeno Chara as a free agent, five years later we were in the Stanley Cup finals and beat Vancouver in 2011.

 

“Look at that 2011 Vancouver team: the Sedins, Alex Burrows, Ryan Kesler, Alex Edler, Kevin Bieksa, Mason Raymond. Those were all players that the team drafted and developed. We’re still trying to establish the next core group that we’re going to win with. We’ve made strides in that this year. Bo Horvat will be part of that group. Jake Virtanen will be part of that group. Ben Hutton and Jacob Markstrom are part of that group. Jared McCann has a chance to be a part of that group. Sven Baertschi.

 

“We’ve got Thatcher Demko coming, and he’s going to be part of that core group. We have Brock Boeser, who has had a helluva year in college hockey. He’s going to be part of that core group. This is my second year on the job, so we’re two years into this.”

 

“We want to be competitive next year,” Benning said. “Realistically, if you’re asking me when will the day be that we can compete with the best teams in the league, I think that (Sedin contract) timeline is fair. This is Year 2, and by our fourth or fifth year, I hope we’ll be there with the elite teams in the league.”

 

“I knew when I signed up where our team was at. There are no shortcuts in this business. You have to do things the right way. And to do things the right way, you have to draft well, you have to develop well and you have to establish your next group of core players.”

Except he did say that! Twice...on his very first day on the job! Something to the effect that "this will be a quick turnaround"

[BlastPast]

If you don't think they ( and every other team) are constantly evaluating the organization and thinking of/searching for ways to improve it in the short and/or long term then you are a &^@#ing moron.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 hours ago, Convincing John said:

I would put his drafting up higher, he is an A+ in drafting. Even though Virtanen and Juolevi were not the right picks, they’re still NHL players. He has a good eye for talent at that level, he works well with the scouts. 

Trading has dramatically improved. The Miller and Schmidt deals were amazing. His trading went from D+ to a B-

 

His contracts/ UFAs are a F- pretty self explanatory. 
 

Building chemistry. D+. I swear he cannot put 2 players together to create chemistry if his life depended on it. You would think hand with picking UFA’s and giving nothing away would be the easiest way to do this but nope. 5 of our 6 D men are virtually the same player. Nobody in the bottom 6 has any chemistry whatsoever. This is what happens when all you look at is speed and skating.

I would disagree a bit as to me an A+ grade means flawless which no GM ever is. The Juolevi and Virtanen picks vs what were clearly better pucks at the time is really what precludes me from bumping him to an A.

 

The Miller and Schmidt trades were good and did redeem him somewhat but looking at the entire picture its hard to say he has been even average. The Canucks are one of the worst pro scouting teams in the NHL and its been that way for awhile. Bleeding picks for tweeners and not trading pending UFA significantly and negatively impacts his rating to me on trades. 

 

Free agent signings probably could be graded as low as an F to be honest. I dont think the players he got are that bad, or werent at the time in the case of Loui, but the combination of being improperly utilized by the coaches to take advantage of their strengths and limit their weaknesses and terrible dollars and term really make me feel had he done none of them and just kept the less expensive players we had as placeholders and/or used young players, the Canucks would be far better off.

 

I really dont think he is even an average GM at this point. There are better options out there for sure.

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Josepho said:

Give me specific examples of what you're talking about.

 

Friedman also reported this if you don't believe Dhaliwal.

It largely started with the Edler extension a couple years ago. Instead of just reporting actual information, which is where he built his reputation, he started adding click-baity conjecture and clear agent spin.

 

 

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, BlastPast said:

If you don't think they ( and every other team) are constantly evaluating the organization and thinking of/searching for ways to improve it in the short and/or long term then you are a &^@#ing moron.

[BertaNuck]

Bennings plan ... 

 

a few more bottom 6 Players 

 

 

[Josepho]

1 hour ago, Aladeen said:

Is he though? He seems willing to spend whatever money is necessary on the team unlike some owners who are always pinching pennies. He seems to be a fan of the team and doesn’t just use it as another source of revenue like corporate ownerships do. 
 

He seems to be available to media and fans at least to a degree you could expect of a Billionaire. Maybe he isn’t the greatest owner ever but he is definitely far from the worst.

 

Ultimately if he is the problem then firing JB and all the moves everyone wants to make are all pointless until someone is willing to pony up the cash that would entice FA to sell the team.

I think you need to do more than spend to be a good owner. If you're running a sports franchise, you need to be good at managing your employees. You need to believe in your guys enough to defer to them, and fire them if you don't believe in them.

 

If you keep an employee who has mismanaged your assets this badly, you're a bad owner. The fact that he hasn't fired Benning doesn't mean that Benning is a good/acceptable GM. There's circular logic here where you believe Aquilini can do no wrong and consequently his GM can do no wrong.

 

He's not the sole problem, sure. He can both have his problems as owner, and Jim can be a poor GM. Replacing Benning with someone more progressive who understands the concept of the salary cap will unquestionably improve this team.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Josepho

[Silky mitts]

2 hours ago, xereau said:

Those are called platitudes. Toffoli was always going to Montreal.

 

No one who was ever traded to a team said, "Good, I didn't want to be there anyways." Ever.

 

That was another instance of a professional being a professional.

 

No he wasn’t always going there . Vancouver failed to retain him and he expressed his disappointment in that

[Silky mitts]

2 hours ago, Aladeen said:

I suppose how you say here could be the way it is/was. One thing to consider though is if it is as bad as you say that the Canucks have just been bleeding assets since JB has gotten here (keeping in mind how little he inherited) why would FA not have fired him years ago. As angry at the loss of assets you and other fans are wouldn’t FA be thousands of time angrier? That he didn’t instantly fire him on the spot for something so egregious as your POV would suggest would mean, at least to me, you don’t have the full story. 

Aqua is part of the problem himself. His pockets are bleeding 

[xereau]

12 minutes ago, Silky mitts said:

No he wasn’t always going there . Vancouver failed to retain him and he expressed his disappointment in that

Again, a professional being a professional. No one ever says anything otherwise. Platitudes. Cliches. Call them what you will.

[wallstreetamigo]

2 hours ago, xereau said:

Those are called platitudes. Toffoli was always going to Montreal.

 

No one who was ever traded to a team said, "Good, I didn't want to be there anyways." Ever.

 

That was another instance of a professional being a professional.

 

This is nothing but conjecture though that flies in the face of what the player and GM actually said about the situation. Toffoli has no reason to "lie" about wanting to stay in Vancouver and everything he said suggested that was sincere.

 

Lets face facts here. Jim Benning put him on the back burner and lost him for nothing. There are lots of reasons to like/support Benning and even more to rationalize/excuse his mistakes. Suggesting Toffoli was never willing to sign anywhere but Montreal is just a twisted attempt to absolve Benning.

 

But make no mistake, Benning absolutely $%@& the bed on that situation.

[appleboy]

3 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Planning ahead is one thing....but planning to lose is another.  That was more my point.

I don't see it as planning to lose. If the odds of making the playoffs are poor then you could say that the current roster needs adjusting.  Throwing the same group out there night after night makes no sense.  Who is to say that moving out a few expiring contracts and giving some youth a shot might not make the club better. Get a head start on next year.

It is a shame that Utica is in Covid shutdown. 

There is a few bodies there that were starting to deserve a shot.

The only players who are going to get moved are supporting cast. The young core group is not going anywhere. 

[-DLC-]

20 minutes ago, appleboy said:

I don't see it as planning to lose. If the odds of making the playoffs are poor then you could say that the current roster needs adjusting.  Throwing the same group out there night after night makes no sense.  Who is to say that moving out a few expiring contracts and giving some youth a shot might not make the club better. Get a head start on next year.

It is a shame that Utica is in Covid shutdown. 

There is a few bodies there that were starting to deserve a shot.

The only players who are going to get moved are supporting cast. The young core group is not going anywhere. 

I disagree....and here's why.

 

Most would have (did?) called it quits last year and projected that we weren't going to make it in.  But we did and the point is that once you're in, you get a shot.  You just never know what will happen.  Momentum is huge in this game.  Get good goaltending, stay injury free, some decent calls & luck and who knows.

 

Sure, you can "predict" with odds but they're not certainties.  And if there's a chance, you fight for it.

 

The odds are just that....I'm a horse racing fan who bets against the odds on longshots.  When they come in, they pay off big.  You always have a shot .... it isn't really throwing the same group out there when you consider that "this group" is interchangeable and fairly new when factoring in additions/subtractions and inserting different guys in and out of the line up.  

 

If the odds are poor you don't pack it in.  That's a quitter's attitude and I'm glad my team doesn't have it.

[xereau]

25 minutes ago, Filthy McNasty said:

Bennings plan ... 

 

a few more bottom 6 Players 

Younger* bottom six. He said the veteran experiment is over in the bottom 6 in his presser last week.

 

We're going to see a 4 line team sooner than later, for the top 6 is pretty much set, even with Pearson gone at the end of the season.

 

There's the assets in this system to fill out a much younger bottom 6 with both drive and speed.

 

#1 priority besides getting Quinn Hughes, who is a bloody a generational talent for which we should all be eternally grateful (5th all time D points start is incredible!), is a speedy passing 3C.

 

Motte and Gaudette can both score, but they aren't snipers. Rather, they are both bang/bang type guys. They thrive on the dump and chase, puck out to the middle type of game. They both need a guy who can go get that puck, who isn't afraid to go get that puck, and a guy who can get it to his wingers. Sutter's not that guy, and yeah, people have endlessly riffed on the 'foundational' quote from Benning, but as I said, he's already admitted that was the wrong path, and he's moving to fix it.

 

Get a legit scoring third line going, and this team's off to the races.

We're so much closer than people think. One actual foundational 3C away + a true #2 partner for Quinn to do his thing.

 

The 4th line is set, for Kole Lind's been groomed to take Beagle's spot, and again, Benning's given this team the young depth to easily fill those winger roles. Big Mac, plus the musical chair audition which has been underway for the last 3 weeks takes care of the 4th line, and as we all know, Lind + Zack was a killer combo in the AHL.

Again, its not all doom and gloom. This team's close. And it's young as hell. When Petey/Quinn are 26, and we're still spinning our wheels, then it'll be time to freak. But I can't see this happening.

 

Third priority, and the real elephant in the room is Green's insistence on a lowbrow brand of hockey (dump and change, and the 5 man star), and he really should stop trying to force skilled players into these lowbrow roles. Rather he should be crafting new roles for what he's been provided by the GM, and given that this takes a certain level of both humility and creativity I'm ~90% sure that Green is not the coach which takes this team to the next level.

[spur1]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I would disagree a bit as to me an A+ grade means flawless which no GM ever is. The Juolevi and Virtanen picks vs what were clearly better pucks at the time is really what precludes me from bumping him to an A.

 

The Miller and Schmidt trades were good and did redeem him somewhat but looking at the entire picture its hard to say he has been even average. The Canucks are one of the worst pro scouting teams in the NHL and its been that way for awhile. Bleeding picks for tweeners and not trading pending UFA significantly and negatively impacts his rating to me on trades. 

 

Free agent signings probably could be graded as low as an F to be honest. I dont think the players he got are that bad, or werent at the time in the case of Loui, but the combination of being improperly utilized by the coaches to take advantage of their strengths and limit their weaknesses and terrible dollars and term really make me feel had he done none of them and just kept the less expensive players we had as placeholders and/or used young players, the Canucks would be far better off.

 

I really dont think he is even an average GM at this point. There are better options out there for sure.

Ya Treliving should be available soon. 

[appleboy]

3 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I disagree....and here's why.

 

Most would have (did?) called it quits last year and projected that we weren't going to make it in.  But we did and the point is that once you're in, you get a shot.  Momentum is huge in this game.  Get good goaltending, stay injury free, some decent calls & luck and who knows.

 

The odds are just that....I'm a horse racing fan who bets against the odds on longshots.  When they come in, they pay off big.  You always have a shot .... it isn't really throwing the same group out there when you consider that "this group" is interchangeable and fairly new considering additions/subtractions and inserting different guys in and out of the line up.

 

If the odds are poor you don't pack it in.  That's a quitter's attitude and I'm glad my team doesn't have it.

I am about a cup not just a playoff win. Last year they missed out on assets from Markstrom and Tanev. Two players that would have brought a good return. 

This team is a ways from being ready for a cup run. I am not into a prayer and a wish. Things don't accidentally happen.  Great things come from solid planning and execution.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, spur1 said:

Ya Treliving should be available soon. 

Treliving is just as bad. No way I would want him. If your response was meant to suggest there is no currently unemployed GM or prospective GM available that is better than Benning I would strongly disagree. 

[-DLC-]

6 minutes ago, appleboy said:

I am about a cup not just a playoff win. Last year they missed out on assets from Markstrom and Tanev. Two players that would have brought a good return. 

This team is a ways from being ready for a cup run. I am not into a prayer and a wish. Things don't accidentally happen.  Great things come from solid planning and execution.

You speak in facts but, really, you only have opinions like the rest of us.  Doesn't make it true because you say it is.

 

Taking on new players is also based on a "prayer and a wish" that they slide in and are upgrades/improvements.  Solid planning can't predict human performance with absolute accuracy.  There are so many variables that come into play and ignoring that to x and o on paper means you aren't factoring everything in as you should. 

 

One more win vs Vegas and they were on their way toward a cup run. 

 

Funny, I remember the same talk in '94 and we got pretty damn close.  Things don't happen because you pencil them in either.  Ha, wish it was that simple.

 

Anyhow, a matter of agreeing to disagree.  Cheers.

[spur1]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

Treliving is just as bad. No way I would want him. If your response was meant to suggest there is no currently unemployed GM or prospective GM available that is better than Benning I would strongly disagree. 

And I would strongly disagree with you.