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

Reflections from the newest developments

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am fascinated by this buyout comment. Due to the way a lot of these FA contracts were structured they are effectively incentivized not to be bought out. Virtanen is a no-brainer, but I don't really see another one that's all that obvious in terms of cap savings. Holtby would make some sense, but I thought they needed to expose him in the Seattle draft. Ferland is injured and thus can't be bought out, and Eriksson, Beagle and Roussel don't really move the needle at all in terms of cap space.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, tas said:

what do you have to gain by being a critic instead of a fan?

That exact same as you gain by blindly accepting anything that the organization does regardless of any objective metrics or results.

Your comment is a false dichotomy as well.  You can be critical of the team and still be a fan, it is narcissistic to think you are the abitrar of how exactly what being a fan looks like.   Criticism can and has been earned by the team brass... unless your only definition of being a fan is blind loyalty and cheerleading for a particular head office figure.  

Also, don't conflate any particular GM or player with the team.  Someone can love the Canucks and not like the job Benning has done.

Who says that the most productive thing is to simply accept repeated failure?  Would Aquilini spend money if he knew he was going to fill the building no matter how little he spent or how bad the team was?  Holding the team to a high account just maybe means they will actually try to live up to it.

The Canucks objectively have one of the smallest front offices in the league and lowest paid ones.  The money they were spending under the Gillis regime they just aren't spending anymore.  That isn't a recipe for success.  The excuse of not knowing the revenue for the past year and having to pinch pennies is hogwash.  The team made money hand over foot for years and is valued more than half a billion dollars more than what Aquilini paid for it.  They also knew they were getting their huge chunk of the expansion fees handed to them to cover their losses from this year.  They know that the capped escrow means that they are going to make tons of money for the next 5 years as the players pay it back.  Even with all that they wouldn't spend anything to buy out or sign players for this season and try to build on the success of the bubble play.  We went to one of the lowest team payrolls in actual dollars of the league last season.

I have no time for failure, and it is simply fact that GMs with losing records over their entire tenure don't get 9 years to "figure it out".  GMs with losing records get fired because their job is to put a winning product on the ice.

Edited by Provost
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

I get it but we (can only assume) what factors Aquaman are using to make his decisions; ofcourse, some leaders will do what they think is right regardless of any backlash and others will be influenced by advisors or etc...  Guess, we will see what they mean by - aggressive in the off season (hopefully it is a balanced approach of not mortgaging the future too much for the present). As a longtime, it seems we had been stuck as a bottom to middle of the pack pretender for awhile now but the young core provides some hope of a potential cup contender.

That's a really fair assessment of this team right now. It's not all roses, that's for sure. But there are reasons for being positive. Some people just want to dwell on the negatives and downplay the positives.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Vintage 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Provost said:

That exact same as you gain by blindly accepting anything that the organization does regardless of any objective metrics or results.

Your comment is a false dichotomy as well.  You can be critical of the team and still be a fan, it is narcissistic to think you are the abitrar of how exactly what being a fan looks like.   Criticism can and has been earned by the team brass... unless your only definition of being a fan is blind loyalty and cheerleading for a particular head office figure.  

Also, don't conflate any particular GM or player with the team.  Someone can love the Canucks and not like the job Benning has done.

Who says that the most productive thing is to simply accept repeated failure?  Would Aquilini spend money if he knew he was going to fill the building no matter how little he spent or how bad the team was?  Holding the team to a high account just maybe means they will actually try to live up to it.

The Canucks objectively have one of the smallest front offices in the league and lowest paid ones.  The money they were spending under the Gillis regime they just aren't spending anymore.  That isn't a recipe for success.  The excuse of not knowing the revenue for the past year and having to pinch pennies is hogwash.  The team made money hand over foot for years and is valued more than half a billion dollars more than what Aquilini paid for it.  They also knew they were getting their huge chunk of the expansion fees handed to them to cover their losses from this year.  They know that the capped escrow means that they are going to make tons of money for the next 5 years as the players pay it back.  Even with all that they wouldn't spend anything to buy out or sign players for this season and try to build on the success of the bubble play.  We went to one of the lowest team payrolls in actual dollars of the league last season.

I have no time for failure, and it is simply fact that GMs with losing records over their entire tenure don't get 9 years to "figure it out".  GMs with losing records get fired because their job is to put a winning product on the ice.

you still haven't pointed out what there is to be gained by being a critic. does it make you feel better to piss and moan and be negative all the time? it doesn't effect change, no matter how you want to delude yourself.

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tas said:

you still haven't pointed out what there is to be gained by being a critic. does it make you feel better to piss and moan and be negative all the time? it doesn't effect change, no matter how you want to delude yourself.

I literally answered it.  You haven't answered what there is to be gained by blind loyalty to a particular GM regardless of their success or failure.

  • RoughGame 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Provost said:

That exact same as you gain by blindly accepting anything that the organization does regardless of any objective metrics or results.

Your comment is a false dichotomy as well.  You can be critical of the team and still be a fan, it is narcissistic to think you are the abitrar of how exactly what being a fan looks like.   Criticism can and has been earned by the team brass... unless your only definition of being a fan is blind loyalty and cheerleading for a particular head office figure.  

Also, don't conflate any particular GM or player with the team.  Someone can love the Canucks and not like the job Benning has done.

Who says that the most productive thing is to simply accept repeated failure?  Would Aquilini spend money if he knew he was going to fill the building no matter how little he spent or how bad the team was?  Holding the team to a high account just maybe means they will actually try to live up to it.

The Canucks objectively have one of the smallest front offices in the league and lowest paid ones.  The money they were spending under the Gillis regime they just aren't spending anymore.  That isn't a recipe for success.  The excuse of not knowing the revenue for the past year and having to pinch pennies is hogwash.  The team made money hand over foot for years and is valued more than half a billion dollars more than what Aquilini paid for it.  They also knew they were getting their huge chunk of the expansion fees handed to them to cover their losses from this year.  They know that the capped escrow means that they are going to make tons of money for the next 5 years as the players pay it back.  Even with all that they wouldn't spend anything to buy out or sign players for this season and try to build on the success of the bubble play.  We went to one of the lowest team payrolls in actual dollars of the league last season.

I have no time for failure, and it is simply fact that GMs with losing records over their entire tenure don't get 9 years to "figure it out".  GMs with losing records get fired because their job is to put a winning product on the ice.

You make some valid points, but I have to laugh at the bolded here. :lol: Not sure why you are cheering for the Canucks then, based on what you said. The Canucks have rarely won more than they've lost, overall. I do not cheer for them because they are a perennially winning team. I cheer for them because they were the team I watched growing up. For me, I have a sense of loyalty towards the team, even if there are parts that I can be critical about. Stating you "have no time for failure" while claiming to be a Canucks fan is just hilarious.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TheCustodian said:

I am fascinated by this buyout comment. Due to the way a lot of these FA contracts were structured they are effectively incentivized not to be bought out. Virtanen is a no-brainer, but I don't really see another one that's all that obvious in terms of cap savings. Holtby would make some sense, but I thought they needed to expose him in the Seattle draft. Ferland is injured and thus can't be bought out, and Eriksson, Beagle and Roussel don't really move the needle at all in terms of cap space.

Eriksson does provide some relief, but there is dead cap space. I forget how much, but it might be worth it if it's spread out over time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tas said:

there's middle ground between blind loyalty to a gm and being a constant critic of the group. 

 

I've found a comfortable niche where I trust that the highly paid professionals who know infinitely more about running a hockey team than the hundreds of us on this forum combined are doing everything in their power to provide us with a winning team. as much as we care, they care even more. this is their livelihoods, their lives. there will be missteps, as there always are, but the intentions are always correct. based on that. I choose to support the club, knowing that they're doing the best they can to make my dreams come true 

 

I feel like it's a more positive alternative to the demanding and entitlement that is rampant in this fanbase. "I don't accept failure!" "anything less than a stanley cup isn't success!" well f*** you man, you apply for the job and do it yourself, then.

 

watch and support the team with hope, not expectation. 

I thought it's rather ironic that he claims not to "have time for failure", like he's some bustling professional living a fast life - and then he cheers for the Canucks? Or at least he's pretending that he does?

 

Then people like to pull out the "I've been a supporter for 40 years, now i'm stopping" card. LOL. If this was what got you to stop watching, which I highly doubt because there are definitively worse periods than this, then I don't know if that person should be a Canucks fan at all. Go cheer for the Lightning or Pittsburgh.

 

We can see the same people complaining about this team, yet not give credit where it's due, nor do they have the ability to reflect on previous opinions.

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, TheCustodian said:

I am fascinated by this buyout comment. Due to the way a lot of these FA contracts were structured they are effectively incentivized not to be bought out. Virtanen is a no-brainer, but I don't really see another one that's all that obvious in terms of cap savings. Holtby would make some sense, but I thought they needed to expose him in the Seattle draft. Ferland is injured and thus can't be bought out, and Eriksson, Beagle and Roussel don't really move the needle at all in terms of cap space.

Good take - I understand, the buck stops at JB but (based on the Canucks’ website) it is AGM Chris Gear who is in charge of contracts or seems to be the teams capalogist.   With all these mismanagements in FA or trades, I hope the team will look into re vamping the pro scouting dept.

Edited by ShawnAntoski
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, zimmy said:

Speaking of assumptions, are you not assuming that JB and TG are in fact completely oblivious to any blunders/mistakes/missteps that they might be guilty of? Are you somehow privy to all their private discussions? Conversations that take place with the management team? With the owners? Must be nice to have that kind of insight into the souls of those two men.

 

You paint both with a very dismissive brush that goes beyond describing their incompetence (which is your right and you do it calmly and with articulation) but make them out to be uninformed, ignorant and without honour. I don’t believe it to be a fair take but that’s just me.

 

And it surprises me that you are still searching for a mea culpa because, from the volumes you have offered on this subject, JB and TG are already dead and buried in your mind. Don’t tell me  that a little bit of hope hides in your heart.

 

 

Thats actually not what I am saying though. 

 

My post was about what they project publicly, not what they do or say privately because, like you said, I dont know that. I am sure they know the mistakes they have made.

 

If you listen to Benning especially when someone asks him about a mistake or a negative situation, he typically does a couple of things. First, he dismisses the possibility anything is wrong right away. Then he usually goes into a usually long, convoluted answer that does not actually pertain to the question. When he was on 650 yesterday, listen to his frustrated response to the question about players being unhappy about communication. He directly refutes what his own players, especially JT Miller, said publicly. 

 

There are easy ways to answer that question without trying to completely dismiss it that would probably help him calm down nervous fans a bit and help himself gain some credibility with them in the process.

 

He could have said, "We know that in some ways players felt left out of the process. To me, that is something we are going to improve on going forward. I feel that communication is good throughout the organization overall but there is always room to improve and thats what we are going to do."

 

An answer like that essentially disarms the narrative right away. So it accompmishes what Benning tries to do with his rambling answers while projecting confidence that he actually has a handle on things.

 

How you present things matters a lot. Benning is appallingly bad at public speaking and answering questions. That much is pretty obvious. But there are ways to help himself. He does himself no favors by getting defensive and whitewashing legitimate issues. Combined with his actions of not actually doing things differently, I can understand why people dont trust him.

 

Benning and Green are not dead to me. They are our GM and coach for the foreseeable future. I want them to be successful and hope that they do learn from their mistakes.

 

The trouble is, if you bring back everyone, you are saying right up front that everything is fine and there is nothing that can be improved on with coaching. I think given the results thats a risky message. Combined with saying you as GM are going to be aggressive doing the same things you have done in the past (mid level ufa signings, using vets to plug holes, etc.) it creates a lot of uncertainty given how those moves have worked out previously.

 

Nothing in what either of them said yesterday gave any indication much of substance will be done differently. I hope I am wrong.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, zimmy said:

So it’s “blind” loyalty? There are no other kinds of loyalty possible? A loyalty that is critical, constructive and supportive perhaps? 


Sometimes it’s your own blindness that attracts so much negative attention to your takes. I would suggest being less toxic but it seems this is your MO.

 

But unless you have some way of determining it, stop with the accusations that your fellow CDC’ers somehow can’t see.

Except the context was that people are saying that criticizing any aspects of the organization literally equates to not being a fan.  That is absolutely blind loyalty, and even worse... it is some sort of weird cult.

A person can post that they have no faith in Benning and yet still love the Canucks and think that Petterson is a great player.  Heck, you can even think Benning has done an above average job at drafting and also think that he is abjectly terrible at pro scouting and cap management.

Shouting down anyone who criticizes any aspect team is pure nonsense, that is absolutely what is happening on many of these posts and what I was responding to.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BENN said:

ok, but what about accountability? what about hiring Babcock? :(

 

Babcock and accountability in the same sentence. :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Take the "blind" part out of it because that's just an adjective to try to sell your side.  

No, that is the appropriate response to the folks that are denigrating any posters who dare to say something negative about any aspect of the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Provost said:

Except the context was that people are saying that criticizing any aspects of the organization literally equates to not being a fan.  That is absolutely blind loyalty, and even worse... it is some sort of weird cult.

A person can post that they have no faith in Benning and yet still love the Canucks and think that Petterson is a great player.  Heck, you can even think Benning has done an above average job at drafting and also think that he is abjectly terrible at pro scouting and cap management.

Shouting down anyone who criticizes any aspect team is pure nonsense, that is absolutely what is happening on many of these posts and what I was responding to.

and yet, still, what is there to gain by tearing down your own team? how does harping on missteps and flaws and mistakes and poor decisions help anybody? have you ever been part of a team? if so, did/do you rag on teammates or anyone else involved if they make what you perceive to be mistakes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

People who criticize Aquilini, Benning, Green, etc can still be actual fans of the team minus the "____" around it. Being critical and being a fan arent mutually exclusive. 

 

Criticism is better than apathy to a sports franchise. Thats simply a fact. People who criticize the team (and those who vehemently defend it too) have at least one thing in common, they give a &^@# about the team. People who dont give a &^@# dont complain or prsise.

 

If you want to encourage less toxicity around here, maybe start by simply accepting that other people's opinions are valid - even when you don't agree - and they are no less of a fan than you are.

I think it is fair to be critical but most fans go too far and don't play fair.

 

Really this lends itself to the time and age we live in with cancel culture and anonymous bloggers but name calling and personal insults are not cool in my books.

 

To me it is not what you do, rather it is how you do you. This is how I live my life, try to treat others with dignity and respect as I often feel there are two kinds of people. Those who have worked hard in life and have earned the right to be in the tough positions where they have to make tough decisions and those who haven't and choose to complain and lament and try and drag others down with them.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...