The Defense of JB and co

[wallstreetamigo]

21 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Yes because tanking can not build a winning culture 

 

 

I love the "winning culture" excuse by Benning. A few problems with it:

 

1. The Canucks dont actually win consistently and havent for most of his entire tenure.

2. The overpaid "glue guys" who apparently needed to be signed so the young guys would not crumble under the pressure of losing dont actually do anything except block young players from taking their spots and eating up cap space needed to improve the team.

3. The systems they play and the over reliance on veterans to hopefully scrape out a few wins late in the season actually screams "fear of losing culture" more than "winning culture".

 

Its called a winning culture because you actually win.

[iinatcc]

19 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

 

2. The overpaid "glue guys" who apparently needed to be signed so the young guys would not crumble under the pressure of losing dont actually do anything except block young players from taking their spots and eating up cap space needed to improve the team.

 

Exactly also having "glue guys" are fine but how can Beagle and Sutter be "glue guys" if they weren't part of the team yet until they brought in to be "glue guys". The Irony here signing these "glue guys" Beagle, Sutter, and Roussel was the reason why the Canucks lost Markstrom, Stecher, and Tanev in one off season or the real "glue guys". I didn't expect Benning to sign all three even w/o those overpaid guys but keeping one of them (I was thinking either Tanev or Stecher) would have been fine. 

 

[Arrow 1983]

13 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

Me thinks thou dost protest waaaaay too much....

 

 

Everything is going to plan!!!

 

 

 

Like clockwork, we get yet another OP trying to rewrite history, chalk full of excuses for JB's mismanagement.  The 20th time you make another excuses OP won't clear up any cap space or make Loui retire, or stock our cupboards, or get back Madden and the other draft picks thrown away. Frittering away value is much easier than building it back up.

 

I accepted the line that JB's expertise was his amateur drafting, when he was hired.  In fact I was stoked after decades of disappointment.  But the act of drafting, involves not only lucking out on your first pick.  It also, by my interpretation at least, involves how well you do with later rounds, and how well you build that draft pool in general.  And then develop them. How well you staff, or don't staff, your amateur draft department. You can never have too many picks as you rebuild a team. If you really get lucky and end up with a glut of NHL capable prospects, or extra picks, you can use them if the opportunity arises to find real gud support pieces, and still have enough left to have a deep team for the foreseeable future.  Where teams like the Avalanche can use extra 5th or 6th round picks to acquire veteran depth.

 

 

At no point did JB come into this team and say he was going to tear it down and rebuild. At no point did he tear it down and rebuild. More importantly the reality of the situation is that no GM could have come in to this organization and tear it down.

 

You are right there. JB didn't say when he came in, that he was going to do that.  At the risk of pointing out the obvious....That's the point.  "no GM could have...".   lol.  That is what Gillis wanted to do.  Linden seemed on board.  To say that because Jim couldn't do it, (or wasn't allowed to) no one could, is a tad presumptuous. 

 

And you may also be right if you were implying that it would have been not only difficult, but kinda dumb to tear it down in his first year.  We just won the Presidents Trophy again. Even though in hindsight, starting a real rebuild then may have been the correct move, I do not blame Aqualini or JB for believing they could just tweek the team to get them back to the dance.  I was all in!  Why wouldn't any fan initially trust this new shiny GM straight outa Boston who was promising a "quick turnaround" back to the heady days of our SCF run?  It was when after two years in, he was still banning the R word, and nonchalantly trading away more picks than he acquired, bad evaluation of pro players leading to signing LE and other declining vets, and not being able to read where the team was headed when it went sideways. 

 

In the Canucks circumstances the method changed because of what actually happened. The signings and trades that JB did didn't workout.

 

No kidding.  So you admit that JB is a reactive GM, not a proactive one?  And worse, his signings and trades didn't work out, and it was only then that you say he changed his methods?  And actually I'd like to see some evidence that "the method changed".  I really hope so.  He just inked Pearson, who was signed to a deal that was seen as over generous by many in the hockey community.  I like Pearson, but he wasn't worth that much cap or term on the flat cap market.  Its these cuts of a thousand knives, the drip drip of value loss vs. value gain, that is perpetrating this perpetual, future headache style management system. 

 

I just find it a little pathetic to still blame the previous GM, a full seven years on.  I also find it funny how people compare the success in the job a GM does with how well some random person on a hockey message board could do.  He is hired because he is supposedly talented at managing a professional NHL hockey team, and has inside knowledge, and contacts that we on this board do not. Creative moves that fans don't even see coming are what he is hired to do.  That's why he gets paid the big bucks. He damn well should be able to do better than any of us could do.  I have to keep zeroing out and starting over with JB, if we are stuck with him. So I wish him well, and his decisions blessed by the hockey gods. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First I don't blame MG in any way I just state a fact the Cupboards where bare. Any GM would have done what MG did. Look at TBL they have now traded away 3 1st round picks in 2 years. 

 

Actually you say I rewrite history I say I stated history the way it was. I stated the facts and some how you misinterpreted them as me saying I blame MG and yet I didn't say that at all you conjured that up in your own head.

 

You take some bits of everything I say and chose not to read the explanation behind it.

 

How is any Gm going to Make Eriksson re-tire. that is a question answer it.

 

How does a GM clear up cap space when it is protected by NMC how does a GM trade or even move a player with a NMC it is called a breach of contract. Tor could not Trade Sundin He refused a trade. But in you opinion if another GM was in Tor they could have traded Sundin.

 

You want Madden, He couldn't even crack LAs line-up. He played in the AHL this season 14g 1g 4a 5pts what does that translate in the NHL. That is a question answer it.

 

You say they fritted a way value here is another question it comes from my OP. What did you expect them to ice if there was nothing to go to in the prospect pool.

 

I said there was no way for any GM to tear it down. How do you tear something down that had that many NMC or NTC that allowed for a gm to only trade to so few teams. 

 

How Does any GM get better Value for Kesler if he says you have to trade me but only to 2 teams where is that teams leaveage.

 

Was any Gm going to get the Sedins to waive their NMC. I was one of those that was up for it hell I even said at the time they shouldn't even re-sign them and that was in 2013-14 prior to Benning taking over. I thought the Sedins where done then and for the most part I was right. I think the Sedins screwed this team over. If it where up to me their Numbers wouldn't even be hanging from the rafters. So maybe you might agree with me but I would assume not considering you have with most other fans have fallen to the nostalgia of the past and the Sedins. See for you to side with a tear down you actually have to agree a tear down would have to start with the Sedins.

 

If Benning could have tore it down then I would agree with you it should have been teared down. No I wasn't implying that it was dumb to tear it down after JB first season . I am saying it was dumb not to tear it down back in MG era. The writing was on the wall back then. By the Time JB took over the damage was done. He was left like any GM in his position to try and plug holes. 

 

The Problem with plugging wholes is a GM has to use the UFA market. That is the worse way to plug holes. By the time that those guys get to UFA they are past the best years of their primes. They are still in prime years but are on the decline. JB payed fair market UFA price for Eriksson their was 3 guys in his UFA draft class that got the same exact deal that is what we call fair market.

 

The only other way to plug the holes where through trade but when your best assets all have NMC and nobody wants your fringe players your next best assets in a trade are draft picks. As I said during that whole time until the Miller trade he never gave up a 1st rounder not even when it was pick 23. That gives me a lot of insight into how Benning viewed this team and how he understood the value of those 1st rounds was more valuable to the team then it was in trade. When it comes to picks after the first round he understood that most of those players don't make it to the NHL and the ones that do most of those don't play more than 400 games. So he bet the odds and he might lose one guy who plays 400 or more games. 

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Arrow 1983

[Honky Cat]

8 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Yes because tanking can not build a winning culture 

 

 

Or conversely, there's this.

 

[Honky Cat]

10 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

No they shouldnt have "tanked". They should have given young players expanded roles. See what they could do on the PP, orPK, or in a variety of roles. If they won then thats great. If they lost, who cares?

 

Its actually a lot easier to wreck a team than put the finishong touches on it. Just ask Benning. Isnt he the one who said it wouldnt take much to turn around the team he inherited?

 

Take a look again at what Sakic has actually done. Its far from putting the finishing touches on the team. Outside of a few players, he built the entire team. Part of that was from trading good core players for actual value. He turned those players into even better ones.

 

Now look over Bennings trade history. Which players has he traded that he has turned into better ones?

 

Thats the difference.

 

On another note, its never an even playing field. And that doesnt even matter. Its what you started with and what you have now that matters.

 

Benning had an aging core but he still had a core. And for several years - if you believe the man himself - he thought it was a good enough core to just tinker around the edges to get it back to the cup final. Not sure how people can say he had nothing to work with when he himself told everyone he did.

 

 

'Turn the team around in a hurry' meant getting the 2013-14 squad back in the playoffs, not replacing the aging core with a new one.

 

'Outside of a few players' lmao..Who only happened to be MacKinnon (the 2nd best player in the NHL), O Reilly,Landeskog,Duchene, Barrie. Did Benning have these type of assets at his disposal to trade in 2014 (you're still not getting it are you?).

 

 

Bennings trade history has been spotty.

 

Its never an even playing field, so that doesnt matter.?  So lets remove all context .

 

Sakic started with a young elite core, and still has one. Benning started with an aged out core that needed to be completely replaced, and now has a promising young core with elite players.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Honky Cat

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

'Turn the team around in a hurry' meant getting the 2013-14 squad back in the playoffs, not replacing the aging core with a new one.

 

'Outside of a few players' lmao..Who only happened to be MacKinnon (the 2nd best player in the NHL), O Reilly,Landeskog,Duchene, Barrie. Did Benning have these type of assets at his disposal to trade in 2014 (you're still not getting it are you?).

 

 

Bennings trade history has been spotty.

 

Its never an even playing field, so that doesnt matter.?  So lets remove all context .

 

Sakic started with a young elite core, and still has one. Benning started with an aged out core that needed to be completely replaced, and now has a promising young core with elite players.

 

 

Thats the flaw in Benning's plan though. He only makes moves to realize his immediate short term goal every year of making the playoffs. We have seen how poorly that has worked out though. Thankfully his largely failed retool moves have allowed him to draft high. It was pretty much by accident. Had his signings and such worked even moderately close to what his objective was and the team squeaked into the playoffs every year, we would not have EP, or Hughes, or Podkolzin.

 

Thankfully we do but it was not by design like Colorado did. Thats the thing you dont understand.

 

Sakic started with a young core and turned it into a much better core. That should not be discounted.

 

Benning didnt agree that he started with a core that needed to be completely replaced. Or he would have replaced them right from the start.

[Fred65]

Quote

He wasnt going to inherit a young core especially since Gillis was terroble at drafting. And the core he got wasnt actually "nothing" as people suggest. Do I think it should have started to be dismantled after the Bruins, Kings, and Sharks broke their spirit? Absolutely. But the main reason Benning got hired in the first place is because he did not want to do that. Gillis did (finally) and it got him fired.

I'm glad you raised that point. As a rule this is totally missed by the majority of fans ( maybe some weren't fans when this happened ) Not only did Gillis fully understand that the time had come for a total rebuild ( 2013 ) but so too had Tortorella, the difference was Torts through caution aside and made it public ... he too was fired. Benning then came on board pointing out there was no need to rebuild and in fact stated so in his now famous speech 2014 ( I like this team  this team can be turned around quickly) That my friends was the starting point for a long ( 7 years ) of Canuck humiliation and precipitous fall from the upper echelons of the NHL. The only reason I can think of  when people deny history is maybe Benning has a large extended family who support his every breath. One of the sad repercussion was Gillis had a devils advocate in his management team, Lawrance Gilman, Benning couldn't handle such impertinence and fired him too, that was a vital firing because it became a one way street for many FA signing ie there was no dissent permitted and that resulted in poor choices being made

Edited June 6, 2021 by Fred65

[Honky Cat]

24 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Thats the flaw in Benning's plan though. He only makes moves to realize his immediate short term goal every year of making the playoffs. We have seen how poorly that has worked out though. Thankfully his largely failed retool moves have allowed him to draft high. It was pretty much by accident. Had his signings and such worked even moderately close to what his objective was and the team squeaked into the playoffs every year, we would not have EP, or Hughes, or Podkolzin.

 

Thankfully we do but it was not by design like Colorado did. Thats the thing you dont understand.

 

Sakic started with a young core and turned it into a much better core. That should not be discounted.

 

Benning didnt agree that he started with a core that needed to be completely replaced. Or he would have replaced them right from the start.

The 'retool on the fly' ended in 2017,Trevor Linden finally said the 'r' word.

 

Missing the playoffs 3 out of 11 years, isn't by design.

 

Sakic did improve the elite young core (that Benning never had..You're finally coming around). Credit to him for that.

 

Benning was hired to get the Canucks in the playoffs, and also revamp the scouting (from the shambles of the previous administration) and draft the new core.

 

The core players were veering on retirement age.Benning and Linden knew that they had to be replaced. With a barren prospect pool, this was a project that was 'years' away.

[Honky Cat]

2 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I'm glad you raised that point. As a rule this is totally missed by the majority of fans ( maybe some weren't fans when this happened ) Not only did Gillis fully understand that the time had come for a total rebuild ( 2013 ) but so too had Tortorella, the difference was Torts through caution aside and made it public ... he too was fired. Benning then came on board pointing out there was no need to rebuild and in fact stated so in his now famous speech 2014 ( I like this team  this team can be turned around quickly) That my friends was the starting point for a long ( 7 years ) of Canuck humiliation and precipitous fall from the upper echelons of the NHL. The only reason I can think of  when people deny history is maybe Benning has a large extended family who support his every breath.

Please quote the source where Benning said there was 'no need to rebuild the team'.?

 

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, Honky Cat said:

The 'retool on the fly' ended in 2017,Trevor Linden finally said the 'r' word.

 

Missing the playoffs 3 out of 11 years, isn't by design.

 

Sakic did improve the elite young core (that Benning never had..You're finally coming around). Credit to him for that.

 

Benning was hired to get the Canucks in the playoffs, and also revamp the scouting (from the shambles of the previous administration) and draft the new core.

 

The core players were veering on retirement age.Benning and Linden knew that they had to be replaced. With a barren prospect pool, this was a project that was 'years' away.

I care little for what terms a team uses for their plan. Its the actions they take that truly define what their actual strategy is. Benning has retooled every year he has been here with the short term goal of making the playoffs. Accidentally getting high draft picks when it failed isnt an actual plan to rebuild through the draft.

 

Linden was fired as soon as he declared he wanted a rebuild. JB wasnt. So that itself explains clearly that Benning was not thinking rebuild in the way you suggest.

 

Benning was hired to get the Canucks to the playoffs. The question is, if the core was such garbage when he took over, why are we now hailing him as a hero for trying to get a garbage team to the playoffs and sacrificing long term success in doing so?

 

 

[Fred65]

5 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Please quote the source where Benning said there was 'no need to rebuild the team'.?

 

Here is the moment when he was hired where for the first ( and latst time ) he layed out the Canucks future plan. I know you're going to split hairs but the intent and the plan was clear

 

Quote

“I like this team - I like the core players. This is a team we can turn around in a hurry.” - Benning

— Vancouver Canucks (@VanCanucks) May 23, 2014

 

[Alflives]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

I care little for what terms a team uses for their plan. Its the actions they take that truly define what their actual strategy is. Benning has retooled every year he has been here with the short term goal of making the playoffs. Accidentally getting high draft picks when it failed isnt an actual plan to rebuild through the draft.

 

Linden was fired as soon as he declared he wanted a rebuild. JB wasnt. So that itself explains clearly that Benning was not thinking rebuild in the way you suggest.

 

Benning was hired to get the Canucks to the playoffs. The question is, if the core was such garbage when he took over, why are we now hailing him as a hero for trying to get a garbage team to the playoffs and sacrificing long term success in doing so?

 

 

Bennng I think has always said things like turning over the roster.  And he’s done that.  He’s also done a great job drafting a new young core, and adding important pieces to supplement the core (or be part of the core). Now we are seeing that Benning created core start getting the younger support players coming in.  Yes, he’s traded for support guys, and signed them as UFAs, but the younger guys are coming now.  We will have a top notch core, and a steady supply of younger support players for se real years to come.  

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Bennng I think has always said things like turning over the roster.  And he’s done that.  He’s also done a great job drafting a new young core, and adding important pieces to supplement the core (or be part of the core). Now we are seeing that Benning created core start getting the younger support players coming in.  Yes, he’s traded for support guys, and signed them as UFAs, but the younger guys are coming now.  We will have a top notch core, and a steady supply of younger support players for se real years to come.  

Who are the young support players coming in though?

 

Rathbone should be in. Podkolzin too. Outside of that though I dont really see a wave of sure thing young players to fill holes, especially in the bottom 6. 

 

The young guys to support the core have received very little opportunity so far. I dont see Lind, or Gadjovich, or Lockwood stepping in full time ne t season right off the hop and being trusted with the roles that will be necessary for the Canucks to be contenders.

[wallstreetamigo]

I should also note that if Benning signs abunch of placeholder vets for 1 year reasonable deals I am fine with that too. What I dont want to see is more Beagle, Roussel, Schaller, Sutter, etc mid term contracts handed out. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Who are the young support players coming in though?

 

Rathbone should be in. Podkolzin too. Outside of that though I dont really see a wave of sure thing young players to fill holes, especially in the bottom 6. 

 

The young guys to support the core have received very little opportunity so far. I dont see Lind, or Gadjovich, or Lockwood stepping in full time ne t season right off the hop and being trusted with the roles that will be necessary for the Canucks to be contenders.

Lockwood is already an NHLer.  Lind is close.  Woo is a year or two away.  One or two guys stepping in each year is a lot.  We have guys in college still, and in Europe who will continue to develop.  Plus, the picks from this draft, and future drafts.  We are going to see the best ever decade for our club.  2022-2030.  (Okay, 8 years:)

[Bertuzzipunch]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Lockwood is already an NHLer.  Lind is close.  Woo is a year or two away.  One or two guys stepping in each year is a lot.  We have guys in college still, and in Europe who will continue to develop.  Plus, the picks from this draft, and future drafts.  We are going to see the best ever decade for our club.  2022-2030.  (Okay, 8 years:)

Aiden McDonough

[Fred65]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Bennng I think has always said things like turning over the roster.  And he’s done that.  He’s also done a great job drafting a new young core, and adding important pieces to supplement the core (or be part of the core). Now we are seeing that Benning created core start getting the younger support players coming in.  Yes, he’s traded for support guys, and signed them as UFAs, but the younger guys are coming now.  We will have a top notch core, and a steady supply of younger support players for se real years to come.  

You can't chnage a roster by draft picks, they simply age out before the job is completed. I loved it when Sakic turned a selfish head case, Duchene,  into two great defense men Byram and Girard. Plus of course the drafted Makar not many teams have this strength on their blue line. They're set up for the next decade

[Alflives]

Just now, Bertuzzipunch said:

Aiden McDonough

 Ya, I like that guy.  

[Bertuzzipunch]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

 Ya, I like that guy.  

A 7th rounder who’s probably a top 5 prospect for us right now. This is exactly what this team needs, diamonds in the rough picks.

[Fred65]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

 Ya, I like that guy.  

The missing word is 'Maybe" If you remember we had Lind and Rafferty as well. However seems like they're no longer the messiah we were told