Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

[DSVII]

19 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.

I won't retread old ground with you. We're both pretty set on our opinions. But some comments:

• As pointed out earlier, if Toronto doesn't capitalize on their abundance of picks it's their issue, I'm operating under your premise that Benning is better than the average GM at extracting value at the draft, so why not give him more bullets in the chamber? The potential value we sold by chasing the likes of Gudbranson and Toffoli could have been used to address holes in the pipeline we have now (in D and C). 
• The accolades for drafting value will come as we see more depth graduate that was drafted outside the 1st round fill our roster. Right now it's all unproven (save for Demko) or sold low on and not benefiting our team (again, pro-scouting failure). The fact that Benning is batting 500 at finding a game breaking player in the top 10 just tells me he is an average GM there rather than a superscout. I'm also not saying he's done a bad job. Boeser is a great pick up for instance for his spot. 
• My main concern with Tryamkin is that he's been out of the North American game too long. It'll be tougher for him now to transition to NA ice and playing top 4 minutes in the NHL. I hope he does, but the chances are slimmer.
• RE: 'quick' rebuilds. The 8-10 year window you are claiming is simply not true, you've been too focused on laughing at the abnormally incompetent front offices of Edmonton and Toronto when this team was good (and who can blame you, it's fun)
• I'm willing to bet you that the Kings (rebuild starting 2018), Blackhawks (2020) and Rangers (2018) are able to assemble their new cores and qualify for the playoffs faster than it took Benning after 2015. And without trading a 1st and 2nd and prospect for a one and done appearance. It's not going to take 8-10 years.
• Pearson this season, is producing at half the rate of the names you mentioned (lafollo, laughton, foligno) why does he deserve a raise?
• Players are RFA up to their mid 20s, generally their last RFA contract should be signed when they're 25 as per the rules of the CBA. the average age of an RFA is in their early to mid 20s.
• I hope you're right about our defense, because the pool isn't as deep as you advertise and who knows how many prospects Benning will trade away for future veteran help or lose in the expansion draft bc he promised to protect Pearson (past casualities: Forsling, McCann, Gaudette, Madden), (Expansion draft: Lind, Gadovich)

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by DSVII

[kanucks25]

35 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

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

Make a list of our 1st round picks.

 

Then make a list of each draft pick taken immediately after our 1st round picks.

 

The lists are relatively equal. Which is where the hesitency to give Benning credit comes from. You draft that high that often, you're bound to draft good players.

[aGENT]

28 minutes ago, DSVII said:

I won't retread old ground with you. We're both pretty set on our opinions. But some comments:

• As pointed out earlier, if Toronto doesn't capitalize on their abundance of picks it's their issue, I'm operating under your premise that Benning is better than the average GM at extracting value at the draft, so why not give him more bullets in the chamber? The potential value we sold by chasing the likes of Gudbranson and Toffoli could have been used to address holes in the pipeline we have now (in D and C). 

I think he'd happily have taken more picks within the context he was working in. Again, this isn't some 'anti-picks' argument you guys seem to keep conflating it with. Nobody hates picks.

 

Part of the plan (whether you guys like or agree with it or not) was to support the current rosters during the varying parts of the rebuild. Some of that involved picks as cost. A lack of saleable pieces and unfortunate circumstances meant no real way to replenish some of them. Thankfully we have him and solid scouting/development that we didn't need more picks to still rebuild our team and build a solid pool of young players. Forest. Trees.

 

Quote

• The accolades for drafting value will come as we see more depth graduate that was drafted outside the 1st round fill our roster. Right now it's all unproven (save for Demko) or sold low on and not benefiting our team (again, pro-scouting failure). Also, I'm not saying he's done a bad job. Boeser is a great pick up for instance for his spot. 

To be fair, much of the media world has already started praising our young core and prospect pool. The latter will naturally diminish as guys graduate and yes, as guys confirm they're legit, that praise likely increases further.

 

Quote

• My main concern with Tryamkin is that he's been out of the North American game too long. It'll be tougher for him now to transition to NA ice and playing top 4 minutes in the NHL. I hope he does, but the chances are slimmer.

 

Who's expecting him to be top 4? I'm expecting a solid, huge, bottom pair guy, with decent skating who can clear the crease, win board battles and PK. Anything above that is gravy.

 

Quote

• RE: 'quick' rebuilds. The 8-10 year window you are claiming is simply not true, you've been too focused on laughing at the abnormally incompetent front offices of Edmonton and Toronto when this team was good (and who can blame you, it's fun)

Nope, I'm looking at the likes of WPG, COL, etc, etc... EDM, CAR etc have actually taken far longer than 8-10 years.

 

Quote

• I'm willing to bet you that the Kings (rebuild starting 2018), Blackhawks (2020) and Rangers (2018) are able to assemble their new cores and qualify for the playoffs faster than it took Benning after 2015. And without trading a 1st and 2nd and prospect for a one and done appearance. It's not going to take 8-10 years.

The first two still have capable, contributing veteran core players. They're retooling, not rebuilding. By it's very definition, that should be faster.

 

NYR's, besides starting off with a butt load of far more saleable assets to recoup picks and prospects have had major lottery horse shoes and have that convenient 'play in the Big Apple' draw to bring guys like Panarin and Trouba in.

 

You're apples and oranging.

 

Quote

• Pearson this season, is producing at half the rate of the names you mentioned (lafollo, laughton, foligno) why does he deserve a raise?

He's a solid, career .46ppg player, middle 6 player with a strong two way game, still in his prime. No, I don't think one, gong show Covid year, where almost the entire team has been awful, is in any way indicative of a 'trend'.

 

He didn't get a raise. He took a $500k haircut. 

 

Quote

• Players are RFA up to their mid 20s, generally their last RFA contract should be signed when they're 25 as per the rules of the CBA. the average age of an RFA is in their early to mid 20s.

Depending on the age they started/signed at, players are RFA's until they're 25-27. Mid to late 20's, like I said. Pearson is 28.

 

Quote

 

• I hope you're right about our defense, because the pool isn't as deep as you advertise and who knows how many prospects Benning will trade away for future veteran help or lose in the expansion draft bc he promised to protect Pearson (past casualities: Forsling, McCann, Gaudette, Madden), (Expansion draft: Lind, Gadovich)

 

Well we can only lose one player in the ED...and I'm not particularly worried about losing Brisebois, Rafferty, Chatfield etc. We'll have all our good D with better than bottom pair ceilings, protected or not exposed. It's exactly as deep as I advertised...I didn't just make up names lol.

 

As for those 'casualties' I don't see anyone on that list I'm particularly scared about losing. Jury's out on Madden still but I'm not sure any of those guys are 'players you win with'. Something Benning IMO, has a knack of sniffing out.

Edited April 14, 2021 by aGENT

[Honky Cat]

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Make a list of our 1st round picks.

 

Then make a list of each draft pick taken immediately after our 1st round picks.

 

The lists are relatively equal. Which is where the hesitency to give Benning credit comes from. You draft that high that often, you're bound to draft good players.

Haydn Fluery

Travis Konecny

Matt Tkachuk

Cody Glass

Adam Boqvist

 

This is equal?

[DSVII]

9 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Haydn Fluery

Travis Konecny

Matt Tkachuk

Cody Glass

Adam Boqvist

 

This is equal?

 

Hadyn fleury 

David Pastranak

Matt Tkachuk 

Travis Konecny

Cody Glass

Adam Boqvist 

 

 

 

 

[kanucks25]

8 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Haydn Fluery

Travis Konecny

Matt Tkachuk

Cody Glass

Adam Boqvist

 

This is equal?

When you add in Pastrnak over McCann which you've conveniently left out, is it that far off?

 

Another option is to compare our group of players vs a BPA list, like Button's or THN or whatever.

 

You'll see that the aggregate quality is pretty comparable.

[Honky Cat]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

When you add in Pastrnak over McCann which you've conveniently left out, is it that far off?

 

Another option is to compare our group of players vs a BPA list, like Button's or THN or whatever.

 

You'll see that the aggregate quality is pretty comparable.

Ok,lets make a list of players selected before our selections

 

Michael Dal Colle,Connor Bleackley

Ilya Samsonov

Jesse Puljijarvi

Cale Makar

Filip Zadina

Trevor Zegras

[Honky Cat]

11 minutes ago, DSVII said:

 

Hadyn fleury 

David Pastranak

Matt Tkachuk 

Travis Konecny

Cody Glass

Adam Boqvist 

 

 

 

 

I'd easily still take what we have.

[DSVII]

46 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

I'd easily still take what we have.

His point was it was comparable, not that it was better. That list is still 50% Top line or Top 6 players. 

 

Even your  weaker 'picks before' list has blue chip assets that would take a Hughes or Petey to move (Like Makar) and a starting goaltender in Samsonov. Plus pretty high on Zegras (i was hoping we'd pick him in that draft) But too soon to tell. Again, you'd can at least project 50% of them making an impact on an NHL roster. 

Edited April 14, 2021 by DSVII

[Tom Sestito]

Agent is anti-respond to my essay because he knows I'm right on every point I made so

[aGENT]

47 minutes ago, Tom Sestito said:

Agent is anti-respond to my essay because he knows I'm right on every point I made so

No, largely because it was a wall of ranting nonsense not particularly worth my effort.

 

Sorry.

 

And have the balls to @ someone when you crap talk them you Muppet.

Edited April 14, 2021 by aGENT

[Honky Cat]

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

His point was it was comparable, not that it was better. That list is still 50% Top line or Top 6 players. 

 

Even your  weaker 'picks before' list has blue chip assets that would take a Hughes or Petey to move (Like Makar) and a starting goaltender in Samsonov. Plus pretty high on Zegras (i was hoping we'd pick him in that draft) But too soon to tell. Again, you'd can at least project 50% of them making an impact on an NHL roster. 

Sure they're good players, but the original point I made was that Benning made some amazing picks without being in a favourable drafting position.Zegras is good, but what about Pod kicking it to another level in the KHL playoffs?

Pod set a playoff record for points for under 20, as a 19 year old.

[Tom Sestito]

25 minutes ago, aGENT said:

No, largely because it was a wall of ranting nonsense not particularly worth my effort.

 

Sorry.

 

And have the balls to @ someone when you crap talk them you Muppet.

Nah, you’re just hurt that you can’t think of a better response. It’s okay to be wrong - Benning has been wrong more than he’s been right to and I see you take after your idol.

 

The reason this muppet didn’t @ you was because you were:

A. Actively responding to other people

B. Viewing the thread at the time I posted that.

 

Really wasn’t a need to @ you when you were going to see it regardless. Last time I @d you when I corrected every point you made, you ignored it anyways so it really had no value.

 

 

[DSVII]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

I think he'd happily have taken more picks within the context he was working in. Again, this isn't some 'anti-picks' argument you guys seem to keep conflating it with. Nobody hates picks.

Nobody hates picks, but Benning has been very profligate with spending them acquiring his vets. He's traded away more picks in the top half of the draft than any normal rebuilding team. 

 

Quote

Part of the plan (whether you guys like or agree with it or not) was to support the current rosters during the varying parts of the rebuild. Some of that involved picks as cost. A lack of saleable pieces and unfortunate circumstances meant no real way to replenish some of them. Thankfully we have him and solid scouting/development that we didn't need more picks to still rebuild our team and build a solid pool of young players. Forest. Trees.

A lot of this 'support' was brought in before we even drafted the new core though. (Vrbata, Miller, Bartowski, Sutter, Eriksson, Gudbranson) Again, this is unquantifiable and really our opinions here, but I don't see the benefit of paying premium for assets like Gudbranson and Eriksson so Boeser and Horvat can watch them get shelled under the competition on the ice. I can see the benefit vets like Sutter, Vrbata and Miller can bring, but a few of them is enough, you need to have a balance so the youth aren't stifled because the spot is taken up by an underperforming vet.

 

When you continually need to bring these guys in with the premise of 'supporting' the players for seven years, there comes a time you should ask. 'When do we trust our guys to walk on their own two feet yet?

 

I disagree entirely on the lack of saleable pieces. Benning had a Top 2C and a roster of veterans on a 100 point team when he started. It's what he did with the pieces that don't line up with a rebuild. I know we have our disagreements here. 

 

Quote

The first two still have capable, contributing veteran core players. They're retooling, not rebuilding. By it's very definition, that should be faster.

That kind of sounds eerily like a description of our team in 2014/15. What a happy coincidence. 

 

Quote

Nope, I'm looking at the likes of WPG, COL, etc, etc... EDM, CAR etc have actually taken far longer than 8-10 years.

Since their existence as the jtes? for WPG their core at least, since 2011 was assembled in 5 years and now they've been a force in the playoffs since 2016. That's less than 8 years.

 

The Avs were trying to compete until 2012 (they traded a 1st for Varlamov) with Duchene, Landeskog, Barrie. After drafting MacKinnon, Colorado took three years to go from the basement to a contender once Roy quit in 2016. 

 

Leafs too, were pushing for playoffs until 2013. That was when they decided to give up on the Phaneuf, Kessel, JVR core and bottom out for Matthews.

 

It is possible for a team to ust plain suck and not be in a rebuild.  

 

Quote

NYR's, besides starting off with a butt load of far more saleable assets to recoup picks and prospects have had major lottery horse shoes and have that convenient 'play in the Big Apple' draw to bring guys like Panarin and Trouba in.

 

You're apples and oranging.

Again, i don't think it's too far removed from us in 2014/15. A veteran core that is producing that is a few years removed from a Stanley cup final (losing with AV as the coach :() We just decided to stick to our retool until that core ran into the ground. 

 

The Rangers made the hard choices and were willing to part with their stars in Rick Nash (M-NTC, NMC), J.T Miller, Ryan McDonagh (M-NTC) and capitalize on UFAs Zuccarello (UFA)  to load up their picks. 

 

Your threshold from turning something from an apple to an orange is awfully low. 

 

Like Toronto, this is as close to Apples to Apples as far as starting point for a rebuild goes. Management just lacked either the will, the wherewithal or the intent to follow the course of action needed. 

 

Quote

He didn't get a raise. He took a $500k haircut. 

You mentioned that he was due for a raise. Despite him performing at half his rate from last year.

 

Quote

He's a solid, career .46ppg player, middle 6 player with a strong two way game, still in his prime. No, I don't think one, gong show Covid year, where almost the entire team has been awful, is in any way indicative of a 'trend'.

He's in his twilight years. I'm fairly confident he won't regress hard line Roussel or Loui, but this contract hardly represents his best years. In any case, future evaluation of this deal will depend on his performance and the rest of the market this offseason. 

 

Covid can also be flipped on the other side of the argument too you know.....the only reason Canucks qualified for playoffs was because of the play-in round. We never go to see whether or not Benning's choice to go all in on Toffoli worked or not while we are still out of the playoffs.  As it stands, GMJB has still yet to put together a roster that can qualify for playoffs in a full regular season after he squeezed the last bit of juice from the Sedins. 

 

Qualifying because of a buy-in is hardly indicative of a trend that Benning is leading this team to a winning environment. 

 

Quote

etc...

Anyways, for the rest. As you said, let's wait and see. 

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by DSVII

[Honky Cat]

12 minutes ago, DSVII said:

Nobody hates picks, but Benning has been very profligate with spending them acquiring his vets. He's traded away more picks in the top half of the draft than any normal rebuilding team. 

 

A lot of this 'support' was brought in before we even drafted the new core though. (Vrbata, Miller, Bartowski, Sutter, Eriksson, Gudbranson) Again, this is unquantifiable and really our opinions here, but I don't see the benefit of paying premium for assets like Gudbranson and Eriksson so Boeser and Horvat can watch them get shelled under the competition on the ice. I can see the benefit vets like Sutter, Vrbata and Miller can bring, but a few of them is enough, you need to have a balance so the youth aren't stifled because the spot is taken up by an underperforming vet.

 

When you continually need to bring these guys in with the premise of 'supporting' the players for seven years, there comes a time you should ask. 'When do we trust our guys to walk on their own two feet yet?

 

I disagree entirely on the lack of saleable pieces. Benning had a Top 2C and a roster of veterans on a 100 point team when he started. It's what he did with the pieces that don't line up with a rebuild. I know we have our disagreements here. 

 

That kind of sounds eerily like a description of our team in 2014/15. What a happy coincidence. 

 

Since their existence as the jtes? for WPG their core at least, since 2011 was assembled in 5 years and now they've been a force in the playoffs since 2016. That's less than 8 years.

 

The Avs were trying to compete until 2012 (they traded a 1st for Varlamov) with Duchene, Landeskog, Barrie. After drafting MacKinnon, Colorado took three years to go from the basement to a contender once Roy quit in 2016. 

 

Leafs too, were pushing for playoffs until 2013. That was when they decided to give up on the Phaneuf, Kessel, JVR core and bottom out for Matthews.

 

It is possible for a team to ust plain suck and not be in a rebuild.  

 

Again, i don't think it's too far removed from us in 2014/15. A veteran core that is producing that is a few years removed from a Stanley cup final (losing with AV as the coach :() We just decided to stick to our retool until that core ran into the ground. 

 

The Rangers made the hard choices and were willing to part with their stars in Rick Nash (M-NTC, NMC), J.T Miller, Ryan McDonagh (M-NTC) and capitalize on UFAs Zuccarello (UFA)  to load up their picks. 

 

Your threshold from turning something from an apple to an orange is awfully low. 

 

Like Toronto, this is as close to Apples to Apples as far as starting point for a rebuild goes. Management just lacked either the will, the wherewithal or the intent to follow the course of action needed. 

 

You mentioned that he was due for a raise. Despite him performing at half his rate from last year.

 

He's in his twilight years. I'm fairly confident he won't regress hard line Roussel or Loui, but this contract hardly represents his best years. In any case, future evaluation of this deal will depend on his performance and the rest of the market this offseason. 

 

Covid can also be flipped on the other side of the argument too you know.....the only reason Canucks qualified for playoffs was because of the play-in round. We never go to see whether or not Benning's choice to go all in on Toffoli worked or not while we are still out of the playoffs.  As it stands, GMJB has still yet to put together a roster that can qualify for playoffs in a full regular season after he squeezed the last bit of juice from the Sedins. 

 

Qualifying because of a buy-in is hardly indicative of a trend that Benning is leading this team to a winning environment. 

 

Anyways, for the rest. As you said, let's wait and see. 

 

The Jets made the first round once in the middle of a 6 year period, also inheriting prime assets from the Thrashers

The Av's one playoff appearance in a 7 year period, by the time Sakic became GM, he inherited a young elite core

The Leafs had prime assets (from umpteen years out of the playoffs) before their Shanaplan teardown rebuild

These teams had prime assets before their rebuild,Canucks had players veering on retirement, and no prospect pool worth mentioning.

They also had an ownership and President that wanted the Canucks to be a playoff team.

[awalk]

So many pages of arguments when all that matters is results. 

[babalu]

3 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

I'd easily still take what we have.

I thought this article on canucksarmy was interesting.

The basic premise is what if we had just drafted the player with the best points per game

https://canucksarmy.com/2021/03/30/sham-sharron-hockey-draft-vancouver-canucks/

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by babalu
Added charts

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

Nobody hates picks, but Benning has been very profligate with spending them acquiring his vets. He's traded away more picks in the top half of the draft than any normal rebuilding team. 

Profligate is a tad hyperbolic... come on. I never claimed he was doing a 'normal' rebuild (whatever that is...AKA there's no such thing).

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

A lot of this 'support' was brought in before we even drafted the new core though. (Vrbata, Miller, Bartowski, Sutter, Eriksson, Gudbranson) Again, this is unquantifiable and really our opinions here, but I don't see the benefit of paying premium for assets like Gudbranson and Eriksson so Boeser and Horvat can watch them get shelled under the competition on the ice. I can see the benefit vets like Sutter, Vrbata and Miller can bring, but a few of them is enough, you need to have a balance so the youth aren't stifled because the spot is taken up by an underperforming vet.

I covered this a few pages ago replying to @lmm Some of the guys we brought in were simply warm bodies/sacrificial lambs as well (never mind just icing an actual NHL team). How about so guys like Boeser, Horvat et al don't need to be the guys gutting shelled and taking on all the media/fan base vitriol? We haven't had any 'stifled' kids. Any who've proven worthy, have played and will continue to do so.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

When you continually need to bring these guys in with the premise of 'supporting' the players for seven years, there comes a time you should ask. 'When do we trust our guys to walk on their own two feet yet?

Some of them now. And they're playing. Some guys still will require sheltering, particularly those guys still arriving. Honestly, until Petey/Hughes are in their primes, we're not a 'contending team'. Never mind getting some miles under the skates of guys like Podz, Hoglander, Lind, Rathboone, Juolevi, Woo etc. The only 'kids' in our core legitimately ready to actually contend right now are Horvat and Boeser IMO. And Boeser really only this year. 

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

I disagree entirely on the lack of saleable pieces. Benning had a Top 2C and a roster of veterans on a 100 point team when he started. It's what he did with the pieces that don't line up with a rebuild. I know we have our disagreements here. 

A top 2 C with a 2 team list and really not a lot else. Especially after the previous management's Tortorella gong show massively devalued half of them. Like you can't even seriously argue this with a straight face.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

That kind of sounds eerily like a description of our team in 2014/15. What a happy coincidence. 

Kane and Toews are a year younger NOW than the Sedins were then...and they've already been retooling for a couple seasons...no, it's not the same.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

Since their existence as the jtes? for WPG their core at least, since 2011 was assembled in 5 years and now they've been a force in the playoffs since 2016. That's less than 8 years.

Why would it just be since they moved to WPG? They were rebuilding as an organization long before that. 

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

 

The Avs were trying to compete until 2012 (they traded a 1st for Varlamov) with Duchene, Landeskog, Barrie. After drafting MacKinnon, Colorado took three years to go from the basement to a contender once Roy quit in 2016. 

And we've been 'trying to compete' as well. You're moving goal posts for everyone but the Canucks. They've been rebuilding since at least 10/11 and only became a legit 'contender' in the last year, maybe, generously 2. That's 8-9 years by my math.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

 

Leafs too, were pushing for playoffs until 2013. That was when they decided to give up on the Phaneuf, Kessel, JVR core and bottom out for Matthews.

Again, you can't use  that excuse for everyone but the Canucks. Try 05/06 for the Leaves. And they're honestly still not a legit 'contender' IMO.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

 

It is possible for a team to ust plain suck and not be in a rebuild.  

If we're using your criteria, we've only been 'rebuilding' since the twins retired then. How's that? Look how great we're doing by your moving goal posts now! It's only been three years!

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

Again, i don't think it's too far removed from us in 2014/15. A veteran core that is producing that is a few years removed from a Stanley cup final (losing with AV as the coach :() We just decided to stick to our retool until that core ran into the ground. 

Nope to be apples to apples, it would have been closer to us full-on rebuilding in 2012 after the disappointing 1st round exit. Two full years before Benning was even hired. And while most our vets were still at max value/we had saleable pieces

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

The Rangers made the hard choices and were willing to part with their stars in Rick Nash (M-NTC, NMC), J.T Miller, Ryan McDonagh (M-NTC) and capitalize on UFAs Zuccarello (UFA)  to load up their picks. 

See above.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

 

Your threshold from turning something from an apple to an orange is awfully low. 

Nope. Just based in reality.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

Like Toronto, this is as close to Apples to Apples as far as starting point for a rebuild goes. Management just lacked either the will, the wherewithal or the intent to follow the course of action needed. 

Entirely different starting points. Honestly don't know how anyone could determine otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

You mentioned that he was due for a raise. Despite him performing at half his rate from last year.

Yeah, no Covid and he still would have got a small inflation raise despite having an 'off' year from high $3m's to low $4m's. We got a 20% Covid discount on that. Do you honestly believe that a consistent, career .46PPG player having an off year is his new 'normal'?

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

 

He's in his twilight years. I'm fairly confident he won't regress hard line Roussel or Loui, but this contract hardly represents his best years. In any case, future evaluation of this deal will depend on his performance and the rest of the market this offseason.

 

Goodness, see this is nonsense. 28 is surely towards the middle-end of a players prime but it's hardly 'twilight years' That's bloody ridiculous. It's 1 year past most players still being RFA's!

 

Roussel didn't 'regress' either FYI. He had a career threatening knee injury that he unfortunately hasn't been the same since. It's a rough sport, that sort of thing happens. It's not like his play just happened to fall off with/because of age.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

Covid can also be flipped on the other side of the argument too you know.....the only reason Canucks qualified for playoffs was because of the play-in round. We never go to see whether or not Benning's choice to go all in on Toffoli worked or not while we are still out of the playoffs.  As it stands, GMJB has still yet to put together a roster that can qualify for playoffs in a full regular season after he squeezed the last bit of juice from the Sedins. 

 

Qualifying because of a buy-in is hardly indicative of a trend that Benning is leading this team to a winning environment

 

Anyways, for the rest. As you said, let's wait and see. 

Whatever floats your boat about last year. I don't see how that counters my point at all.

 

 

[lmm]

Steve Y has 8 picks in the top 2 rounds in 2 yeas since taking over in Detroit

Jim has 12 total inc 3 in year one

[Honky Cat]

14 minutes ago, lmm said:

Steve Y has 8 picks in the top 2 rounds in 2 yeas since taking over in Detroit

Jim has 12 total inc 3 in year one

Going into their 5th year without the playoffs, and there will still be several more to come.They are not close

Benning had most of his core within a 4 year span

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Honky Cat