Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management

[FlyLow_]

I'm sorry, but there is no way to defend the management of this team the last 7 years. No rebuild, one of the worst teams in the league during that span while spending as much money as anyone. No stockpiling of draft picks/prospects.

 

I love EP40, he's already my favorite player we've had since Bure, but we should have way more talent and a hell of a contending team by now and we just aren't even close. Organizational depth is still brutal and getting worse on and off the ice. JB will probably be back, but only because our owners don't give a crap about building a championship team. 

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

34 minutes ago, stawns said:

I meant an example of one you would have liked to have seen, rather than a UFA signing

I already gave you 3 examples that would have been good for me. There are tons more but I think the Marleau one alone would have been fantastic.

[alt kilgore]

16 minutes ago, stawns said:

I don't see a difference, no .........because there is no difference.  He owns a business that provides a business to consumers.  You are a consumer therefore your power is in your wallet.  

 

Alrighty then.  So no such thing as something being valuable to a community. Or anyone feeling any obligation towards that. Value is only a word to describe dollar bills?  agree to disagree. 

 

But Francesco might disagree. What he said after letting Nonis go,

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nonis-fired/

 

"As owners we made a commitment to deliver the kind of hockey our fans deserve," Aquilini said. "At the same time, with leadership comes responsibility. So, our search begins today for a new general manager, and our focus going forward is on a winning season in 2008-09."

[stawns]

35 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I already gave you 3 examples that would have been good for me. There are tons more but I think the Marleau one alone would have been fantastic.

How would that have looked from the Canucks side?  What would the Canucks have given up?

Edited May 19, 2021 by stawns

[wallstreetamigo]

21 minutes ago, stawns said:

How would that have looked from the Canucks side?  What would the Canucks have given up?

Since those teams gave up a late round pick and/or underwhelming echl level prospects, pretty sure it would not have cost Benning much at all.

 

Marleau was traded with th 13th oa pick I believe and a 7th rounder for a 6th rounder.

 

Good veteran leader, still a very capable player, and by all accounts a great mentor.

 

Sutter was traded to the Canucks with a 3rd round pick (used on Lockwood iirc) for Bonino, Clendening (recently acquired straight across for Forsling), and a 2nd.

 

Good veteran leader, a capable player, and a great mentor.

 

For 2 million more cap for one season as opposed to a 4 year re-sign with trade protection.

 

Which do you feel, objectively, would have put the Canucks further ahead as a strategy?

 

Having Marleau for a year, keeping cost controlled Bonino, Forsling (if he wasnt traded for Clendening which was a brutal trade) and a 2nd or Sutter and Lockwood?

Edited May 19, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[stawns]

7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Since those teams gave up a late round pick and/or underwhelming echl level prospects, pretty sure it would not have cost Benning much at all.

So what's the difference with that and a UFA signing like Sutter?  Marleau costs a pick and prospect and comes with a cap hit.  Sutter just costs a cap hit.  I don't see why a UFA signing is worse, especially at that stage of his tenure

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

So what's the difference with that and a UFA signing like Sutter?  Marleau costs a pick and prospect and comes with a cap hit.  Sutter just costs a cap hit.  I don't see why a UFA signing is worse, especially at that stage of his tenure

Sutter wasnt a UFA signing. He was traded for by Benning as i posted above.

 

And Marleau only cost CAR a 6th round pick, no prospect involved.

 

Sutter cost us Bonino, Clendening (essentially Forsling) and a 2nd. And we drafted Lockwood with the 3rd coming back.

Edited May 19, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[stawns]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Sutter wasnt a UFA signing. He was traded for by Benning as i posted above.

Right........so Beagle then.  I don't think it's a bad idea when it's the right player, like Schmidt.  But I don't think it's a good course of action as a regular thing.

[wallstreetamigo]

UFA only costing money is a skewed perspective. They cost more money, more term, and trade protection that limits the team's cap and trade flexibility.

 

There is far more cost to acquiring the wrong UFA guys then people let on.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

Right........so Beagle then.  I don't think it's a bad idea when it's the right player, like Schmidt.  But I don't think it's a good course of action as a regular thing.

If you use the strategy I suggest, you accumulate a lot of assets. You could even use them to trade for an effective option if Beagle wont come to your team unless overpaid.

 

As I have said before, one or two ufa signings isnt the problem. That year he signed 5 I believe. Thats the problem.

 

Acquiring more picks and prospects rather than trading them away for guys like Vey, Clendening, etc. or signing a bunch of overpaid vets on 4 year terms is always a better strategy. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[wallstreetamigo]

There are always different ways to achieve the same goals. Good managers recognize that.

 

The problem with Benning and the Canucks is, much like they have no idea what they want their on ice identity to be, they dont have a clear idea on what their goals actually are. Thats why the moves made flip flop from year to year or even month to month at times. Benning is always trying to chase solutions based on the short term.

 

Re-tooling (ineffectively though it has been) is a short term band aid on a broken leg.

 

In a sense, we have been fortunate that his constant retools have failed so miserably because it accidentally gave us high picks to draft a core. Had he managed to build the middle of the pack team he was striving for, no EP, no Hughes. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[stawns]

10 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

There are always different ways to achieve the same goals. Good managers recognize that.

 

The problem with Benning and the Canucks is, much like they have no idea what they want their on ice identity to be, they dont have a clear idea on what their goals actually are. Thats why the moves made flip flop from year to year or even month to month at times. Benning is always trying to chase solutions based on the short term.

 

Re-tooling (ineffectively though it has been) is a short term band aid on a broken leg.

 

In a sense, we have been fortunate that his constant retools have failed so miserably because it accidentally gave us high picks to draft a core. Had he managed to build the middle of the pack team he was striving for, no EP, no Hughes. 

I disagree they don't know.........they've always claimed they want a high energy team with a mix of skill and some grit.  Unfortunately some of the players they've signed have been frequently injured.  The only contract that's really hurt them is LE and I get why they did it.........it's too bad it didn't work out, but I think the twins deserved another shot at glory.

[stawns]

16 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

There are always different ways to achieve the same goals. Good managers recognize that.

 

The problem with Benning and the Canucks is, much like they have no idea what they want their on ice identity to be, they dont have a clear idea on what their goals actually are. Thats why the moves made flip flop from year to year or even month to month at times. Benning is always trying to chase solutions based on the short term.

 

Re-tooling (ineffectively though it has been) is a short term band aid on a broken leg.

 

In a sense, we have been fortunate that his constant retools have failed so miserably because it accidentally gave us high picks to draft a core. Had he managed to build the middle of the pack team he was striving for, no EP, no Hughes. 

they had no choice but to "re-tool", though don't kid yourself it was a rebuild.  Gillis left him with no prospects and a roster full of NTC/NMC.........not like he had the freedom to play the market with the vets he inherited.  Ultimately re-tool was him trying to field an NHL calibre team given the sh!t hand he was left with....... that's his job after all.  

 

I think the issue is that a chunk of the fan base don't really under stand how lomg a rebuild actually takes.  It's usually a decade or so before a team even becomes a true contender.

[wallstreetamigo]

25 minutes ago, stawns said:

they had no choice but to "re-tool", though don't kid yourself it was a rebuild.  Gillis left him with no prospects and a roster full of NTC/NMC.........not like he had the freedom to play the market with the vets he inherited.  Ultimately re-tool was him trying to field an NHL calibre team given the sh!t hand he was left with....... that's his job after all.  

 

I think the issue is that a chunk of the fan base don't really under stand how lomg a rebuild actually takes.  It's usually a decade or so before a team even becomes a true contender.

I dont think a lot of the fan base understands what a rebuild actually is vs a retool. In 7 years Benning has not engaged in anything other than drafting high (because his retools didnt work at all) that can be remotely seen as the hallmarks of a rebuild.

 

Giving the Sedins another chance or two was a mistake but I could at least undertand the thought process behind it. Since that time though, continuing the same approach has still not worked at all 

[wallstreetamigo]

32 minutes ago, stawns said:

I disagree they don't know.........they've always claimed they want a high energy team with a mix of skill and some grit.  Unfortunately some of the players they've signed have been frequently injured.  The only contract that's really hurt them is LE and I get why they did it.........it's too bad it didn't work out, but I think the twins deserved another shot at glory.

Have you watched this team play?

 

Some games they have energy, some they have skill, the odd time they have grit.

 

They rarely, throughout this regime's tenure, has had all 3 in one game. 

 

If you watch other teams play consistently, it becomes pretty clear how our dump and turnover offensive system combined with our passive D strategy mix like oil and water. Our offensive skill is wildly overrated and pretty sketchy outside of 4 players. What really stands out though is just how much our team actually lacks any grit. 

 

So they want that type of team but after 7 years still dont have it. Who gets the responsibility for that? Benning, thats who. 

 

Saying you want the team to play a certain way yet building a team that actually doesnt is the problem. They have no identity as a team and that starts at the top.

[stawns]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Have you watched this team play?

 

Some games they have energy, some they have skill, the odd time they have grit.

 

They rarely, throughout this regime's tenure, has had all 3 in one game. 

 

If you watch other teams play consistently, it becomes pretty clear how our dump and turnover offensive system combined with our passive D strategy mix like oil and water. Our offensive skill is wildly overrated and pretty sketchy outside of 4 players. What really stands out though is just how much our team actually lacks any grit. 

 

So they want that type of team but after 7 years still dont have it. Who gets the responsibility for that? Benning, thats who. 

 

Saying you want the team to play a certain way yet building a team that actually doesnt is the problem. They have no identity as a team and that starts at the top.

Last season is my standard and though they had peaks and valleys, they played hard most nights and showed a lot of improvement and moxie throughout the year.  I see no reason why they don't carry on in that way next season, after an actual training camp, pre&season and normal schedule

 

 

[appleboy]

12 hours ago, stawns said:

Sports is full of successful franchises who spends tons of money but don't make it to the promised land.  There's a thousand different things that have to happen to be a champion and not very many of them are money related.......in fact, injuries are probably the biggest factor and have certainly been one of the main speedbumps for this organization since JB took over

Stop living in a dream world. Every team in the NHL has lots of injuries. The solution for that is depth. Jim has never bothered with building organizational depth. All you talk about is what is at the NHL level and we have some real bright young players here.  The real issue comes with depth. 

 

Seven years ago when Linden and Jim took over this organization had a huge glaring weakness. There was still some good talent at the NHL level but the organization was stripped to the bone. We all know that and even you have commented on this. Good team builders start from the bottom and build up. Linden made mention of the lack of depth in some interviews. Jim has landed some high level talent because of high picks but those young players graduate to the NHL very quickly. The organizational depth is still just as bad as when Jim took over. He never added picks or did anything to build the depth up. He has made trades that have used up some of our assets. Teams always have injuries and without depth they will never succeed.

 

Tampa is a good example to follow. Their owner is probably one of the best in the league. He hires the best people and gets out of the way. Their depth is one of the best in the league. They don't build through the FA market. They build from their organization and have the assets to add through hockey trades. You say our owners are fans and thus want to be involved. Their owner is also a hockey fan but the difference is he gets to cheer on a winning team and no doubt will be excited to share a playoff run with the teams fans.  Something our owners won't be doing until they hire good people and get out of the way.

 

 

Jim has never been against asking players to wave their NTC's.    Stop using that as an excuse.  It is not valid. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by appleboy

[stawns]

41 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Stop living in a dream world. Every team in the NHL has lots of injuries. The solution for that is depth. Jim has never bothered with building organizational depth. All you talk about is what is at the NHL level and we have some real bright young players here.  The real issue comes with depth. 

 

Seven years ago when Linden and Jim took over this organization had a huge glaring weakness. There was still some good talent at the NHL level but the organization was stripped to the bone. We all know that and even you have commented on this. Good team builders start from the bottom and build up. Linden made mention of the lack of depth in some interviews. Jim has landed some high level talent because of high picks but those young players graduate to the NHL very quickly. The organizational depth is still just as bad as when Jim took over. He never added picks or did anything to build the depth up. He has made trades that have used up some of our assets. Teams always have injuries and without depth they will never succeed.

 

Tampa is a good example to follow. Their owner is probably one of the best in the league. He hires the best people and gets out of the way. Their depth is one of the best in the league. They don't build through the FA market. They build from their organization and have the assets to add through hockey trades. You say our owners are fans and thus want to be involved. Their owner is also a hockey fan but the difference is he gets to cheer on a winning team and no doubt will be excited to share a playoff run with the teams fans.  Something our owners won't be doing until they hire good people and get out of the way.

 

 

Jim has never been against asking players to wave their NTC's.    Stop using that as an excuse.  It is not valid. 

It takes time to build organizational depth, especially when the guy before you guts it all 

[appleboy]

13 minutes ago, stawns said:

It takes time to build organizational depth, especially when the guy before you guts it all 

So another seven years? Jim has done the same thing. His only focus has been the NHL. 

[JM_]

35 minutes ago, stawns said:

It takes time to build organizational depth, 

it does for sure. I do think management is too thin at the top here, one of the reasons its hard to make a change from Jim right now is there isn't anyone above or below him to take over in the interim. There's no president, and the last guy you'd want running a draft is Weisbrod. 

 

I do hope this announcement means Jim will be bringing in more AGM help, and hopefully some new assistant coaches. Those two things would help a lot imo. 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Jimmy McGill