[Trade] Canucks trade Jay Beagle, Loui Eriksson, Antoine Roussel, 2021 1st-round pick, 2022 2nd-round pick, 2023 7th-round pick to Coyotes for Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Conor Garland

[iinatcc]

37 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

1. Wrong. Schmidt/LV trade - 3rd round pick. Clear win. Easy for you to say something and just ignore evidence.

.

Schmidt's cap hit + Underperforming Season + Rumors (or reports) he wants out 

 

I can't imagine how can this be a win for Benning.

 

Yes it's only cost a third, but if Canucks can't get any milage from Schmidt either in his performance as a Canucks or recouping a 3rd round pick (or equivalent value), it's still an asset lost

[Angry Goose]

3 minutes ago, FaninMex said:

Did you notice what he said about OEL?

I also read that OEL admitted to losing some of his MOJO last couple years. An invigorated OEL is going to be great. He also spent a lot of time talking about wanting to help the young guys

Yeah.  If VAN is just the fresh start he needs and he can be an impact player, it's going to be a great trade.  He wants to be that difference maker.

[Dazzle]

11 minutes ago, alucard said:

you said the only reason he is still there is his drafting then said among other things.

 

the single biggest?

anyway lets move on.

but you did not answer my question about Benning next year did you? I answered you always my dear,

 

Please elaborate, with respect what are you talking about?

with all respect.

My arguments is:

THE AVERAGE LIFESPAN OF A GM IS 5 YEAR. BENNING HAS BEEN HERE FOR 7. OKAY?

WHEN IS THE TIME TO EVALUATE HIM BY HIS PROGRESS? IF NEXT YEAR TEAM IS NOT GOOD WE STILL CHASE OUR TAIL?

 

with all respect, dudes.

I told you I'm not going to get lulled by your tactics from now on. I would like to address that you have no intention of a so-called rational/objective discussion because you brought up irrelevant stuff, such as the bolded, to pollute the discussion. Why do you get to say "Anyway let's move on" after you brought up the bolded unnecessarily?

 

Average lifespan of a GM is 5 years is irrelevant. Do you not understand that? It's up to the owner to keep Benning or not. That is no one's call except the owner. As I said, it's a useless "point". The evaluation of his progress is ongoing. No one here ever said that he isn't being evaluated.

 

As you said earlier, he's done good things, and he's done some not so good things. He's still here despite his bad things. What does that tell you then? His good things are quite significant and the owner recognizes it.
 

How easy would it be for Aquilini to fire Benning? Very.

Anyway, I have no intention of replying to you because you'll just end up polluting the discussion with your tactics when things don't go your way. Proof is above.

Edited July 25, 2021 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, iinatcc said:

Schmidt's cap hit + Underperforming Season + Rumors (or reports) he wants out 

 

I can't imagine how can this be a win for Benning.

 

Yes it's only cost a third, but if Canucks can't get any milage from Schmidt either in his performance as a Canucks or recouping a 3rd round pick (or equivalent value), it's still an asset lost

It doesn't change the fact that the trade WAS a win.

 

The trade was UNIVERSALLY regarded in the media and by fans as being a win. This 'fact' doesn't change. How do you know Benning wants to trade Schmidt? Maybe he has the intention of keeping him?

[iinatcc]

10 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

It doesn't change the fact that the trade WAS a win.

 

The trade was UNIVERSALLY regarded in the media and by fans as being a win. This 'fact' doesn't change. How do you know Benning wants to trade Schmidt? Maybe he has the intention of keeping him?

I think this is why we should only evaluate trades after some time has passed. And when we re evaluate the Schmidt one it might still look bad.

 

In reverse the JT Miller trade didn't look good when we first heard about it but, since then, the trade is considered a win and people who didn't like it then changed their minds (myself included) 

 

Speaking of Miller, I believe this is the first concrete trade win Benning had and it only too about 5 years 

 

Personally I don't have strong opinions on this trade yet. I do question the motivation of acquiring OEL and future cap implications. That said Garland could also sway how this trade is precieved. I am hearing some Marchand comparisons so there is promise

Edited July 25, 2021 by iinatcc

[alucard]

11 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I told you I'm not going to get lulled by your tactics from now on. I would like to address that you have no intention of a so-called rational/objective discussion because you brought up irrelevant stuff, such as the bolded, to pollute the discussion. Why do you get to say "Anyway let's move on" after you brought up the bolded unnecessarily?

 

Average lifespan of a GM is 5 years is irrelevant. Do you not understand that? It's up to the owner to keep Benning or not. That is no one's call except the owner. As I said, it's a useless "point". The evaluation of his progress is ongoing. No one here ever said that he isn't being evaluated.

 

As you said earlier, he's done good things, and he's done some not so good things. He's still here despite his bad things. What does that tell you then? His good things are quite significant and the owner recognizes it.
 

How easy would it be for Aquilini to fire Benning? Very.

Anyway, I have no intention of replying to you because you'll just end up polluting the discussion with your tactics when things don't go your way. Proof is above.

My last post in this conversation : The person who uses tactics and pollutes conversation is you I am afraid, you make things personal and accuse not me, I just asked a question that why you defend Benning so much, he is not THAT good, when is the time to move on, that`s it.  I have no problem with you and send you best regards, lets end it just here now, as you said proof is above, be well.

[alucard]

4 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

I think this is why we should only evaluate trades after some time has passed. And when we re evaluate the Schmidt one it might still look bad.

 

In reverse the JT Miller trade didn't look good when we first heard about it but, since then, the trade is considered a win and people who didn't like it then changed their minds (myself included) 

 

Speaking of Miller, I believe this is the first concrete trade win Benning had and it only too about 5 years 

Miller trade was a good trade as time showed, was not fleece, but good creative trade I expect a canucks GM-the team I cheer for- should do more and more.

[UFCanuck]

OEL consistently runs at a 40+ point pace over an 82 game season. 

He was a really good all around d-man until Rick Tochet. He should be rejuvenated here. 

 

[iinatcc]

1 minute ago, playboi19 said:

OEL consistently runs at a 40+ point pace over an 82 game season. 

He was a really good all around d-man until Rick Tochet. He should be rejuvenated here. 

 

But the question in who get rejuvenated first ? OEL or Loui Eriksson?  

 

Maybe Loui Eriksson is this year's Toffoli and gets to 20 goals and 50 pts scoring 1/3 of it against Vancouver. Thankfully Coyotes are moving to a different Divison then 

 

 

[Ilunga]

18 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Schmidt's cap hit + Underperforming Season + Rumors (or reports) he wants out 

 

I can't imagine how can this be a win for Benning.

 

Yes it's only cost a third, but if Canucks can't get any milage from Schmidt either in his performance as a Canucks or recouping a 3rd round pick (or equivalent value), it's still an asset lost

As has been pointed out in various threads the whole team did not live up to expectations last season.

It was Nate's first year in our system in a season that was impacted by Covid.

So far there have been only unsubstantiated rumours of him wanting a trade.

I believe with our recent acquisitions,a preseason with the team under his belt he has a great chance of being a far better contributor to our team this upcoming season.

 

And even if he does go I am reasonably certain we would receive at least the equivalent of what we gave up for him.

[48MPHSlapShot]

14 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Speaking of Miller, I believe this is the first concrete trade win Benning had and it only too about 5 years 

Just off the top of my head the Motte + Jokinen for Vanek and Pearson for Gudbranson trades are pretty clear wins imo.

Edited July 25, 2021 by 48MPHSlapShot

[UFCanuck]

3 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

But the question in who get rejuvenated first ? OEL or Loui Eriksson?  

 

Maybe Loui Eriksson is this year's Toffoli and gets to 20 goals and 50 pts scoring 1/3 of it against Vancouver. Thankfully Coyotes are moving to a different Divison then 

 

 

A rejuvenated Loui probably puts up 10 points all empty netters.

[IBatch]

Any way you shake it, this was a major trade involving 5 players, three picks and retention.    If you want to pick it apart a little at a time for market value fair trade:

 

Marleau 6.25 before flat cap cost a 13th overall.   Let's call a first for LE as a wash fair trade for the 9th straight across.

 

Beagle plus AR almost the same, also worth under flat cap 8-10th overall

 

Garland is worth more then Coleman.   A mid first rounder.   Or a second plus a B prospect.   

 

OEL in this market would get close to what he's getting from us.   Jones at 9.5 ... Trouba at 8 x 8...  LHD let's say 6 x 6 anyways.   He filled a big need.   Only Savard is rumoured to be willing to play in Canada right now, any Canadian city would have to overpay for OEL...especially given he was only willing to go to Vancouver or Boston.  

 

Now we can afford any offer sheet, and really Schmidt can be flipped for two seconds possibly.   At least a second in this market.   Or retain on Holtby instead of a buyout and add some pick(s).    We aren't done yet.    JB was declared one of the three draft day winner by SN...

 

Fair market value would have been 3 firsts, at least two unprotected, just to clear cap.   An extra .5-2 per year for OEL is for sure not a big deal considering, especially because if he was retained at 5.5 we'd have to add another first at least.    Four first rounders could be the fair cost for this deal.    We paid well under market value for this trade.   Way, way under.    

[alucard]

Exactly very very even trade it was, longterm in the last 2 years OEL contract might hurt though, JB did not lose in the trade but did not put up a fleece, he never did in his tenure.

55 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Just off the top of my head the Motte + Jokinen for Vanek and Pearson for Gudbranson trades are pretty clear wins imo.

We gave up Mccann for Gudbranson. in longterm even after pearson that trade was not a win, the thing I don`t like about people evaluating Benning is -respectfully:

some maximize his good things like he pulled a magic, which he did not, and minimize his mistakes, which are not little.

He has not been GM of a decade and some loyalists just want him to continue and continue,

again I am draft and develop guy, but I think after 7 years, if team does not succeed, Canucks should move on from Benning.

Just don`t hire a Gillis type though. I rather have JB over some Gillis "trading all picks for rentals guy",

but moving on from Benning is not the end of the world.

 

in canucks fanbase sphere: some just want to always fire Benning and some just want him to continue chasing own tail on and on,

I am just saying there is a viewpoint in the middle, if he does not show results he should be fired next year.

He has not earned this much loyalty.

[iinatcc]

1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Just off the top of my head the Motte + Jokinen for Vanek and Pearson for Gudbranson trades are pretty clear wins imo.

Sorry I guess concrete I should also have mentioned major trades. I do think the Kesler trade Benning did was ok because the assets he got in return were quite decent it's just how he handled those assets that did the whole trade in 

[Westcoastcanucks777]

4 hours ago, Devron44 said:

The real question on everyone’s mind though. 
 

When will Loui’s 21 be hung in the rafters? 

Not yet when he’s done the current contract we can resign him!

[FaninMex]

46 minutes ago, alucard said:

you said the only reason he is still there is his drafting then said among other things.

 

the single biggest?

anyway lets move on.

but you did not answer my question about Benning next year did you? I answered you always my dear,

 

Please elaborate, with respect what are you talking about?

with all respect.

My arguments is:

THE AVERAGE LIFESPAN OF A GM IS 5 YEAR. BENNING HAS BEEN HERE FOR 7. OKAY?

WHEN IS THE TIME TO EVALUATE HIM BY HIS PROGRESS? IF NEXT YEAR TEAM IS NOT GOOD WE STILL CHASE OUR TAIL?

 

with all respect, dudes.

1. Average means some GMs last more time and some last less than that 5 years. 7 years would be in line with the average that you indicate as other GMs are going to be less..

 

Evaluate progress? OK?

 

1. We started with an old and stale core. Though the Sedins' still had game. 

2. People say that we need to build our team through the draft and we have Podz, Hogz, Bo, Boes, OJ, JV (I do not care what you think. He played how many seasons), Petey, Hughes, Rathbone, Mac, Gadj etc...

3. We have added through UFA, players that have helped the team not lose terribly, that has kept the team wanting to win to avoid becoming Buffalo or AZ

4. We have now added players that put us into a win now.

 

The process has not always been pretty but we are here. The problem that you and many others that slam this deal is that you cry IF and we have not even played a game yet. If can work for your argument and against it for example, what if we add another player or 2 at FA and win the cup. 

 

So, my evaluation of JB. We are ready to compete. I like our core. I like the trade. We are progressing forward instead of an endless draft picks. We shall see what this season brings.

[alucard]

12 minutes ago, FaninMex said:

So, my evaluation of JB. We are ready to compete. I like our core. I like the trade. We are progressing forward instead of an endless draft picks. We shall see what this season brings.

Allright, that is fair, lets get ready for the upcoming season, if the team does good, then good.

we all will be happy fans, a good winning team is all we are cheering for. Go canucks.

[IBatch]

40 minutes ago, alucard said:

Exactly very very even trade it was, longterm in the last 2 years OEL contract might hurt though, JB did not lose in the trade but did not put up a fleece, he never did in his tenure.

We gave up Mccann for Gudbranson. in longterm even after pearson that trade was not a win, the thing I don`t like about people evaluating Benning is -respectfully:

some maximize his good things like he pulled a magic, which he did not, and minimize his mistakes, which are not little.

He has not been GM of a decade and some loyalists just want him to continue and continue,

again I am draft and develop guy, but I think after 7 years, if team does not succeed, Canucks should move on from Benning.

Just don`t hire a Gillis type though. I rather have JB over some Gillis "trading all picks for rentals guy",

but moving on from Benning is not the end of the world.

 

in canucks fanbase sphere: some just want to always fire Benning and some just want him to continue chasing own tail on and on,

I am just saying there is a viewpoint in the middle, if he does not show results he should be fired next year.

He has not earned this much loyalty.

I like that view as far as JB goes.   People exaggerate his failures all the time, and others coming in to defend some of the hyperbole then could be construed as homers.    In the end we are all pro Canucks (well all but the few rotten apples who are probably Flamer or Leaf fans).    I'm sure most of us are inbetween the two spectrums.    Can appreciate the good JB done and the bad.    I'm patient enough to see what JB can do from a positions of strength, this draft move finally put himself into one.   MG mess would have taken Stan Bowman, Holland, Yzerman or whomever 4 years min to claw out of.   And a few more years to get things going after that.   A team with no pool and past it's prime is screwed under the cap.   Can't buy your way out anymore. 

 

I don't mind solidarity at the top all the way down, and for now it appears we have that.   There is no rule a GM only gets five years.   Look at Poile in NSH, the Poile/Trotz show went on for well over a decade.   I'm hopeful the same is going to be the case with Vancouver.   Like to see what JB can do with EP and QHs deals, and what he can do now in the trade front.   No teams is ever built from the draft alone and BPA.    Trades have to occur.    The one JB just made is the most significant trade i've seen since Bertuzzi.   And more need to come.    The last three years JB has made three doozies really, Miller, Schmidt and now this 5 player, three pick, retention deal. 

 

Willing to see it through with JB, he's the second GM in history who's team is entirely his.  

 

Edit:  I really wish i was a fly on the wall when ARI again tried to flog OEL.    Last time it was a waste of JB time and it screwed with his plans for TT.    So he said " fine they want to play ball - half market value on our end for each part of the deal and i want Garland to replace losing TT."    Sent them a fax with instead of four first rounders, 2-3 unprotected - one first, a second a 7th and added an extra guy.   LE, Beagle, AR retention lol.... each of those things on separate deals wouldn't be easy to do.   This trade would have been shredded to bits if anyone dared make it on the this forum as a proposal.  

Edited July 25, 2021 by IBatch

[48MPHSlapShot]

35 minutes ago, alucard said:

We gave up Mccann for Gudbranson. in longterm even after pearson that trade was not a win

I'm talking about the trade only within the context of that specific trade. The McCann trade was an entirely separate trade.