Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

[VegasCanuck]

3 minutes ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

In fairness the guys Detroit has brought in are on short term contracts and don’t make 3+ million with a NMC. Detroit has added a ridiculous amount of picks since Yzerman took over, especially in the top 3 rounds. If Benning went about a rebuild like Stevey Y has been doing I’d say we should get ready to build him a statue in front of the arena, but he hasn’t gone that route at all

I agree that Steve Y has done an excellent job in Detroit in creating the building blocks to move that team forward.

 

[IBatch]

13 minutes ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

I agree there were a lot of quality Dmen. I wish we did take Tkachuk and they took Juolevi as it probably makes us better and then weaker BUT Juolevi can still turn into what was hoped on draft day, no one has a crystal ball

I was livid when PLD went to CLB, and then happier then sh!t when MT fell to us...then almost threw the remote when we didn't pick him or the next guy up or the next guy up etc...since then i've seen the type of guy MT is and don't mind he's not on our team.   And also realize his 20-30 goals would have made it really hard to draft EP and QHs.   EP i was also not happy with .... until he absolutely tore it up draft plus one then was like wait a minute.   Then he comes and did a little WG impression and the rest is history.   I won't ever doubt JB first pick again.  Did still with QHs ... then he picked Podz.   That's four in a row.   I'd be embarrassed to admit the team i'd have picked.   Sure bigger and meaner, but we'd get schooled. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by IBatch

[IBatch]

4 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

I agree that Steve Y has done an excellent job in Detroit in creating the building blocks to move that team forward.

 

In all fairness, Holland also helped him along.  Holland actually did an ok job on his third core.  Lost a lot of his lustre - but let's face it he left Yzerman with some good prospects and some good trading/Horvat or older players too. 

 

He went way off board on Sieder and hit massively.  Took some big balls which we all know he's got and it worked.   Have to wait and see still how it all unfolds.   He's not in TB anymore, and like Babcock moving from a top team to a rebuilding one, some of the shine could go before it's done too.  Doubt it though it's Stevie Y.  

Edited May 17, 2021 by IBatch

[VegasCanuck]

1 minute ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

That’s very true. There were a lot of rumours saying that we wanted him, and that would have been amazing. The thing is I think a lot of fans wanted a particular player, who was available so if he performs well and we are still waiting on Juolevi, who I’m hoping proves those people myself included wrong, then there will be disappointment. And that’s ok. When you pick 4 you really hope you hit a homerun with the pick especially in the position we were in at the time. 

That whole draft year is a real sore spot for me. Not only do we not get any luck in moving up into better draft position, (50 + years without a single first overall is a little hard to take, especially if you remember the teams from the late 80's), but the one year that we finish in bottom 3, with Matthews, Laine, Puljujarvi, and Dubios, all 4 guys who are projected as franchise forwards available, and we get bumped back to 5th.

[PositionOfPower]

My summarized assesment of JB is he has done a very good job drafting then any canucks gm before however his trades, reclaimation signings, fa signings have not been good at all. His skill in making the 4 lines is not up to par with his drafting skills. It's like buying all the good ingredients for cooking but not making the best food.

 

Gillis was horrible at drafting lol corrado, schroeder, rodin, hodgson.

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

4 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I was livid when PLD went to CLB, and then happier then sh!t when MT fell to us...then almost threw the remote when we didn't pick him or the next guy up or the next guy up etc...since then i've seen the type of guy MT is and don't mind he's not on our team.   And also realize his 20-30 goals would have made it really hard to draft EP and QHs.   EP i was also not happy with .... until he absolutely tore it up draft plus one then was like wait a minute.   Then he comes and did a little WG impression and the rest is history.   I won't ever doubt JB first pick again.  Did still with QHs ... then he picked Podz.   That's four in a row.   I'd be embarrassed to admit the team i'd have picked.   Sure bigger and meaner, but we'd get schooled. 

I felt the same way the day of the Juolevi pick, to a tee. I see the way MT plays and think “damn I wish he was on our team”. If you loved Kesler and Burrows, if you like JT then how could you think you wouldn’t want MT. We just feel like he’s a POS because he is and he’s not on our team. I also agree with EP, I wanted Glass or Mittlestadt, I can admit I know nothing but even with knowing nothing I would have taken Ehlers and MT with those picks and wanted those players. Thank goodness he took EP because he is now the face of the franchise and probably the best player the team has seen to date. Hughes fell to us and was an obvious choice, everyone had him penciled for Det but luckily Kotkaniemi went 3 and Hayton 5 to push things back. Even though everyone knew Kotkaniemi was going 3, still benefitted is massively. Podz is another pick I like, I would have gone Newhook but Podz brings something this team will need. I like JBs drafting for the most part, I just wish he had more opportunities to pick and he didn’t give that to himself 

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

6 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

That whole draft year is a real sore spot for me. Not only do we not get any luck in moving up into better draft position, (50 + years without a single first overall is a little hard to take, especially if you remember the teams from the late 80's), but the one year that we finish in bottom 3, with Matthews, Laine, Puljujarvi, and Dubios, all 4 guys who are projected as franchise forwards available, and we get bumped back to 5th.

I know I was so disappointed. But as a kid I loved Keith Tkachuk so I was still stoked to get his kid. And I also love a guy that can get under opponents skin while being a valuable player. They’re so frustrating to play against and can be so effective. We could use him right now. I feel like a lot of guys take advantage of our players on the ice and I don’t see enough guys step up. We need some jam and make guys pay for taking a run at EP, QH or BB. Maybe Gadjovich can be that but still a little early to tell

[VegasCanuck]

9 minutes ago, PositionOfPower said:

My summarized assesment of JB is he has done a very good job drafting then any canucks gm before however his trades, reclaimation signings, fa signings have not been good at all. His skill in making the 4 lines is not up to par with his drafting skills. It's like buying all the good ingredients for cooking but not making the best food.

 

Gillis was horrible at drafting lol corrado, schroeder, rodin, hodgson.

If you're going to commit to building through the draft, you go with a guy who has a history of drafting well.

 

We're where we are supposed to be in terms of prospect pool now. Let's give them a chance to show what they can do in a normal year where we don't spend half the year without Pettersson. We're 8 or 9 guys down right now, we're an exhausted team, and we're still pushing.

[aGENT]

55 minutes ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

I agree there were a lot of quality Dmen. I wish we did take Tkachuk and they took Juolevi as it probably makes us better and then weaker BUT Juolevi can still turn into what was hoped on draft day, no one has a crystal ball

If you want to Captain Hindsight that draft, you trade down to the 10-14 pick (plus an additional asset) and select McAvoy

 

If I ever come across a time machine, I go back and tell Benning exactly that.

 

Carolina had the 13 and 21 pick that draft...wonder if we could get both... 

Edited May 18, 2021 by aGENT

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

If you want to Captain Hindsight that draft, you trade down to the 10-14 pick (plus an additional asset) and select McAvoy

 

If I ever come across a time machine, I go back and tell Benning exactly that.

 

Carolina had the 13 and 21 pick that draft...wonder if we could get both... 

I’m not using Hindsight, if I was the. I take Mcavoy all day. I’m using who I wanted at the time which was MT or Chychrun. It wouldn’t have been fair for me to mention Mcavoy because he wasn’t on my radar for the pick at all

[oldnews]

On 5/13/2021 at 7:19 PM, CanadianRugby said:

Sure.

 

My first step would have been to trade any vet of value that waived their clauses and could fetch a decent return.  That means try to trade Kesler, Bieksa, Higgins, Burrows, Hansen, Matthias, Hamhuis, Richardson and Tanev before they lost their value due to age.  I think the Sedins wanted to stay and if you were to pick any vets to teach youngsters how to be pros, they were perfect for that job.  So keep them, but tank.  

 

I would also not have traded any picks to "fill an age gap" which means Benning would have had a lot of 2nd.. 3rd round picks to work with.  His track record in the 2nd and late 1st round is very good so I imagine our bottom 6 would have some good young players hitting their prime about now.  As well as some D possibly.  

 

I wouldn't have spent big money on free agents unless it was on short term contracts.  With the old vets traded away, there'd be cap room to (in the short term) bring in character guys to teach/protect prospects.  As well as "weaponize" the cap by adding bad contracts for draft picks.  If any of those vets really worked out then they too could be flipped for picks, thanks to them having short contracts.  

 

The Canucks were destined to be bad when Benning took over.  So really the rebuild should have been embraced right away.  The high picks might have been higher, and the cap situation would be a lot better because it would be drafted players instead of expensive past their prime vets on the bottom 6.  The rebuild would also be complete faster because there'd be a bigger influx of talent coming in, and it coming in much sooner than it ultimately did.  

 

At the end of the day.  I feel management tried to avoid a rebuild, even in the middle of multiple bottom feeder seasons.  Instead of hoarding draft picks, they were traded to improve faster.  This didn't work so there were no on ice results as well as any rebuild being hamstrung by lack of draft picks.  In fact, this "rebuilding" team had one less draft pick than they started with over Benning's tenure.  

 

So while the Canucks have ended up with some good top end players due to being terrible.  The supporting cast is straight up bad because of foolish contracts and the fact that more draft picks were traded away than brought in when the team should have been rebuilding.  None of this is hindsight.  Most media and "experts" were saying this would happen the whole time.  

 

Of course you need to do other things too.  Win some trades, have some luck, develop well, hire good staff and so on.  

 

I'm not gonna get in a back and forth, we've done that enough over the years on this topic.  But that would have been my plan.  

Good response. 

 

Your first step is reasonable enough - however, it's pretty much a shopping list type of plan = ie trading Burrows 'before losing value' would have required you deal him before the Tortorella misadventure.  He was worth literally nothing at that point - a significant contract with limiting clause, a 15 pt season.  Hypothetically, theoretically your idea makes sense - in context = it was a pipe dream.  He had negative market value.  The point of my question was to ask what you would have done in Linden/Benning's position - at the point they took over - in context.  That question is not as easy to answer as 'dump the veterans before they lose value'.  Most of them had already lost value.  In any event, even if I agree with you there's the reality that it aint as easy as that - the team would have had to spend assets to move some of them - an even worse departure into a rebuild than what they did.  Each of those cases, really, have to be taken on a one by one basis - they did move Bieksa,  Kesler, Garrison, Hansen, Burrows when it was possible/opportune but needless to say - the timeline did not - and really could not - coincide with what the 'tear down' tankdown element of the fanbase would have wanted.   What I'd like to see is a realistic play by play of the woulda/shoulda stuff - I think when the outspoken tankdown crew have to answer that, they ought to realize that it was nowhere near as simple as their one-liner 'solutions'.

 

I won't argue with your viewpoint on not bothering to fill the 'age gap'.  I think the facts were plain - the cupboards were empty - the team had next to nothing in terms of youth to insert into the lineup.  Whichever way we perceive that, there was an inevitable and significant gap between that stage, and the next, where the team would be integrating their own drafted and developed prospects - and getting to a point where there is a reasonable critical mass of youth - is no short term fix.  Whether 'stockpiling' for a season or two - or a protracted, measured approach is better is a matter of debate.  Whether the team was great at amateur scouting but poor at pro-scouting is a matter of debate.  There's truth to the fact that some of those moves ie Vey - did not work out.  There's also truth to the fact that some did - ie trading our prospects for other team's projects, sometimes did work out (ie Shinkaruk/Granlund).    It's debatable whether the team 'would have' had that many more hits outside the first round had they 'stockpiled' but we certainly won't know, not having taken that approach. Other teams that have #stockpiled have done so with abysmal results - however, as you point out, this team has drafted relatively well, so it's a fair viewpoint imo to have preferred they retain as many picks as possible.  I can agree with that, while at the same time preferring a Motte return over a 3rd or 4th round pick for Vanek - because I believe that acquiring prospects/players in their draft + years can yield advantages - the ability to track their development post-draft - and imo there is not a logical, significant gap between these two types of scouting.     Anyhow - no major difference on your point here except to say that it's not a categorical.

 

I agree that signing significant, long term contracts was not a signature rething move - and obviously moves like the LE signing have cost the team a much better replacement asset.  No point beating that dead horse - however at the same time, I don't disagree with doing so at a later stage - ie when they signed Myers, I think it made far more sense than at the LE stage - and further, a big, two way RHD is a much more critical asset imo than a veteran winger.  I'd also argue that acquiring a player like Miller, at that stage of his career, with that contract - was a no-brainer no matter how attached to draft picks a person is.  In fairness to Linden/Benning - moving the Sedins was never a realistic option - a full tear down was never going to be in the works - and decisions are not theirs alone to make - they don't hold the stakes/financial interests of the franchise, so there are inevitably a number of unknowns where the imperatives of that transition are concerned.  Some things we do know however - ie what the Tortorella experiment signalled - and the results - which is, in part, why I make a number of 'allowances' for the present management group.  But from a 'fan' standpoint - I don't disagree with your viewpoint, of avoiding deals like that - I just don't 'expect' to get what I want (I would have preferred a younger power forward signing if they were shopping for a Sedin winger, but that's all water under the bridge).  At the same time, as much as LE cost, the reality is that even he will be expiring at/before the young drafted core comes into their primes....so is it really worth the grief?   Is the rething a few years behind what people would have wanted?  How much time the the Tortorella departure cost us?  Not really on Lindenning imo.

 

The 'should have embraced a rebuild sooner thing - again - I'd have a similar answer to the first paragraph - it's an easy criticism - but it was also a pipe dream that would have required you purchase the franchise and put your millions at stake in those years of teardown.  If you'd take those financial losses, I'm all for you buying the team.

 

The 'supporting cast' being trash is another case by case discussion imo - as a one-liner it's a failed generalisation - and fails to explain how that trash supporting cast took the team to multiple playoff rounds.  If you believe that doing so was on the backs of the 20 yr olds alone, and dragged down by the trash - I think that's highly uninformed - and I think the results are obvious - when this team goes without that 'trash'.   The current group - 'supported' by a bunch of Boyd, Michaelis, etc - an entire bottom six of replacements - yields 'expected' results.  The difference between Hughes' performance with Tanev and without Tanev should also be another case in point that the supporting 'foundation' was not/is not in fact "trash".  But again, that's a huge can of worms that can't be oversimplified imo.  There are some of that 'trash' I'd sign all over again in a hearbeat, and some of them I didn't want from the moment they were signed = a case by case - that we don't need to go into (again) - most of it's been beaten to pulp on these boards.

 

But - a good discussion imo - I'm just not sure you've engaged in reality/context for much of it.  When you say you would have traded Burrows, for example, it's either a pipe dream, or you're referrring to a few years before Benning - the year before Tortorella - in which case you haven't really provided a valid criticism of Benning - you effectively have an issue with decision ownership made pre-dating Lindenning.  It may be a 'valid' point - but it doesn't effectively separate the shopping list from what was realistic at the outset of the present managment group's tenure.  I don't agree with a number of things management has done - but at the same time, make necessary allowances.

 

And for me, the bottom line of the #proper way forward, remains the underlying ability to draft and develop.  The team is - after a reasonable period in context, imo, reaching a critical mass of youth that we all wanted to see, regardless of our specific viewpoints.   That is what will sustain the franchise moving forward, what will give them cap flexibility, what will provide 'asset value' if they do decide to spend in opportune competitive circumstances.  That is the primary reason I'm not necessarily, categorically, in favour of a regime change.  The last thing I want to see is a management group come in and spend this asset base for their emerging window.   I want to see a continued, measured, 'conservative' approach that maintains the steady stream - not a bottleneck - but a steady stream of incoming prospects/youth.  That underlying ability has been shown imo by the present group - unless the case can be made that that specifically can be improved upon, I'm not interested in burning down this management group.  I couldn't care less about the results this season - I'm concerned with maintaining the youth trajectory - they made the correct call imo in setting that trajectory in line with Demko - and the rest of the still young emerging core.  They aren't near their primes yet, no matter what some highlight reel types believe - the future of this group is a few years away.  I'd rather see them continue on precisely this course - than have a guy come in and spend it for a "window".    People like to assume that 'change' will result in something better - that's only half the possibility - things can always get better, but they can also always get worse.  "Fire Benning" is not a plan - it's merely a reaction.  And wadr, ownerships 'plan' hasn't always been 'better' than this one.  People might also want to ask themselves - why has ownership stuck with the present group?  I doubt it's as simple as 'they are incompetent' - I think it's more likely because they signed off on what has been done - in a collaborative effort, a compromise.  A #proper-rebuild was, simply, never gonna happen.

Edited May 18, 2021 by oldnews

[IBatch]

40 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Good response. 

 

Your first step is reasonable enough - however, it's pretty much a shopping list type of plan = ie trading Burrows 'before losing value' would have required you deal him before the Tortorella misadventure.  He was worth literally nothing at that point - a significant contract with limiting clause, a 15 pt season.  Hypothetically, theoretically your idea makes sense - in context = it was a pipe dream.  He had negative market value.  The point of my question was to ask what you would have done in Linden/Benning's position - at the point they took over - in context.  That question is not as easy to answer as 'dump the veterans before they lose value'.  Most of them had already lost value.  In any event, even if I agree with you there's the reality that it aint as easy as that - the team would have had to spend assets to move some of them - an even worse departure into a rebuild than what they did.  Each of those cases, really, have to be taken on a one by one basis - they did move Bieksa,  Kesler, Garrison, Hansen, Burrows when it was possible/opportune but needless to say - the timeline did not - and really could not - coincide with what the 'tear down' tankdown element of the fanbase would have wanted.   What I'd like to see is a realistic play by play of the woulda/shoulda stuff - I think when the outspoken tankdown crew have to answer that, they ought to realize that it was nowhere near as simple as their one-liner 'solutions'.

 

I won't argue with your viewpoint on not bothering to fill the 'age gap'.  I think the facts were plain - the cupboards were empty - the team had next to nothing in terms of youth to insert into the lineup.  Whichever way we perceive that, there was an inevitable and significant gap between that stage, and the next, where the team would be integrating their own drafted and developed prospects - and getting to a point where there is a reasonable critical mass of youth - is no short term fix.  Whether 'stockpiling' for a season or two - or a protracted, measured approach is better is a matter of debate.  Whether the team was great at amateur scouting but poor at pro-scouting is a matter of debate.  There's truth to the fact that some of those moves ie Vey - did not work out.  There's also truth to the fact that some did - ie trading our prospects for other team's projects, sometimes did work out (ie Shinkaruk/Granlund).    It's debatable whether the team 'would have' had that many more hits outside the first round had they 'stockpiled' but we certainly won't know, not having taken that approach. Other teams that have #stockpiled have done so with abysmal results - however, as you point out, this team has drafted relatively well, so it's a fair viewpoint imo to have preferred they retain as many picks as possible.  I can agree with that, while at the same time preferring a Motte return over a 3rd or 4th round pick for Vanek - because I believe that acquiring prospects/players in their draft + years can yield advantages - the ability to track their development post-draft - and imo there is not a logical, significant gap between these two types of scouting.     Anyhow - no major difference on your point here except to say that it's not a categorical.

 

I agree that signing significant, long term contracts was not a signature rething move - and obviously moves like the LE signing have cost the team a much better replacement asset.  No point beating that dead horse - however at the same time, I don't disagree with doing so at a later stage - ie when they signed Myers, I think it made far more sense than at the LE stage - and further, a big, two way RHD is a much more critical asset imo than a veteran winger.  I'd also argue that acquiring a player like Miller, at that stage of his career, with that contract - was a no-brainer no matter how attached to draft picks a person is.  In fairness to Linden/Benning - moving the Sedins was never a realistic option - a full tear down was never going to be in the works - and decisions are not theirs alone to make - they don't hold the stakes/financial interests of the franchise, so there are inevitably a number of unknowns where the imperatives of that transition are concerned.  Some things we do know however - ie what the Tortorella experiment signalled - and the results - which is, in part, why I make a number of 'allowances' for the present management group.  But from a 'fan' standpoint - I don't disagree with your viewpoint, of avoiding deals like that - I just don't 'expect' to get what I want (I would have preferred a younger power forward signing if they were shopping for a Sedin winger, but that's all water under the bridge).  At the same time, as much as LE cost, the reality is that even he will be expiring at/before the young drafted core comes into their primes....so is it really worth the grief?   Is the rething a few years behind what people would have wanted?  How much time the the Tortorella departure cost us?  Not really on Lindenning imo.

 

The 'should have embraced a rebuild sooner thing - again - I'd have a similar answer to the first paragraph - it's an easy criticism - but it was also a pipe dream that would have required you purchase the franchise and put your millions at stake in those years of teardown.  If you'd take those financial losses, I'm all for you buying the team.

 

The 'supporting cast' being trash is another case by case discussion imo - as a one-liner it's a failed generalisation - and fails to explain how that trash supporting cast took the team to multiple playoff rounds.  If you believe that doing so was on the backs of the 20 yr olds alone, and dragged down by the trash - I think that's highly uninformed - and I think the results are obvious - when this team goes without that 'trash'.   The current group - 'supported' by a bunch of Boyd, Michaelis, etc - an entire bottom six of replacements - yields 'expected' results.  The difference between Hughes' performance with Tanev and without Tanev should also be another case in point that the supporting 'foundation' was not/is not in fact "trash".  But again, that's a huge can of worms that can't be oversimplified imo.  There are some of that 'trash' I'd sign all over again in a hearbeat, and some of them I didn't want from the moment they were signed = a case by case - that we don't need to go into (again) - most of it's been beaten to pulp on these boards.

 

But - a good discussion imo - I'm just not sure you've engaged in reality/context for much of it.  When you say you would have traded Burrows, for example, it's either a pipe dream, or you're referrring to a few years before Benning - the year before Tortorella - in which case you haven't really provided a valid criticism of Benning - you effectively have an issue with decision ownership made pre-dating Lindenning.  It may be a 'valid' point - but it doesn't effectively separate the shopping list from what was realistic at the outset of the present managment group's tenure.  I don't agree with a number of things management has done - but at the same time, make necessary allowances.

 

And for me, the bottom line of the #proper way forward, remains the underlying ability to draft and develop.  The team is - after a reasonable period in context, imo, reaching a critical mass of youth that we all wanted to see, regardless of our specific viewpoints.   That is what will sustain the franchise moving forward, what will give them cap flexibility, what will provide 'asset value' if they do decide to spend in opportune competitive circumstances.  That is the primary reason I'm not necessarily, categorically, in favour of a regime change.  The last thing I want to see is a management group come in and spend this asset base for their emerging window.   I want to see a continued, measured, 'conservative' approach that maintains the steady stream - not a bottleneck - but a steady stream of incoming prospects/youth.  That underlying ability has been shown imo by the present group - unless the case can be made that that specifically can be improved upon, I'm not interested in burning down this management group.  I couldn't care less about the results this season - I'm concerned with maintaining the youth trajectory - they made the correct call imo in setting that trajectory in line with Demko - and the rest of the still young emerging core.  They aren't near their primes yet, no matter what some highlight reel types believe - the future of this group is a few years away.  I'd rather see them continue on precisely this course - than have a guy come in and spend it for a "window".    People like to assume that 'change' will result in something better - that's only half the possibility - things can always get better, but they can also always get worse.  "Fire Benning" is not a plan - it's merely a reaction.  And wadr, ownerships 'plan' hasn't always been 'better' than this one.  People might also want to ask themselves - why has ownership stuck with the present group?  I doubt it's as simple as 'they are incompetent' - I think it's more likely because they signed off on what has been done - in a collaborative effort, a compromise.  A #proper-rebuild was, simply, never gonna happen.

Why doesn't everyone just agree it's actually Messiers fault because kind of, in a way it is.   Without that signing Linden would have had his best seasons with us no doubt.   And then Burke wouldn't have been able to draft both Sedins.    In the end - the primary metric was to given the Sedins one more chance.  PIT is doing that now with Crosby and Malkin.  And Wilson did it with Pavelski and Thornton/Burns.   Nowadays re-tooling with team greats has good optics, keeps fans hopes up and fills seats.     But again it really comes down to Messier - ruined everything. 

[DSVII]

On 5/15/2021 at 2:20 PM, aGENT said:

Just like to point out that Toffoli didn't sign for 3 days after this. That 'chasing OEL' had anything to do with Toffoli, is yet another false narrative.

I think the fact that there's been no reports of our UFAs receiving offers or negotiations prior to day one of UFA while they were working on OEL gives the narrative some legs. It certainly derailed the timeline for negotiations with Tanev (starting on day 1 with an offer he rejected rather than talks before which Calgary cleary had done). And to clarify, this is just a commentary on the process, not whether acquiring Tanev was the move.

 

Also given the past body of work with Benning having myopic tunnel vision when it comes to his laser like focus on players he wants at the expense of neglecting everything else. Like acquiring Gudbranson and not even bothering to give Hamhuis an offer of any sort despite professing he wanted to get one done in the 2016 offseason.

 

It's a narrative that's backed by a pattern of behaviors and history.

 

Quote

First, I'd like to point out that Benning did the right thing last summer and didn't 'pay a premium' for older, injury prone Tanev and Markstrom.

Markstrom I absolutely agree. Again, the main reason why people are disatisfied was because he failed to keep even one of the four UFAs that played a role in the playoff run last year. I don't think it's accurate to characterize this as people wanting to keep everyone. It's was an OR (Tanev OR Markstrom OR Toffoli) not AND (Tanev And Markstrom And Toffoli) solution to a cap reality that people were willing to accept.

 

Whether Tanev is worth the contract is another point, but I'd say Quinn Hughes is very much missing his top D partner this season. What ever happened to the value of mentorship?

 

Quote

And it's not just about mentoring. This team sees far better results when Sutter and Beagle can furnish Pettersson and Horvat's lines with easier usage. 
 

Just about any drop off in our play the past few years, coincides with those guys getting injured and Horvat having to take over their harder minutes.

 

It will be quite interesting to see how Benning addresses Sutter expiring and Beagle rumoured to potentially be LTIRetred this summer... Horvat, Pettersson et al are improving but we very much still need players in that mold.

 

I'm with @IBatch on this one. They're contracts might be one year longer than ideal/Pettersson and Hughes ready one year sooner than expected, but those are very short term issues and have been worth the minor, short term cap inconvenience they present. Any 'imbalance' is exceedingly short term and while still exiting a rebuild (ie: less critical).

 

And again, you take away the bad Eriksson contract and those minor overpays aren't even an issue. 

I think this is something that will need to be backed by data, or at least your interpretation of what 'far better results' means to you. The team bleeds chances against when Beagle and Sutter are deployed and I really haven't seen any indication either watching the games or from a stats standpoint that they make their line mates better. I'm happy to leave it at that though. It's a difference of opinion. 

 

The way to address Sutter and Beagle IMO should have been in house with McCann or Madden. But now we will hope Lind has what it takes or find a cheaper 3C in UFA if we have any cap left.

 

The subsequent moves and minor overpays like Beagle, Myers, Ferland were made in the context of a Loui Eriksson contract and an upcoming cap squeeze in our books. I don't think you can so easily dislodge Loui Eriksson from this, if anything, the existence of Loui's contract on the books and the decision to still go ahead with the signings is just more indictment on management.

 

Quote

Some, sure but we were taking about 'B' and 'C' prospects like Madden. We have loads of them.

 

I didn't suggest otherwise. Our drafting under Benning has been above average based on draft position though. So while other teams may also be accumulating similar level prospects, I like our chances of likewise hitting on higher than average players who actually contribute at the NHL level.

 

I mean we could have McAvoy instead of Juolevi as well... But I have zero interest in unrealistic, fantasy hindsighting.

Hmm, again not as certain as you when it comes to comparing our prospect pools to the other rebuilding teams. Again, this is pretty subjective so I'll agree to disagree. I see it as a longshot that the prospects we have 'loads of' will make it to the dance just by sheer probability. Our finding value in the 5th round is basically saying you got a 3rd round level prospect for that price, but other rebuilding teams are actually hording picks and drafting in the 1st and 2nd rounds. The odds are stacked against us.

 

McAvoy was not on anyone's radar at the time of the draft, I haven't seen a lot of people putting that guy up as an example of the missed opportunities. People tend to focus on who they had pegged to go in the top 5. which was PLD and Tkachuk.

 

Fantasy foreshadowing and hindsighting is what all online discussions are haha. 

 

Quote

I'd have to look back, but I'm pretty sure Sutter was used (though probably not to the same extreme we do, as Sid/Gino require less 'furnishing') in the same harder minute, role.

 

He had very little other incentive, beyond being paid a premium, to stay here during a rebuild.

Yea wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that data hehe but regardless of whether he was going to a rebuilding or competing team Sutter wanted a pay raise due to his UFA status. Again don't think he was the wrong player to acquire, just didn't like the price tag especially considering Pittsburgh had it's own cap issues and their trading partners were limited in that sense.

 

I don't agree with it, but I understand why it was done. 

 

Quote

Not really. Playoff/contending teams frequently get players signing discounted/bargain deals to play on a contender. Rebuilding teams, the opposite. I don't think we actually need to argue this very obvious IMO, point.

I would argue not to the extent we've done it, especially signing redundant mulligans when the initial gambles didn't work out. But that's fine, leave it at that.

 

 

Quote

Literally every player signed is a 'calculated' injury risk. This just in... Hockey is a fast and rough sport. I'll grant you that Ferland was risky AF. I was exceedingly unsure of that signing for just that reason. I could certainly be persuaded to put that in to the 'negative' Benning column... but at the same time, man would a healthy Ferland look nice in our middle 6 too. A non-injured Roussel is either a contributing player, or a highly moveable piece. Maybe moving non injured Roussel allows us to sign Toffoli even with Covid? (That said, very little cap was moved without some coming back.) Or maybe it's the added depth to let us feel more comfortable not qualifying Virtanen... Or...

So applying a variation of fantasy hindsight, in your words? hehe but look I don't disagree. A prime Sutter or Gudbranson 1-2 years before they joined us wouldn't look too bad either, but that's beside the point. 

 

I think there is a line where when you make enough of these bad 'calculated risks' bets that the you go from a calculated risk taker to 'reckless' and 'short sighted' territory.

 

Quote

 

As I've said, I do hold him accountable for the Eriksson signing, somewhat for not trading Virtanen last year (or Gaudette for that matter) and sure, for Ferland being risky AF to sign. I have zero issues with players like Beagle or Sutter or guys like Roussel or Baer getting injured. That's just expected hit and miss with running a hockey team. Other than Eriksson (which was 5 years ago), there's just not enough there to counter all the good he's done IMO.

That's fair. I can appreciate we have different takes on the 'bad' we attribute to Benning's time here. 

 

Quote

'Small' positives like our drafting, getting Schmidt for a 3rd, Miller or Hamonic for just over a mil? 

I applaud those moves. Was it enough to outweigh all the good that moved out of this team?  How many small positives have we seen over the last seven years to outweigh the mistakes? Again it feels like for every positive transaction, it gets pulled down by the weight of three smaller ones.

 

This is where we fundamentally have a disagreement so I'm fine if can just skip listing every little thing out. 

 

Quote

Just like acquiring draft picks, I don't think anyone is arguing against #asset management. I just think those screaming loudest are far too overblown, makes far too many assumptions and completely ignore the the realities of an actual team. I mean the argument that we should have moved Marky, Tanev and Stecher last TDL if we didn't intend to retain them, if frankly unrealistic to the point of silliness.

 

 

Well I don't know who said that haha my take was to just retain one of them to some sense of continuity from that team last year (Tanev or Toff for me).

 

I'm not even looking for top line management though, just evidence that it is being done. The saga with Mike DiPietro not playing a game for a year, sitting on players past the trade deadline and letting them walk for nothing, overpaying by 1 year 1 mil consistently, not even using the Taxi squad for load management during the season. Again, I'm open to a world where I can say JB is the right man for the job, I just haven't seen the bad on that side outweigh the good. To turn your phrase.

 

Quote

 I don't think a guy with a wall of other team's depth charts has a disdain for minutia 

I think that probably encapsulates our differences quite well haha, you see minutia, I see inefficiency.

 

With how quickly rosters change due to the trades/transactions, just maintaining that board is a nightmare and at any time you can be working off incomplete information. 

 

 

 

[oldnews]

21 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Why doesn't everyone just agree it's actually Messiers fault because kind of, in a way it is.   Without that signing Linden would have had his best seasons with us no doubt.   And then Burke wouldn't have been able to draft both Sedins.    In the end - the primary metric was to given the Sedins one more chance.  PIT is doing that now with Crosby and Malkin.  And Wilson did it with Pavelski and Thornton/Burns.   Nowadays re-tooling with team greats has good optics, keeps fans hopes up and fills seats.     But again it really comes down to Messier - ruined everything. 

Great point!  Even if I disagree that there was "another chance" involved for the Sedins, as opposed to just a rock and a hard place - regardless, the botttom line is that it was all Keenan's fault, I mean Messier's fault.

[aGENT]

56 minutes ago, DSVII said:

I think the fact that there's been no reports of our UFAs receiving offers or negotiations prior to day one of UFA while they were working on OEL gives the narrative some legs. It certainly derailed the timeline for negotiations with Tanev (starting on day 1 with an offer he rejected rather than talks before which Calgary cleary had done). And to clarify, this is just a commentary on the process, not whether acquiring Tanev was the move.

Seems to me they made it clear they were sorting things out and asked for patience (totally in the players prerogative not to give it). Tanev then got a better deal (that we shouldn't have matched, and is why he was realistically, never coming back regardless of any perceived or actual time line) and went elsewhere. Toffoli understandably didn't want to wait for us to clear space (given circumstances) and signed with his childhood team.  It really doesn't need to be more 'dramatic' than that.

 

Quote

 

Also given the past body of work with Benning having myopic tunnel vision when it comes to his laser like focus on players he wants at the expense of neglecting everything else. Like acquiring Gudbranson and not even bothering to give Hamhuis an offer of any sort despite professing he wanted to get one done in the 2016 offseason.

 

It's a narrative that's backed by a pattern of behaviors and history.

Those are very different players at very different stages. I think painting that as 'myopic neglect' is disingenuous.

 

Quote

Markstrom I absolutely agree. Again, the main reason why people are disatisfied was because he failed to keep even one of the four UFAs that played a role in the playoff run last year. I don't think it's accurate to characterize this as people wanting to keep everyone. It's was an OR (Tanev OR Markstrom OR Toffoli) not AND (Tanev And Markstrom And Toffoli) solution to a cap reality that people were willing to accept.

I don't think Markstrom was ever an option. Period. 'Or', or otherwise. Tanev perhaps a faint/slim hope that he'd be willing to take less than open market term and money to stay 'home'. It also ignores that any negotiation isn't one sided. Those players have their own free will and interests in mind regardless of what fans or management might like.

 

Quote

 

Whether Tanev is worth the contract is another point, but I'd say Quinn Hughes is very much missing his top D partner this season. What ever happened to the value of mentorship?

Did we not sign Hamonic?

 

Quote

I think this is something that will need to be backed by data, or at least your interpretation of what 'far better results' means to you. The team bleeds chances against when Beagle and Sutter are deployed and I really haven't seen any indication either watching the games or from a stats standpoint that they make their line mates better. I'm happy to leave it at that though. It's a difference of opinion. 

Don't have time to look it up right now but I'm pretty sure I recall us winning more last year and our top 6 scoring more with them healthy and on the roster despite them 'bleeding chances' (ignoring their usage IMO).

 

Quote

The way to address Sutter and Beagle IMO should have been in house with McCann or Madden. But now we will hope Lind has what it takes or find a cheaper 3C in UFA if we have any cap left.

How are either of those players remotely replacements for the hard minute, PK etc usage of Sutter and Beagle? Madden hasn't even shown be can play at an AHL level and McCann plays pretty sheltered minutes behind two super stars (and IMO would preferably be on wing if still  here). That's an exceedingly odd take TBH. We're likely looking at Lind, Jasek etc and/or a UFA/trade regardless of us moving those two.

 

Quote

The subsequent moves and minor overpays like Beagle, Myers, Ferland were made in the context of a Loui Eriksson contract and an upcoming cap squeeze in our books. I don't think you can so easily dislodge Loui Eriksson from this, if anything, the existence of Loui's contract on the books and the decision to still go ahead with the signings is just more indictment on management.

I don't 'dislodge' Eriksson at all. He's the sole, truly BAD (capitalized, bolded and underlined) move Benning has made. If that one BAD move had paralyzed him from making other moves/taking chances, I'd agree he should be fired. I have zero issues with any of those contracts given the context of the timeline of our rebuild (outside the already discussed risky AF Ferland deal).

 

Quote

Hmm, again not as certain as you when it comes to comparing our prospect pools to the other rebuilding teams. Again, this is pretty subjective so I'll agree to disagree. I see it as a longshot that the prospects we have 'loads of' will make it to the dance just by sheer probability. Our finding value in the 5th round is basically saying you got a 3rd round level prospect for that price, but other rebuilding teams are actually hording picks and drafting in the 1st and 2nd rounds. The odds are stacked against us.

We're pretty much a mid ranked, 10-15 prospect pool currently, with the majority of our blue chip guys having already graduated. We likely pop back in the top 10 +/- after this coming draft. Again, after most of our blue chip guys have graduated. If they've mostly graduated and we still have an average/better than average pool, we're doing just fine.

 

Where do you propose all these extra firsts come from?

 

Quote

McAvoy was not on anyone's radar at the time of the draft, I haven't seen a lot of people putting that guy up as an example of the missed opportunities. People tend to focus on who they had pegged to go in the top 5. which was PLD and Tkachuk.

Yes, which is why he'd be pure hindsight fantasy. I need a time machine.

 

Quote

I think there is a line where when you make enough of these bad 'calculated risks' bets that the you go from a calculated risk taker to 'reckless' and 'short sighted' territory.

Looking at the whole picture of where Benning stated, where we're at and where we appear headed, I don't believe we're there. 

 

Quote

 

That's fair. I can appreciate we have different takes on the 'bad' we attribute to Benning's time here. 

 

I applaud those moves. Was it enough to outweigh all the good that moved out of this team?  How many small positives have we seen over the last seven years to outweigh the mistakes? Again it feels like for every positive transaction, it gets pulled down by the weight of three smaller ones.

Those don't feel like 'small' positives. The drafting, the trades for Schmidt, Miller, Pearson, Motte etc, the RFA signings, the Hamonic, Myers and even Beagle, Sutter Roussel (in context) signings were all good (some really good) moves.

 

Beyond the obvious Eriksson, it's the 'bad' stuff that seems small.

 

Quote

Well I don't know who said that haha my take was to just retain one of them to some sense of continuity from that team last year (Tanev or Toff for me).

Exceptional circumstances. Tough decisions had to be made. Moving forward with our young core's contention window in mind, I 100% take Schmidt, Hamonic and Demko over Tanev, Stecher and Markstrom.

 

If Toffoli had been more comfortable being patient while we cleared room, I'd happily have brought him back as well. But with Hoglander and Podkolzin coming, he was also a bit of a luxury and not a long term 'need'. Again, particularly under less than ideal circumstances. Under more ideal circumstances (no pandemic), he's still here IMO.

 

Quote

I'm not even looking for top line management though, just evidence that it is being done. The saga with Mike DiPietro not playing a game for a year,

That one is curious. I don't have enough info to speculate.

 

Quote

sitting on players past the trade deadline and letting them walk for nothing,

That's oversimplified IMO.

 

Quote

overpaying by 1 year 1 mil consistently,

That's happened twice. For two key, hard minute C's in the depths of a rebuild. As much as folks like to spin it otherwise, that's not a 'consistent pattern'.

 

Quote

not even using the Taxi squad for load management during the season.

I thought they did to some degree. We've had a LOT of players rotated, including kids called up.

 

Quote

I think that probably encapsulates our differences quite well haha, you see minutia, I see inefficiency.

I can see some inefficiency as well. I just see the bigger picture as more important. I value efficiency but I also value mentorship, sheltering, development, playoff experience etc. Running an NHL team shouldn't be the same as managing a stock portfolio.

 

Quote

With how quickly rosters change due to the trades/transactions, just maintaining that board is a nightmare and at any time you can be working off incomplete information. 

I hope he has a cute intern that takes care of that 

[combover]

“Dysfunction” “ toxic” 

two words that are being used to describe the current management situation 

the same people making  the same excuses to try to justify this blundering excuse for a   GM his incompetence and inability to deliver on almost if not all of his mission statements over the past 6 years. 
 

Jb has failed he’s a failure and it’s not “oversimplified”

 

 

 

 

[Nuxfanabroad]

We're transitioning to a very young team. There's talent at every position(to varying degrees).

 

Can't understand the gripers.

[wallstreetamigo]

21 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

We're transitioning to a very young team. There's talent at every position(to varying degrees).

 

Can't understand the gripers.

Look again at our roster. Not sure of our exact average age but we arent actually a very young team at all. Nor will we be next year if, as expected, Edler, Sutter, and Hamonic are back.

 

We are younger than we were when Benning took over but it would be hard to be older.

[wallstreetamigo]

I find it kind of funny that people tout Bennings wall of other teams depth charts as cutting edge detail oriented management.

 

"Ummm theres an app for that bud" was my first thought when I saw it.

 

It was like 1995 called they want their scouting methods back.

[wallstreetamigo]

It will be interesting to see how Benning supporters defend him if he puts up a bunch of bad re-signings this off season.

 

Not saying he will, but if he thinks Edler is a good deal for 2 years at 4 mil because he is making 6 now (lets call this the Tanner Pearson argument, its what he said there). Or Sutter for 3 years at 3 mil because he is making over 4 now. Or Hamonic at 3x3 with a nmc. Or even if he signs middle if the road UFA to long term deals.

 

People are saying it can not possibly happen. I wouldnt be so sure. Benning dodged a bullet if he stays. He will only be more desperate to kick start a turnaround.

 

I will honestly not be surprised but will be genuinely interested in hearing all the reasons those are fantastic contracts if that happens. Or at the very least dont hurt us.