Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

[aGENT]

46 minutes ago, appleboy said:

All covid did is bring to surface the fact that their cap management was horrible. One might say, done without a long term plan!

Yet it's all coming off in the next 1.5 years as we will start paying our new young core that he built as they enter their primes and contending years....kind of like it was planned that way.

 

27 minutes ago, appleboy said:

There has been evidence of lots of different plans or directions. One step forward and two steps back. Nothing consistent. All over the map.

You're projecting your own confusion of the plan again.

 

22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Want to ask an unrelated question. Was it you who got hired to work for the Canucks? I thought someone on here did and dont know why my memory is telling me it was you.

I wish!

 

22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

4+ year contracts arent short term though. 

That would be considered mid term.

 

22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Holtby has been terrible and there is a reason he is not seeing much net now isnt there?

Did I say he hasn't?

 

22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

We have heard the no one is interested in our ufa players for many years without covid though. Other than Hansen and Burrows, what other pending UFA of consequence has he traded at the deadline?

Vanek got us Motte (despite all the winging here at the time was an excellent move). It's pretty easy search trade history. 

 

22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Ottawa is an absolute train wreck of a team. If they do it other GM's should automatically do the opposite just on general principal. Lets not use themas a conparison to what we want our own GM to do ok?

Like us a few years ago, they're early stage rebuilding. They're not supposed to be winning President's cups.

 

22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Like I said, trying to remain competitive was not the right call for several years but I at least understood it to some degree. Unfortunately it was not helped by Bennings terrible pro scouting and signings. I think its fair to blame;Benning for that outcome isnt it?

Why wasn't it the right call? I disagree that it was terrible. There's been a few guys that haven't worked out and plenty who did. Was it all home runs? Hell no. Did they need to be during a rebuild? Nope. Are any of them long term problems beyond Eriksson? Nope.

[ilduce39]

11 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Was the plan to have 0 cap space to improve the team for 2020/21 and 2021/22. Was the plan to be cash strapped when they had to sign Petey and Hughes?  Covid has actually saved them , gave them an excuse to to reduce spending so they can sign the two stars.

I think the plan was simply to spend to the cap to try and pull out of the bottom-of-the-league doldrums.
 

They have more than enough money coming off the books to sign Petey, Hughes and Demko... I’d say that’s actually a plus for them plan-wise.  The bigger contracts signed or acquired recently seem to fit alongside those guys. 

 

One big issue is depth - injuries to Roussel and Ferland combined with Jake and Gaudette falling off a cliff has decimated our depth scoring.  That’s 4 guys under contract that could have reasonably been 15-ish goals and 30-40 something point players.  3 of them potentially bringing some physicality too. All injured or completely pooping the bed. Combined with the second issue: top 6 struggling with two-way play we can see where the plan deviates from reality.  
 

We don’t know who management prioritized from Tanev/Toffoli/Marky but plan-wise the flat cap is where we lost those 3.  I guess that’s a risk you run maxing the cap out in transition years but pretty unique circumstances.
 

Loui and the cap recapture = 9+ million wasted cap.  That obviously wasn’t part of the plan.  
 

I don’t think it’s that hard to see what JB envisioned - there’s a universe where we have a high tempo team that likely still heavily relies on goaltending and strong 2-way play from the C’s to mitigate a thin blue line... but is strong on special teams and can play physical / score in bunches. 
 

Not this year though.

[wallstreetamigo]

46 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yet it's all coming off in the next 1.5 years as we will start paying our new young core that he built as they enter their primes and contending years....kind of like it was planned that way.

 

You're projecting your own confusion of the plan again.

 

I wish!

 

That would be considered mid term.

 

Did I say he hasn't?

 

Vanek got us Motte (despite all the winging here at the time was an excellent move). It's pretty easy search trade history. 

 

Like us a few years ago, they're early stage rebuilding. They're not supposed to be winning President's cups.

 

Why wasn't it the right call? I disagree that it was terrible. There's been a few guys that haven't worked out and plenty who did. Was it all home runs? Hell no. Did they need to be during a rebuild? Nope. Are any of them long term problems beyond Eriksson? Nope.

My opinion is that trying to shoehorn a few more potential playoff seasons while we still had the Sedins was pretty unrealistic considering where the team actually was. I understood it though. It absolutely could have worked outbut clearly did not.

 

You did say many of those bad contract players were short term solutions by Benning.

 

I forgot about Vanek. Yes 3 pending ufa out of how many total?

 

Ottawa is just poorly managed top to bottom. They suffer from a similar whipsaw identity crisis. Now they are rebuilding but they also had a lot of cap space. They made the same mistakes as Benning did just a few years later.

Edited March 29, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[appleboy]

39 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yet it's all coming off in the next 1.5 years as we will start paying our new young core that he built as they enter their primes and contending years....kind of like it was planned that way.

 

You're projecting your own confusion of the plan again.

Like I said , covid has saved this club from another year of sporadic spending that more than likely would have taken place if the owners didn't shut things down. If it wasn't for covid the spending would have continued. There is no reason to think he wouldn't have continued with his foolish ways.  

 

I can tell by your comments that you are the only one confused. You would think that after 7 years you might take the blinkers off.

[aGENT]

50 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

My opinion is that trying to shoehorn a few more potential playoff seasons while we still had the Sedins was pretty unrealistic considering where the team actually was. I understood it though. It absolutely could have worked outbut clearly did not.

Hopeful maybe and with a sizable chance of not working. Sure. Thankfully also not their only focus at the time either.

 

Quote

 

You did say many of those bad contract players were short term solutions by Benning.

I believe I said short-mid. Some are short. Some are mid.

 

Quote

I forgot about Vanek. Yes 3 pending ufa out of how many total?

He wasn't the only one and I have no idea (or care to look it up). Feel free. We moved some. Some we couldn't through circumstance, some we chose not to, some we chose not to take a poor return and set a bad precedent etc. Just like most any other team. Unfortunately we didn't have as many saleable assets as a lot of other rebuilding teams have had and/or limiting movement clauses. It is what it is. I'm not particularly concerned about the one or two 4th round picks we may have missed out on.

 

Quote

Ottawa is just poorly managed top to bottom. They suffer from a similar whipsaw identity crisis. Now they are rebuilding but they also had a lot of cap space. They made the same mistakes as Benning did just a few years later.

Their rebuild is actually going quite well. Solid young pool, some veteran support. They also had a lot more saleable assets to start with, so lucky them. Their owner still sucks, so well see how that goes, but they have the potential to be a very good team in a few years.

 

39 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Like I said , covid has saved this club from another year of sporadic spending that more than likely would have taken place if the owners didn't shut things down. If it wasn't for covid the spending would have continued. There is no reason to think he wouldn't have continued with his foolish ways.  

Sure...Spending on guys like Toffoli that you guys keep whining Jim let get away. Make up your minds.

 

39 minutes ago, appleboy said:

I can tell by your comments that you are the only one confused. You would think that after 7 years you might take the blinkers off.

Nope, I'm quite fine and un-muddled.

[Convincing John]

39 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Like I said , covid has saved this club from another year of sporadic spending that more than likely would have taken place if the owners didn't shut things down. If it wasn't for covid the spending would have continued. There is no reason to think he wouldn't have continued with his foolish ways.  

 

I can tell by your comments that you are the only one confused. You would think that after 7 years you might take the blinkers off.

Here is another interesting Historical trend. The Canucks have had a +\- 10 year competitive cycle. 

1982 - SCF

1994 - SCF

2000 - WCE

2011 - SCF

2021, 22, 23?

 

looks like we might be falling behind schedule. 

 

[JM_]

8 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

How about being happy with some moves but not thrilled with the overall progress?

 

I dont hate Benning. I just think its time for a GM that is better at the core functions of the job. 

sure thats a fair comment. 

 

I know the fantasy hockey guys love the concept of a 'replacement' but I don't see how that plays out in the real world with GMs. I've said many times if there's a real upgrade on Jim I'm fine with it, as with any position on the Canucks. 

 

Who's out there thats better over say the next one or two years given that they will have the same constraints as Benning?

[wallstreetamigo]

12 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sure thats a fair comment. 

 

I know the fantasy hockey guys love the concept of a 'replacement' but I don't see how that plays out in the real world with GMs. I've said many times if there's a real upgrade on Jim I'm fine with it, as with any position on the Canucks. 

 

Who's out there thats better over say the next one or two years given that they will have the same constraints as Benning?

I feel like there are a few guys out there who would be able to maneuver out of the current situation more quickly and effectively than Benning.

 

Part of the reason I feel that is it is always easier to be objective and clinical about doing what it takes to fix the last guys mistakes than it is admitting the mistakes you made and stop throwing good money after bad or doing the extreme things necessary to fix them.

 

To me, Benning has simply had enough time to turn the ship around and has had some pretty good cap situations over the years where he could have done great things. But he made a bunch of bad signings, lost assets for nothing, and stubbornly refused to recognize it in time.

 

Much like Gillis took what he inherited and augmented it (only to later f it all up), we need the next Gillis imo. Someone who can construct a new era type of roster through more than just the draft.

 

Benning could stay and head up amateur scouting as he is very good at that. But he has worn out his welcome as GM.

 

At least to me.

[lmm]

43 minutes ago, Convincing John said:

Here is another interesting Historical trend. The Canucks have had a +\- 10 year competitive cycle. 

1982 - SCF

1994 - SCF

2000 - WCE

2011 - SCF

2021, 22, 23?

 

looks like we might be falling behind schedule. 

 

I don"t  mean to quibble but 2000 was not a good year,

it was the last year of Messier and no playoffs

the real WCE year was 2002-03 whe they went to game 7 in both the first 2 rounds ( I think coming back from 1-3 then losing from 3-1 with the StL flu involved both times)

 

Also be careful with these coincidental numbers

It was every 12 years with 82 being 12 years after 70 then 94 being 12 later, but whoops 2011 was 17 years later, so now maybe we are looking at 2028

maybe we should concentrate on beating the Cubbies and Red Sox and maybe the Sabres and Sharks

Edited March 29, 2021 by lmm

[JM_]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I feel like there are a few guys out there who would be able to maneuver out of the current situation more quickly and effectively than Benning.

 

Part of the reason I feel that is it is always easier to be objective and clinical about doing what it takes to fix the last guys mistakes than it is admitting the mistakes you made and stop throwing good money after bad or doing the extreme things necessary to fix them.

 

To me, Benning has simply had enough time to turn the ship around and has had some pretty good cap situations over the years where he could have done great things. But he made a bunch of bad signings, lost assets for nothing, and stubbornly refused to recognize it in time.

 

Much like Gillis took what he inherited and augmented it (only to later f it all up), we need the next Gillis imo. Someone who can construct a new era type of roster through more than just the draft.

 

Benning could stay and head up amateur scouting as he is very good at that. But he has worn out his welcome as GM.

 

At least to me.

So lets remember how Gillis put the final pieces together - a burning off of prospects and a lot of NMCs. If Benning did that people here would lose it. So why would a new guy doing the same things get a pass.... because he's new?

 

Dunno. We'll see how it goes. I suspect we'll see Jim in the job and extensions for the coaching staff for next year. 

 

But I get the frustration, just don't share it for the most part. 

 

[Convincing John]

1 minute ago, lmm said:

I mean to quibble but 2000 was not a good year,

it was the last year of Messier and no playoffs

the real WCE year was 2002-03 whe they went to game 7 in both the first 2 rounds ( I think coming back from 1-3 then losing from 3-1 with the StL flu involved both times)

 

Also be careful with these coincidental numbers

It was every 12 years with 82 being 12 years after 70 then 94 being 12 later, but whoops 2011 was 17 years later, so now maybe we are looking at 2028

maybe we should concentrate on beating the Cubbies and Red Sox and maybe the Sabres and Sharks

To be completely honest, the 2000’s are a blur to me, I was in my early 20’s blacking out every night. I remember the WCE but don’t remember the years exactly lol. 

 

My point is. This team cycles roughly 10 years organically. We kinda stretched the inevitable a few extra years so let’s say Jim gets to start on year 1. I don’t see us as a SCF team in 3 years. I think it’s more like 5. We haven’t even drafted a RHD for Quinn yet and that guy alone will take 5 years to develop. Need another C too. We are still 2 pieces short of a SCF core. 

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So lets remember how Gillis put the final pieces together - a burning off of prospects and a lot of NMCs. If Benning did that people here would lose it. So why would a new guy doing the same things get a pass.... because he's new?

 

Dunno. We'll see how it goes. I suspect we'll see Jim in the job and extensions for the coaching staff for next year. 

 

But I get the frustration, just don't share it for the most part. 

 

The next guy doesnt need to do those things though. He might have to use some prospects and picks to get out from under some of those terrible contracts though. Something I have been suggesting Benning do for a few years now actually.

 

If they hired a new GM right now I would want to see him sell off the pending UFA players to get picks and prospects. This gives him more assets to get creative to get rid of Eriksson or Roussel or Beagle or Holtby or Myers by adding. The cost to do that would not be palatable to many but it would certainly create the cap breathing room earlier. 

 

Teams are probably going to be looking to sell good players relatively cheap to avoid losing them for nothing in the expansion draft. The only way Van can take advantage of that is with cap space. 

[aGENT]

20 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If they hired a new GM right now I would want to see him sell off the pending UFA players to get picks and prospects.

There's no reason to think he isn't attempting just that. As long as your expectations are realistic (ie: not Ferland or Edler and with the caveat that Covid, quarantines and Pearson being injured may interfere with those plans).

 

20 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

This gives him more assets to get creative to get rid of Eriksson or Roussel or Beagle or Holtby or Myers by adding. The cost to do that would not be palatable to many but it would certainly create the cap breathing room earlier. 

Only two of those guys really need 'getting rid of' IMO. And Roussel only because he hasn't been anywhere near as effective since his knee injury. Pre-injury Roussel was an elite pest, two way, 3rd liner, with borderline 2nd line offensive production. Worth every cent of that deal originally.

 

20 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Teams are probably going to be looking to sell good players relatively cheap to avoid losing them for nothing in the expansion draft. The only way Van can take advantage of that is with cap space. 

We'll already have cap space to make that deal this offseason. No need to pay to offload anything. Especially as we'll also be losing salary with the ED. Speaking of, this is where it might possibly make sense to expose Myers if you can get an equal but younger right D with cheaper RFA years left, from a team set to lose said player for nothing. Or perhaps we can obtain that younger 3C we also need and expose (or trade) Virtanen etc.

[lmm]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So lets remember how Gillis put the final pieces together - a burning off of prospects and a lot of NMCs. If Benning did that people here would lose it. So why would a new guy doing the same things get a pass.... because he's new?

 

Dunno. We'll see how it goes. I suspect we'll see Jim in the job and extensions for the coaching staff for next year. 

 

But I get the frustration, just don't share it for the most part. 

 

Gillis didn't really burn off prospects but he certainly drafted poorly

He burned some picks in 2010 but made the final the next year, I thik most of us can live with that

But Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen and Gaunce were bad use of picks

and while his contracts did come back and bite us, in fairness he was trying to negotiate the new salery cap

the rules are more set on stone now, it was kind of wild wild west at the time

he also did some good things with sleep doctors and better scheduling

Samuelson, Erhoff, Glass , Rome, Alberts, Tanev in 2009

Malhotra, Torres, Hamhius, Ballard , Higgins Lapierre, Tembellini in 2010/11

that is 13 guys in 2 years that contributed to the cup run

including #1, 4 ,6,7,8, 9  D #2 RW , the 3rd line and 2/3 of the 4th line #13 forward

 

It fell apart as quickly though with only Horvat being really helpful after that

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, lmm said:

Gillis didn't really burn off prospects but he certainly drafted poorly

He burned some picks in 2010 but made the final the next year, I thik most of us can live with that

But Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen and Gaunce were bad use of picks

and while his contracts did come back and bite us, in fairness he was trying to negotiate the new salery cap

the rules are more set on stone now, it was kind of wild wild west at the time

he also did some good things with sleep doctors and better scheduling

Samuelson, Erhoff, Glass , Rome, Alberts, Tanev in 2009

Malhotra, Torres, Hamhius, Ballard , Higgins Lapierre, Tembellini in 2010/11

that is 13 guys in 2 years that contributed to the cup run

including #1, 4 ,6,7,8, 9  D #2 RW , the 3rd line and 2/3 of the 4th line #13 forward

 

It fell apart as quickly though with only Horvat being really helpful after that

I know, but there's some revisionist history lately about Gillis and Gillman that kind of crack me up. Gillis brought us close, but we're still paying for his mistakes too. Even GMs that get you to game 7 make some big mistakes along the way.

 

Bennning is being compared to perfection it seems, vs real people in real jobs that screw up occasionally. 

[lmm]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I know, but there's some revisionist history lately about Gillis and Gillman that kind of crack me up. Gillis brought us close, but we're still paying for his mistakes too. Even GMs that get you to game 7 make some big mistakes along the way.

 

Bennning is being compared to perfection it seems, vs real people in real jobs that screw up occasionally. 

I do agree

Like I said , it fell apart a quickly as it came together

I think the only real damage Gillis did before 2011 was the Luongo contract and making him captain

most of his bad signings came later

as did his deadline deals that just were not up to Higgy and Lappy

the thing about building a team as Gillis did, is its a bit like catching lightning in a bottle. Almost all of his deals worked out for about 2 years

what he did do , which I see Jim having a real problem with is fill holes 

Needed a # 1 offensive D-man- Erhoff

Needed a #3 C to hold the 3rd line together, pk and win draws and match the best players around- Malhotra

need a mad man to keep everyone on their toes- Torres

need Veteran leadership with a ring- Samuelsson

4th line C - Lappy

Swiss Army Knife - Higgins

Gritty D -Alberts and Rome

Smooth D- Ballard and already mentioned Erhoff

 

I just don't see Jim filling out the roster like that

 

 

[WHL rocks]

9 minutes ago, lmm said:

I do agree

Like I said , it fell apart a quickly as it came together

I think the only real damage Gillis did before 2011 was the Luongo contract and making him captain

most of his bad signings came later

as did his deadline deals that just were not up to Higgy and Lappy

the thing about building a team as Gillis did, is its a bit like catching lightning in a bottle. Almost all of his deals worked out for about 2 years

what he did do , which I see Jim having a real problem with is fill holes 

Needed a # 1 offensive D-man- Erhoff

Needed a #3 C to hold the 3rd line together, pk and win draws and match the best players around- Malhotra

need a mad man to keep everyone on their toes- Torres

need Veteran leadership with a ring- Samuelsson

4th line C - Lappy

Swiss Army Knife - Higgins

Gritty D -Alberts and Rome

Smooth D- Ballard and already mentioned Erhoff

 

I just don't see Jim filling out the roster like that

 

 

Pretty much this but the mistakes Gillis made were in drafting.. Luongo C didn't affect much as far as the team goes.. But not having a push from prospects is what hurt the most. 

 

In Gillis' defense he wanted to start rebuild 2 yrs before he was let go. Aqua wanted the playoff revenue so denied his rebuild request..  

 

Scouting and drafting were the weakest points of MGs tenure.. other than that he was the best GM in Canucks history....  exciting hockey with championship aspirations. 

[lmm]

6 minutes ago, WHL rocks said:

Pretty much this but the mistakes Gillis made were in drafting.. Luongo C didn't affect much as far as the team goes.. But not having a push from prospects is what hurt the most. 

 

In Gillis' defense he wanted to start rebuild 2 yrs before he was let go. Aqua wanted the playoff revenue so denied his rebuild request..  

 

Scouting and drafting were the weakest points of MGs tenure.. other than that he was the best GM in Canucks history....  exciting hockey with championship aspirations. 

when it comes right down to it, Gillis and Benning would make a pretty good  team

problem is Benning doesn't seem to want to be in that kind of relationship

and there is 0 chance he takes a step backwards with this team

He may well get fired one day and only be offered scouting jobs, but he is not going there with this team

and why would he?

[KyGuy123]

What has happened is now in the past. I feel managementshould be replaced as well as the coaching staff. Asset management has been terrible since day 1 and would look a lot worse if Markstrom was picked off waivers the year he played in Utica. Free agency has been terrible since day 1 as well but RFA signings have been good. Trades are both bad and good with a lot of risk/luck being involved like shooting darts at a board with a blindfold. Drafting has been great but nobody is saying let’s replace the amateur scouting staff, just the pro one. 
We have gained the knowledge that our management is not nearly good enough or ready to take the team to the next step of the rebuild by these players walking away as lost assets. By signing big money to our bottom 6 who aren’t even close to living up to their contracts has ultimately cost us these assets and that is unacceptable, for any franchise. Moving on from Marky and replacing his money with Schmidt because of Demko’s emergence should have been the only move made by management while retaining the rest. Attaching a first to a Loui contract to shed $6 million in cap and not signing Holtby to retain Tanev/Toffoli/Stetcher would have been assetmanagement 101 because the value of all three far exceeds a first round pick and a player who is a distraction due to his cap hit and lack of productivity. 

[lmm]

Horvat (483 and counting)

Hutton

Hodgson

Connaughton (sson to pass Hodgson in GPs)

Schreoder

Gaunce 

Corrado

Jensen

Shrinkwrap

LaBate

Grenier

Sauve

Rodin 

Friesen (1)

1938 total games

Patrick Marleau 1736

 

ya you could say Gillis missed on a few