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

1 hour ago, Josepho said:

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.

 

 

Signing cheap vets to short-term deals to mentor and/or flip without ever "getting in the way" cap-wise is a pretty standard concept amongst hockey fans.

 

The only reason you'll get pushback here is because Benning has refused to do it for the most part and some will defend it just because it's Benning's plan. And others will say "there's more than one way to rebuild" as if this strategy is something you need to divert all your resources towards to accomplish instead of it just being a simple/easy way to supplement your asset pool.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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 may be - but you're talking about pre-Tortorella here.....something the present management group - and Linden, who put it together are and were not accountable for.

I think it's pretty clear that the team - as a result of those decisions - was set back until 2016 - and had their asset base significantly devalued in the process.

That was a window missed - which is rumoured to have been something Gillis cautioned.  I can't verify that - but it seems pretty evident that Gillis wasn't listened to - or was pushed to the margin - for me, regardless of the rumours or not - it looked patently obvious that Tortorella was not a Gillis decision - nothing about Tortorella spells the kind of game, build, systems, or approach that Gillis had established.

When you use the word "management" as you have - you are spanning different groups and attempting a false equivalency - as if the Linden/Benning era are responsible for their predecessors.

 

Anyhow - thanks for the discussion - I think it's actually been better than most on this topic/matter.

I might share your frustration - but I can't apply that to equally to different regimes - I assess the present one based on the specific circumstances they inherited - and when I look realistically at their options, I'm not bright enough to woulda/coulda/shoulda a different course - in general (of course I can take issue with a few moves, but anyone can literally take issue with moves every franchise makes - there are no exceptions).

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Josepho said:

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.

 

 

There were 30 teams in 2014, so a list of 6 players spread throughout the league isn't all that impressive

 ditto for 2015, 2016.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gurn said:

There were 30 teams in 2014, so a list of 6 players spread throughout the league isn't all that impressive

 ditto for 2015, 2016.

Also look at all the 3rd-6th rounders that we 'missed out on'.

 

Nevermind that we're chock a block full of the exact type of players you hope to find with those types of picks, despite not loading up on them... 

 

Frankly, I'll take the 'trade-off' of retaining a quality player like Sutter, Beagle etc to shelter, insulate and guide our kids over one or two more players at the level of Karlsson, Costmar, Jasek, McDonagh, Lockwood, Malone etc. Was one or two more of those guys going to be the magic bean to turn this franchise around faster...?

 

So myopic.

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

Also look at all the 3rd-6th rounders that we 'missed out on'.

 

Nevermind that we're chock a block full of the exact type of players you hope to find with those types of picks, despite not loading up on them... 

 

Frankly, I'll take the 'trade-off' of retaining a quality player like Sutter, Beagle etc to shelter, insulate and guide our kids over one or two more players at the level of Karlsson, Costmar, Jasek, McDonagh, Lockwood, Malone etc. Was one or two more of those guys going to be the magic bean to turn this franchise around faster...?

 

So myopic.

Loop Work GIF by notofagus

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, gurn said:

There were 30 teams in 2014, so a list of 6 players spread throughout the league isn't all that impressive

 ditto for 2015, 2016.

I see your point, but not all 30 teams are rebuilding or had the same plan, in any year half teams are making playoffs and there are bubble teams that try to make the cut or standing pat. So the population of teams who aim to make that transaction is smaller. The reality is closer to 6 transactions for a pool of perhaps 10 rebuilding/retooling teams that look to make selling transactions like those. 

 

Like count the teams rebuilding today. Its certainly a minority of the league. (LA, Chicago, NJD, Buffalo, Anaheim, SJ, OTT, Van....)

 

So while you can debate 6 transactions for 10 teams is impressive or not, 30 isn't taking into account the context here. And if you want to use 30, then acknowledge the other side of the transaction. So in theory 6 transactions requires 12 teams etc..

 

Edited by DSVII
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, gurn said:

There were 30 teams in 2014, so a list of 6 players spread throughout the league isn't all that impressive

 ditto for 2015, 2016.

The bottom line is that there definitely were opportunities to collect value, and Benning missed out on them. And blaming what Benning inherited for his constant inability to manage his assets properly is ridiculous.

 

Most teams aren't going to be trading their players for picks, so I don't see how all 30 teams are relevant, but a non-playoff team like us should've absolutely been looking to do so. It's not a coincidence that some of the most common teams in my example (Toronto, NYR, Carolina) currently have an upward trajectory -- they know how to capitalize on what they have. 

 

And sure, a list of 6 may not be impressive on its own, but this is a list of ~20 where the Canucks don't show up once. We failed to take advantage of an easy way to gain picks.

 

16 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Also look at all the 3rd-6th rounders that we 'missed out on'.

 

Nevermind that we're chock a block full of the exact type of players you hope to find with those types of picks, despite not loading up on them... 

 

Frankly, I'll take the 'trade-off' of retaining a quality player like Sutter, Beagle etc to shelter, insulate and guide our kids over one or two more players at the level of Karlsson, Costmar, Jasek, McDonagh, Lockwood, Malone etc. Was one or two more of those guys going to be the magic bean to turn this franchise around faster...?

 

So myopic.

Obviously a single 4th rounder or whatever is unlikely to make a difference, but this sort of thing adds up over time, especially combined with how often Benning trades away picks. 

 

I completely disagree that we are "chock a block full" of anything. Our prospect pool is extremely mediocre and basically every prospects source will agree with that. 

 

But even if it was, picks are still assets. They (or the prospects picked with them) can be used to trade for actual good players. Look at how Colorado was able to parlay picks they accumulated into guys like Toews/Burakovsky. Same thing with Toronto and Muzzin. LA/NYR are seen as the most likely destinations for Eichel because of how well they've managed to gain assets. They can afford to make those moves. 

 

There is no "trade-off" here. We can absolutely still have players shelter, insulate, etc. our young guys while also moving them for assets and replacing them with other players who can be moved for assets. There is no reason that only veterans on bloated contracts can insulate our young players.

 

And finally, all of this is more so a reflection of Benning's asset management overall, and it's unlikely that he'll flip a switch and suddenly know how to maximize profits from what he has. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Also look at all the 3rd-6th rounders that we 'missed out on'.

 

Nevermind that we're chock a block full of the exact type of players you hope to find with those types of picks, despite not loading up on them... 

 

Frankly, I'll take the 'trade-off' of retaining a quality player like Sutter, Beagle etc to shelter, insulate and guide our kids over one or two more players at the level of Karlsson, Costmar, Jasek, McDonagh, Lockwood, Malone etc. Was one or two more of those guys going to be the magic bean to turn this franchise around faster...?

 

So myopic.

It's the 2nd rounders that hurt more tbh. Top 6 Players like Alex Debrincat  (whom the nucks were high on at the time)  or top 4 players like Andersson could be in this lineup today, cost controlled.

 

The value of a 3rd round pick seems to shift depending on whether you're using it to support Benning ('we don't need surplus picks because JB can get value wherever in the draft') or knocking down an opinion ('we didn't miss out on anything big')

 

A 3rd round pick in Jim Benning's hands, has value. Full stop. Even critics of JB wished he gave himself more to work with.  Forfeiting the chance to draft and trading away our picks for the first few years represents an opportunity cost that is represented by our current holes in D, top 6 Winger and the 3C position. 

 

Edited by DSVII
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@DSVIIand @Josepho

 

Not all of those players went to rebuilding teams. In fact a fair number, especially the guys who returned earlier than 3rds, signed to playoff teams. Not rebuilding ones.

 

And yes, sorry, we are chock a block full of the exact sort of players you expect from mid-late round picks. We don't need more/wouldn't have the contact slots for them all. What we're getting short of is blue chip guys and that's because so many of ours have graduated to the NHL already. Exactly the cycle of what happens in a successful rebuild. And we'll be adding another 1-2 this coming draft that will likely bump our prospect ranking, that you're so concerned about, back in to the top 10.

 

And I think there's a fundamental disagreement on the value of players like Beagle or Sutter. Simple plugs, or even decent NHL level journeymen, are not in fact equivalents, as much as you guys like to try to equate them. They aren't the reason for any of our woes. Cap, asset management or otherwise.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, steviewonder20 said:

“This is a team we can turn around in a hurry”. JB tweet on May 23, 2014. Just sayin,

I believe this was already addressed.

 

On 5/7/2021 at 3:46 PM, oldnews said:

And with all due respect, they did turn around in a hurry.

 

They went from 25th in the league to 48-29-5 = 101 pts in 2014/15, 2nd in the Pacific...

 

Try a different angle.

 

But y'all keep bringing up your Facebook/Twitter level meme 'points'. Just saying.

Edited by aGENT
  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, aGENT said:

@DSVIIand @Josepho

 

Not all of those players went to rebuilding teams. In fact a fair number, especially the guys who returned earlier than 3rds, signed to playoff teams. Not rebuilding ones.

 

And yes, sorry, we are chock a block full of the exact sort of players you expect from mid-late round picks. We don't need more/wouldn't have the contact slots for them all. What we're getting short of is blue chip guys and that's because so many of ours have graduated to the NHL already. Exactly the cycle of what happens in a successful rebuild. And we'll be adding another 1-2 this coming draft that will likely bump our prospect ranking, that you're so concerned about, back in to the top 10.

 

And I think there's a fundamental disagreement on the value of players like Beagle or Sutter. Simple plugs, or even decent NHL level journeymen, are not in fact equivalents, as much as you guys like to try to equate them. They aren't the reason for any of our woes. Cap, asset management or otherwise.

@aGENT You may be surprised to hear I have warmed up to the value of Sutter as a mentor type veteran. I agree with having these players in principle, I just feel his presence here makes Beagle redundant and unnecessary. If we needed someone to anchor a 4th line, Dowd for $700k would have suited our purposes well enough (and the Caps agree, made the swap from Beagle to him without hesitation)

 

I agree we do have a fundamental disagreement of player values, but it's not with Sutter, it's with Tyler Myers ahah.  And we've said our pieces on that one.  So we can leave it at that.

 

I think a surplus of blue chip draft prospects that take up your contract slots is an excellent problem to have, it is what they say, a higher level problem. You can navigate your way more easily out of a contract spot squeeze than say.... a cap squeeze with Roussel or Beagle at $3 mil and you can up your chances of returning someone of value that can immediately address your needs. Depending on the quality of the blue chips, you can do win-win trades that can help you compete now.

 

For example, look at what Vegas did with Suzuki and Erik Brannstrom. Turned two contract slot prospect into Pachioretty and Mark Stone. I realize we are talking 3rd round depth here, but you can easily return serviceable depth players in the mold of say a Nosek or Martinez type player for lower pedigree picks. 

 

A surplus of draft picks allows you to make trades like these rather than asking people if they can take Roussel or Loui off our hands for cap dumps.

 

 

Edited by DSVII
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DSVII said:

@aGENT You may be surprised to hear I have warmed up to the value of Sutter as a mentor type veteran. I agree with having these players in principle, I just feel his presence here makes Beagle redundant and unnecessary. If we needed someone to anchor a 4th line, Dowd for $700k would have suited our purposes well enough (and the Caps agree, made the swap from Beagle to him without hesitation)

 

I agree we do have a fundamental disagreement of player values, but it's not with Sutter, it's with Tyler Myers ahah.  And we've said our pieces on that one.  So we can leave it at that.

 

I think a surplus of blue chip draft prospects that take up your contract slots is an excellent problem to have, it is what they say, a higher level problem. You can navigate your way more easily out of a contract spot squeeze than say.... a cap squeeze with Roussel or Beagle at $3 mil and you can up your chances of returning someone of value that can immediately address your needs. Depending on the quality of the blue chips, you can do win-win trades that can help you compete now.

 

For example, look at what Vegas did with Suzuki and Erik Brannstrom. Turned two contract slot prospect into Pachioretty and Mark Stone. I realize we are talking 3rd round depth here, but you can easily return serviceable depth players in the mold of say a Nosek or Martinez type player for lower pedigree picks. 

 

A surplus of draft picks allows you to make trades like these rather than asking people if they can take Roussel or Loui off our hands for cap dumps.

 

 

hey we could be a team like that, and petterson migh be asking for a trade right now. have you seen what happened to buffalo, ottawa, columbus and edmonton. not exactly quick turn arounds.

 

because losing your rfa players because they demand a trade is usually a great way to lose all the advantage you get from trading 1/4 of the team away every season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

hey we could be a team like that, and petterson migh be asking for a trade right now. have you seen what happened to buffalo, ottawa, columbus and edmonton. not exactly quick turn arounds.

 

because losing your rfa players because they demand a trade is usually a great way to lose all the advantage you get from trading 1/4 of the team away every season.

That's pretty much conjecture (which granted, everyone's points are!) But If Bo and Boeser still haven't demanded trades after going through the most losing our franchise ever experienced in a six season span, the lack of another Beagle or Roussel wouldn't move the needle. Plus we get extra picks and support from the farm. 

 

How is Bo watching us get shelled 4-0 with Beagle at an extra $2 million on the ice better than getting shelled 4-0 with Dowd at $700k on the ice?

 

I'm going to venture we are heading down that path of Columbus and New Jersey unless the winning starts soon. We have our core in place and they're still experiencing more losses on the ice. The departures of Toffoli and Tanev were a bad signal to our guys on management's commitment to compete as well. What's to stop Petey, Bo and Boeser from demanding trades now or in the future? 

 

At the end of the day, these intangibles we are supposed to buy into will need to produce a tangible result.

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DSVII said:

That's pretty much conjecture (which granted, everyone's points are!) But If Bo and Boeser still haven't demanded trades after going through the most losing our franchise ever experienced in a six season span, the lack of another Beagle or Roussel wouldn't move the needle. Plus we get extra picks and support from the farm. 

 

How is Bo watching us get shelled 4-0 with Beagle at an extra $2 million on the ice better than getting shelled 4-0 with Dowd at $700k on the ice?

 

I'm going to venture we are heading down that path of Columbus and New Jersey unless the winning starts soon. We have our core in place and they're still experiencing more losses on the ice. The departures of Toffoli and Tanev were a bad signal to our guys on management's commitment to compete as well. What's to stop Petey, Bo and Boeser from demanding trades now or in the future? 

 

At the end of the day, these intangibles we are supposed to buy into will need to produce a tangible result.

 

every time you trade a servicable player, you run the risk of signing a dud. there is no 20/20 vision who will succeed or not. the more trades you make the more duds you sign. signing new ufa agents every year is tough. look at buffalo this year, big time fails. and now eichel  wants out, this will set them back years!!! the sabres are not going to get a favorable trade. Taylor Hall , mark stone, Ryan Oreilly.

 

also after running through your roster like a accountant what UFA would want to sign in vancouver? name some  significant UFA signings from one of these teams.

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/trades/avalanche colarado without the duschene trade made nearly the exact same type of trades as benning, giving up picks to try to jump start thier rebuild. they didn't sell too many players.

 

maybe this means we should trade Hughes and miller? beause other than ryan Oreilly and duschene they didn't  sell  too many players

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, DSVII said:

@aGENTI think a surplus of blue chip draft prospects that take up your contract slots is an excellent problem to have, 

That's not the argument here though. We're not talking about blue chip guys largely found with early firsts. We have those. We're talking the difference in a few more 'B' and 'C' prospects from a few more mid-late picks is what all the whinging and arguing about #asset management, amounts to.

 

One extra 'Lockwood' (as much as I like the guy and he's showing promise) does not make enough of a difference to account for all the complaining. We have so many of that player type, we easily afforded giving up another in Madden last year, for Toffoli and kept on trucking.

 

Also Dowd =\= Beagle. Washington would have loved to have kept Beagle if he would have stayed for Dowd money.

 

And FWIW, Roussel was worth every penny of that contract before his knee injury.

Edited by aGENT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In Greens latest interview he used the word. You know the word! I think everyone knows the word.

 

Green said " Rebuild". 

 

In this organization that is a major offense.  You could get fired . 

OR

Have they sat in their little offices and decided to spin the bad on ice  results by suggesting we are now in a rebuild.

I wonder if Bo knows we are in a rebuild? 

Edited by appleboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, appleboy said:

In Greens latest interview he used the word. You know the word! I think everyone knows the word.

 

Green said " Rebuild". 

 

In this organization that is a major offense.  You could get fired . 

OR

Have they sat in their little offices and decided to spin the bad on ice  results by suggesting we are now in a rebuild.

I wonder if Bo knows we are in a rebuild? 

I don’t buy the rebuild gig given who is currently on the roster. Personally, I’m far from a Benning nuthugger and am skeptical on Green but this hockey team has a lot of talent and a lot of their players have underperformed this season and not playing as well as they are capable. Everyone sh*ts on the defence and how bad they have been but I think with a different structure and philosophy they are capable of being at least middle of the pack if not better. They are definitely missing some pieces up front and sorely need a real 3rd line center and more offense from the bottom 6 but this isn’t something that cannot be addressed with somebody competent at the helm filling these gaps and getting this team to where they could potentially be. Minnesota was at one point looked at last year as a team

in no mans land with no real identity, middle of the pack with an uncertain future and now look at them. 

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...