Change is on the horizon...

[wallstreetamigo]

15 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

He deserves credit for adding depth pieces, but that is also something that any GM would look to do around a core that looks like it can make a run at the cup.

 

Core numbers don't lie though either.

 

There were 9381 minutes of hockey played by the Canucks in that playoff run. 6182, almost 66% were played by 10 players on a 21 man, on ice team. You cannot discount or dispute that the players who carried this team to the cup, were not brought to Vancouver or assembled, either through the draft or trades, by someone other than Gillis.

 

The Sedins were drafted in 1999, Kesler in 2004. The core of the team that went to the final was assembled largely between those years for a cup run that happened in 2011. Anyone else doing the math on the development cycle of kids to become a Stanley cup contender if you're trying to build through the draft, which is exactly what the Canucks are trying to do?

 

Anyone else want to look around the NHL at teams that were largely built through the draft to become contenders, and how long it took before they were really ready for the support players to be added for a cup push?

 

Who was arguing to top drafted players werent the core that were relied on in the cup run?

 

But a 3rd of the games were played by the support players, a lot of whom were brought in by Gillis. Plus a top pairing and pp dman brought in by Gillis who undoubtedly was part of that 66%.

 

Without Gillis' moves for the right support players, its questionable the team gets to the finals. They had not previously with the same core after all.

 

I dont think its fair to dismiss Gillis fingerprints on the team success just because he didnt draft the core. 

 

For the current Canucks to be cup competitive they need a HM like Gillis who can properly surround a core. Preferably not while completely $&!#ting the bed drafting though.

 

The next stage is not Bennings strength at all.

[VegasCanuck]

22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Who was arguing to top drafted players werent the core that were relied on in the cup run?

 

But a 3rd of the games were played by the support players, a lot of whom were brought in by Gillis. Plus a top pairing and pp dman brought in by Gillis who undoubtedly was part of that 66%.

 

Without Gillis' moves for the right support players, its questionable the team gets to the finals. They had not previously with the same core after all.

 

I dont think its fair to dismiss Gillis fingerprints on the team success just because he didnt draft the core. 

 

For the current Canucks to be cup competitive they need a HM like Gillis who can properly surround a core. Preferably not while completely $&!#ting the bed drafting though.

 

The next stage is not Bennings strength at all.

The 66% does not include Ehrhoff, ONLY guys who were brought in by Nonis and Burke. I did not include or calculate based on anyone that Gillis added as support.

 

I don't over play what Gillis did because, realistically, a Monkey with a bad drug addiction, should have been able to assemble the pieces necessary for that core to go to the cup, as seen by the percentage of core minutes that they played. Guys that Gillis added played roughly 1/3rd of all minutes played across ALL 4 rounds of that run.

 

IMO, Gillis gets a LOT more credit than he really deserves for the changes and additions that took the team to the final in 2011, and that fans like to view specific people with very rose colored glasses.

 

I'm very aware of Benning's faults as a GM, but his strengths meet the objectives, laid out by ownership, to build a sustainable team and a contender, through the draft.

 

Tampa built their Stanley Cup team through the draft. It started by drafting Stamkos, first overall in 2008. It wasn't until 2020, that they got the mix right, to take them over the top, and that's with adding a franchise defenseman in 2009.

 

Successful and sustainable teams build through the draft.

 

Successful and sustainable teams, don't take shortcuts.

 

 

[kanucks25]

4 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Successful and sustainable teams, don't take shortcuts.

Nobody told Jim Benning.

[VegasCanuck]

5 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Nobody told Jim Benning.

Don't think anybody needs to. He's not taking shortcuts, he's been doing exactly what's expected of him. Add UFA's where necessary, to fill in holes while younger players develop. Not sure why this is a hard concept.

[wallstreetamigo]

22 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

The 66% does not include Ehrhoff, ONLY guys who were brought in by Nonis and Burke. I did not include or calculate based on anyone that Gillis added as support.

 

I don't over play what Gillis did because, realistically, a Monkey with a bad drug addiction, should have been able to assemble the pieces necessary for that core to go to the cup, as seen by the percentage of core minutes that they played. Guys that Gillis added played roughly 1/3rd of all minutes played across ALL 4 rounds of that run.

 

IMO, Gillis gets a LOT more credit than he really deserves for the changes and additions that took the team to the final in 2011, and that fans like to view specific people with very rose colored glasses.

 

I'm very aware of Benning's faults as a GM, but his strengths meet the objectives, laid out by ownership, to build a sustainable team and a contender, through the draft.

 

Tampa built their Stanley Cup team through the draft. It started by drafting Stamkos, first overall in 2008. It wasn't until 2020, that they got the mix right, to take them over the top, and that's with adding a franchise defenseman in 2009.

 

Successful and sustainable teams build through the draft.

 

Successful and sustainable teams, don't take shortcuts.

 

 

Roussel, Beagle, Sutter, Gudbranson, Schaller, Myers, Toffoli, Miller, Schmidt, Hamonic, Pearson, etc plus all the long gone age 24-27 tweeners plus the waiver guys in our bottom 6 all say hi.

 

Every one of them represents a shortcut not designed with a rebuild through the draft approach.

 

In case you dont notice, in his 7 years here the team is not competitive or sustainable.

 

But sure, lets dismiss Gillis contributions. The captain of the team and huge part of the core was drafted by Gillis btw.

 

I am not even a Gillis fan but no one should pretend he didnt make a lot of great moves to get this team to the finals. We still dont have the core to get there even if all the right support pieces are added. 

[VegasCanuck]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Roussel, Beagle, Sutter, Gudbranson, Schaller, Myers, Toffoli, Miller, Schmidt, Hamonic, Pearson, etc plus all the long gone age 24-27 tweeners plus the waiver guys in our bottom 6 all say hi.

 

Every one of them represents a shortcut not designed with a rebuild through the draft approach.

 

In case you dont notice, in his 7 years here the team is not competitive or sustainable.

 

But sure, lets dismiss Gillis contributions. The captain of the team and huge part of the core was drafted by Gillis btw.

 

I am not even a Gillis fan but no one should pretend he didnt make a lot of great moves to get this team to the finals. We still dont have the core to get there even if all the right support pieces are added. 

Plugging a hole through UFA while waiting for kids to develop is not a shortcut, its patience.

 

-Myers was a good long-term signing, he's a solid D, and his contract is in line with going rates.

-Toffoli was brought in to help us get some playoff experience and he would have been back if the cap hadn't flattened, AFTER we made that trade.

-Miller was a solid trade that gave Pettersson a whole different level of effectiveness and helped him grow his game.

-Schmidt for a 3rd round pick? Would anyone on this board, seriously not make that trade every day of the week.

-Hamonic for 1.2 million? Would you seriously not have signed that deal to give the kids more time to develop?

- Pearson is in his prime and is an effective middle six player.

 

I've covered the fact that Gillis drafted Horvat, and the fact that at the time, he traded a budding franchise goalie who every team in the league coveted, for JUST a single first round pick. All the risk in that trade was on the Canucks. We traded a proven goalie for a completely unproven prospect. There should have been a better return under the circumstance, circumstances that Gillis created through mismanagement.

 

Again, yes, Gillis added some solid depth pieces to help get us to the final, but they were largely depth pieces. 66% of that run (you can look it up and do your own math), was from players who were drafted by other General Managers. Gillis's big downfall here was largely his drafting record, he was probably the worst drafting GM this team ever had. One impact player in 6 years???

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, VegasCanuck said:

Plugging a hole through UFA while waiting for kids to develop is not a shortcut, its patience.

 

-Myers was a good long-term signing, he's a solid D, and his contract is in line with going rates.

-Toffoli was brought in to help us get some playoff experience and he would have been back if the cap hadn't flattened, AFTER we made that trade.

-Miller was a solid trade that gave Pettersson a whole different level of effectiveness and helped him grow his game.

-Schmidt for a 3rd round pick? Would anyone on this board, seriously not make that trade every day of the week.

-Hamonic for 1.2 million? Would you seriously not have signed that deal to give the kids more time to develop?

- Pearson is in his prime and is an effective middle six player.

 

I've covered the fact that Gillis drafted Horvat, and the fact that at the time, he traded a budding franchise goalie who every team in the league coveted, for JUST a single first round pick. All the risk in that trade was on the Canucks. We traded a proven goalie for a completely unproven prospect. There should have been a better return under the circumstance, circumstances that Gillis created through mismanagement.

 

Again, yes, Gillis added some solid depth pieces to help get us to the final, but they were largely depth pieces. 66% of that run (you can look it up and do your own math), was from players who were drafted by other General Managers. Gillis's big downfall here was largely his drafting record, he was probably the worst drafting GM this team ever had. One impact player in 6 years???

Its funny how you complain that Gillis did not get enough for a starting goalie but ignore Benning literally let a starting goalie and top line winger walk for nothing last summer, during a supposed through the draft rebuild.

 

You also ignore the same complaint of, "there should have been a better return based on the circumstances" that can be applied to a lot of Bennings moves.

 

Gillis was not going to fill the roster with drafting at the time. It was just in a different part of the competitive cycle. (Thats not to say he wasnt garbage at drafting, he definitely was). By the time those players were ready the core would have aged out. He looked at the team he had and made the right decision on how to build around them in the short term. And made a lot of good moves. Its hard to argue with the success of that era.

[VegasCanuck]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Its funny how you complain that Gillis did not get enough for a starting goalie but ignore Benning literally let a starting goalie and top line winger walk for nothing last summer, during a supposed through the draft rebuild.

 

You also ignore the same complaint of, "there should have been a better return based on the circumstances" that can be applied to a lot of Bennings moves.

 

Gillis was not going to fill the roster with drafting at the time. It was just in a different part of the competitive cycle. (Thats not to say he wasnt garbage at drafting, he definitely was). By the time those players were ready the core would have aged out. He looked at the team he had and made the right decision on how to build around them in the short term. And made a lot of good moves. Its hard to argue with the success of that era.

Two different things.

 

One is a goalie who is a pending UFA, who wants to stay but wants 6 million + per season as well as a full 6 year NMC. Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that you would have signed that and left Demko exposed for Seattle instead?

 

The other situation is a budding franchise level goalie who is just starting his career but has already shown that he can dominate a team and steal games. Take how Horvat has developed out of the discussion for a moment and look at JUST from what's on the table at the time.  Trading a tested franchise ready goalie for A SINGLE Draft pick to a player, who at that point, you don't know will ever play an NHL game. Are you telling me that you're happy with that return when pretty much all other teams in the league covet what you're selling?

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Two different things.

 

One is a goalie who is a pending UFA, who wants to stay but wants 6 million + per season as well as a full 6 year NMC. Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that you would have signed that and left Demko exposed for Seattle instead?

 

The other situation is a budding franchise level goalie who is just starting his career but has already shown that he can dominate a team and steal games. Take how Horvat has developed out of the discussion for a moment and look at JUST from what's on the table at the time.  Trading a tested franchise ready goalie for A SINGLE Draft pick to a player, who at that point, you don't know will ever play an NHL game. Are you telling me that you're happy with that return when pretty much all other teams in the league covet what you're selling?

Nope, I would have not traded our top C prospect and a 2nd to rent Toffoli and I would have traded Markstrom, Tanev, and possibly even Stecher at the deadline.

 

Thats not even hindsight either. 

 

One short playoff appearance with a team that clearly wasnt going to be competitive outside the first round was not worth losing those premium assets for nothing.

 

People complain that Benning's hands were tied with the Gillis era contracts so he couldnt possibly have traded them. But reality is he chooses, year after year, to not trade assets that could have really helped an actual rebuild. That decision making alone makes it a retool not a rebuild.

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

I didnt like the Schneider trade at the time btw for all the reasons you state.

 

But that decision actually turned out well in the end.

 

It has nothing to do with the stupidity of letting Markstrom walk as a UFA though. Or trading for Toffoli only to let him walk.

 

We got an asset for Schneider. We got nothing for Markstrom. One gave us a chance to get a good player, the other got us no chance at anything. One is clearly a bigger screwup.

[VegasCanuck]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Nope, I would have not traded our top C prospect and a 2nd to rent Toffoli and I would have traded Markstrom, Tanev, and possibly even Stecher at the deadline.

 

Thats not even hindsight either. 

 

One short playoff appearance with a team that clearly wasnt going to be competitive outside the first round was not worth losing those premium assets for nothing.

 

People complain that Benning's hands were tied with the Gillis era contracts so he couldnt possibly have traded them. But reality is he chooses, year after year, to not trade assets that could have really helped an actual rebuild. That decision making alone makes it a retool not a rebuild.

 

 

And in doing your plan, you would have sent a message to the fans and to the young core who you're developing, that you're not committed to giving them a shot to show what they can really do, and reach the playoffs. So, how is your approach supposed to make those players, want to stay here?

 

If you're a player on a team like the Canucks, wouldn't you rather have a GM who will give you the best shot possible at succeeding in the playoffs?

[wallstreetamigo]

26 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

And in doing your plan, you would have sent a message to the fans and to the young core who you're developing, that you're not committed to giving them a shot to show what they can really do, and reach the playoffs. So, how is your approach supposed to make those players, want to stay here?

 

If you're a player on a team like the Canucks, wouldn't you rather have a GM who will give you the best shot possible at succeeding in the playoffs?

You can't have that argument both ways though which you are trying to do.

 

Thd goal is always to reach the playoffs. But there is also reality. 

 

Lets tackle the obvious contradiction first.

 

According to you, the players will not feel their GM is sufficiently going for it unless he makes that trade for Toffoli at the deadline but they will feel he is sufficiently going for it the next year by letting hin, a starting goalie, and a top pair defensive dman walk for nothing when it was pretty obvious at the trade deadline they would be.

 

If Benning and the team thought they were a Toffoli away from competing for and in the playoffs, why did they not keep him? If they felt Markstrom was essential to the playoffs or Tanev essential for Hughes, why did they not keep them?

 

You are saying Benning is building through the draft (I say its only really by accident) to justify his terrible asset management but at the same time suggesting he should be going all in at the trade deadline because the young core will be crushed if he doesn't?

 

Its a business. Professional athletes understand the reality of where their team is at. They want to be competitive but they are not going to throw a hissy fit if a team actually rebuilds properly.

 

And if they do, they arent a cup calibre core to begin with.

 

You cant say Benning let those players go to focus on drafting and square away why he didnt then trade those players for picks. 

 

Its never been a rebuild to Benning. Other than sucking at retooling and drafting high as a result, what other Benning moves indicate a rebuild?

 

 

[tas]

I've supported benning from the beginning, even though I wasn't amongst the 80% of cdc that was pushing for him prior to his hire -- I was a paul fenton guy (mostly because I trust david poile), and part of me wonders when he's going to get another shot despite the minnesota tire fire -- but even i'm at a point where I wouldn't lose any sleep over a benning firing or entire upper management restructuring/housecleaning. i'm totally fine if that doesn't happen, although the leash will be much shorter with me going into next season (ie. we'll revisit things in december and see how it's going), but I do hope that if new management does come in, they play things like gillis did with av and give travis a very in-depth interview and ultimately a shot to prove he's the right guy, which I think he is. change the assistant coaches, too, just like gillis did. 

[VegasCanuck]

7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

You can't have that argument both ways though which you are trying to do.

 

Thd goal is always to reach the playoffs. But there is also reality. 

 

Lets tackle the obvious contradiction first.

 

According to you, the players will not feel their GM is sufficiently going for it unless he makes that trade for Toffoli at the deadline but they will feel he is sufficiently going for it the next year by letting hin, a starting goalie, and a top pair defensive dman walk for nothing when it was pretty obvious at the trade deadline they would be.

 

If Benning and the team thought they were a Toffoli away from competing for and in the playoffs, why did they not keep him? If they felt Markstrom was essential to the playoffs or Tanev essential for Hughes, why did they not keep them?

 

You are saying Benning is building through the draft (I say its only really by accident) to justify his terrible asset management but at the same time suggesting he should be going all in at the trade deadline because the young core will be crushed if he doesn't?

 

Its a business. Professional athletes understand the reality of where their team is at. They want to be competitive but they are not going to throw a hissy fit if a team actually rebuilds properly.

 

And if they do, they arent a cup calibre core to begin with.

 

You cant say Benning let those players go to focus on drafting and square away why he didnt then trade those players for picks. 

 

Its never been a rebuild to Benning. Other than sucking at retooling and drafting high as a result, what other Benning moves indicate a rebuild?

 

 

I said he let those players go, because it wasn't a good, long-term investment in the team. You can't tie up Markstrom in net when he's starting to show signs of age, not when you have a kid that's ready to take over. You do exactly what Benning did, let the one guy walk, keep the younger guy and sign a safety net, in case your younger goalie needs a little extra support.

 

Tanev, considering his injury record, not sure its a good investment there either, to tie up for 4 years.

 

As for your last point, I've said in other posts, Benning wanted to do a rebuild, Linden and Aqualini wanted to retool. There was an interview in their first year here, where Benning contradicted Linden and said that he was more than willing to ask aging players to waive NTC's etc. Linden had just stated 5 minutes earlier, that the team didn't want to take the approach of asking people with movement protection, to waive and move.

 

Benning did what he was asked.

 

Last year, he saw a chance to let the evolving core take a run at the playoffs and gain that experience, he did what was necessary to help them get there.

 

I would have made the same choice. Let them take a shot and see how they measure up to the other teams in the league in a playoff environment.

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Don't think anybody needs to. He's not taking shortcuts, he's been doing exactly what's expected of him. Add UFA's where necessary, to fill in holes while younger players develop. Not sure why this is a hard concept.

What about the "age-gap" stuff? Pretty much the definition of shortcut lol

 

 

And the "turn the team around faster than many think" quote.

Edited May 18, 2021 by kanucks25

[wallstreetamigo]

35 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

I said he let those players go, because it wasn't a good, long-term investment in the team. You can't tie up Markstrom in net when he's starting to show signs of age, not when you have a kid that's ready to take over. You do exactly what Benning did, let the one guy walk, keep the younger guy and sign a safety net, in case your younger goalie needs a little extra support.

 

Tanev, considering his injury record, not sure its a good investment there either, to tie up for 4 years.

 

As for your last point, I've said in other posts, Benning wanted to do a rebuild, Linden and Aqualini wanted to retool. There was an interview in their first year here, where Benning contradicted Linden and said that he was more than willing to ask aging players to waive NTC's etc. Linden had just stated 5 minutes earlier, that the team didn't want to take the approach of asking people with movement protection, to waive and move.

 

Benning did what he was asked.

 

Last year, he saw a chance to let the evolving core take a run at the playoffs and gain that experience, he did what was necessary to help them get there.

 

I would have made the same choice. Let them take a shot and see how they measure up to the other teams in the league in a playoff environment.

Any GM who is supposedly rebuilding likely sees, at the trade deadline a few months before, that his starting goalie and top defensive dman are going to want security on their next deals. 

 

No GM in their right mind should look at our team and say its a good idea to trade Madden and a 2nd for Toffoli then essentially trade Toffoli, Markstrom, Tanev, and Stecher for nothing in return just to get a few games of playoff experience. He set any rebuild back a lot with those moves.

 

And the funniest part is he did it in a year where fans werent at the games to make Aquilini money. 

 

It looks a lot more like Benning panicked about losing his job if he didnt make the playoffs. 

 

Linden wanted a rebuild prior to him being fired. Benning wanted (clearly) a continued retool. Aquilini obviously agreed with Benning (and why wouldnt he, it is theoretically the approach that makes him more money faster). Except it hasnt because the retool part 2 (since the Sedins retired) has been by all accounts a huge failure. The silver lining being some high picks.

[wallstreetamigo]

54 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

I said he let those players go, because it wasn't a good, long-term investment in the team. You can't tie up Markstrom in net when he's starting to show signs of age, not when you have a kid that's ready to take over. You do exactly what Benning did, let the one guy walk, keep the younger guy and sign a safety net, in case your younger goalie needs a little extra support.

 

Tanev, considering his injury record, not sure its a good investment there either, to tie up for 4 years.

 

As for your last point, I've said in other posts, Benning wanted to do a rebuild, Linden and Aqualini wanted to retool. There was an interview in their first year here, where Benning contradicted Linden and said that he was more than willing to ask aging players to waive NTC's etc. Linden had just stated 5 minutes earlier, that the team didn't want to take the approach of asking people with movement protection, to waive and move.

 

Benning did what he was asked.

 

Last year, he saw a chance to let the evolving core take a run at the playoffs and gain that experience, he did what was necessary to help them get there.

 

I would have made the same choice. Let them take a shot and see how they measure up to the other teams in the league in a playoff environment.

Your first paragraph nicely sums up why Benning is a terrible GM.

 

If, in the span of a few months, he went from thinking Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev were essential to be playoff competitive to not thinking they were good long term solutions at their expected contracts, then he actually has no eye on the long term at all. Your statement clearly shows that.

 

It also doesnt explain going hard after OEL (longer term left and at a similar cap hit to Toffoli and Tanev COMBINED).

 

People need to just admit all his bad moves caight up with him cap wise and as a result he $&!# the bed. Its honestly mind numbing how people bend reality into a pretzel to defend what, even explained by his own words on it, show he $&!# the bed.

[VegasCanuck]

Benning will still be here next season.

[eeeeergh]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Nope, I would have not traded our top C prospect and a 2nd to rent Toffoli and I would have traded Markstrom, Tanev, and possibly even Stecher at the deadline.

 

Thats not even hindsight either. 

 

One short playoff appearance with a team that clearly wasnt going to be competitive outside the first round was not worth losing those premium assets for nothing.

 

People complain that Benning's hands were tied with the Gillis era contracts so he couldnt possibly have traded them. But reality is he chooses, year after year, to not trade assets that could have really helped an actual rebuild. That decision making alone makes it a retool not a rebuild.

 

 

You're 100% right about Toffoli, but tbh we really didn't know Demko was ready until we saw him in the playoffs. Even then, I can't say I was convinced he was ready to take on the full time starter role. Trading away Markstrom at the deadline could have come back to bite us.. Still was a gamble with how small the sample size was we were using to evaluate Demko, but thankfully it paid off. I think he nailed it with the Holtby signing too. Two years, expiring just in time for us to bring in DiPietro to backup Demko on a cheap ELC. 
That's under 6m/year spent on extremely solid goaltending, compared to 9-10m of other teams. I think thats some of Bennings best GM work. 

[flat land fish]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I didnt like the Schneider trade at the time btw for all the reasons you state.

 

But that decision actually turned out well in the end.

 

It has nothing to do with the stupidity of letting Markstrom walk as a UFA though. Or trading for Toffoli only to let him walk.

 

We got an asset for Schneider. We got nothing for Markstrom. One gave us a chance to get a good player, the other got us no chance at anything. One is clearly a bigger screwup.

One was an rfa’s one was a ufa