[Signing] Canucks re-sign Brandon Sutter

[TheRussianRocket1994]

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Funny, thats not exactly how Benning hyped him up to the fans.

 

How well did all those "stable pros" and "foundational players" actually do in creating a winning culture, providing consistency, and helping the young players to become winners?

 

The reality is they really didnt. The Canucks have been a bottom feeder team the whole time. 

 

The only real positive those players brought was the fact that they spectacularly failed to do what Benning promised they would do. That is the main reason the Canucks finished so low in the standings and were able to draft the true culture carriers of the team.

 

Sutter as a 4th line guy on a cheap contract is helpful. In the top 6 and on the PP with a top 6 contract? Not so much.

How about you ask the young players currently on the team the effect those players had on them / the role they played in their development...i know there answer will be a 180 from what you just posted. Plus, i've heard some of them reference it. What matters is what those young players say happened / how they feel, not how the media / some fans feel or what they think. 

[oldnews]

still obsessing over semantics - rewriting the meaning of the word foundation.

don't go changing, CDC.

[CanucksJay]

Hey I didn't like Sutter under his old contract. Foundational or not, I don't think he was worth it. 

At 1m though, how can anyone complain? He will outplay that contract easily. 

[wallstreetamigo]

8 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

I think this is true but I like that in a GM. He sees a player and thinks of him as a great player and goes after him and is willing to pay a bit higher than market value to secure him. (he hasn't gone like crazy over market value but enough to get.the player he wants) 

It's the same gumption that allows him to pick Petterson at 5, or Hughes at 7. 

It's why he traded Vanek for Motte (even though I was like wtf at the time) 

That's why he traded a first for Miller. 

I don't think those were all no brainers. There was risk in it. (just like the OEL trade) 

JB is betting on OEL while most here are not. 

I would rather have a GM with a clear vision of what he wants and goes after it. They can't all be right but he is also a guy that fixes his mistakes. 

So in your estimation its a good thing for a GM to get fixated on a player and paying a price for him based on what his faulty pro scouting ability tells him the player will be rather than relying on the actual evidence of what that player actually is?

 

I know I dont want that in a GM.

[tas]

29 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

So in your estimation its a good thing for a GM to get fixated on a player and paying a price for him based on what his faulty pro scouting ability tells him the player will be rather than relying on the actual evidence of what that player actually is?

 

I know I dont want that in a GM.

why even hire a gm when you can just develop an algorithm?

[AV.]

29 minutes ago, tas said:

why even hire a gm when you can just develop an algorithm?

It doesn't need to be an extreme.  Things like more pushback from scouts and assistants, using more (any additional) information, could all help inform a decision to avoid getting tunnel vision on certain targets.

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

So in your estimation its a good thing for a GM to get fixated on a player and paying a price for him based on what his faulty pro scouting ability tells him the player will be rather than relying on the actual evidence of what that player actually is?

 

I know I dont want that in a GM.

The GM works with his management group to assess players to target. We always hear about goalies that Clark approved. Green and Shaw have been noted to have some say in players they like and want to keep or sign.

 

But I suppose if players pan out, then the credit will go to this "pro scouting" that assisted Benning and when it fails, it's a bad Benning signing.

[Me_]

2 hours ago, AV. said:

It doesn't need to be an extreme.  Things like more pushback from scouts and assistants, using more (any additional) information, could all help inform a decision to avoid getting tunnel vision on certain targets.

Do you fancy Benning being the King on a throne where every soul bows before Him or something?

 

You think people in the organization aren’t doing their job? Or worse, are prevented from doing their job by shutting down their ability to communicate?

 

You think the reallocation of more than $20 million dollars in manpower to better the team is a one-man show?
 

You can’t run a multi-million dollar organization without some excellent communication from top to bottom and more importantly, from bottom to top. I know you know that.

 

I just think you’re reaching far beyond your understanding of how this organization is run. 
 

This isn’t a Safeway outlet.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Me_

[AV.]

Just now, Me_ said:

Do you fancy Benning being the King on a throne where every soul bows before Him or something?

 

You think people in the organization aren’t doing their job? Or worse, are prevented from doing their job by an inability to speak up?

 

Perhaps you would like to reassess the road you’re heading on. 
 

You can’t run a multi-million dollar organization like a sports team without some excellent communication. I know you know that.

 

I just think you’re reaching far beyond your ability to understand how this or any other organization is run. 
 

This isn’t a Safeway outlet.

I don't believe it's a coincidence that many important figures within our team, such as Judd Brackett and Trevor Linden, have all departed this organization, despite how important their roles were.  So, to confirm, I don't believe Benning and Weisbrod's voices are the only voices in the room, but I am willing to allege that any dissenting or different voices aren't always met with open ears.

 

In any event, this is off-topic.  Feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss this more as this is a thread on Brandon Sutter's re-signing.

[Me_]

28 minutes ago, AV. said:

I don't believe it's a coincidence that many important figures within our team, such as Judd Brackett and Trevor Linden, have all departed this organization, despite how important their roles were.  So, to confirm, I don't believe Benning and Weisbrod's voices are the only voices in the room, but I am willing to allege that any dissenting or different voices aren't always met with open ears.

 

In any event, this is off-topic.  Feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss this more as this is a thread on Brandon Sutter's re-signing.

I will not be messaging you in private. 
Thank you.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Me_

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Me_ said:

I will not be messaging you in private AV. That request is a bit off putting.

The Sutter signing tells me a couple of very important things.  First, Sutter (taking such a big drop in pay, while staying in the same room) puts this team and its success ahead of his ego.  The guy has incredible character.  And second, this signing shows that a guy with incredible character and knowledge of the game (lots of connections around the league too; he’s a Sutter) chose to sign with Benning and this management group.  Great signing on many levels.  

[Dazzle]

42 minutes ago, Alflives said:

The Sutter signing tells me a couple of very important things.  First, Sutter (taking such a big drop in pay, while staying in the same room) puts this team and its success ahead of his ego.  The guy has incredible character.  And second, this signing shows that a guy with incredible character and knowledge of the game (lots of connections around the league too; he’s a Sutter) chose to sign with Benning and this management group.  Great signing on many levels.  

 

The usual suspects going off topic about Sutter's past performances. Fortunately good character does go a long way. Him signing 1M is a credit to how much respect he has for himself, and for his team. He did collect a lot when he did play, but this is a good gesture on his part to give back to the team.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Dazzle

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

The usual suspects going off topic about Sutter's past performances. Fortunately good character does go a long way. Him signing 1M is a credit to how much respect he has for himself, and for his team. He did collect a lot when he did play, but this is a good gesture on his part to give back to the team.

Yup.  Shows Sutter’s belief in this management group’s ability to ice a great team.  

[wallstreetamigo]

2 hours ago, theo5789 said:

The GM works with his management group to assess players to target. We always hear about goalies that Clark approved. Green and Shaw have been noted to have some say in players they like and want to keep or sign.

 

But I suppose if players pan out, then the credit will go to this "pro scouting" that assisted Benning and when it fails, it's a bad Benning signing.

Why do Benning supporters always go to this hyperbolic extreme excuse?

 

If players pan out, Benning deserves credit (as does his pro scouting team). If players are overhyped to be something they clearly are not and then dont pan out, Benning deserves the blame (as does his pro scouting team).

 

In case you havent noticed, I wasnt talking about any goaltenders as they have been thd leasg of the Canucks worries for many years. The only thing I didnt like about Holtby was the contract Benning gave him.

 

The list of pro scouted players who have "panned out" or even met expectations is pretty thin. The list who habd not panned out is pretty long. That shows a serious flaw in Bennings ability to accurately assess pro talent and especially their trade value and contract worth.

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Why do Benning supporters always go to this hyperbolic extreme excuse?

 

If players pan out, Benning deserves credit (as does his pro scouting team). If players are overhyped to be something they clearly are not and then dont pan out, Benning deserves the blame (as does his pro scouting team).

 

In case you havent noticed, I wasnt talking about any goaltenders as they have been thd leasg of the Canucks worries for many years. The only thing I didnt like about Holtby was the contract Benning gave him.

 

The list of pro scouted players who have "panned out" or even met expectations is pretty thin. The list who habd not panned out is pretty long. That shows a serious flaw in Bennings ability to accurately assess pro talent and especially their trade value and contract worth.

Are you saying signing Sutter for 1 x 1 is a bad move?  What?  It’s a great signing!  Why in the heck would we even think of trading Sutter now, after we just signed him, and only for this one year?  

[Dazzle]

10 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Why do Benning supporters always go to this hyperbolic extreme excuse?

 

If players pan out, Benning deserves credit (as does his pro scouting team). If players are overhyped to be something they clearly are not and then dont pan out, Benning deserves the blame (as does his pro scouting team).

 

In case you havent noticed, I wasnt talking about any goaltenders as they have been thd leasg of the Canucks worries for many years. The only thing I didnt like about Holtby was the contract Benning gave him.

 

The list of pro scouted players who have "panned out" or even met expectations is pretty thin. The list who habd not panned out is pretty long. That shows a serious flaw in Bennings ability to accurately assess pro talent and especially their trade value and contract worth.

What does this have to do with Sutter's signing again?

[CanucksJay]

6 hours ago, AV. said:

It doesn't need to be an extreme.  Things like more pushback from scouts and assistants, using more (any additional) information, could all help inform a decision to avoid getting tunnel vision on certain targets.

Who's to say they don't already use that info? If Benning has time and time again vetoed everything his staff had advised and went rogue and made his own moves that backfired, I'm pretty sure he would not have been re-signed. Aqualini's aren't stupid. 

The Canucks do have pro scouts. Hard to say whether he listened to or didn't listen to his staff when we aren't in the inner circle of the organization. 

 

All I know is, I like where the team is trending. I like how Benning fixes his (and his staff's) mistakes. I like how he knows who he wants and goes after it. 

[CanucksJay]

5 hours ago, AV. said:

I don't believe it's a coincidence that many important figures within our team, such as Judd Brackett and Trevor Linden, have all departed this organization, despite how important their roles were.  So, to confirm, I don't believe Benning and Weisbrod's voices are the only voices in the room, but I am willing to allege that any dissenting or different voices aren't always met with open ears.

 

In any event, this is off-topic.  Feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss this more as this is a thread on Brandon Sutter's re-signing.

We don't know why Linden left. Was it beef with Benning or was it ownership? 

Did ownership want to speed up the rebuild when Trevor wanted to sell and add more draft picks? 

Who is Benning going to listen to? The owner or linden? 

As for Brackett, losing him hurt but we'll see what we got in Danila soon. 

Did Benning and Brackett not see eye to eye or did Brackett move to advance his career as there wasn't room in Vancouver? 

It's funny that you pinned Linden and Brackett leaving on Benning when we have no idea what actually happened. 

 

[4petesake]

11 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

We don't know why Linden left. Was it beef with Benning or was it ownership? 

Did ownership want to speed up the rebuild when Trevor wanted to sell and add more draft picks? 

Who is Benning going to listen to? The owner or linden? 

As for Brackett, losing him hurt but we'll see what we got in Danila soon. 

Did Benning and Brackett not see eye to eye or did Brackett move to advance his career as there wasn't room in Vancouver? 

It's funny that you pinned Linden and Brackett leaving on Benning when we have no idea what actually happened. 

 

IMac reported that Brackett wanted total control over the amateur scouting department and Benning wasn’t willing to give it to him. One could make the argument that if someone wasn’t willing to listen to all the voices in the room it was likely Brackett, not Benning.

 

Regardless of the business, every worker wants to feel valued and respected, and every manager should seek that for their employees. Brackett has done an excellent job and deserves respect, as well as a degree of latitude. But as far as I know, there isn’t an organization in the National Hockey League in which the GM – and remember, Benning built his career as scout – has ceded total control of his scouting department and draft to a senior employee. Because if the owner comes looking for a scalp, his first stop isn’t the scouting department. - Ian MacIntyre

[A.V.'s slurp]

With Loui's daparture, I wonder if Sutter goes back to #21.