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

Aggressive offseason

Rate this topic


ShawnAntoski

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

So, Kilgore, the time frames are similar between Gillis and Benning. However, you are making excuses for Gillis. Gillis did not produce ANY draft picks that turned into prospects, aside from Horvat and Hutton. Meanwhile, Let's see what Benning drafted (and ended up being somebody).

 

Hughes - high first round pick. Closest comparison - Horvat? Obtained through trading Schneider. Oh, Schneider was a very late first round pick by Nonis.

Pettersson - high first round pick

Boeser - 23rd overall. Closest comparison is probably Gaunce or Jensen. Neither of whom panned out under Gillis.

Demko -> self explanatory. NOT a first round pick. 2nd round pick. Shinkaruk? Injuries derailed his career

Rathbone -> lucky pick?

Gadj - promising 2nd rounder. 

Lind - another promising 2nd rounder.

Juolevi - still a prospect, showing lots of promise, injury plagued. High first round pick.

Forsling - traded away for Glendenning who was an AHL all-star, but did not pan out.

Jared McCann - good pick, late in the 1st round, but player did not become who he is today after several new teams.

Gaudette - good pick no matter how you slice it. Just didn't fit the team anymore.

Woo - promising 2nd rounder.

Podkolzin - high 1st round pick.

Lockwood - promising prospect.
Jasek - looks like a steal. Another prospect.

 

Then we have Gillis who had Grabner. Similar situation to McCann, but Gillis essentially traded 2 first round picks (Grabner being one of these) for Ballard. Sure, that other 1st rounder ended up being Quinton Howden (a bust for FLA), but Ballard was obviously a cap dump by Florida. Inflated numbers playing with offensive D campbell. Oh and was bought out later. Sure, Ballard had a use for one year, but AV did not trust him in the playoffs, at all.

 

Tanev - sure. Free agent signing. Equivalent in terms of pro scouting? Stecher? Not exact obviously.

 

As for your denial that fans were ready for a rebuild: the Canucks lost the cup in 2011 from Game 7. You're telling me people were willing to dismantle fan favourites like Kesler, Burrows etc after two years? Look at St. Louis right now. They had won a cup 2 years ago, and now have been eliminated twice in a row. Do you think fans want them to rebuild? Basically trading off pieces like Tarasenko, etc etc.?

 

JB did underestimate how good he'd turn the team around. The problems left behind by Gillis were far worse than what most people want to admit. Clearly, you are one of these people, Kilgore.

 

Firstly, I was reacting to your line "Gillis was unable to develop a single defenseman from his time period"  You didn't mention forwards. And you didn't say anything about being a draft pick  So I brought up Tavev.  He was developed under Gillis.  Although the development of players once they are here, is not really the GM's job, Gillis's or Bennings.

 

No one is denying Gillis Achilles heel was his drafting.  He relied on Delorme, because Mike wasn't an amateur draft guy.  Big mistake keeping the loser we'd had for almost our whole existence running that department.  But ffs, as far as picks we were contending for a Cup.  Our picks were lower AND no hidden gems unfortunately.  But he presided over a team that won 2 Presidents trophies, and went to the SCF, one win away from glory. You cannot just overlook that.  In that regard he is our most successful GM in our history!   

 

And obviously fans would have been a little pissed if we started a rebuild right after our Cup run.  We ended up winning the Presidents Trophy again.  I've never suggested JB start in his first year. The first opportunity I saw to start a real rebuild would have been after we lost badly to Calgary in the first round in 2015 with Willy.  If not that Summer, surely the next after we missed the playoffs entirely, the signs were all there.  What happened that Summer?  JB has the brilliant idea of signing Loui to a 6 x 6 deal instead. 

 

I could go on. You could go on. Round and round.  One difference,  Gillis's damage, as you have profusely laid out, is over.  Benning's term is still active.  He hasn't had much luck lately, and maybe that's bound to change. I hope so. 

 

61j-aIITSlL._AC_SY606_.jpg

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

Firstly, I was reacting to your line "Gillis was unable to develop a single defenseman from his time period"  You didn't mention forwards. And you didn't say anything about being a draft pick  So I brought up Tavev.  He was developed under Gillis.  Although the development of players once they are here, is not really the GM's job, Gillis's or Bennings.

 

No one is denying Gillis Achilles heel was his drafting.  He relied on Delorme, because Mike wasn't an amateur draft guy.  Big mistake keeping the loser we'd had for almost our whole existence running that department.  But ffs, as far as picks we were contending for a Cup.  Our picks were lower AND no hidden gems unfortunately.  But he presided over a team that won 2 Presidents trophies, and went to the SCF, one win away from glory. You cannot just overlook that.  In that regard he is our most successful GM in our history!   

 

And obviously fans would have been a little pissed if we started a rebuild right after our Cup run.  We ended up winning the Presidents Trophy again.  I've never suggested JB start in his first year. The first opportunity I saw to start a real rebuild would have been after we lost badly to Calgary in the first round in 2015 with Willy.  If not that Summer, surely the next after we missed the playoffs entirely, the signs were all there.  What happened that Summer?  JB has the brilliant idea of signing Loui to a 6 x 6 deal instead. 

 

I could go on. You could go on. Round and round.  One difference,  Gillis's damage, as you have profusely laid out, is over.  Benning's term is still active.  He hasn't had much luck lately, and maybe that's bound to change. I hope so. 

 

61j-aIITSlL._AC_SY606_.jpg

 

It seems the great debate between the two GM'S under Aquamans leadership are - Gillis has the trophies and JB has the draft picks.   Gillis benefitted from previous regimes and JB had to deal with his mismanagements.  Long term, JBs'  ability to draft well is a great benefit to the team (hope he wins with his core) cause having a good prospect pipeline is more sustainable than Gillis model of building a roster through trades & FA.  Perhaps, instead of hiring a new team president, they can (in the short term) focus on hiring a new set of AGM's - just like with Green & his assistants.

 

Imo, it will be JBs young core & draft picks that will give him the one trophy that trumps all of Gillis and this achievement will hopefully, finally put an end to this debate.  Really hoping, for a balance approach in this very (important) off season with some reflection of past mistakes cause the team is close to competing and continueing to spend a good chunk of the cap on complementary players is a losing strategy, as we had seen. 

 

Also, it would be interesting to see if Green will make some adjustments cause that is a system - that struggles when the other team start pushing hard (playoff hockey and Vegas) or JB will be given the very difficult task of looking for player(s) that are a perfect fit in his system - imo, a good coach is able to maximize a roster despite the talent level (just look at the difference with Schmidt in Vegas vs Greens/Baumer systems).

 

Just based on the discussions I ve read in multiple forums and talking to other fans - it seems that there is no (real) appetite for a tanking strategy in this market (perhaps among the season ticket holders) and Aquaman knows this.  Those 3 loser points against Calgary dropped their draft position from 5 to 9 - I get it; and hopefully JB continues to draft well.  

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gillis drafting was such a catastrophe for this franchise. Its why we faded into oblivion while other teams were able to prolong their window.

 

The organization didn't go the right direction at the beginning of Benning's tenure - there's no doubt about that - but the rebuild was always doomed to be difficult & long without lottery luck. 

  • Cheers 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

 

Firstly, I was reacting to your line "Gillis was unable to develop a single defenseman from his time period"  You didn't mention forwards. And you didn't say anything about being a draft pick  So I brought up Tavev.  He was developed under Gillis.  Although the development of players once they are here, is not really the GM's job, Gillis's or Bennings.

 

No one is denying Gillis Achilles heel was his drafting.  He relied on Delorme, because Mike wasn't an amateur draft guy.  Big mistake keeping the loser we'd had for almost our whole existence running that department.  But ffs, as far as picks we were contending for a Cup.  Our picks were lower AND no hidden gems unfortunately.  But he presided over a team that won 2 Presidents trophies, and went to the SCF, one win away from glory. You cannot just overlook that.  In that regard he is our most successful GM in our history!   

 

And obviously fans would have been a little pissed if we started a rebuild right after our Cup run.  We ended up winning the Presidents Trophy again.  I've never suggested JB start in his first year. The first opportunity I saw to start a real rebuild would have been after we lost badly to Calgary in the first round in 2015 with Willy.  If not that Summer, surely the next after we missed the playoffs entirely, the signs were all there.  What happened that Summer?  JB has the brilliant idea of signing Loui to a 6 x 6 deal instead. 

 

I could go on. You could go on. Round and round.  One difference,  Gillis's damage, as you have profusely laid out, is over.  Benning's term is still active.  He hasn't had much luck lately, and maybe that's bound to change. I hope so. 

 

61j-aIITSlL._AC_SY606_.jpg

 

I feel like I'd be beating a dead horse, but the reality is, had Gillis drafted SOMEONE, ANYONE, we'd have a player of some kind replacing an old roster player. That is a huge void. That would be especially helpful for any future team. But alas, Gillis left very little on the table on his way out. That will take a significant amount of time to recover. Enough about Gillis though.

 

That is on Benning for not recognizing how poor of a state the team was in. He may have been pressured by AQ to make a 'playoff team', but the reality was that the Sedins were not the same players they once were. Kesler wanted out. Luongo wanted out (to FLA). The writing was on the wall. The rebuild happened quite unceremoniously.

If Benning doesn't get it done, which I suspect he won't have enough time to see the full effect of his young core, we should see a very entertaining Canucks team rising in the future, one way or another.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShawnAntoski said:

It seems the great debate between the two GM'S under Aquamans leadership are - Gillis has the trophies and JB has the draft picks.   Gillis benefitted from previous regimes and JB had to deal with his mismanagements.  Long term, JBs'  ability to draft well is a great benefit to the team (hope he wins with his core) cause having a good prospect pipeline is more sustainable than Gillis model of building a roster through trades & FA.  Perhaps, instead of hiring a new team president, they can (in the short term) focus on hiring a new set of AGM's - just like with Green & his assistants.

 

Imo, it will be JBs young core & draft picks that will give him the one trophy that trumps all of Gillis and this achievement will hopefully, finally put an end to this debate.  Really hoping, for a balance approach in this very (important) off season with some reflection of past mistakes cause the team is close to competing and continueing to spend a good chunk of the cap on complementary players is a losing strategy, as we had seen. 

 

Also, it would be interesting to see if Green will make some adjustments cause that is a system - that struggles when the other team start pushing hard (playoff hockey and Vegas) or give JB the very difficult task of looking for player(s) that are a perfect fit in his system - imo, a good coach is able to maximize a roster despite the talent level (just look at the difference with Schmidt in Vegas vs Greens/Baumer systems).

 

Just based on the discussions I ve read in multiple forums and talking to other fans - it seems that there is no (real) appetite for a tanking strategy in this market (perhaps among the season ticket holders) and Aquaman knows this.  Those 3 loser points against Calgary dropped their draft position from 5 to 9 - I get it; and hopefully JB continues to draft well.  

Yes. You're absolutely right. It's rather dishonest for someone to say that fans would have voluntarily called for a rebuild at the end of the Gillis tenure; a tenure that was SO CLOSE to winning it all, and slowly declining. The Sedins were still around. Do we trade them? Or do we keep them? Could the Sedins even be tradable? All of these questions would have handcuffed any GM coming in. What about Kesler? Burrows? Luongo? These players were fan favourites. This city loves remembering the good times, but not the bad. A forced rebuild on Vancouver fans? No, I'd hazard a guess that most fans would not have approved of it, but may rethink their positions afterward. If we absolutely sucked for a good few years, ala New Jersey, New York Rangers, Buffalo, etc), many fans would stop coming to games because they'd be boring.

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

And Tryamkins agent said Benning's offer was actually much lower. So he had not agreed to it, he had actually offered much less.

 

Considering Benning screwed over Tryamkin the year before making him wait until he could clear cap (which Benning couldnt do) he wasnt willing to take lower to sign and did not want to wait again.

 

Benning then tried to mislead everyone into blaming Tryamkin wanting to play in Russia which was refuted by Diamond.

 

 

Do you have sources for any of these observations?

I was under the impression that Tryamkin had a young family in Russia to take care of. Also, if Tryamkin was so valued, why did he bother signing with Russia? Why doesn't Vancouver just trade his rights and get something for him? The problem is that the Canucks wanted to get Tryamkin. Tryamkin didn't want to join the Canucks, and possibly, he didn't want to play in the NHL.

 

Craig Button also doesn't think he is an 'impact' player (i.e. he wouldn't have been able to replace Edler). So Tryamkin is just another player that doesn't fit on this team.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Do you have sources for any of these observations?

I was under the impression that Tryamkin had a young family in Russia to take care of. Also, if Tryamkin was so valued, why did he bother signing with Russia? Why doesn't Vancouver just trade his rights and get something for him? The problem is that the Canucks wanted to get Tryamkin. Tryamkin didn't want to join the Canucks, and possibly, he didn't want to play in the NHL.

 

Craig Button also doesn't think he is an 'impact' player (i.e. he wouldn't have been able to replace Edler). So Tryamkin is just another player that doesn't fit on this team.

Plus I am under the impression Tryamkin didn't even like the city and some theorized that this whole coming back to Vancouver was just a negotiation tactic for his KHL contract.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dazzle said:

So, Kilgore, the time frames are similar between Gillis and Benning. However, you are making excuses for Gillis. Gillis did not produce ANY draft picks that turned into prospects, aside from Horvat and Hutton. Meanwhile, Let's see what Benning drafted (and ended up being somebody).

 

Hughes - high first round pick. Closest comparison - Horvat? Obtained through trading Schneider. Oh, Schneider was a very late first round pick by Nonis.

Pettersson - high first round pick

Boeser - 23rd overall. Closest comparison is probably Gaunce or Jensen. Neither of whom panned out under Gillis.

Demko -> self explanatory. NOT a first round pick. 2nd round pick. Shinkaruk? Injuries derailed his career

Rathbone -> lucky pick?

Gadj - promising 2nd rounder. 

Lind - another promising 2nd rounder.

Juolevi - still a prospect, showing lots of promise, injury plagued. High first round pick.

Forsling - traded away for Glendenning who was an AHL all-star, but did not pan out.

Jared McCann - good pick, late in the 1st round, but player did not become who he is today after several new teams.

Gaudette - good pick no matter how you slice it. Just didn't fit the team anymore.

Woo - promising 2nd rounder.

Podkolzin - high 1st round pick.

Lockwood - promising prospect.
Jasek - looks like a steal. Another prospect.

 

 

I think you may be over rating some of the players I highlighted. Right now they seem to be projected bottom paring or 4th line depth players at best and no one from that list really stood out in the final stretch of the Canucks' season (well except Jasek since he didn't play last season with the main club).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Plus I am under the impression Tryamkin didn't even like the city and some theorized that this whole coming back to Vancouver was just a negotiation tactic for his KHL contract.  

* Tryamkin !  I dreamed about the big guy being some sort of roster genius move for us too, but * him, doesn't want to be part of the greatest hockey franchise on the planet, he's had enough attention from us, moving on to never saying his name again on this forum.    

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Gillis drafting was such a catastrophe for this franchise. Its why we faded into oblivion while other teams were able to prolong their window.

 

The organization didn't go the right direction at the beginning of Benning's tenure - there's no doubt about that - but the rebuild was always doomed to be difficult & long without lottery luck. 

One factor to consider is the fanbased (or season ticket holders) when discussing this issue cause (imo) this market is not so accepting of the tanking or rebuilding model due to the stigma it has of creating a losing culture - just look at the discussion during the season ending series with Calgary and how important the loser points are to the teams morale.  My point, other teams fanbased are more accepting & understanding of this strategy for long term success; and most teams that employs this strategy will have a higher probability of winning a cup or more.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Yes. You're absolutely right. It's rather dishonest for someone to say that fans would have voluntarily called for a rebuild at the end of the Gillis tenure; a tenure that was SO CLOSE to winning it all, and slowly declining. The Sedins were still around. Do we trade them? Or do we keep them? Could the Sedins even be tradable? All of these questions would have handcuffed any GM coming in. What about Kesler? Burrows? Luongo? These players were fan favourites. This city loves remembering the good times, but not the bad. A forced rebuild on Vancouver fans? No, I'd hazard a guess that most fans would not have approved of it, but may rethink their positions afterward. If we absolutely sucked for a good few years, ala New Jersey, New York Rangers, Buffalo, etc), many fans would stop coming to games because they'd be boring.

 

Yeah, some fanbased are more understanding & accepting and those teams - more than likely, has atleast one cup; and for the perrenial losers, some context will have to be considered why those teams are the way they are: the leadership group, the reasons & what process was used to make those decisions - Aquaman, JB & his team would be wise to look at those teams histroy (from both sides) and try to implement them during this offseason for long term success.

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Biggest reason for Seattle not to take Holtby (other than he’s terrible) is why should they do us any favors?  What helps us (frees up cap space), makes us a tougher team they have to face in the division (of which Seattle is in).

I don’t expect any team to do us any favours nor would I expect the Canucks to do any favours in return. If it suits Seattle to take him it would also help our cap problems, but there are other goalie options available and I expect Seattle to take a youngush forward from us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been looking to see what there is in this years ufa market. It doesn't look very good. Certainly nothing game changing that would be affordable. No matter how you crunch the numbers next year . We won't have much cap space to use. 

What I am going to suggest goes against my gut but the key to our future may be the emergence of "Rathbone".  Rathbone looked good, very good.

 

A couple of fans have suggested that the team take a look at what a "HUGHES" trade might look like.

 

I am beginning to think that they should take a serious look at it.    What if they could land a A level forward , A solid young D man or a B level forward and a first round pick.

 

Lets say the Devils landed Luke in this draft. Would the Devils consider trading for another Hughes ? 

Ty smith  ,  Nico Hischier and next years first.

 

Before they sign him they might be wise to put it out there and see what they can land for the kid. It could be an opportunity to set this club up for the long term.

 

Is there room for Rathbone and Hughes?  Rathbone has not built his value yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Is there room for Rathbone and Hughes?  

I think there is.  Hughes is em·blem·at·ic of the kind of fan tas tic type of hockey the Canucks can and do play and are going to play moving forward.  He's ours and I don't want to trade him.  

 

em·blem·at·ic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, appleboy said:

I have been looking to see what there is in this years ufa market. It doesn't look very good. Certainly nothing game changing that would be affordable. No matter how you crunch the numbers next year . We won't have much cap space to use. 

What I am going to suggest goes against my gut but the key to our future may be the emergence of "Rathbone".  Rathbone looked good, very good.

 

A couple of fans have suggested that the team take a look at what a "HUGHES" trade might look like.

 

I am beginning to think that they should take a serious look at it.    What if they could land a A level forward , A solid young D man or a B level forward and a first round pick.

 

Lets say the Devils landed Luke in this draft. Would the Devils consider trading for another Hughes ? 

Ty smith  ,  Nico Hischier and next years first.

 

Before they sign him they might be wise to put it out there and see what they can land for the kid. It could be an opportunity to set this club up for the long term.

 

Is there room for Rathbone and Hughes?  Rathbone has not built his value yet. 

no pressure "Rathbone" - but you may be the key to our future.

 

why the future?   he's already 21.  he's in his prime.  the time is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Gillis drafting was such a catastrophe for this franchise. Its why we faded into oblivion while other teams were able to prolong their window.

 

The organization didn't go the right direction at the beginning of Benning's tenure - there's no doubt about that - but the rebuild was always doomed to be difficult & long without lottery luck. 

while I think we can all agree, especially in hindsight, that it wasn't the best option to try to retool and get back to the playoffs asap, I wouldn't change that even now. the organization owed it to the sedins. at that stage of their careers, it was really the only acceptable thing -- trading them or letting them go in free agency would have been a travesty that would have blighted the organization for eternity, and asking them to accept mediocrity and the fact that the team wouldn't be trying to compete would be like spitting in the faces of the two greatest players and people the team has ever had. 

 

while rebuilding immediately would have been the "right thing" as far as turning the team around faster, it was the wrong thing for more important reasons imo. I'm perfectly happy having "wasted" a couple years of fruitless retooling in the name of honouring the sedins legacy. 

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...