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

Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management

Rate this topic


JohnTavares

Recommended Posts

I’ve heard many here talking about Utica in a good way.

Here is one input that isn’t especially glad over the impact Utica have over our prospects.

After reading that input I believe Utica has hindered our prospects from developing.

 

https://cometsharvest.com/2021/05/14/comets-harvest-the-final-friday/

 

”That 2018-19 season was an unmitigated disaster, marred by goaltending issues and legitimate prospects scratched in favour of ECHL plugs.

The most notable issue being when both Petrus Palmu and Jonathan Dahlen publicly voiced problems with the management and coaching staff over playing time and communication.

If we’re generous to the Canucks management group, there have been three players drafted or signed out of free agency, who have developed in the AHL and turned into full-time NHL players.

Here’s a list of most of the U23 AHL’ers that have entered the Canucks AHL system since the Comets became their affiliate: Alex Grenier, Nicklas Jensen, Alex Friesen, Frank Corrado, Peter Andersson, Alex Mallet, Frank Corrado, Hunter Shinkaruk, Brendan Gaunce*,Mike Zalewski, Jordan Subban, Andrey Pedan, Joe Labate, Ashton Sautner, Cole Cassels, Evan McEneny, Jake Virtanen, Marco Roy, Zack MacEwen*, Guillaume Brisebois, Michael Carcone, Jalen Chatfield, Tanner MacMaster, Danny Moynihan, Nikolay Goldobin, Jonathan Dahlen, Kole Lind, Jonah Gadjovich, Petrus Palmu, Lukas Jasek, Thatcher Demko, Jack Rathbone, Carson Focht, Ethan Keppen, Jett Woo, Mitch Eliot, Adam Gaudetteand I’m missing some more.

  • The Canucks got an entire NHL season out of Brendan Gaunce, but footspeed concerns and a lack of offence kept him out of future call-up considerations. Especially after the team invested in Jay Beagle and other bottom-six contracts. He arguably would be on that Graovac plain of NHL’er if the Canucks had just stuck with him.
  • Virtanen, let’s not even get into it.
  • MacEwen busted his ass to make the taxi squad and appeared to be on the verge of breaking out, but this year has been a disaster for him. He might have an NHL future as a 13th forward, but he isn’t a “must play” starting 16 forward at the NHL level at this juncture.
  • Thatcher Demko – grade A proof of development. The only asterisk is that he is a goalie, and goalies develop much differently than skaters.
  • Adam Gaudette and Jack Rathbone are two players who were infinitely better than those playing around them. They were on different skill levels, and their placement in the AHL was primarily due to circumstance rather than ability or needing time to cook/develop in the AHL.

So after eight years of remote management of prospect development, this club has a goalie and a 13th forward to show for their AHL development work.”

 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

The difference between Virtanen and Juolevi is quite big. One has had injury issues. The other has had off ice issues.

 

Saying Juolevi has a very slim shot at being a meaningful player has so many problems with that, but I suspect your opinion won't change despite your so-called "honest" discussion.

Did you see Juolevi get turned around today on the Lucic goal? His pivot ability is bottom tier... a skill that you desperately need to be a competent defenseman. There's a reason why Juolevi doesn't play more than 13 minutes a game.

 

He is miles away from being a top 4 defender. He's closer to out of the league than a top 4  dman.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Schmautzie said:

Just for fun I went to mynhldraft.com to see how other prognosticators would have chosen players based on the Canuck’s draft position in each of the drafts that Benning was our GM. I chose Craig Button as a respected evaluator of talent. Each pick was his highest rated player still available based on who other teams picked ahead of the Canucks,

 

Button’s picks would have been:

 

2014. Nik Ehlers (over Virtanen)

2015. Brock Boeser

2016. Matthew Tkachuk (over Juolevi)

2017. Cody Glass (over Pettersson)

2018. Quinn Hughes

2019. Cole Caulfield (over Podkolzin)

 

The Canucks would arguably be better with Button’s picks vs Benning’s. I’m really glad that we have Pettersson but Ehlers, Tkachuk and possibly Caulfield would have substantially increased our talent level. I understand that Vegas is happy with Cody Glass’s development as well.


I guess my point is that Benning’s drafting prowess may be a bit overrated. Someone like Craig Button as our GM could have drafted equally as well (or better) and probably avoided the disastrous free agent signings and bad trades that have been Benning’s real legacy.

 

 

That's funny.   Buttons final list June 26 and his mock draft had Boeser getting drafting at well, 26....you have to go back to Febraury to find Boeser in the top 20.  

 

In EP's draft he also had Necas and 

Valardi ahead of EP, but at least he had him in the top ten.  

 

He also had Caufield at 4, and Seider at 26 so why don't we wait to see how 2019 comes out before judging it.   Button has his fair share of misses too, if you compare his first round list to any sort of re-draft.   I've pumped his tires a lot on here as well, Rafferty  supposedly "is ready for top four NHL duty now " last January 2020 too (Button) 

 

But the picture your trying to paint isn't entirely accurate either. 

 

 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Did you see Juolevi get turned around today on the Lucic goal? His pivot ability is bottom tier... a skill that you desperately need to be a competent defenseman. There's a reason why Juolevi doesn't play more than 13 minutes a game.

 

He is miles away from being a top 4 defender. He's closer to out of the league than a top 4  dman.

SMH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Timråfan said:

I’ve heard many here talking about Utica in a good way.

Here is one input that isn’t especially glad over the impact Utica have over our prospects.

After reading that input I believe Utica has hindered our prospects from developing.

 

https://cometsharvest.com/2021/05/14/comets-harvest-the-final-friday/

 

”That 2018-19 season was an unmitigated disaster, marred by goaltending issues and legitimate prospects scratched in favour of ECHL plugs.

The most notable issue being when both Petrus Palmu and Jonathan Dahlen publicly voiced problems with the management and coaching staff over playing time and communication.

If we’re generous to the Canucks management group, there have been three players drafted or signed out of free agency, who have developed in the AHL and turned into full-time NHL players.

Here’s a list of most of the U23 AHL’ers that have entered the Canucks AHL system since the Comets became their affiliate: Alex Grenier, Nicklas Jensen, Alex Friesen, Frank Corrado, Peter Andersson, Alex Mallet, Frank Corrado, Hunter Shinkaruk, Brendan Gaunce*,Mike Zalewski, Jordan Subban, Andrey Pedan, Joe Labate, Ashton Sautner, Cole Cassels, Evan McEneny, Jake Virtanen, Marco Roy, Zack MacEwen*, Guillaume Brisebois, Michael Carcone, Jalen Chatfield, Tanner MacMaster, Danny Moynihan, Nikolay Goldobin, Jonathan Dahlen, Kole Lind, Jonah Gadjovich, Petrus Palmu, Lukas Jasek, Thatcher Demko, Jack Rathbone, Carson Focht, Ethan Keppen, Jett Woo, Mitch Eliot, Adam Gaudetteand I’m missing some more.

  • The Canucks got an entire NHL season out of Brendan Gaunce, but footspeed concerns and a lack of offence kept him out of future call-up considerations. Especially after the team invested in Jay Beagle and other bottom-six contracts. He arguably would be on that Graovac plain of NHL’er if the Canucks had just stuck with him.
  • Virtanen, let’s not even get into it.
  • MacEwen busted his ass to make the taxi squad and appeared to be on the verge of breaking out, but this year has been a disaster for him. He might have an NHL future as a 13th forward, but he isn’t a “must play” starting 16 forward at the NHL level at this juncture.
  • Thatcher Demko – grade A proof of development. The only asterisk is that he is a goalie, and goalies develop much differently than skaters.
  • Adam Gaudette and Jack Rathbone are two players who were infinitely better than those playing around them. They were on different skill levels, and their placement in the AHL was primarily due to circumstance rather than ability or needing time to cook/develop in the AHL.

So after eight years of remote management of prospect development, this club has a goalie and a 13th forward to show for their AHL development work.”

 

The article conveniently leaves out Gadj, Lind and Woo's contributions, as well as Rathbone. Hmm. I wonder why.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

The article conveniently leaves out Gadj, Lind and Woo's contributions, as well as Rathbone. Hmm. I wonder why.

If we’re generous to the Canucks management group, there have been three players drafted or signed out of free agency, who have developed in the AHL and turned into full-time NHL players.

 

Gadj, Lind and Woo are not full time NHL regulars.

 

Read the article again... I think you may need some reading glasses bud. Or you're just a little slow up top?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

Here's the thing though... Toffoli is a clear-cut top six forward that had 10 points in 10 games in the regular season with us, as a rental acquisition.

 

Pearson was an expiring third liner that we could have gotten assets at the deadline for (likely a 3rd).

 

It's not really a one-to-one comparison. We gave up assets to get Tofu, and lost (opportunity cost) assets in order to retain Pearson.

 

Jake was putrid in the playoffs (3 points in 16 games) - even Jim attested to that. Jim had a chance to trade Virtanen at his peak value but decided to take a chance to retain him over Toffoli. This gamble obviously did not work out. If we were truly trying to compete, why would we not trade Virtanen for a pick and try to re-sign either Tanev or Toffoli? 

Benning's strength is drafting, but what about the other aspects? Trades? Contracts? I don't think it's fair to qualify Jim as a "Good GM" at this point. 

Pearson’s numbers last year were the same as Toffoli, he had 45 points Toffoli 44.  So your comment that Toffoli is a clear cut top 6 while Pearson is a 3rd liner isn’t supported by last year’s numbers.  This year was a different story but as many have already pointed out it is easy for you to be a Monday Morning QB knowing the results that already happened this year and thus making your statements above.

 

If Toffoli and Pearson had both trended the same way this year as last year would you be making the same comments above?  Everybody keeps pointing to Benning screwing up on Toffoli but nobody seems to be talking about Markstrom anymore or even Tanev.  I wonder why?  Why can’t you just admit that letting Markstrom go as well as Tanev was a smart move long term and letting Toffoli go made sense at the time as Jake was trending as a 20 goal scorer and we already had Boeser as our #1 RW, where the only reason we traded for Toffoli in the first place was because Boeser got hurt and Benning wanted Toffoli to replace him in the lineup to make a playoff push last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Pearson’s numbers last year were the same as Toffoli, he had 45 points Toffoli 44.  So your comment that Toffoli is a clear cut top 6 while Pearson is a 3rd liner isn’t supported by last year’s numbers.  This year was a different story but as many have already pointed out it is easy for you to be a Monday Morning QB knowing the results that already happened this year and thus making your statements above.

 

If Toffoli and Pearson had both trended the same way this year as last year would you be making the same comments above?  Everybody keeps pointing to Benning screwing up on Toffoli but nobody seems to be talking about Markstrom anymore or even Tanev.  I wonder why?  Why can’t you just admit that letting Markstrom go as well as Tanev was a smart move long term and letting Toffoli go made sense at the time as Jake was trending as a 20 goal scorer and we already had Boeser as our #1 RW, where the only reason we traded for Toffoli in the first place was because Boeser got hurt and Benning wanted Toffoli to replace him in the lineup to make a playoff push last year.

Toffoli deals and Pearson deals were signed at separate times.


You can't compare the same season of points because the deals weren't signed at the same time.

 

Also, we all know Pearson had a career year and scored a lot of EN points riding shotgun on Horvat's wing. Pearson is a lot closer to a 30 point player than his pace last year.

 

Toffoli had 10 points in 10 regular season games. He had 4 points in 7 games in the playoffs despite being injured. Jake was coming off a career year and had 3 points in 16 playoff games. It was clear that Toffoli was miles ahead of Jake. If  we wanted to be competitive, the right move would have been prioritizing Toffoli... there's no doubt that Tofu > Virtanen.

 

Letting Toffoli go made NO sense considering the price that Montreal paid to get him. We paid 4.3M for a backup goalie, but wouldn't pay 4M to Toffoli to be our first/second line winger?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

If we’re generous to the Canucks management group, there have been three players drafted or signed out of free agency, who have developed in the AHL and turned into full-time NHL players.

 

Gadj, Lind and Woo are not full time NHL regulars.

 

Read the article again... I think you may need some reading glasses bud. Or you're just a little slow up top?


See this is your problem. You say you want to have an honest discussion with Benning’s supporters. You don’t. That implies that you want to consider respectfully  what they say when in reality you only want to lecture them. “...need some reading glasses...or you’re just a little slow up top” isn’t a discussion, it’s just a smartass response.

 

For the record I consider myself about a 70% supporter who recognizes his flaws and his skills. Yet if I find criticisms to be unfair or illogical and speak up I get called a fanboy, B’bro, nuthugger, etc.  Hardly a constructive way to sway someone’s opinion.

 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 4petesake said:


See this is your problem. You say you want to have an honest discussion with Benning’s supporters. You don’t. That implies that you want to consider respectfully  what they say when in reality you only want to lecture them. “...need some reading glasses...or you’re just a little slow up top” isn’t a discussion, it’s just a smartass response.

 

For the record I consider myself about a 70% supporter who recognizes his flaws and his skills. Yet if I find criticisms to be unfair or illogical and speak up I get called a fanboy, B’bro, nuthugger, etc.  Hardly a constructive way to sway someone’s opinion.

 

 

What?

 

The dude clearly didn't read the article at all and just started making incorrect statements.

 

I merely corrected the guy? Gadj, Lind and Woo were mentioned in the post, but they weren't called out because they didn't apply to the topic at hand.

 

EDIT: Btw, I do want to have an honest and genuine conversation with Benning supporters. It has been met with nothing but either trolls (Alflives), people with no productive conversation, or those who can only say "Benning drafts well lolol".  Name one person with a reasonable, well constructed response to my post and I'm happy to respectfully engage in discussion.

 

Most are trolls or people that are too far deep as a Benning shill and will die defending him. 

Edited by JohnTavares
  • RoughGame 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, King Heffy said:

The vets were signed to avoid going full Edmonton and destroying prospects in roles they weren't able to handle.  The overpayments were necessary due to the team being bad, in a market with high taxes.  The success of the young players so early pulled the team back into contention quicker than expected, which made the contracts an issue. 

You're really going to use TAXES as an excuse for Jim Benning signing terrible contract after terrible contract?

 

You got to be kidding me man... the Benning fanfare here is cult-like. Just embarassing.

  • RoughGame 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alflives said:

So you’re an Islander’s fan?  ill go for a scooter ride, if you go to your team’s board.  Deal?  :towel:

How are posts like these even allowed?

 

Blatant trolling with no intention of creating productive or meaningful conversation. I guess when you spend your life on a message board, people just get used to it.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

 

7 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

I'm trying to have an honest discussion. 


There are too many people here that are attached to JB's hip for no reason.


Arguing about Virtanen and Juolevi being huge misses is just disingenuous.

 

7 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

And it turned out to be a huge bust.

 

Nobody can claim JB as this exceptional draft guru when he whiffed on TWO top six picks.

 

7 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

How can this be an honest conversation when the Benning shills literally will defend him until they die? It's eerily similar to down south and Mr Trump.

 

7 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

I'm blaming JB because he picked the wrong guy. You can't use the Olli is injured excuse forever.

 

MT was a blue-chip first line forward on the board, and he went with a defenseman who had the luxury of playing with some of the best junior players (Finland WJC and London Knights) in his junior career.

 

7 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

It really is the go-to excuse.


He also whiffed on Juolevi and Virtanen, so how can he be this amazing draft guru?

 

How does he still have a job, and still have a lot of supporters?

 

 

7 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

Nice. These vets really stopped the Canucks from being one of the worst teams in the past 7 years.

 

 

7 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

Terrible cap sheet, below average prospect pool, players needing new deals, bad contracts on the books...

 

You really don't see any issues right now? Wow.

 

6 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

I think the people here have parroted themselves too much.

 

The JB ideology is a little too far gone here.

 

6 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

I'm trying to have an honest discussion. There have been very few people in this thread that have been able to put any honest conversation whatsoever.

 

The Benning shills can't even recognize or take accountability for JB's mistakes. 


It's hard to have an honest discussion when you can't compromise.

 

6 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

Jim Benning did not whiff on Juolevi and Virtanen?

 

If this isn't Benning shilling, I don't know what isn't.

 

4 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

Nope. I joined in 06... left due to the Benning shills attacking any criticism of the GM.

 

Came back to see it is still more or less the same thing here...

 

3 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

Respect to you. I don't know how you do it here.

 

Everything is just JB draft well he's amazing end of story.

 

2 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

Did you see Juolevi get turned around today on the Lucic goal? His pivot ability is bottom tier... a skill that you desperately need to be a competent defenseman. There's a reason why Juolevi doesn't play more than 13 minutes a game.

 

He is miles away from being a top 4 defender. He's closer to out of the league than a top 4  dman.

 

1 hour ago, JohnTavares said:

"SMH" is all you got?

 

K.

 

Let me know when Juolevi is playing any impactful minutes and isn't getting turned around every second play.

 

1 hour ago, JohnTavares said:

Btw, I do want to have an honest and genuine conversation with Benning supporters. It has been met with nothing but either trolls (Alflives), people with no productive conversation, or those who can only say "Benning drafts well lolol".  Name one person with a reasonable, well constructed response to my post and I'm happy to respectfully engage in discussion.

 

Most are trolls or people that are too far deep as a Benning shill and will die defending him. 

 

1 hour ago, JohnTavares said:

You got to be kidding me man... the Benning fanfare here is cult-like. Just embarassing.

 

1 hour ago, JohnTavares said:

How are posts like these even allowed?

 

Blatant trolling with no intention of creating productive or meaningful conversation. I guess when you spend your life on a message board, people just get used to it.

Funny how the OP claims to be interested in an open and honest discussion, but has barely anything to offer but one liners, insults and moaning. A little substance wouldn't hurt.

 

He might also consider that there is not only black and white in the world and in this instance. One can criticize management and still like the overall direction. Or dislike the direction, but still support certains actions. Overgeneralizing and calling everybody who dares to say something positive about management a troll and/or blind Benning shill does not contribute to the discourse.

 

Trying to go back to topic : I like the overall direction of the team and disagree that JB has no plan. His drafting has been very good (not excellent), for most of his trades I understand why he made them and can get behind. I'm not as critical of his FA signings as the majority. Several injuries make deals look bad (Ferland, Sutter, OJ, Roussell, Baertschi), it is debatable to what extent he could have known, Ferland was certainly a big risk. His

college signings have been good. He could be a bit more creative.

 

I like that he is not afraid to take risks (e.g. Miller, EP, Markström), that he is rather patient with prospects but values two way play and lets go of players who don't get it (Goldobin, Gaudette). He doesn't seem to care much about public opinion, which is a plus imo.

 

Negotiating in trades and free agency doesn't seem to be his strongest suit, it feels like he needs to pay the extra dollar or draft pick to get deals done. In general better internal communication may have saved him assets or staff. Tryamkin, Dahlen, Brackett, Tanev, Toffoli, Malhotra, Stecher, Gaudette, Clark - we cannot be sure to what extent (lack of) communication led to people leaving the organisation and if JB wanted to reatain them anyway, but that's an area where I see deficits. 

 

I'm undecided about player development. There are bright spots on forward and in goal, but especially on defence or on the defensive side there players have not progressed as much as I would like. I'm also not sold on the playing style. It is effective and successful when everybody is on, but it seems to be rather taxing physically and posibbly not sustainable for a long playoff run. For both aspects I'd first have to blame coaching, but JB is ultimately responsible for choosing the guys.

 

Does he speak up against the owner for the good of the team or is he a yes-man mainly trying to please his bosses to save his own backside? I don't know. Hopefully the former, but certain leads point to the latter.

 

Is he the bestest GM that every wandered the seven seas? Probably not. Is he the most worthless piece of hedgehog dung? I guess not. In my opinion he is a solid GM that has managed to give the franchise a very talented young core and should get one more (full) season.

Edited by joe-max
typo
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

I want to have a genuine and honest conversation with those who still support current management. I recognize there has been a major shift here on this forum with regards to supporting Jim Benning and co. After running off the highs of taking Vegas to Game 7, the majority of fans on this forum still heavily supported Jim and co. Jim Benning slander was usually downvoted to oblivion and met with confrontation and disgust up until the 2020 offseason. Several people were downvoted or confronted for suggesting that the Canucks could a step back with limited cap space and several key players needing new contracts.

 

The turning point for myself was when Jim traded Bonino for Sutter: gave up arguably the better player on a cheaper contract, lost value in the draft pick exchange, proceeded to call Sutter a "foundational" player, signed him to a major extension without Sutter ever playing a single game for us. This was 6 years ago in 2015. This series of transactions raised major red flags for me and the subsequent moves after really sealed the deal - Jim Benning is the not the right guy for the job.

After an abysmal year from the Canucks, a terrible cap sheet, and an average/below-average prospect pool to look forward to, many have shifted their opinions and want to clean house. For those who still support management, can I ask why?

 

On a results basis: The Canucks have one of the worst records in the league since Benning took over, while spending to the cap every year. The Canucks have had one playoff round win in seven years. The Canucks are about to finish as a bottom tier team despite having our "core" pieces in place. Even BEFORE the Covid outbreak, the Canucks were unlikely to make the playoffs. Yes, Petterson has missed a lot of games, but every team has injuries. If you want to build a winning team, you need depth, depth and more depth. For those who look to Covid and the Petterson injury as excuses, why? We were bad before Covid and if your team relies on ONE guy to keep your season afloat, then your team is not very good to begin with.

 

On a process basis: If results were poor, but the process was defined and executed, I wouldn't even be mad. Jim and co have proven time and time again, that their really is no clear direction. Seven years in and there has never been consistent messaging or moves that aligned. This management truly operates on a day-to-day basis. How can a management team running a near billion dollar business have no consistent plan or long-term outlook? Are we re-building? Are we trying to be competitive? Are we re-tooling? Why give up assets to acquire Toffoli and then not offer a contract? Why give another aging forward (who's having a bad season) a 3 year extension with a flat cap? If we are trying to compete, why did we not ship out Virtanen in the offseason and use that money to keep a Tanev or a Toffoli? Virtanen was abysmal in the playoffs and barely played - it was clear that the fit wasn't there anymore.

 

On a relationship management basis: Jim and management have proven time and time again, that they do not work well with others and have the thinnest front office in the league. They have outed several talented individuals in the organization (Brackett, Linden, Gillman etc.). It was recently reported that Jim and Weisbroad pushed back on Courtnall being in an advisory role. It's clear that Jim and co do not want voices in the room and clearly want yes-men supporting their operation. It's now looking like Ian Clark won't even be re-signed, one of the most important coaches will not be retained this year - another talented member of the organization looking to be on the way out. Jim has and co have not been able to maintain a good relationship with the fans because of the constant inconsistent messaging and the amateur quotes like "day-to-day" and "run out of time".

 

On a transactions basis: This has been beaten to death and there's really no need to go over every transaction. Jim has made some good moves, but his negative transactions FAR outweigh in substance and quantity than the positive transactions. Most Jim supporters resort to his drafting ability as a get-out-of-jail card. Jim has been an above-average drafter for sure - he still missed big time on the Virtanen and Juolevi picks, setting this franchise back for years. So I can't really give Jim and A or an A+ in drafting. Despite his "above-average" drafting, his contracts and trades have mostly been below average to downright terrible.

 

Can I ask the management supporters, are you OK with Jim's "above-average" drafting ability to compensate all the other negatives he brings to the table? What's still giving you faith that Jim can still run this team successfully after 7 years of mostly failure? Are you willing to give Jim his 2 more years, for a 9 year plan? Most GMs never see 9 years or more unless they have delivered exceptional results - which Jim has definitely not done. Why not look to someone new for change? Why after 7 years, do you still want to run with this guy?

 

TLDR: I want to know why you still support the current management group. Why the patience? It's been 7 years now, why do we need to give him 2 more? We have a very large sample size to work with already. Why not seek someone new for a change?

 

 

12 hours ago, Petey_BOI said:

i don't think we needed this thread

With all due respect - YES we do !   Until The owners start listening to what fans like John Tavares (above) keeps saying, nothing will change.  He has pointed out some extremely valid points that the Owners have to start paying attention to or we'll get another 7 years of boring/losing hockey until the last of the fans have lost complete interest in this team.

The last seven years reminds me of the very DARK days we endured back in the 80's - 90's where we were spinning our wheels and stuck in the MUD.  That's what this team feels like now - unfortunately.   JB and TG both have to GO ! Sorry !

 

CHANGE IS NEEDED NOW - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Xanlet said:

Compare Shinkaruk at 24, Gaunce at 26, Jensen at 29, Schroeder at 22, Sauve at 41, Patrick White at 25, Ellington at 33 (Canucks drafting from 2007 - 2013) to Boeser at 23, Hoglander at 40, Demko at 36, (Benning's drafting).

 

The previous drafting for the Canucks has been beyond abysmal. Benning has a few notable bad picks, but he continually turns late first round/early second round picks into high quality NHL players. Just look at that list of previous picks in that range. It actually causes pain to realize just how many wasted picks there were by previous regimes for the Canucks.

But that seems to be corrected by Gillis himself. When he changed scouts it got better and therefore should he be acknowledged for that.

So why is there a bunch of Gillishaters here spreading misleading information?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you mentioned Bonino for Sutter trade. It's easy to read Benning, he is going for the shortcut ever since hes been here. 

- Gudbranson (previous #3 pick), let's trade for him, hope he pans out and live to his drafted potential. 

- Sutter same $&!#. Drafted #13, young, 28 years old, let's hope he lives to his drafted potential. 

- Trades 2nd round picks for Linden Vey, Baertschi etc.... 

 

And the 2-3 UFAs we always go out to spend every year to 3-6million dollar contracts. 

 

And the prospects we develop and give up mid way. (McCann, Shinkaruk, Forsling, Gaudette, Madden..)

 

All of these tells you we have a GM that is not totally committed to the traditional draft, develop and succeed road. And it's 2021, our results are poor. Either Benning is on a short leash with the management and must make the playoffs or he is just not a very patient person and does not have a 3,5,7 year plan. More like, trade now, sign now and get some immediate results. 

  • RoughGame 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

 

With all due respect - YES we do !   Until The owners start listening to what fans like John Tavares (above) keeps saying, nothing will change.  He has pointed out some extremely valid points that the Owners have to start paying attention to or we'll get another 7 years of boring/losing hockey until the last of the fans have lost complete interest in this team.

The last seven years reminds me of the very DARK days we endured back in the 80's - 90's where we were spinning our wheels and stuck in the MUD.  That's what this team feels like now - unfortunately.   JB and TG both have to GO ! Sorry !

 

CHANGE IS NEEDED NOW - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !

Hockey was exciting in 1990 right up until Messier joined us and even then until Keenan too and Linden traded...  So yes the late 90's sucked.   And really the wheels didn't spin long but it sure felt like it was.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

How are posts like these even allowed?

 

Blatant trolling with no intention of creating productive or meaningful conversation. I guess when you spend your life on a message board, people just get used to it.

you are the most disrespectful and attention seeking person on this thread.

 

i dedicate this song for you.

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Timråfan said:

But that seems to be corrected by Gillis himself. When he changed scouts it got better and therefore should he be acknowledged for that.

So why is there a bunch of Gillishaters here spreading misleading information?

sorry, doesn't work that way.

 

Hey officer why are you arresting me? I put out that fire!!! I'm a hero!

 

Hey Gillis. we got evidence of you starting the fire, and now there is a whole bunch of upset fans in 7 years

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...