lmm Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 4 hours ago, aGENT said: You do realize we have other players still in the pipeline? Goodness you're myopic. And note I said exiting, not exited. what does our bottom 6 looklike in your future view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, smokes said: Brackett was the one who pushed for a lot of draft choices. He was extraordinarily good at his job but Benning didn't want to promote him cause he wants to oversee drafting himself. Bracket left and Minnisota snatched him up quick. Benning has shown he has been hit ofr miss by himself in evaluating talent. I do think Brackett was a big part of the overall drafting success. I also wish Benning would not push out good thinkers and surround himself with only like minded people like Weisbrod. He doesnt seem to be too receptive to people who challenge him with dissenting opinions or who want authority to do their job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said: Gaudette and Virtanen are clearly not in the plans or trusted by the team in the bottom 6 as they are rumored to be imminently traded every day. Since they are probably the only players other teams want that JB would actually trade. Motte is the only true exception. The others get into the lineup when veteran mentors inevitably get injured. They're trusted enough to be playing. Both are certainly having down years though, so I see no reason that they've earned more than what they're getting. I personally think Virtanen's not likely part of the puzzle long term. But I have no idea what management thinks. Gaudette could certainly still be, but as a winger, not 3C as hoped. Quote Anyone "on the way" is not exactly an example of what I was talking about as they arent in the role and we dont yet know how much or even if they will be trusted by the coaching staff. They're being trusted by coaching staff in Utica. Not sure where else you think players like this come from...? Quote Roussel as an example has never been the same since his injury. Thats the kindest assessment for his play imo. He should have probably been in the press box awhile ago. And I like Roussel as a player. One of those other guys could probably do more with that spot though. Even diminished from injuries, he's still a decent depth player and PK'er. But his time here is certainly coming to an end. Not sure how any of this refutes what I said though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 6 minutes ago, aGENT said: They're trusted enough to be playing. Both are certainly having down years though, so I see no reason that they've earned more than what they're getting. I personally think Virtanen's not likely part of the puzzle long term. But I have no idea what management thinks. Gaudette could certainly still be, but as a winger, not 3C as hoped. They're being trusted by coaching staff in Utica. Not sure where else you think players like this come from...? Even diminished from injuries, he's still a decent depth player and PK'er. But his time here is certainly coming to an end. Not sure how any of this refutes what I said though... A completely different set of coaches on a completely different team trusting players who are not even on the Canucks roster let alone playing in the roles. Ya that seems like a reasonable argument to prove the Canucks trust young players in the bottom 6. Virtanen is not as bad as many suggest. He just isnt what his high draft position etc makes them think he should be. But I do expect him to be dumped for minimal return. Gaudette I expect to be traded by the beginning of next season although I do think he could be a useful winger going forward. Roussel is an ok player. Is he that much better than any number of guys who could take that spot for way less money? Thats certainly debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 28 minutes ago, lmm said: what does our bottom 6 looklike in your future view? I don't have a crystal ball and it depends how far in the future we're talking... but in a few years (assuming these guys pan out) I'd be fine with something like.. Gaudette, 3C, Lind Gadjovich, Jasek, Motte. Bening needs to find that 3C though (hopefully cheap ED fodder). A lot of moving pieces there though to try to say anything for certain. 7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: A completely different set of coaches on a completely different team trusting players who are not even on the Canucks roster let alone playing in the roles. Ya that seems like a reasonable argument to prove the Canucks trust young players in the bottom 6. You realize the coaches in Utica frequently liaise with the ones here so that they're all playing the same/similar systems, get frequent updates on what players are doing what etc, right? The two teams aren't complete islands. The 'proof' is the list of names I already posted. Canuck coaches have shown zero reluctance to play kids who earn it. Our roster is full of them. 7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: Virtanen is not as bad as many suggest. He just isnt what his high draft position etc makes them think he should be. But I do expect him to be dumped for minimal return. Gaudette I expect to be traded by the beginning of next season although I do think he could be a useful winger going forward. Virtanen's 'fine'. He's a NHL level 3rd liner with elite speed, a hard shot and good size who also has maturity/consistency issues. I simply don't see him as a long term fit here. Not 'Canuck material'. I wouldn't be shocked to see Gaudette traded or re-signed. All depends on the return/price. 7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: Roussel is an ok player. Is he that much better than any number of guys who could take that spot for way less money? Thats certainly debatable. Does it matter? He's the guy we have under contract for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballisticsports. Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 1 hour ago, lmm said: I am not sure what you are getting at I am thinking along the lines of Gillis trades for a 1st and 3 seconds in 2012 and 2 firsts and 3 seconds in 2013 and it looks like Horvat Rychel (2013 1st)Gaunce Collberg(2012 2nd) Shrinkwrap (2013)Samuelson(2012 1st) Bailey (2013 2nd) L Sutter (2012 2nd) Cassels (2013) Benny the Hut Blujus(2012 2nd) Morin (2013 1st) Olofsson (2013 2nd) Tommy Vanelli(2013 2nd)(cuz who doesn't pick a guy named Tommy Vanelli?) and poof new core drafted Sorry, maybe i didn't make it clear Hopefully my edit does now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said: Didn't I just say that? I have never once said your opinion is wrong. Just that I don't agree. You have several times said mine is wrong though. So really you seem to be the one who isnt taking your own advice bud. Sorry, but 'young players don't need vets' is a wrong opinion. We have countless teams as evidence of this and you have not posted one thing to back up your incorrect opinion on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said: I do think Brackett was a big part of the overall drafting success. I also wish Benning would not push out good thinkers and surround himself with only like minded people like Weisbrod. He doesnt seem to be too receptive to people who challenge him with dissenting opinions or who want authority to do their job. After what Weisbrod did in Calgary, I have absolutely no faith in him. Benning seems to be surrounded by yes men right now and that's scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, aGENT said: Sorry, but 'young players don't need vets' is a wrong opinion. We have countless teams as evidence of this and you have not posted one thing to back up your incorrect opinion on that. When did I say young players dont need vets? Or vice versa for that matter? Vets can serve a purpose. My problem isnt with the players its with their dollars and term relative to what they actually bring. Wasting cap, especially for more than a couple of years, is never a good strategy. Whether a team is rebuilding or not. Those guys having contracts expiring last year would have been much better use of the cap. Edited March 30, 2021 by wallstreetamigo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSVII Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 (edited) Quote The problem I have with Benning and Green is that both place far too much emphasis on needing veterans to "mentor" or "safety net" young guys rather than doing what the best teams have done and use down years and periods like the Canucks have had for several years to truly allow young players the chance to battle through struggles and get their footing. I understand the conventional thinking but I think its somewhat outdated in the new NHL. Trusting young players to rise to the occasion without years of coaching sheltering or having to sit behind an inferior veteran just because they are a veteran is the new normal. Look at the guys on waivers around the league. Cost certainty, elc cost to value/production, and throwing kids in the deep end are clearly the way many teams are heading. Bloated veteran contracts are being waived and sent to the minors far more now. 1 hour ago, aGENT said: Sorry, but 'young players don't need vets' is a wrong opinion. We have countless teams as evidence of this and you have not posted one thing to back up your incorrect opinion on that. There's a big difference between saying 'young players don't need vets' and 'we should give the young players more opportunities to play if they show they can outperform a veteran', or essentially giving them a longer rope to learn from during the bad years. We all remember Willie D's infamous benching of Goldobin after he scored a goal in a meaningless 2016-17 season. I agree with the poster's premise, sometimes we tend to be so conservative to the point where it can potentially stifle our player development with this mindset. Besides even he admitted that he knows what the convention is, but this is his opinion. Conventional wisdom can be overturned with time and it is not always an absolute rule. Gotta watch out for your own straw men too. Or is this just projecting what you think all critics of Benning believe? -------- Anyways this is an interesting take. Because I do agree I think sometimes the NHL is too conservative for it's own good. Let's see if this is a trend with some rebuilding teams with how many opportunities they are giving young guns vs vets. Similar to the NHL trending towards speed and skill, this is a gradual process, I believe this will be accelerated by the demands of the flat cap world. But how would we even measure this? Roster moves are so fluid that it's tough to get a read. For fun's sake: comparing bottom sixes of some rebuilding/competing teams and their (career NHL games) on the last games played March 29th. Perhaps that is one possible indication of how much coaches will trust their youth or how they prefer to structure their teams. Injuries aside. (again it's just one factor, obviously imperfect, but could be one component of this) Blackhawks Debrincat (266)-Suter (36) -Kurashev (35) Highmore (72) - Soderberg (583) - Carpenter (229) Injuries: Andrew Shaw (544) LA Kings Athanasiou (327) - Anderson Dolan (20) - Kempe (288) Grundstrom (58) - Lizotte (92) - Wagner (151) Injuries: Frk (118) Ottawa Senators Paul (148) - White (186) - Brown (360) Forementon (11) - Bishop (7) - Dzingel (354) Injuries: Watson (340), Stepan (759) Canucks Michaelis (6) - Gaudette (153) - Hawryluk (80) Roussel (552) - Graovac (72) - MacEwen (43) Injuries: Beagle (613), Motte (207) and Sutter (762) Tampa Bay Lightning Goodrow (310) - Gourde (288) - Coleman (279) Maroon (547) - Joseph (141) - Colton (8) Toronto Maple Leafs (wowza) Thornton (1658) - Kerfoot (256) - Spezza (1156) Mikheyev (73) - Engvall (73) - Simmonds (925) Las Vegas Knights Tuch (231) - Glass (63) - Kolesar (28) Carrier (231) - Nosek (243) - Reaves (681) Edited March 30, 2021 by DSVII 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, DSVII said: There's a big difference between saying 'young players don't need vets' and 'we should give the young players more opportunities to play if they show they can outperform a veteran'. But that's not his only assertion. His assertion is that the veteran culture/mentor aspect is manure as well (paraphrasing). I absolutely disagree and with plenty of examples as to why (BUF, EDM etc). Quote Besides even he admitted that he knows what the convention is, but this is his opinion. Based on...? Quote Conventional wisdom can be overturned with time and it is not always an absolute rule. Sure... Based on...? Quote Gotta watch out for your own straw men too. Or is this just projecting what you think all critics of Benning believe? Nope. Based off his posts. Quote Anyways this is an interesting take. Because I do agree I think sometimes the NHL is too conservative for it's own good. Let's see if this is a trend with some rebuilding teams with how many opportunities they are giving young guns vs vets. How would we even measure this? Seeing how frequently someone with less than 200 games being inserted into a lineup and team result? Veteran movement on waivers. For fun's sake: comparing bottom sixes of some rebuilding/competing teams and their (career NHL games) on the last games played March 29th. Blackhawks Debrincat (266)-Suter (36) -Kurashev (35) Highmore (72) - Soderberg (583) - Carpenter (229) LA Kings Athanasiou (327) - Anderson Dolan (20) - Kempe (288) Grundstrom (58) - Lizotte (92) - Wagner (151) Ottawa Senators Paul (148) - White (186) - Brown (360) Forementon (11) - Bishop (7) - Dzingel (354) Canucks Michaelis (6) - Gaudette (153) - Hawryluk (80) Roussel (552) - Graovac (72) - MacEwen (43) (For more reference: Beagle (613), Motte (207) and Sutter (762)) Tampa Bay Lightning Goodrow (310) - Gourde (288) - Coleman (279) Maroon (547) - Joseph (141) - Colton (8) Las Vegas Knights Tuch (231) - Glass (63) - Kolesar (28) Carrier (231) - Nosek (243) - Reaves (681) Comparing rebuilding teams could be interesting but you have to be careful comparing apples to apples. LA and CHI for example have veteran cores still leading the way. We didn't particularly have that. Particularly after the diminished Sedins retired. OTT sold of most of there's and now, somewhat like us, have brought in a bunch of (largely depth) vets to insulate their kids. Edited March 30, 2021 by aGENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 12 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said: Canucks drafting with Gilles managing was not very good, but to compare the Benning draft team picks it to drafting under Gilles is not a fair comparison, seeing as Gilles teams were President Cup teams and they were getting late round picks (basically Gilles1st round picks were equivalent to where 2nd round Benning picks were - Gilles Teams never got to draft at the top) Neither Gilles nor Benning are out on the road scouting, they are managing the team in Vancouver, It is the scouts they rely on for their information and the draft is their show as all the other top GM’s have stated, So maybe judge them on their managing, instead of thinking they are scouts and saying how good or bad their drafting was To make a more fair comparison between the two drafting, you would have to remove all Bennings high 1st draft picks, (as Gilles never received those),while also considering that all Bennings 2nd round picks were equivalent to Gilles 3rd in drafting order etc. Remove the early picks and remove the advantage of what one had over the other and this is what our team would look like since 2014 with drafting under Benning, with ONLY using the similar draft picks that were available to the Gilles team, (without the butterfly effect) Hoglander (Horvat) Boeser Gadjovich McCann Lind ? Gaudette Lockwood ? ? ? (Edler) ? Rathbone Woo Tryamkin ? (Only Tree and gf doesn’t want to be here and N.A. and not in the lineup) Forsling ? Demko Dipietro ok I see what you are saying however I was not comparing Gillis to Jimmer both guys had/have their strong points and weak points I was saying that Gillis would have been a crapshoot as a rebuilder through the draft given the misques that he made here is a quick look at Gillis' potential picks without comparison to Benning's 2008 Hodgson at 10--- Myers(yes our Myers) 12, Karlson, 15 Gardinder 17 , Sbisa, DelZotto (OK I kid) Eberle 22, Carlson 27 2008 Sauve 44( he did get injured so the pick might have been fine, who knows) Schultz, Dalpe (again I kid) Steppan, Hamonic (yes our Hamonic) Scandella 2009 Schreoder 22---Johansson, Palmieri, O'Reilly, Clifford, Chaison,Silfverberg 2009 Rodin (again injuries) Orlov, Tatar, Barrie, McNabb, Smith 2010 traded Howden Pick cuz there was nothing good (but that trade helped the playoff run somewhat) Kuznetsov, Coyle , Nelson (within the next 5 picks), Faulk you get the idea It wasn't how low he picked, it was the misses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spur1 Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 1 hour ago, smokes said: After what Weisbrod did in Calgary, I have absolutely no faith in him. Benning seems to be surrounded by yes men right now and that's scary. Oh ... you mean like this echo wind tunnel of negativity in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 11 minutes ago, spur1 said: Oh ... you mean like this echo wind tunnel of negativity in this thread? what are you doing, the reverse echo wind tunnel of negativity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, spur1 said: Oh ... you mean like this echo wind tunnel of negativity in this thread? You don't even understand how much I want to be positive. I want to be so positive about this team I grew up with. I want to be positive like I was in the Linden/Bure days, like WCE days, like the Sedin team dominating the NHL regular season days but the stories of Benning only saying certain things during interviews and not following through with pending free agents, like the loss of quality people like Linden, Brackett,, Malholtra etc. has me very skeptical about this regime. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 30 minutes ago, aGENT said: But that's not his only assertion. His assertion is that the veteran culture/mentor aspect is manure as well (paraphrasing). I absolutely disagree and with plenty of examples as to why (BUF, EDM etc). No, my assertion is that overpaying in dollars, term, and trade protection for that veteran help is manure. Veterans have their place and play a role in team culyure for sure. I just think the fuzzy and unverifiable diatribe that young players need veterans to be winners, or to learn to work hard, or to be a professional is wildly overestimated by many, usually to justify signing inferior vets to ill advised contracts. Buffalo and Edmonton were not train wrecks simply because they didnt have enough overpriced veterans to steer the culture. They were train wrecks because they had management who had terrible pro scouting skill, signed terrible deals, made stupid trades, and in a few cases had crappy drafting outside the obvious high 1st rounder. They even messed that up a few times. Buffalo is owned by a meddling fool. That has an impact on the culture. Edmonton spent too long being loyal to their 80's glory days crowd running the show even though they were absolute morons. That certainly impacted the culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 Beagle for one or two years at 1.5 to even 2 mil at the time? Absolutely great signing. Roussel the same (I liked his signing at the time tbh but the term was too long). Sutter at 2.5 to 3 million? Sign me up. No trade protection for any of them though. Their actual contracts diminish their actual value to the team though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawdzukes Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 The funniest thing is that some people believe that JB is supposed to tell them his plan. Politicians don't tell you their plan, athletes don't' tell you their plan, agents don't tell you their plan, and adults don't tell you their plan. They might tell you a story on the news, and if you believe it, you're an idiot. And if you're on this site and you don't get that you're even dumber. hahahahahahahahahah ha ha ha haaaa haaaa ha ha ha ha he ha 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket1994 Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 Some seem to think things are always status quo, therefore 1 plan and a plan that should pan out before it even starts none the less. Hockey like life isn't always status quo, it changes constantly...hence adjusting on the fly, maybe once, maybe twice, maybe more times. Which, if you have half a brain you can see has happened for various reasons. Would you prefer someone who reads the situation, adjusts and moves forward or someone who sits on their hands and does nothing when hit with a curve ball. Those curveballs also effect the timeline of things. There's been constant progression in the right direction. And by saying this, i'm not saying it's been perfect along the way, but then who is (management / organizations). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 16 minutes ago, IRR said: Some seem to think things are always status quo, therefore 1 plan and a plan that should pan out before it even starts none the less. Hockey like life isn't always status quo, it changes constantly...hence adjusting on the fly, maybe once, maybe twice, maybe more times. Which, if you have half a brain you can see has happened for various reasons. Would you prefer someone who reads the situation, adjusts and moves forward or someone who sits on their hands and does nothing when hit with a curve ball. Those curveballs also effect the timeline of things. There's been constant progression in the right direction. And by saying this, i'm not saying it's been perfect along the way, but then who is (management / organizations). Exactly this. The path that COL took was pretty uninspiring for the most part. Rebuilding takes a lot of time and a lot of 'boring', meaningless games. One thing for certain is that you NEED drafting to sustain a team. Simply getting 1st overall every year (similar to what BUF/EDM) took isn't the answer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now