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

[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Its Clark

 

stop adding the E lol

the bags for me, not you

getting Ian mixed up with my old girlfiend

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Its Clark

 

stop adding the E lol

And Eriksson and Baertschi.  If you're going to be experts on these guys, it starts there.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lmm said:

I think taken on its own the flap around the Clarke near unsigning is over blown

however people like to talk about context

and context when Jim is concerned involves a series of misses

 

but thats the point, it wasn't a miss. It was clearly the right tack. 

 

9 minutes ago, lmm said:

 

Ericksson might warrent a muligan but what about Sutter, Ferland, Bartschi, .....

Toffoli should have been a priority because he had recently spent assets to get him

If he whiffed on Stecher that is not a big deal , Toffoli was a big deal

Sutter is a great player when healthy. Baer got his bell rung... what was Bennign supposed to do about that? 

 

Since we're playing the context/what if game, what if Toffoli didn't have a good year here? people would be slamming Jim for making a mistake. The guy can't win with some people. 

 

I also think landing OEL with cap retention is a move most GMs would take over Toffoli. Sometimes you take a chance and it doesn't work out. Toffoli could have waited a few days too. 

 

9 minutes ago, lmm said:

 

But back to Clarke, he was probably closer than many might have thought

I saw an interview with I Mac when he said Columbus waited too long and Clarke walked, 

you might call that fear mongering or you might call it due dilligence

I call it irrelevant. Ownership had its own timeline too, and clearly Clark didn't really have a hard deadline. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Sutter:   is actually more valuable than people give him credit for.  

Ferland:  sure, I guess maybe some people's crystal ball might have projected this situation.  But we had Hamhuis as an important d man despite the fact that he'd had concussions.   So you really can't foresee how thing will unfold until they do.  He was worth taking a chance on because if he HAD been able to work through his, he's a fierce competitor.  Baertschi too - no one could have known he'd suffer that concussion in advance.  Plus, I still feel like he could contribute here if given a chance.

You know I thought about leaving Sutter off that list

but again if it was a one off it would be overlookable

see those 3 ...s that means I could go on, but didn't because it would be redundant

My crystal ball was correct on Ericksson, Ferland and Gagner, and Burkie's was correct on Baertschi's (i'd never heard of Sven before the eal, so I had no crystal on that one)

my detractors say that I am not a hockey professional and that my opinion is less valid that a pro like Jim's

but then, how was I right and he wrong on all 3 of those players?

Very rearely does a GM,  coach, executive or player lose their job over 1 gaff. 

It is an accumulation and Jim is accumulating 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

And Eriksson and Baertschi.  If you're going to be experts on these guys, it starts there.

Bae was just a prospect that didn't work out.  It happens.  LE, on the other hand, is like getting a tattoo in an unfortunate spot after a long night of drinking.  It's something you like to forget.  Not that it ever happened to me.:ph34r:

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lmm said:

You know I thought about leaving Sutter off that list

but again if it was a one off it would be overlookable

see those 3 ...s that means I could go on, but didn't because it would be redundant

My crystal ball was correct on Ericksson, Ferland and Gagner, and Burkie's was correct on Baertschi's (i'd never heard of Sven before the eal, so I had no crystal on that one)

my detractors say that I am not a hockey professional and that my opinion is less valid that a pro like Jim's

but then, how was I right and he wrong on all 3 of those players?

Very rearely does a GM,  coach, executive or player lose their job over 1 gaff. 

It is an accumulation and Jim is accumulating 

It's easy to use hindsight....teams don't have that luxury though.  And most teams will have names that didn't quite live up to expectations....this deal is full of hits and misses.  They tend to balance out for the most part.  If a GM is ONLY making gaffs, sure.  But you have to weigh the gaffs against the other stuff too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

but thats the point, it wasn't a miss. It was clearly the right tack. 

 

Sutter is a great player when healthy. Baer got his bell rung... what was Bennign supposed to do about that? 

 

Since we're playing the context/what if game, what if Toffoli didn't have a good year here? people would be slamming Jim for making a mistake. The guy can't win with some people. 

 

I also think landing OEL with cap retention is a move most GMs would take over Toffoli. Sometimes you take a chance and it doesn't work out. Toffoli could have waited a few days too. 

 

I call it irrelevant. Ownership had its own timeline too, and clearly Clark didn't really have a hard deadline. 

Jimmy, I called it a flap because I think Jimmer did good on that one.

It is, mostly, much ado about nothing.

I am not a Benning fan, but I am willing to give him credit when credit is due.

Sutter is not and never was a great player

Baertschi was moved from Calgary because he was soft. He got injured because the Canucks demanded he play in areas of the ice that he was not comfortable

Maybe we should demand Quinn Hughes stand up and the blue line and knock guys on their keester

Svendo has never surpassed the 70 game mark in any year of his career, my 3rd string crystal ball could see this outcome coming

 

not landing OEL is the best thing that happened last offseason

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Good to see you back Sam. Lots of finger pointing in Lafferville these days. You gotta enjoy it. Lou has a solid record. That said I didn’t think he was enjoying his time in TO. 

Cheers Bouds!

Yes, there seems to be an air of pretentiousness that tries very hard to protect itself ,  even if it means pushing away better minds or ideas.

Lou was always a Goalie first,  Manager.

Something that’s been overlooked in Toronto for many years.

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

It's easy to use hindsight....teams don't have that luxury though.  And most teams will have names that didn't quite live up to expectations....this deal is full of hits and misses.  They tend to balance out for the most part.  If a GM is ONLY making gaffs, sure.  But you have to weigh the gaffs against the other stuff too.

that is true

but it is a bit like face off %

its a percentage so technically a player could go 0% or 100% but in reality

most centers in the league go from 45% (bad) to 55% (good) the margin is much slimmer than it appears

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alflives said:

How many young cores win the cup without previous playoff experience, which (of course) will be losing?  Madden and a second was well worth Tofu, and the playoff experience (taste of what it takes to win playoff hockey) that came in the bubble.  

Keep telling yourself that. The reality is the Canucks were trending down and were only in the playoffs due to the season ending early and a play in. They did well to beat St Louis, who looked like a typical SC hangover team.

 

Playoff experience is certainly important. But the cost of it for Van was far too high.

 

Benning went for it that season because he knew all his bad contracts were going to make it next to impossible to improve the team this past season. Taking one step forward, two steps back doesnt win teams cups either. Sustainably being able to be competitive year in and year out does. Sometimes you stumble along the way but relying on make the playoffs and anything can happen has not won very many teams, if any, cups. 

 

Rebuilding, incomplete teams that are not consistently conpetitive should not be trading for rentals. The lack of an actual realistic long term plan is why this team is more often than not a non contender. Reactionary day to day moves are at the heart of almost every mistake Benning has made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Keep telling yourself that. The reality is the Canucks were trending down and were only in the playoffs due to the season ending early and a play in. They did well to beat St Louis, who looked like a typical SC hangover team.

 

Playoff experience is certainly important. But the cost of it for Van was far too high.

 

Benning went for it that season because he knew all his bad contracts were going to make it next to impossible to improve the team this past season. Taking one step forward, two steps back doesnt win teams cups either. Sustainably being able to be competitive year in and year out does. Sometimes you stumble along the way but relying on make the playoffs and anything can happen has not won very many teams, if any, cups. 

 

Rebuilding, incomplete teams that are not consistently conpetitive should not be trading for rentals. The lack of an actual realistic long term plan is why this team is more often than not a non contender. Reactionary day to day moves are at the heart of almost every mistake Benning has made.

So is the goal "being competitive year in and out" 

or

winning a cup.....in which case you have to make the playoffs to reach that goal?

 

When Benning "reacts" it's not usually because he's bored and got nothing to do - it usually comes by way of trying to fill holes or put a supporting cast in place.  The realistic long term plan can change if players get injured.  That cannot be predicted with any certainty.

 

I don't disagree that there are bad contracts that he's responsible for....I just understand how this thing works and that inflated values happen depending on the when's and what's of it all.  Demand in the market compared against the supply.  

 

It's often a roll of the dice and GM's take chances.  I'm sure the Oilers felt their #1 picks would have fared better than they have.  It just isn't easy to win a cup or even to guarantee that you'll "be competitive" on a sustainable level.  These are human beings you're slotting in...not machines.

 

Anyhow, over it.  I don't care enough to keep that discussion going because Benning's here and that's not going to change anytime soon it seems.  So it's pointless to keep beating him up....the same people criticizing him for moves he does do then scream when he doesn't move quickly enough.  Damned if he does/doesn't.

 

The expectation for some is:  do all the right things at the right time.  The pressure for him to sign Toffoli and Clark goes against the measured/thought out approach some are screaming for.  You'll lose some pieces if you don't move quickly...so it's all about taking chances at times.   I feel that he's learned NOT to jump in with both feet and we're seeing some of that.  I hope we are.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Toffoli was a rental. Do you understand how rentals work?  Sergachev for Drouin was a hockey trade.  A lopsided one at that. The Toffoli trade was made to give the Canucks a chance at making the playoffs with Boeser injured.  Teams trade for rentals all the time. You can argue the justification for Benning trading for a rental in that we weren’t a playoff contender but that’s what he did.  So the trades cannot even be compared as they were done for different purposes.  

 

No it wasn’t bad asset management as teams trade picks and prospects for rentals every year at the deadline.  The objective for a hockey team is to make the playoffs and do something once you get there. It’s not about collecting assets for years and years and missing the playoffs every year. 

I agree the goal should not be collecting assets for years and missing the playoffs every year. But, what we’ve been doing is missing the playoffs while NOT collecting assets. The objective of a hockey team should not just be make the playoffs. The objective is to win the Stanley Cup, just squeezing into the playoffs and hoping for the best is not enough. Last year we were at the stage where it looked like our competitive window was beginning to open, making deals that only improves us short term while not helping at least in the medium term is bad asset management. We need to ensure our competitive window stays open as long as possible, and in order to do that you have consider the future, whether you like it or not. Trading for pure rentals is for teams that are already in their competitive window, not for teams just entering it. You need depth in order to win a cup, it's hard to build a deep team when we are expending more assets than are coming in. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Sad 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, whysoserious said:

I agree the goal should not be collecting assets for years and missing the playoffs every year. But, what we’ve been doing is missing the playoffs while NOT collecting assets. The objective of a hockey team should not just be make the playoffs. The objective is to win the Stanley Cup, just squeezing into the playoffs and hoping for the best is not enough. Last year we were at the stage where it looked like our competitive window was beginning to open, making deals that only improves us short term while not helping at least in the medium term is bad asset management. We need to ensure our competitive window stays open as long as possible, and in order to do that you have consider the future, whether you like it or not. Trading for pure rentals is for teams that are already in their competitive window, not for teams just entering it. You need depth in order to win a cup, it's hard to build a deep team when we are expending more assets than are coming in. 

Every team's objective is to "just make the playoffs" because that's square one in getting to a cup.  

 

On paper is only that.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Keep telling yourself that. The reality is the Canucks were trending down and were only in the playoffs due to the season ending early and a play in. They did well to beat St Louis, who looked like a typical SC hangover team.

 

Playoff experience is certainly important. But the cost of it for Van was far too high.

 

Benning went for it that season because he knew all his bad contracts were going to make it next to impossible to improve the team this past season. Taking one step forward, two steps back doesnt win teams cups either. Sustainably being able to be competitive year in and year out does. Sometimes you stumble along the way but relying on make the playoffs and anything can happen has not won very many teams, if any, cups. 

 

Rebuilding, incomplete teams that are not consistently conpetitive should not be trading for rentals. The lack of an actual realistic long term plan is why this team is more often than not a non contender. Reactionary day to day moves are at the heart of almost every mistake Benning has made.

Blah blah blah.....go outside and get some sun / do something else instead of spending all day every day on here spewing your nonsense! 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

He was influential. Shaped some amazingly successful defensive corps. 
 

In the end, Benning got him. Have to give credit to Jim for this. Looking forward to what the defense will look like and how it will defend next season.

but what about how close he got to signing with Anaheim instead? that has to be the most important part. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, lmm said:

Jimmy, I called it a flap because I think Jimmer did good on that one.

It is, mostly, much ado about nothing.

I am not a Benning fan, but I am willing to give him credit when credit is due.

Sutter is not and never was a great player

Baertschi was moved from Calgary because he was soft. He got injured because the Canucks demanded he play in areas of the ice that he was not comfortable

Maybe we should demand Quinn Hughes stand up and the blue line and knock guys on their keester

Svendo has never surpassed the 70 game mark in any year of his career, my 3rd string crystal ball could see this outcome coming

 

not landing OEL is the best thing that happened last offseason

hey fair enough, we can all agree to disagree on pro players. I think Sutter brought a terrific shut down element when his groin wasn't exploded. 

 

My issue with Jim isn't so much his choices in players, but in term. E.g., I love Beagle, hate the term.

 

  • Huggy Bear 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Exactly my point. Trading for a rental was a huge waste of assets. At some point you have to take a shot with a rental? Not where the Canucks were at you don't. They werent a true cup contender with or without Toffoli. Had they kept him then sure its a decent move to improve the top 6 going forward. But Benning thinking the team was a Toffoli away from being a cup contender might be the biggest mistake he has ever made.

 

Did you watch the Vegas series? Demko won 3 games by himself. The Canucks were utterly dominated. It wasnt a close series. They just received unsustainable god like goaltending while being dominated. 

 

Toffoli, Madden, and a 2nd for nothing is a bigger waste of assets than even a terrible hockey trade like the Sergachev one was. Using those assets for a longer term fit with Toffoli would have been a reasonable trade.

Madden is going to end up being a fringe 3rd or 4th liner in the NHL.  Those types of players can be acquired very easily via trade or free agency.  The average 2nd round pick (unless it's a Benning pick) doesn't even make the NHL.  So I'm sorry but your hypothesis that Benning made a worse trade than trading away a top pairing defenceman makes no sense.  You cannot acquire a top pairing Dman in the NHL unless you give up major assets (Madden and a 2nd aren't major assets), or you draft them.  Montreal drafted Sergachev and gave him away for peanuts.  Drouin may not even be around in 2 years. 

 

One of the worst hockey trades in NHL history.  And you're comparing that to giving away a 2nd round pick and a fringe NHL'er.  At some point you just need to give it up and understand what you are saying is wrong and no one really agrees with you on this point.

 

Also, Benning was quoted as saying that the reason why he traded for Toffoli was he wanted to give his team a "boost" to make a playoff push with Boeser being out of the lineup.  At the end of the day the young players on the team enjoyed a great playoff run and Demko established himself as a bone fide NHL starter.  His confidence grew tremendously because of what he accomplished in the playoffs last year.  It made him what he is today, a 5x5 goalie who will be a Vezina trophy winner at some point in his career.  You can't underestimate what making the playoffs and going a few rounds does to team confidence in the young players.  Petey, Bo, Huggy, Brock and Demko all got to experience some serious playoff hockey.  That will certainly help them moving forward when we make a playoff push next year and gives them the confidence they need to know that they can play in the big dance and do well.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

hey fair enough, we can all agree to disagree on pro players. I think Sutter brought a terrific shut down element when his groin wasn't exploded. 

 

My issue with Jim isn't so much his choices in players, but in term. E.g., I love Beagle, hate the term.

 

Me too.  Unfortunately, when you negotiate sometimes you give more than you'd like.  I feel that they'll be more measured in this moving forward.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Keep telling yourself that. The reality is the Canucks were trending down and were only in the playoffs due to the season ending early and a play in. They did well to beat St Louis, who looked like a typical SC hangover team.

 

Playoff experience is certainly important. But the cost of it for Van was far too high.

 

Benning went for it that season because he knew all his bad contracts were going to make it next to impossible to improve the team this past season. Taking one step forward, two steps back doesnt win teams cups either. Sustainably being able to be competitive year in and year out does. Sometimes you stumble along the way but relying on make the playoffs and anything can happen has not won very many teams, if any, cups. 

 

Rebuilding, incomplete teams that are not consistently conpetitive should not be trading for rentals. The lack of an actual realistic long term plan is why this team is more often than not a non contender. Reactionary day to day moves are at the heart of almost every mistake Benning has made.

Benning "went for it" because you don't know how the young players will fare until you give them a chance.  It benefited them a great deal to get that experience first hand.  Despite you trying to downplay it.  It was huge for them to get a taste of "playoff hockey" and they went against tough teams (love how you make excuses for them though).

 

They measured up ok...and can build from that.  But you have to see/know what you've got and that was a taste.   

 

Not making the playoffs certainly wasn't going to put them ahead a great deal in the here and now with these young players.  Don't try to sell it like not getting there would have been better for them...I ain't buying that.

 

Tyler Madden and a second isn't going to make/break this team.  

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 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...