Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management

[DSVII]

5 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

There are no honest discussions going on here about management. This thread should be closed for false pretenses. 

OP did what he could, I think he worded his premise as well as he could without bashing anyone's takes, just an honest attempt to get to know the other side of the argument and to see whether we can come to some sort of accord.

 

The first responses to the olive branch for an honest discourse was met with remarks the thread shouldn't exist and making fun of him/her for choosing John Tavares the player as his user name (which I'm all for since he signed with the Laffs, but that's beside the point)

Honest dialogue requires effort on both ends.

Edited May 17, 2021 by DSVII

[CanadianRugby]

1 hour ago, JohnTavares said:

I think a lot of people right now don't see a plan. Can you point to me where there has been a substantial plan that has been set in motion?

 

The plan the way I see it.

 

1. Make some big signings, go for another run with the Sedins. 

 

2. OK, terrible season.  Draft high, add expensive vets and get back to dominating. 

 

3. OK another horrible season? Draft high, add overpriced vets, trade for more 23-25 year olds and sign more people.  No way there's another bad season.  Retool time. 

 

4. OK so another high pick, just add more overpriced vets.  No way it doesn't work again.  You know what.  Trade 1st and 2nd round pick to sneak into the playoffs.  

 

5. OK retool again, well.. mostly just lose players because of expensive vets.  

 

6.  Going for it again!

 

7. OK another terrible season, don't have money to sign overpriced vets.

 

8. Wait 2 years for money to sign expensive vets. 

 

 

[JohnTavares]

1 minute ago, DSVII said:

OP did what he could, I think he worded his premise as well as he could without bashing anyone's takes, just an honest attempt to get to know the other side of the argument and to see whether we can come to some sort of accord.

 

The first responses to the olive branch for an honest discourse was met with remarks the thread shouldn't exist and making fun of him/her for choosing John Tavares the player as his user name (which I'm all for since he signed with the Laffs, but that's beside the point)

Honest dialogue requires effort on both ends.

Thanks. I really tried to start a genuine conversation and never intended to troll. I tried to piece a coherent and fair statement, but I guess it wasn't good enough.

 

The very first two responses were "we don't need another thread", and some dude asking me about my username. How can you have an honest conversation when one side is just trolling and not adding value to the conversation?

It's such a breath of fresh air when it's not the same 3 people here constantly trolling and being toxic - you guys know who you are.

 

 

[JohnTavares]

15 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

It's actually a well written post, pretty much nailed everything in general, I'm actually glad you brought up the Bonino one that one always bugged me, Bonino was definitely the better player for half the price it never made sense to me.

 

I brought this up in GDT last night, but the other day was thinking of Markstrom, and how this team acquired him in a trade originally, waived him a couple times, but stuck with him until Clark turned him into #1, but you invest that much time into a goalie who was not a #1 and now is #1 and then you just let him walk? Why waste all that time to invest in him and turn him into a good trade piece to just let him walk... That's poor asset management. 

 

I've been a little more critical of Benning in the last year, but also said I'd let him finish off his last year on his contract, but if they don't resign Clark and let him go, then I'll probably lose it and demand Benning is gone before his contract is up.

Thanks - a breath of fresh air when it's not the same 3 guys trolling here.

 

Unfortunately, it really looks like Ian Clark is out the door. There was a tweet saying that they are acting as if he isn't coming back.

[VegasCanuck]

I still support Benning as the original plan and direction hasn't changed;

 

#1. Draft well through all rounds and look for those players past the first round, who will one day round out our roster of players

#2. Develop well.  Leave kids in the minors and junior until they show that they have not only developed to a stage where they are ready to replace other guys on the roster, but that they also have the drive to constantly improve and make themselves better players.

#3. Plug holes with UFA's and supporting players until #2 happens. Don't push kids into the league before they are ready, but create a competitive environment where they have to push themselves, not just handing them positions that they aren't ready for.

 

The reason that I see people not supporting Benning any longer, 90% of the time, boils down to lack of patience with this 3 step process and frustration that we are giving contracts to UFA's when fans feel that we should be just handing spots to younger players who haven't shown that they are ready for them, or deserve them yet. I generally see fans wanting to take a shortcut and employ a method that ultimately, builds in complacency into the team. Players MUST EARN their time on the ice, and if they can't outplay a UFA who was brought in to fill in a spot, then they do NOT yet deserve that spot.

 

We are about 2 years away. We will have room this season to add selectively, from what should be a deep talent pool, due to the fact that the cap will stay flat for at least another 2 years.

 

We have drafted extremely well, even when we can't get a break on the draft lottery. We would be in a LOT better position right now, if we had won the lottery and selected Matthews, or McDavid etc. Considering the luck some teams have compared to the Canucks at the lottery, we are in exceptional shape for our prospect pool and funnel.

 

Next year, we will be a better team who will push hard for the playoffs, and should be expected to make the playoffs.

Following year, we should be ready to push to go much further in the playoffs.

[JohnTavares]

6 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

The plan the way I see it.

 

1. Make some big signings, go for another run with the Sedins. 

 

2. OK, terrible season.  Draft high, add expensive vets and get back to dominating. 

 

3. OK another horrible season? Draft high, add overpriced vets, trade for more 23-25 year olds and sign more people.  No way there's another bad season.  Retool time. 

 

4. OK so another high pick, just add more overpriced vets.  No way it doesn't work again.  You know what.  Trade 1st and 2nd round pick to sneak into the playoffs.  

 

5. OK retool again, well.. mostly just lose players because of expensive vets.  

 

6.  Going for it again!

 

7. OK another terrible season, don't have money to sign overpriced vets.

 

8. Wait 2 years for money to sign expensive vets. 

 

 

 

It's the "no-plan" plan.

We have tried several years to be competitive (trading futures for present, overpaying several FAs), and yet year after year, we fail dramatically.

 

I'm starting to think that playoff run last year might be turn into a bad thing... similar to our playoff run in 2015. We made a small run and now we think we are ready to compete again, when in reality, we are ways away from being a legitimate Stanley Cup contender...

[MikeyD]

50 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Great assessment.

A big reason why I don't think Travis Green is the right guy moving forward. The success of the team has always been propped up by Vezina level goaltending from Markstrom and Demko.

The coaching is more of a detriment than an advantage IMO.

This goes back to the original post... does JB deserve to fire Green and go through another coach? Most executives never get to bring in 3 head coaches over their tenure. Why would JB get special treatment? When do we acknowledge that he's part of the problem?

While that's definitely true, I wonder if the Aqualini's have wanted to save a bit of currency by hiring a rookie coach and to not deviate from that this season when there was a whole bunch of pressure to get rid of Green. It's a complete conspiracy theory, but rumors have floated around about it. If they wanted to save cash on a head coach then I'd give JB a shot, but if that's JB's selection for coaches then it's understandable considering the team hasn't moved up or down.

One thing that does surprise me though for teams that aren't contenders is the fact that many will spend to the cap. If I were GM I'd leave around 5 million just due to so many teams needing to offload contracts. You can snag 1st round picks easily or if there's a good player that falls through the cracks money can be devoted to that. Some of the weaker teams have capitalized on this but with the Canadian market there's just so much pressure to spend. 

[JohnTavares]

7 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

I still support Benning as the original plan and direction hasn't changed;

 

#1. Draft well through all rounds and look for those players past the first round, who will one day round out our roster of players

#2. Develop well.  Leave kids in the minors and junior until they show that they have not only developed to a stage where they are ready to replace other guys on the roster, but that they also have the drive to constantly improve and make themselves better players.

#3. Plug holes with UFA's and supporting players until #2 happens. Don't push kids into the league before they are ready, but create a competitive environment where they have to push themselves, not just handing them positions that they aren't ready for.

 

The reason that I see people not supporting Benning any longer, 90% of the time, boils down to lack of patience with this 3 step process and frustration that we are giving contracts to UFA's when fans feel that we should be just handing spots to younger players who haven't shown that they are ready for them, or deserve them yet. I generally see fans wanting to take a shortcut and employ a method that ultimately, builds in complacency into the team. Players MUST EARN their time on the ice, and if they can't outplay a UFA who was brought in to fill in a spot, then they do NOT yet deserve that spot.

 

We are about 2 years away. We will have room this season to add selectively, from what should be a deep talent pool, due to the fact that the cap will stay flat for at least another 2 years.

 

We have drafted extremely well, even when we can't get a break on the draft lottery. We would be in a LOT better position right now, if we had won the lottery and selected Matthews, or McDavid etc. Considering the luck some teams have compared to the Canucks at the lottery, we are in exceptional shape for our prospect pool and funnel.

 

Next year, we will be a better team who will push hard for the playoffs, and should be expected to make the playoffs.

Following year, we should be ready to push to go much further in the playoffs.

Appreciate the response.

 

I agree that most of the people not supporting Benning anymore is because we have ran out of patience. I don't think JB has stockpiled enough assets/prospects to really turn this team into a contender in 2 years. We still need to reshape our bottom six, add two more top six forwards and two top four defenseman before we can be a legitimate contender IMO.

 

Progression isn't always linear. There's a very good chance we won't even make the playoffs in the next 2 years. Are you ok if this team doesn't make the playoffs for another 2 more years? Isn't a 9 year rebuild (that isn't guaranteed to be good) way too long for a GM? Gillis only got 6 years if I remember correctly, and he came within 60 minutes of the Stanley Cup twice. Why is the leash so long for JB?

[Patel Bure]

@John Tavares,

 

The plan, since the 2015 playoffs, has been to ALWAYS

 

 Build a solid collection of young prospects that could be a part of our core one day.  These young prospects wouldn’t be given roster spots but would have to earn their roster spot by beating out vets for that spot (ie Motte beating out Gagner).   These young kids would then be surrounded by veteran leaders that have either been lockerroom leaders on past teams (ie Beagle, Sutter, Dorset, etc.) or were at one time formerly great players that help show the ropes (ie Eriksson, Ryan Miller).  
 

Reclamation projects would be brought in during the formative process to not only reduce the age gap (which would help create a more tight knight lockerroom environment), but would also possibly serve as a way of being able to move veteran players for picks IF the reclamation projects were to pan out.  
 

The presence of these reclamation projects would also allow the young core to development their games in suitable roles without being rushed (ie being in Utica instead of being rushed into the NHL, etc.).   The kids would have the mindset that they would be competing hard each and every night to try and make the playoffs regardless of where they were in the standings.  If the teams’ record warranted it, picks would be moved so that the kids would be rewarded with valuable playoff experience (ie the Canucks attempting to trade for Lucic in 2015, PK Subbann in 2016, and Toffoli in 2020).  
 

In due time, as the “overpaid/transitional” contracts come off the books, the new core would then represent the new leadership group.  With freed up cap space, management could then start looking at bringing in UFA superstars to supplement the established core.

 

This has been the plan since the 2015 playoffs.    The year prior to that was giving our old core one last kick at the can.
 

A good solid young core of talent complemented by vets with strong character + good prospects that can contribute while being on ELC’s.   This is the exact situation that we will be in starting in 22-23.
 

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Patel Bure

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

Just now, JohnTavares said:

Thanks - a breath of fresh air when it's not the same 3 guys trolling here.

 

Unfortunately, it really looks like Ian Clark is out the door. There was a tweet saying that they are acting as if he isn't coming back.

Well he hasn't been resigned and there's been no leak of an extension yet, so I could see twitter universe leaning towards that right now, but I would wait until the off season and see first, before believing that tweet especially for my blood level 

[VegasCanuck]

7 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Appreciate the response.

 

I agree that most of the people not supporting Benning anymore is because we have ran out of patience. I don't think JB has stockpiled enough assets/prospects to really turn this team into a contender in 2 years. We still need to reshape our bottom six, add two more top six forwards and two top four defenseman before we can be a legitimate contender IMO.

 

Progression isn't always linear. There's a very good chance we won't even make the playoffs in the next 2 years. Are you ok if this team doesn't make the playoffs for another 2 more years? Isn't a 9 year rebuild (that isn't guaranteed to be good) way too long for a GM? Gillis only got 6 years if I remember correctly, and he came within 60 minutes of the Stanley Cup twice. Why is the leash so long for JB?

Gillis walked into an assembled and close to mature core team. He drafted badly, possibly the worst of any GM in the history of the Canucks. I've said a number of times in posts, I don't think Gillis was properly suited to being an NHL general manager, but I think he would have made a good long-term President of the team. I think he had some good ideas for overall team structure, but tried to do too much with handling both positions. In Gillis's time here, he only drafted one player of impact, which was Horvat, and he arranged that by underselling on a future franchise goalie, due to his mishandling of the whole Luongo situation.

 

If Canucks don't make the playoffs next year, it will absolutely cost JB his position, but after the challenges of the last 14 months, I will be shocked if he's not here at the start of next season. I think Green will as well, although I'm pretty sure there are other teams out there who would love to have him.

 

To correct you on Gillis's time here, he came within 60 minutes of winning the Stanley Cup Once. If you look at the REAL core of that team, they were all assembled in Vancouver, before Gillis arrived. Biggest addition he added to the 2011 team was Malhotra and Ehrhoff, but Malhotra barely played any of the 2011 playoffs.

Edited May 17, 2021 by VegasCanuck

[JohnTavares]

2 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

@John Tavares,

 

The plan, since the 2015 playoffs, has been to ALWAYS

 

 Build a solid collection of young prospects that could be a part of our core one day.  These young prospects wouldn’t be given roster spots but would have to earn their roster spot by beating out vets for that spot (ie Motte beating out Gagner).   These young kids would then be surrounded by veteran leaders that have either been lockerroom leaders on past teams (ie Beagle, Sutter, Dorset, etc.) or were at one time formerly great players that help show the ropes (ie Eriksson, Ryan Miller).  
 

Reclamation projects would be brought in during the formative process to not only reduce the age gap (which would help create a more tight knight lockerroom environment), but would also possibly serve as a way of being able to move veteran players for picks IF the reclamation projects were to pan out.  
 

The presence of these reclamation projects would also allow the young core to development their games in suitable roles without being rushed (ie being in Utica instead of being rushed into the NHL, etc.).   The kids would have the mindset that they would be competing hard each and every night to try and make the playoffs regardless of where they were in the standings.  If the teams’ record warranted it, picks would be moved so that the kids would be rewarded with valuable playoff experience (ie the Canucks attempting to trade for Lucic in 2015, PK Subbann in 2016, and Toffoli in 2020).  
 

In due time, as the “overpaid/transitional” contracts come off the books, the new core would then represent the new leadership group.  With freed up cap space, management could then start looking at bringing in UFA superstars to supplement the established core.

 

This has been the plan since the 2015 playoffs.  
 

The year prior to that was giving the old core the benefit of the doubt and giving them one last kick at the can.

That's fair and I can somewhat agree with the direction. A lot of the moves, however, didn't pan out and created a lot of inefficiencies with respect to cap space.

 

A lot of moves also don't really align with this plan, because this plan that you're referencing, really seems like multiple plans instead of one.

 

JB reportedly tried to trade Horvat + for Subban in 2016. If that trade had gone through, it would have set our franchise back years. I'm not sure why this is one of the moves you want to mention that support this "plan" so to speak.

The concern is that when these overpaid/transitional contracts come off the books, the new core will need new contracts, thus eating a lot of the cap space that we have. If you look at the cap sheet right now, we likely won't be able to build a significantly better team via UFA  There are seldom UFA superstars that we can acquire to supplement the established core.

Do you think the established core can be a legitimate contender with only minor improvements? When would you call for JB's head if the progression doesn't meet expectations?

[Patel Bure]

2 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

That's fair and I can somewhat agree with the direction. A lot of the moves, however, didn't pan out and created a lot of inefficiencies with respect to cap space.

 

A lot of moves also don't really align with this plan, because this plan that you're referencing, really seems like multiple plans instead of one.

 

JB reportedly tried to trade Horvat + for Subban in 2016. If that trade had gone through, it would have set our franchise back years. I'm not sure why this is one of the moves you want to mention that support this "plan" so to speak.

The concern is that when these overpaid/transitional contracts come off the books, the new core will need new contracts, thus eating a lot of the cap space that we have. If you look at the cap sheet right now, we likely won't be able to build a significantly better team via UFA  There are seldom UFA superstars that we can acquire to supplement the established core.

Do you think the established core can be a legitimate contender with only minor improvements? When would you call for JB's head if the progression doesn't meet expectations?

Hey,

 

will respond to the rest of your post later but I’ll just answer this one right now:

 

When would you call for JB's head if the progression doesn't meet expectations?

 

If the Canucks do not make the playoffs in 22-23 or lose in embarrassing fashion in the first round (regardless of where the Canucks would be seeded).

[JohnTavares]

5 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Gillis walked into an assembled and close to mature core team. He drafted badly, possibly the worst of any GM in the history of the Canucks. I've said a number of times in posts, I don't think Gillis was properly suited to being an NHL general manager, but I think he would have made a good long-term President of the team. I think he had some good ideas for overall team structure, but tried to do too much with handling both positions. In Gillis's time here, he only drafted one player of impact, which was Horvat, and he arranged that by underselling on a future franchise goalie, due to his mishandling of the whole Luongo situation.

 

If Canucks don't make the playoffs next year, it will absolutely cost JB his position, but after the challenges of the last 14 months, I will be shocked if he's not here at the start of next season. I think Green will as well, although I'm pretty sure there are other teams out there who would love to have him.

 

To correct you on Gillis's time here, he came within 60 minutes of winning the Stanley Cup Once. If you look at the REAL core of that team, they were all assembled in Vancouver, before Gillis arrived. Biggest addition he added to the 2011 team was Malhotra and Ehrhoff, but Malhotra barely played any of the 2011 playoffs.

He actually came within 60 minutes twice.

Game 6 and 7. We were up 3-2... and it hurts to type that.

We really were the better team but somehow we still lost.

[Patel Bure]

2 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

He actually came within 60 minutes twice.

Game 6 and 7. We were up 3-2... and it hurts to type that.

We really were the better team but somehow we still lost.

Injuries are a part of hockey and the Canucks were clearly the more beaten down team during the latter half of the series.  Aside from Boston, both San Jose and Nashville were among the top 5 most physical teams in the league that year.  So basically, we ended up playing three of the top 5 most physically tough teams.  Boston played another Top 5 tough team (Philadelphia), but they were imploding internally and were beaten very easily.  Boston’s two other series’ were against Tampa and Montreal who weren’t that physical.   
 

2011 proved that a slightly injured Bruins team was superior to a significantly injured Canucks one.   In my opinion, Games 1 and 2, along with our Jan 7th 2012 rematch against the Bruins, were more indicative of how the series would have gone had both teams been healthy.  The 2013 cup final is also how I think the Canucks-Bruins would have played out had both teams been at similar health.

[VegasCanuck]

Anyone overthinking how effective Gillis was here, do this. Go back to the 2011 Stanley Cup team and do this:

 

Remove The Sedins

Remove Ryan Kesler

Remove Alex Burrows

Remove Mason Raymond

Remove Alex Edler

Remove Jannik Hansen

Remove Kevin Bieksa

Remove Sami Salo

Remove Roberto Luongo

Remove Cory Schneider

 

Out of 164 points, goals and assists that were generated in that run to game 7, 121 of them came from players that were assembled in Vancouver by either Brian Burke or Dave Nonis. That's 73% of all points generated and the vast majority of all ice time minutes were played in that run by those 2 general managers, NOT Mike Gillis

 

So, before you talk about how Gillis took us to within one game of reaching the Stanley cup, go back in time with me, remove all of those guys I listed, and hand a team to Gillis who's missing those guys and tell me how well he does in his 6 years here. In a 6 years, where he only drafted ONE player who went on to become a really successful NHL player, and that player was developed AFTER Gillis left the team.

 

Gillis rounded out our 2011 team, he did NOT assemble it, he rode the coat tails of other, better General Managers to that success.

 

Anyone want to disagree with those Stats?

[VegasCanuck]

13 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

He actually came within 60 minutes twice.

Game 6 and 7. We were up 3-2... and it hurts to type that.

We really were the better team but somehow we still lost.

See my follow up post and then reply back with how successful you really think Gillis was.

 

I'll wait!

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by VegasCanuck

[VegasCanuck]

28 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

That's fair and I can somewhat agree with the direction. A lot of the moves, however, didn't pan out and created a lot of inefficiencies with respect to cap space.

 

A lot of moves also don't really align with this plan, because this plan that you're referencing, really seems like multiple plans instead of one.

 

JB reportedly tried to trade Horvat + for Subban in 2016. If that trade had gone through, it would have set our franchise back years. I'm not sure why this is one of the moves you want to mention that support this "plan" so to speak.

The concern is that when these overpaid/transitional contracts come off the books, the new core will need new contracts, thus eating a lot of the cap space that we have. If you look at the cap sheet right now, we likely won't be able to build a significantly better team via UFA  There are seldom UFA superstars that we can acquire to supplement the established core.

Do you think the established core can be a legitimate contender with only minor improvements? When would you call for JB's head if the progression doesn't meet expectations?

You hit the nail on the head. The KEY word in your statement is, REPORTEDLY. This is complete speculation.

 

The deal that was reported to have fallen through was, if Dubois fell to the Canucks, they would trade our first round pick in that draft, to Montreal for Subban, straight up, so that Montreal could draft the big Quebec born center that they had been looking for and that the Canucks would get the play making, game changing defenseman that they wanted. When Columbus drafted Dubois instead, the deal fell through and the Canucks went with the back up plan of drafting Juolevi as their future shutdown guy on defense. Unfortunately, he went on to have substantial injury problems in the next few season, slowing his development and his arrival in the NHL.

 

I have never heard of a scenario, before today, where JB was trying to move Horvat for Subban, everything I've ever heard was around our first round pick. 

[JohnTavares]

11 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Anyone overthinking how effective Gillis was here, do this. Go back to the 2011 Stanley Cup team and do this:

 

Remove The Sedins

Remove Ryan Kesler

Remove Alex Burrows

Remove Mason Raymond

Remove Alex Edler

Remove Jannik Hansen

Remove Kevin Bieksa

Remove Sami Salo

Remove Roberto Luongo

Remove Cory Schneider

 

Out of 164 points, goals and assists that were generated in that run to game 7, 121 of them came from players that were assembled in Vancouver by either Brian Burke or Dave Nonis. That's 73% of all points generated and the vast majority of all ice time minutes were played in that run by those 2 general managers, NOT Mike Gillis

 

So, before you talk about how Gillis took us to within one game of reaching the Stanley cup, go back in time with me, remove all of those guys I listed, and hand a team to Gillis who's missing those guys and tell me how well he does in his 6 years here. In a 6 years, where he only drafted ONE player who went on to become a really successful NHL player, and that player was developed AFTER Gillis left the team.

 

Gillis rounded out our 2011 team, he did NOT assemble it, he rode the coat tails of other, better General Managers to that success.

 

Anyone want to disagree with those Stats?

Who do you think signed those contracts for those players? Who do you think helped develop these players? Just because someone drafts a player, it means they deserve all the credit?  Think about what you're saying before you respond.

 

I'm not getting into what Gillis did or didn't do - this isn't a Gillis thread, the focus is not on him. 

 

He's brought forward the most successful era this Canucks team has ever seen. I've said it before and will say it again, the Gillis hate here is one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen here.

 

CDC would build a statue outside of Mike Gillis if we won that game 6/7. He would be heralded as a Canucks legend. The one that finally brought success and legitimacy to this franchise. His legacy would have been unmatched and would be regarded as the best executive this franchise has ever seen. Everyone that is hating on Gillis now is basically just using their EXTREME hindsight, because the whole city was in love with the team and the players. Who do you think was the mastermind of the whole thing? Gillis was the freakin' architect that brought us to 60 minutes of bringing home the Cup twice. The amount of disrespect he gets from Canucks "fans" is just embarrassing. These are the same people that were enjoying every second of the playoff run, screaming their lungs out and cheering the team on.

 

Please take Gillis' name out of this conversation. The disrespect for him is too pathetic.

 

[JohnTavares]

Just now, VegasCanuck said:

You hit the nail on the head. The KEY word in your statement is, REPORTEDLY. This is complete speculation.

 

The deal that was reported to have fallen through was, if Dubois fell to the Canucks, they would trade our first round pick in that draft, to Montreal for Subban, straight up, so that Montreal could draft the big Quebec born center that they had been looking for and that the Canucks would get the play making, game changing defenseman that they wanted. When Columbus drafted Dubois instead, the deal fell through and the Canucks went with the back up plan of drafting Juolevi as their future shutdown guy on defense. Unfortunately, he went on to have substantial injury problems in the next few season, slowing his development and his arrival in the NHL.

 

I have never heard of a scenario, before today, where JB was trying to move Horvat for Subban, everything I've ever heard was around our first round pick. 

That's not true.

It was widely reported it was Horvat and a pick for Subban.  I can do some digging if you would like.