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

Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

Rate this topic


appleboy

Recommended Posts

LOL. 

Derp.

 

"Blame" Linden?

How someone reads those posts and finds blame for Linden - takes some real crap goggles.

 

The usual reading comprehension fails.

 

I credit Linden with doing an incredible job.

Have never blamed Linden for a thing.

I'd bring him back in a heartbeat.

He never should have been shown the door.

 

But carry on with the juvenile:frantic: straw game.

  • Like 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of coaches could be on the chopping block this offseason. It will be interesting to see who moves where.

 

I expect Gallant will end up in Seattle or Columbus. Phoenix? who knows who they will hire. Brindamour will be back in Carolina I think. I even heard Torts to the Rangers rumor. Kind of laughed at that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, oldnews said:

You wanted something that wasn't really a possibility whatsoever - as pointed out.  The team had 101pts in the McDavid draft year....I'll get to the rest of why that wasn't gonna happen in a minute.

 

If it was all "water under the bridge" it wouldn't remain the most tedious, overcooked topic on these boards - the obsession with Benning's 'failures' is the subject of thread after thread, banners trailing airplanes over the city - virtually every thread on these boards hijacked with protests over things as dead horse as the LE signing.

 

The only chance of you having gotten what you wanted would have been for ownership to either retain Mike Gillis - and allow him to transition that group while it was still a VERY good team (something he signaled a necessity for when he dealt Schneider and drafted Horvat - that the team needed to, at the very least, divide their priorities and start adding futures (perhaps Gillis was not the guy for that task, judging by the drafting record under him - but at least he recognized what was pending...)

 

I'm not going to speculate about who was making what calls at that stage - but it's clear that there were some real disjoints at/between ownership/management/and coaching levels...no need to speculate about that - Tortorella went full laundry in public throwing Gillis and the roster under the bus - while failing wildly to coach effectively what he inherited/the group he had to work with.

 

The year before Tortorella they were 26-15 - and first in the Northwest.  Vigneault was coaching that group - the Sedins and Malhotra were their oldest skaters at 32 - Luongo was still here....

 

How realistic is it for an owne to authorize a tear down at that point?   At the same time, instead of 'retooling' or at least dividing their priorities - to the future - they brought in Tortorella (a decision that had precisely zero 'Mike Gillis' written on it.  And needless to say that cost the franchise that season, cost them any chance of moving most of the veteran assets that would need to be dealt in order to 'retool' or "properly rebuild"....Enter Linden with a roster full of radically devalued assets (ie the Sedins lead the team with 50 and 47 pts...the roster was weighted with players that would be extremely difficult to move, if not cost them assets to move (not exactly how anyone wants to launch a 'rething'.)  

 

But none of that registers with the :frantic: crowd -  a loud crowd in this market - with their fingers in their ears throughout this tenure - who want what they want - and blame the second and thirds in command.

 

If we're going to whine about an alleged 7 years 'without a plan' - that should be taken further - to "2013 - the beginning of the end of the Canucks chances for a "#proper" / effective transition".....which set them back to bottoming out in 2016.  The ludicrous terminology of 'tank nation' - the "unintentional tank" - applies only to the Tortorella season - the death of the contendng era was written on the wall.  The unavoidable tank is what followed - and given the reality of what brought them to that point, I'm fine with Linden's plan - I think it was pretty clearly the best, if not only realistic approach moving forward - and in the end I prefer a protracted, metered rething where the team does not stockpile for a mere season or two, and then bumb rush a 'window' of contention.  I'd much rather they maintain a consistent compliment of drafting and development - and hope they maintain that approach even after this roster is predominantly their own picks and prospects developed through the system.  Stay the course - and stay the course even after rising to consistently competitive/contending. 

 

 

 

That was when blowing up the team made the most sense . They still had some assets that would have brought value. They had nothing in their farm. Anyone with a brain could see the team was done. If they were forecasting years in advance they would have known it was time. The Sedins should have been used as an example for the youth. 

There was a lot of us on this board and in the city saying exactly that . Unfortunately we were proved right . 

Management decided to fritter away those assets until they were worthless.

 

Anyway , it is in the past. It gets me upset just thinking about it 

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 3/26/2021 at 9:53 AM, appleboy said:

This is how I see Jim Benning's tenor.

 

Linden and Jim inherited an aging hockey club. One that had been on a win now agenda for several years in a row. Not only was the NHL product beginning to wane but their minor league system had been stripped to the bear bones . Most of the fan base expected them to announce a rebuild. To our surprise they instead went to the ufa market and continued with the win now agenda. After a decent season they were quickly and embarrassingly dispatched by the Flames. 

Season two fans were again prepared for the rebuild announcement. Even when asked directly about their plans they refused to even suggest the idea of a rebuild. Over the next few years they kept going back to the ufa market. Not once would they say the words rebuild. It was suggested that it would not be fair to put the twins through a rebuild. Not once did they come out and lay out a real plan. 

Once the twins retired you would think that would have triggered the club to use that opportunity to put forth a plan to rebuild the decimated organization. They sort of came out and hinted to a retool. LOL .  Yet they continued to go back to the ufa market. They made deals for other teams left overs to try and fill what Jim called the 22 to 25 year old players that were missing from our system. They were making moves to try to skip doing a proper rebuild. We began to see a conflict develop between Linden and Benning. Linden was starting to lean toward a proper rebuild and Jim wanted to continue on with the build on the fly motto. Management showed their true colors by siding with Jim.  Linden gets the boot.

Jim Benning's lack of planning and cap management has got the club into cap issues and restricted the clubs ability to add any talent for this year and next.       "That brings us to now".

 

So what is the plan? Be active at trade deadline? Playoffs at all cost? 

 

This club has been lacking a real plan of attack for years.

 

 

Maybe you see things differently. Please enlighten me.

 

 

Are you THAT new?  Thanks for the laugh though, could always use a good one every now and then.. THINK about what your saying, exactly what happened here, happened because of the way the team was and it was ALWAYS fan pressure to sell the farm and win it all now, instead of actually building a team for once.

Edited by iceman64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2021 at 11:30 AM, aGENT said:

Have the balls to @ someone.

 

And your smart enough, I never said you weren't. Willfully obtuse to suit a narrative however... That's right up some of your alleys.

 

Saleable assets. Vastly different starting points. Different plans. Different situations.

 

Ding, ding, ding...

 

Agreed upon plan with ownership. Rebuild as the main priority while attempting to remain somewhere closer to a bubble team in the process. People may not like it or choose not to understand it, but that is/has been the plan, all along. And in many ways was dictated by what the roster (and prospect pool...or lack thereof) looked like when Benning got here.

Don't you hate it when you have to school people all the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Does all this rambling shifting blame onto Linden rather than Benning factor in that Linden wanted a true rebuild and was fired for it?

 

Summer 2018 seemed to be the true divergence/power struggle that led to Linden's exit. Look at those signings. Right after, Linden was fired. So its not a real leap to suggest the guy who wanted the band aid on the broken leg plan was the one left standing. Further proven by the continuation of a similar signing strategy since.

 

Its incredulous to me that in the never ending quest to absolve Benning of responsibility for his mistakes, his supporters will twist reality like that.

 

Consider the source though.

i

Ummm...  Linden was not fired, he stepped down.. MAYBE to save face from possibly getting fired rather than quit but at any rate he stepped down, not fired.. and it's conjecture at best, and the signings had nothing to do with it, you do the best with what you have and add to it as you as you go and if someone can't handle it then..  oh well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, appleboy said:

That was when blowing up the team made the most sense . They still had some assets that would have brought value. They had nothing in their farm. Anyone with a brain could see the team was done. If they were forecasting years in advance they would have known it was time. The Sedins should have been used as an example for the youth. 

There was a lot of us on this board and in the city saying exactly that . Unfortunately we were proved right . 

Management decided to fritter away those assets until they were worthless.

 

Anyway , it is in the past. It gets me upset just thinking about it

That whole paragraph made zero sense.. the sedins were kept to mentor Bo, Brock etc.. teach them how to be professionals on and off the ice and while keeping the team somewhat watchable, and how exactly do you circumvent league rules on contracts?! that say contracts expire when they expire and not before?! MG had half the team or more locked in, can you not understand this..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The idea that we didn't have "saleable assets" is incredibly flawed. And it doesn't even really hold much water because we horribly misused most of the assets that did have actual value anyways. I don't think Jim deserves the benefit of the doubt for being unable to get value out of his players.

 

Bieksa -- traded for a 2nd (good), then stupidly downgraded to a 3rd in the Sutter trade for literally no reason.

Kesler -- traded (with two 2nd round picks) for what is now Brandon Sutter, Tanner Pearson, and a 3rd. Absolutely pathetic asset management. We literally would've been better off waiving him.

Hansen -- traded for a bust in Goldobin and a 4th.

Burrows -- traded for Dahlen (this one was good enough)

Garrison -- traded for a 2nd (probably an underpayment), then downgraded from the 2nd to Vey.

Higgins -- coming off an 0.5 P/G season in 13-14, we didn't sell high and let the asset deteriorate. I don't think I've ever seen Benning attempt to sell high as GM here before.

Lack -- traded for a 3rd (probably under market value considering how well he had played for us up to then).

 

And then you can look at assets on the 13-14 Canucks that other teams were actually able to get value out of, but Jim somehow wasn't.

 

Santorelli - cheaply signed with Toronto, was then thrown into a package traded for a high pick.

Matthias - cheaply signed with Toronto, was then traded for a 4th from Colorado.

 

Even if you believe that no other players inherited by Benning could've possibly gone for value (which I don't, especially in a league where guys like Forbort and Fantenberg managed to get traded for picks), he still did an awful job dealing with what he got. The outlook of this team is still probably significantly better if we handled the above players better.

 

 

 

Edited by Josepho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Josepho said:

The idea that we didn't have "saleable assets" is incredibly flawed. And it doesn't even really hold much water because we horribly misused most of the assets that did have actual value anyways. I don't think Jim deserves the benefit of the doubt for being unable to get value out of his players.

 

Bieksa -- traded for a 2nd (good), then stupidly downgraded to a 3rd in the Sutter trade for literally no reason.

Kesler -- traded (with two 2nd round picks) for what is now Brandon Sutter, Tanner Pearson, and a 3rd. Absolutely pathetic asset management.

Hansen -- traded for a bust in Goldobin and a 4th.

Burrows -- traded for Dahlen (this one was good enough)

Garrison -- traded for a 2nd (probably an underpayment), then downgraded from the 2nd to Vey.

Higgins -- coming off an 0.5 P/G season in 13-14, we didn't sell high and let the asset deteriorate. I don't think I've ever seen Benning attempt to sell high as GM here before.

Lack -- traded for a 3rd (probably under market value considering how well he had played for us up to then).

 

And then you can look at assets on the 13-14 Canucks that other teams were actually able to get value out of, but Jim somehow wasn't.

 

Santorelli - cheaply signed with Toronto, was then thrown into a package traded for a high pick.

Matthias - cheaply signed with Toronto, was then traded for a 4th from Colorado.

 

Even if you believe that no other players inherited by Benning could've possibly gone for value (which I don't, especially in a league where guys like Forbort and Fantenberg managed to get traded for picks), he still did an awful job dealing with what he got.

 

 

 

Add Miller, Hamhuis and Vrbata to the list. Good retool signings. But when the time came to not extend them in the final season. Trade talks began too late or were just squelched. We wanted to try and push for playoffs even being close to mathematically eliminated. 2016 was really a year to forget.

 

A team that had 'nothing' also included our top D pair (Edler-Tanev), Our captain and number one goalie in Marky. Not saying we trade them but the value is there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You can also look at other teams who (relatively cheaply) brought in UFAs who managed to get good value out of them while Benning didn't. 

 

In 2014,

 

Olli Jokinen - eventually traded for a 6th.

Patrick Eaves - eventually moved for a 1st.

Tim Gleason - eventually moved for a 4th.

Devan Dubnyk - eventually moved for a 3rd.

Brian Boyle - eventually moved for a 2nd.

David Legwand - eventually packaged for a 1st.

 

In 2015,

 

Daniel Winnik - eventually packaged for a 2nd.

Tomas Fleischmann - signed VERY late into free agency, was eventually packaged with Weise for Danault and a 2nd in one of the most lopsided trades in recent NHL history.

Lee Stempniak - eventually moved for a 2nd.

Johnny Oduya - eventually moved for a 4th.

Mike Green - eventually moved for a 4th.

Michael Frolik - eventually moved for a 4th.

 

In 2016,

 

Jonathan Marchessault - wasn't necessarily traded for anything but this is definitely a player we could've picked up cheaply and gotten value out of. Unfortunately, our pro scouting has never been good enough to pick up on an asset like this.

Ben Lovejoy - eventually packaged for a 3rd.

David Schlemko - eventually moved for a 5th.

Vernon Fiddler - eventually moved for a 4th.

Viktor Stalberg - eventually moved for a 3rd.

Michael Grabner -  eventually moved for a 2nd.

Thomas Vanek - eventually moved for a 3rd.

Steve Ott - eventually moved for a 6th.

 

Citing what Benning inherited as the reason he hasn't been able to accumulate assets is blatantly incorrect, especially since he's been here for 7 years and has never shown any consistent ability to do so. And since I know this will be used as an excuse, know that many of these players also signed with poor/rebuilding teams.

 

 

Edited by Josepho
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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...