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

Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Great to have a place to debate.  No hard feelings. We all want to be cheering seeing the Cup going down Robson one day.

 

After absorbing this thread, it seems the job review on JB settles for everyone somewhere on the scale....

 

JB has been a disaster to....

 

JB has been just okay.  Usually the reason for this rating is that his mistakes are balanced by the last few years top picks working out great.  (Even if most of that work was done by Brackett's scouting dept. of the amateur draft).

 

Question:  Even IF you lean more towards the latter rating.....Don't we long suffering Canucks fans deserve better than just okay?

 

I shudder to think of how JB will divvy up the freed up cap space this Summer.  All with not much more to pitch fork from the farm or draft positions which he always seems happy to consider throwing in. It may be the most important Summer for a Vancouver GM in our team's history, (we've never had such young elite pieces on all of forward, defence, and goaltending) and will cement how and who will be the second or third engine to back up that emerging core, to take a real run at the Cup again.  He's already started spending with Pearson's term and cap for three more years.  We'll see how that ages.

.

.

.

Edited by kilgore
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, justathought said:

Excellent points on both sides. It's a glass half full/empty scenario...strictly point of view at this juncture (that's my POV). 2021/22 should give a decent foreshadowing of where we'll be in 2022/23 which is when I'm expecting to get some snacks, cold beer and actually start enjoying our on ice product once again. Been around since before the NHL days, lived the ups'n'downs and believe we can be competitive very soon. Not happy with on ice now, but understand we do have a "potentially" pretty exciting cavalry on it's way.

 

Still like to see a little more size...

I agree,  As long as Jim does not resign the old timers on the bottom six.    Sutter, Beagle Eriksson, and get rid of Lazy Jake and if they resign Edler it must only be for one year at a reduce salary/work load.  No L.T. renewals and NTC's .  With $20M and $22M coming off the books this year and next, JB has an opportunity to restock the shelves with some youth, energy and speed along with hopefully some bigger players.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RU SERIOUS said:

I agree,  As long as Jim does not resign the old timers on the bottom six.    Sutter, Beagle Eriksson, and get rid of Lazy Jake and if they resign Edler it must only be for one year at a reduce salary/work load.  No L.T. renewals and NTC's .  With $20M and $22M coming off the books this year and next, JB has an opportunity to restock the shelves with some youth, energy and speed along with hopefully some bigger players.

Sad to say this pain was all self inflicted

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

So you just picked a random amount of Canadian teams? What exactly was the procedure there?

 

"Without ever having a single pick under 5th overall" sounds tough but then you consider 5 picks between 5 and 10 lol.

You can go through other teams if you like.

That's 4 picks between 5-10.  Quinn, Pete, Juolevi, Virtanen.

 

I think Demko and Hogs are no-brainers for reaching 100 games in the near future. We'll see about Podz's future later on.

 

I chose the Cdn teams because they have all been rebuilding recently.  The probability of claiming an elite player in the top3 is far greater than 5- 10.  A top 3 pick also get a top 3 in the 2nd round.  Picks 5-10 are not sure things.  Lots of busts in that range.

 

Where JB has done well is in the latter round pics. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, justathought said:

Excellent points on both sides. It's a glass half full/empty scenario...strictly point of view at this juncture (that's my POV). 2021/22 should give a decent foreshadowing of where we'll be in 2022/23 which is when I'm expecting to get some snacks, cold beer and actually start enjoying our on ice product once again. Been around since before the NHL days, lived the ups'n'downs and believe we can be competitive very soon. Not happy with on ice now, but understand we do have a "potentially" pretty exciting cavalry on it's way.

 

Still like to see a little more size...

At the end of the day, half full or half empty,  no one is going to go thirsty. We cheer for the same team and want them to do well

Edited by DSVII
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Great to have a place to debate.  No hard feelings. We all want to be cheering seeing the Cup going down Robson one day.

 

After absorbing this thread, it seems the job review on JB settles for everyone somewhere on the scale....

 

JB has been a disaster to....

 

JB has been just okay.  Usually the reason for this rating is that his mistakes are balanced by the last few years top picks working out great.  (Even if most of that work was done by Brackett's scouting dept. of the amateur draft).

 

Question:  Even IF you lean more towards the latter rating.....Don't we long suffering Canucks fans deserve better than just okay?

 

I shudder to think of how JB will divvy up the freed up cap space this Summer.  All with not much more to pitch fork from the farm or draft positions which he always seems happy to consider throwing in. It may be the most important Summer for a Vancouver GM in our team's history, (we've never had such young elite pieces on all of forward, defence, and goaltending) and will cement how and who will be the second or third engine to back up that emerging core, to take a real run at the Cup again.  He's already started spending with Pearson's term and cap for three more years.  We'll see how that ages.

.

.

.

You need to be more than 'just okay' to beat the Lightning, Avalanche and Bruins of the world.

 

It's always another interesting observation. How Benning's reputation is built by being scouting director for GM Jeff Gorton when he acquired Rask, Lucic, Kessel, Marchand and Chara. The same Jeff Gorton is assembling a an exciting elite core in New York after coming out clean that they were rebuilding three years ago.

 

Meanwhile Brackett's departure is downplayed after leaving despite being scouting director  under Benning where we made these picks. Why not extend him the same credit we gave Jim in Buffalo and Boston?

Edited by DSVII
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

I chose the Cdn teams because they have all been rebuilding recently. 

Have they? Pretty much only TOR recently and that was a few years ago now.

 

The rest are doing some sort of weird Frankenstein half compete half develop plan that has led them all to spin their wheels for years. Not exactly what we want to compare ourselves to (although this year it seems Canucks fans are content to compare themselves to Buffalo, so who knows).

 

10 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

Where JB has done well is in the latter round pics. 

Has he? What are the contributions to show for it?

 

One season of Gaudette as a good depth forward + one season of Tryamkin as a depth D-man? Forsling was a good pick for the 5th round - 151 games and counting... unfortunately zero for the Canucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Have they? Pretty much only TOR recently and that was a few years ago now.

 

The rest are doing some sort of weird Frankenstein half compete half develop plan that has led them all to spin their wheels for years. Not exactly what we want to compare ourselves to (although this year it seems Canucks fans are content to compare themselves to Buffalo, so who knows).

Hardly.  The other teams, including TO have picked in the top 10 over the past 4 drafts.  I don't know any Canuck fans that compare themselves with Buffalo's situation; although the Oilers were probably far worse.  Stop playing about, Kiddo.

27 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Has he? What are the contributions to show for it?

 

One season of Gaudette as a good depth forward + one season of Tryamkin as a depth D-man? Forsling was a good pick for the 5th round - 151 games and counting... unfortunately zero for the Canucks.

Gaudette (who is still developing) was a successful pick for a 5th rounder, as was Forsling.  We will wait and see how Tryamkin does this coming season.  It's not JBs fault he wanted to return to Russia.

 

McCann has done very well; especially recently.

 

Boeser as a late 1st rounder is exceptional.

 

You can continue to disregard Demko and Hogs who are obviously great picks.  Greatness for next season.

 

Regardless, neither of us will change the other's mind about any of this, and that's ok. 

 

Cheers!

 

27 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DSVII said:

I think we've rehashed our views on this enough. But you get quality by concentrating accumulation of picks at the top half of the draft, something Benning has clearly neglected. So he's essentially cut off his right hand with his left here.

Not necessarily. There's plenty of examples of teams stockpiling picks that don't do much of anything. Toronto for example has very little to show for all their pick collecting. Their rebuild rests very much on the back of winning the Matthews lottery and Tavares fulfilling a childhood dream of playing for his home town. They only have a couple depth picks even on their roster.

 

Quote

Quality is hindsight. Quantity is foresight before a draft. I think you're understating the amount of luck we had because seven teams passed on Hughes and four passed on Petey. 

Eventually you need to give them credit for a consistent pattern of finding good players, at their spots, beyond sheer dumb luck.

 

Quote

Before the 2017 draft where we got Petey, the value of the picks is uncertain and the player you get is uncertain. That's why you want as many shots at the lottery as you want, because a 5th can have the opportunity to net you a stater. That is why accumulation of picks in a rebuild is a must.

Clearly not as Benning had plainly shown by building a top under group of young players/prospects despite not hoarding all the picks. Picks don't play hockey, players do.

 

Quote

 

I love him for his past potential but i have a hard time seeing Tryamkin become anything more than a bottom pairing D man here,

And what's wrong with that? Giant, solid shut down/PK D... I'll take one of those.

 

Quote

Rathbone and Juolevi are depth.

Both easily have second pair potential.

 

Quote

I am cheering for him and Woo to make the team though.

Also likely 'only' third pair... Long shot fringe second pair. Plays a similar game to Bieksa (though likely not quite as gifted of a pugilist) a

 

Quote

Again seven years, four years if we use the Sedins retirement as a starting point and we have weakened our center prospect pool (Gaudette, Madden) and still need to draft for D. That timeline doesn't concern you? Has Benning truly deserved getting twice the time of an average NHL GM's tenure and surpassing Quinn's tenure because he has to play catch up?

Nope. Most 'quick' rebuilds take 8-10 years. We still have Lind, Jasek, Costmar, Karlsson etc at C as well as trades, UFA's and more drafts to fill out depth C holes. We likely do that or fill another D hole this draft in fact.

 

Quote

Yes, the drafts and the opportunity costs are in the past. Let's focus on the now. I agree this is a good core we have and we can compete with it. but to support it?

Again, deepest/best pool this organization has ever had. I'm not worried at all about supporting it.

 

Quote

Benning has just paid $3.25 million to a declining winger that is scoring at a fourth line rate in a flat cap market where contract values are supposed to be surpressed. And he promised him expansion protection and offered an NTC. He had all the leverage in the world and he could only extract $500k savings.

Such hyperbolic melodrama... He's far better than some 4th line scrub. Pearson was due a moderate raise in a world with no Covid likely in the high $3's to low $4's. Benning got a 20% Covid discount. There's countless comparables people have already brought up, including the recent Iaffollo, Laughton and Foligno deals that show he was in no way overpaid.

 

Quote

Let's see how the market plays out and how well that valuation ages, but to support a core, you want to buy the peak years of your players at cheap so you can have as many of them as possible under the cap and excel at the same time as your core peaks to compete in your window. That is getting value. 

 

Benning has not shown any ability to do this outside of his RFA contracts. And that is my prime concern with him going forward continuing his tenure as GM and him having $20 mil in cap space in the competitive window frame with Bo and Miller being UFAs in the near future. 

 

You realize most players are RFA in to their mid-late 20's right? That's largely the same age as 'declining' Pearson.

 

This 'overpay' narrative has become a complete joke.

Edited by aGENT
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Not necessarily. There's plenty of examples of teams stockpiling picks that don't do much of anything. Toronto for example has very little to show for all their pick collecting. Their rebuild rests very much on the back of winning the Matthews lottery and Tavares fulfilling a childhood dream of playing for his home town. They only have a couple depth picks even on their roster.

 

Eventually you need to give them credit for a consistent pattern of finding good players, at their spots, beyond sheer dumb luck.

 

Clearly not as Benning had plainly shown by building a top under group of young players/prospects despite not hoarding all the picks. Picks don't play hockey, players do.

 

And what's wrong with that? Giant, solid shut down/PK D... I'll take one of those.

 

Both easily have second pair potential.

 

Also likely 'only' third pair... Long shot fringe second pair. Plays a similar game to Bieksa (though likely not quite as gifted of a pugilist) a

 

Nope. Most 'quick' rebuilds take 8-10 years. We still have Lind, Jasek, Costmar, Karlsson etc at C as well as trades, UFA's and more drafts to fill out depth C holes. We likely do that or fill another D hole this draft in fact.

 

Again, deepest/best pool this organization has ever had. I'm not worried at all about supporting it.

 

Such hyperbolic melodrama... He's far better than some 4th line scrub. Pearson was due a moderate raise in a world with no Covid likely in the high $3's to low $4's. Benning got a 20% Covid discount. There's countless comparables people have already brought up, including the recent Iaffollo, Laughton and Foligno deals that show he was in no way overpaid.

 

You realize most players are RFA in to their mid-late 20's right? That's largely the same age as 'declining' Pearson.

 

This 'overpay' narrative has become a complete joke.

The first point is stupid because if you believe that this management group has drafted at an above average rate, you would want them to have acquired more picks. Just because another organization hasn't drafted well with their extra picks doesn't mean we couldn't have made more of the same opportunities. This team's pro scouting is cheeks anyways. It's really not debatable that acquiring picks instead of trying to make hockey trades would have been the better move. The only "hockey" trade Jim made where he acquired a young player instead of dealing player X for a pick that worked out well for us was 4th liner Tyler Motte. That's literally it. Again, if you believe in this team's drafting, you want more picks. 

 

Their drafting has been above average which is the bare minimum anyways?

 

Picks don't play hockey, but the canucks amateur scouting has been far better than the pro scouting's garbage of u-25 players they've gotten in the last 7 years as age-gap guys because they don't want to wait 3-4 years for a prospect. 

 

Literally no one knows what Tryamkin is at this stage. He looked like an unrefined 6'7 Andrew Alberts when he was here. I'm not opposed to giving him a shot, but not at the millions it's going to cost. 

 

You have to realize with the Juolevi and Rathbone that you cannot have Hughes and one of those guys playing on your left side. You need two guys capable of playing matchup minutes and to probably somewhat shelter Hughes unless they find an elite defensive defenseman to pair with him. I like Rathbone a fair bit, but there's no future that has those guys playing on the same blueline - unless you're just interested in losing games 5-3. 

 

I think Woo is the most realistic to play the toughest minutes of any defenseman not in the NHL for this organization right now. He looks smart at the AHL level. 

 

The rebuild comparisons are stupid because you can always find a new one to fit narratives. Benning said he can turn the team around quickly and that by year 4 or 5, we'd be competing with the leagues best. He wants until year 9 or 10 now. Pretty ridiculous. You can't spin that. 

 

People like to talk about the young talent pool which is fine. I get it - it's fun to be "excited" about young players. The problem is that if you looked at those idiots in Buffalo, I guarantee you could go to their forum and find people being like YA WELL WE GOT EICHEL DAHLIN REINHART N MORE CMING like it's just a stupid debate. It's virtually impossible to be a consistent non-playoff team that has owners who spend to the cap and not have a few good young players. You also have to acknowledge that these idiots running the team got these good young players because they were so bad at building a playoff team that we got high picks. At no point did they intentionally rebuild. The only year where you could say they "maybe" took somewhat of a step back was like the calendar year of 2017 where they moved Hansen and Burrows for good value gambles and had a decent free agency with good rationale behind their moves. Every other portion of this team under Benning has focused short term on making the playoffs. It's indisputable. I genuinely do not understand why people flex that we got our young players without tanking for 1st overalls and we picked 5th-ish instead. Like, we've been a bottom 5 team for 6 years... ACCIDENTALLY. 

 

I don't know how you can say Benning got a discount when Benning himself said that his agent said "this is the number we think we're going to get in free agency" and they agreed to it and gave him it. A "discount" would have been in the 2.6-2.7 range and even at that price, they would have been better off dealing him for futures. 

 

You really should look up the age ranges of declining forwards. Pearson will be 30 by the time year two of that deal starts. I don't think this is going to be a totally useless player but it's a risk that a contending team should take provided he takes a discount - not paying what the agent demands on a team Benning forecasts is at least two years away. 

 

It's not even a narrative if every &^@#ing person in the industry thinks it outside of a few delusional Canucks fans who look like the same delusional Oiler fans we used to make fun of circa 2013 when they'd jerk off to Yakupov, Nuge, Hall, RNH, Nurse. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Not necessarily. There's plenty of examples of teams stockpiling picks that don't do much of anything. Toronto for example has very little to show for all their pick collecting. Their rebuild rests very much on the back of winning the Matthews lottery and Tavares fulfilling a childhood dream of playing for his home town. They only have a couple depth picks even on their roster.

 

Eventually you need to give them credit for a consistent pattern of finding good players, at their spots, beyond sheer dumb luck.

 

Clearly not as Benning had plainly shown by building a top under group of young players/prospects despite not hoarding all the picks. Picks don't play hockey, players do.

 

 

Are you not contradicting yourself here with what DSV11 was stating?

Who cares about what Toronto did stockpiling picks?

It is about the foresight of any scouting staff , and luck, draft position, and strength of drafts does play a huge part, as well as development and deployment if a player continues to evolve

 

You make a point of saying what we acquired despite hoarding top picks and stating our scouting staff was not sheer dumb luck?

Then how is acquiring more top picks a bad thing?

 

BTW, pretending if we had been a top team the last 7 years  and were never able to pick at the top and get our young stars like we did, and instead  were picking last in each round, our  replacement players drafted in the last 7 years are not taking us to the top

 

We have been a bottom dweller for quite sometime up against the cap

Teams that have stayed at the bottom for years tend to flourish eventually instead of staying at the bottom

I feel that will happen for us one day, not sure we will be a top 6 team for sometime and always thought we needed to retain a lot of those  high 2nd round picks (Which for all those years were almost the same draft positions as when we were a top 6 team getting late 1st round picks for all those years) - I think you need to retain as much of them as you can, because you can't count on them all panning out (just as some of out top 6 picks didn't as well as anticipated)

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Are you not contradicting yourself here with what DSV11 was stating?

Who cares about what Toronto did stockpiling picks?

It is about the foresight of any scouting staff , and luck, draft position, and strength of drafts does play a huge part, as well as development and deployment if a player continues to evolve

 

You make a point of saying what we acquired despite hoarding top picks and stating our scouting staff was not sheer dumb luck?

Then how is acquiring more top picks a bad thing?

It's not a 'bad' thing. Nor did I suggest it was. Fact is you can only sign so many prospects. We have 'enough'. Forest. Trees.

 

Nevermind that we've had a short supply of saleable assets to attain these picks everyone wants. And (like this year, once again) frequently get f'd over by circumstances beyond our control.

 

1 minute ago, ba;;isticsports said:

 

BTW, pretending if we had been a top team the last 7 years  and were never able to pick at the top and get our young stars like we did, and instead  were picking last in each round, our  replacement players drafted in the last 7 years are not taking us to the top

 

We have been a bottom dweller for quite sometime up against the cap

Teams that have stayed at the bottom for years tend to flourish eventually instead of staying at the bottom

I feel that will happen for us one day, not sure we will be a top 6 team for sometime and always thought we needed to retain a lot of those  high 2nd round picks (Which for all those years were almost the same draft positions as when we were a top 6 team getting late 1st round picks for all those years) - I think you need to retain as much of them as you can, because you can't count on them all panning out (just as some of out top 6 picks didn't as well as anticipated)

Why does anyone but Frank (who seemingly approved it) care that we spent money during the rebuild? How much is tea in China anyway?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Why does anyone but Frank (who seemingly approved it) care that we spent money during the rebuild? How much is tea in China anyway?

A ) We could've weaponized our cap space to take on other assets. Look at how Detroit/SJ got extra picks for retaining salary on players this past weekend.

 

B ) If they were spending to the cap, they were most likely trying to compete. It just indicates that they sucked at trying to compete.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It's not a 'bad' thing. Nor did I suggest it was. Fact is you can only sign so many prospects. We have 'enough'. Forest. Trees.

 

Nevermind that we've had a short supply of saleable assets to attain these picks everyone wants. And (like this year, once again) frequently get f'd over by circumstances beyond our control.

 

Why does anyone but Frank (who seemingly approved it) care that we spent money during the rebuild? How much is tea in China anyway?

 

 

I am a bargain hunter, I would rather pickup cash strapped teams discards who cannot afford all their luxuries, without giving up high picks and high cap I like deals how we got Ehroff.

Why spend at the top like you are a Stanley Cup Championship team , while you are at the opposite end, with no superstars signed and unable to acquire those kinds of deals?

One can take different roads to get to the same destination, I am unsure if this is one of those roads, or just a longer detour than it would have had to have been

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Josepho said:

A ) We could've weaponized our cap space to take on other assets. Look at how Detroit/SJ got extra picks for retaining salary on players this past weekend.

 

B ) If they were spending to the cap, they were most likely trying to compete. It just indicates that they sucked at trying to compete.

 

27 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I am a bargain hunter, I would rather pickup cash strapped teams discards who cannot afford all their luxuries, without giving up high picks and high cap I like deals how we got Ehroff.

Why spend at the top like you are a Stanley Cup Championship team , while you are at the opposite end, with no superstars signed and unable to acquire those kinds of deals?

One can take different roads to get to the same destination, I am unsure if this is one of those roads, or just a longer detour than it would have had to have been

Again, you may not like/understand the plan but that doesn't mean there isn't a plan. It also doesn't mean that isn't working (evidenced by the rebuilt team and deepest organizational depth we've ever had)

 

As I said back a few pages ago, I have zero desire to beat the dead horse of #proper rebuild or #asset management.

Link to post
Share on other sites

plan-schmlan.  All the top teams are rife with multiple top-3 picks they landed.  Until we win a lottery don’t be sitting there wondering why we’re still building after seven years. 
 

It’s been seven years of falling on draft day despite honestly coming by one of the worst records in hockey this decade.  
 

Honestly.  Even the mighty Gillis teams had.. what was that... the twins as top 3 draft picks plus Lou who was a 4OA. All better than we’ve landed thus far. 
 

To that end I kind of get what the “tankers” were talking about way back... but then again we still were terrible despite not trying to tank. imagine bringing Bo along without Ryan Miller, Dorsett, the Twins, Burrows. Some decent vets to share those tough years. I dunno.  Those teams stunk but never really quit. 
 

I just know we’re due for a win and this year when everyone thinks the draft sucks sounds like perfect Canuck timing to win at the wheel.

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The team has been rebuilt,"

 

Must be the most ridiculously lousy low-effort Benning accolade I've ever heard.

 

Literally trying to give the man credit for time simply passing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

"The team has been rebuilt,"

 

Must be the most ridiculously lousy low-effort Benning accolade I've ever heard.

 

Literally trying to give the man credit for time simply passing.

The core has been rebuilt, and was done so within 4 years.

I'm assuming that you're one of the 'every lousy team drafts good players' crowd?

 

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

The core has been rebuilt, and was done so within 4 years.

I'm assuming that you're one of the 'every lousy team drafts good players' crowd?

There was no choice but for the core to be rebuilt; lots of time has passed, most of the players Benning inherited have retired.

 

Unless the Canucks decided they would fold the franchise instead of finding players to replace the old core, rebuilding the team was pretty much automatic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

There was no choice but for the core to be rebuilt; lots of time has passed, most of the players Benning inherited have retired.

 

Unless the Canucks decided they would fold the franchise instead of finding players to replace the old core, rebuilding the team was pretty much automatic.

but 'anybody' can pick the best player (or second best player)  for 3 consecutive years, without winning the lottery ,or picking higher than 5th?

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...