For those who say it's been 8 years of Benning...

[ABNucksfan]

On 11/15/2021 at 1:52 AM, dougieL said:

I have heard (not necessarily here) people say that we haven't rebuilt properly or that it's been 8 years of mediocrity under the Benning regime.

 

People are forgetting that for the 2014-15 to 2017-18 seasons, Linden said publicly that it would be unfair to the Sedins to rebuild (the articles can be easily found on Google). In these seasons, we signed Erickson, traded for Gudbranson, traded picks for players, and traded for and re-signed Sutter, among other moves.

 

Only AFTER the Sedins retired did Linden start pushing the proper rebuild. First off, the hypocrisy of this pivot is stunning and not acknowledged enough. Him quitting over the owners not buying into this vision is ludicrous considering his refusal to rebuild while the Sedins were clearly done (combined 14m cap hit, neither exceeded 60pts in any of the last 3 seasons of their career).

 

Second, it is difficult to imagine that the Canucks fan base would have the patience for a full rebuild that would start in the 2018-19 season. If a proper rebuild takes 5 years, this season AND next season might still well be a lottery seasons. We would essentially lose the primes of Demko, Horvat, and part of Boeser's, if they even remained with us through this hypothetical rebuild. 

 

With the drafting of Hughes and the anticipation of Pettersson becoming a quality player, along with the pain of the previous 3 seasons, I could see why the owners wanted Benning to accelerate the process.

 

So no, the rebuild was not done properly, but it is not all on Benning. Sure, Benning has made some questionable moves, but which GM hasn't? The owners, along with Linden, have to bear the brunt of the blame for the overall lack of direction.

 

 

What you hear in the media isn’t always what is being said behind closed doors… especially from the face of the franchise. When your being paid to represent a certain “idea” its best to “represent” that idea or be fired. Linden wasn’t the type to throw anyone under the bus and he kept it classy.

Hence why Linden is a Legend around here.  

[Dazzle]

12 minutes ago, whysoserious said:

Maybe the reason few talk about it is because it has no relevance to the current discussion. Benning is the current GM, Gillis is not.

 

But since you love talking about Gillis, I'll bite. Gillis was actually able to assemble a competitive defense corp, something Benning has never been able to do. Gillis brought the team to within 1 game of the Stanley cup, 2 president's trophies and multiple playoff appearances. We were hated around the league because we were good, now we've become a laughing stock under Benning. Gillis had his faults, but Benning has many faults and far fewer positives on his side. It's not interesting at all that the Benning guilt is heavier than Gillis'.

 

 

And this is what's wrong with this fanbase. People remember all the good things about Gillis, but rarely the bad. They talk about the playoff successes, but what about the costs?

 

Gillis also:
 

1) didn't draft a defenseman to replace Edler, nor could he draft a depth defenseman in general. Hutton is a pretty decent pick, but that's A LOT of whiffs.

2) didn't draft a goaltender (!)

3) traded away the ONLY goaltending asset that we had to get an unknown draft pick. Can you imagine how horrendous the team would be if Horvat didn't pan out? Awful trade at the time. Was left with an aging Luongo with zero legit goaltending prospects. Zero.

4) Couldn't draft a single forward not named Horvat with however many picks he had.

 

All of this resulted in this evitable decline of the Canucks. Had Gillis drafted ONE player of each position, the Canucks wouldn't have been so bankrupt after Gillis got fired.

 

Moreover, his playoff successes have been due to core pieces by previous GMs. The one good thing Gillis had was adding good supplementary players.

 

Yet there was NOTHING planned for the future.

 

And yeah, all this talk about 1 game to the cup is just fluff talk. Gillis benefitted A LOT from previous tenures, but left the team paying the final bill at the end.

 

Benning/Gillis are equally bad GMs.

[Wolfgang Durst]

On 11/15/2021 at 9:52 AM, dougieL said:

I have heard (not necessarily here) people say that we haven't rebuilt properly or that it's been 8 years of mediocrity under the Benning regime.

 

People are forgetting that for the 2014-15 to 2017-18 seasons, Linden said publicly that it would be unfair to the Sedins to rebuild (the articles can be easily found on Google). In these seasons, we signed Erickson, traded for Gudbranson, traded picks for players, and traded for and re-signed Sutter, among other moves.

 

Only AFTER the Sedins retired did Linden start pushing the proper rebuild. First off, the hypocrisy of this pivot is stunning and not acknowledged enough. Him quitting over the owners not buying into this vision is ludicrous considering his refusal to rebuild while the Sedins were clearly done (combined 14m cap hit, neither exceeded 60pts in any of the last 3 seasons of their career).

 

Second, it is difficult to imagine that the Canucks fan base would have the patience for a full rebuild that would start in the 2018-19 season. If a proper rebuild takes 5 years, this season AND next season might still well be a lottery seasons. We would essentially lose the primes of Demko, Horvat, and part of Boeser's, if they even remained with us through this hypothetical rebuild. 

 

With the drafting of Hughes and the anticipation of Pettersson becoming a quality player, along with the pain of the previous 3 seasons, I could see why the owners wanted Benning to accelerate the process.

 

So no, the rebuild was not done properly, but it is not all on Benning. Sure, Benning has made some questionable moves, but which GM hasn't? The owners, along with Linden, have to bear the brunt of the blame for the overall lack of direction.

 

 

There were several reasons why Canucks couldn't do a full rebuild:

 

1. NMC's of several players like the Sedins, Edler - it was not possible to trade them and get draft picks in return

2. injuries: Tanev and Sutter missed long stretches because of injuries, often Sutter had been injured around the trade deadline

3. obivously the owner's goal to be competitive during the rebuild "rebuild on the fly"; how long took it that management used the word "rebuild"?

 

Detroit is an excellent example for a full rebuild; Stevie traded away lots of players and in addition took on bad contracts to accumulate draft picks. In contrast to  Uncle Jim Stevie is one of the most successful GM's when it comes to the NHL entry draft. Canucks didn't take on bad contracts even this strategy has been proposed by hockey writers like Botchford to add draft picks. Instead they signed veterans like Beagle, Roussel and Sutter.

 

This franchise needs change. Change starts with replacing personnel.

The owner will continue to be a obstacle with his impatience and inability to bring in competent and experienced hockey guys (GM position).

This franchise is doomed to fail.

with the continued losing I expect that Boeser and Petterson will pursue their player careers with other teams once their contracts are up.

[IBatch]

On 11/15/2021 at 1:17 PM, -SN- said:

Yes it's Linden's fault the Canucks are 5-9-2 in 2021. Ok. 

Who knows what was said behind closed doors but it's obvious Linden had a different vision.   And given what happened (trading picks to accelerate) ... well it's difficult to say where we'd be anyways.   But it's never too late to change lanes.   Miller would get us back more then we paid for - or at least the same (a first around 22 and a third).... 

 

At this point i know it's been 8 long years etc.   Way i see it to salvage the season and the vision JB has - to find out if it's right or wrong - is fire the coach and see what the next guy can do first even on an interim basis.   I'd try and get Larry Robinson or Paul McLean.   Two total players coaches.   Highly respected as well by the players much like Quin was.   If that doesn't work ... then whomever.   Let the season play out.   If we are a .600-.650 team with a different coach and still miss then that would be tough to ignore.   If we are .450-.550 then just dismantle it.   And start again.   Trade Miller and Horvat.   

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

There were several reasons why Canucks couldn't do a full rebuild:

 

1. NMC's of several players like the Sedins, Edler - it was not possible to trade them and get draft picks in return

2. injuries: Tanev and Sutter missed long stretches because of injuries, often Sutter had been injured around the trade deadline

3. obivously the owner's goal to be competitive during the rebuild "rebuild on the fly"; how long took it that management used the word "rebuild"?

 

Detroit is an excellent example for a full rebuild; Stevie traded away lots of players and in addition took on bad contracts to accumulate draft picks. In contrast to  Uncle Jim Stevie is one of the most successful GM's when it comes to the NHL entry draft. Canucks didn't take on bad contracts even this strategy has been proposed by hockey writers like Botchford to add draft picks. Instead they signed veterans like Beagle, Roussel and Sutter.

 

This franchise needs change. Change starts with replacing personnel.

The owner will continue to be a obstacle with his impatience and inability to bring in competent and experienced hockey guys (GM position).

This franchise is doomed to fail.

with the continued losing I expect that Boeser and Petterson will pursue their player careers with other teams once their contracts are up.

Detroit is an excellent example as a comparable for Vancouver.   And re-hashing re-tool is pointless.   Of course JB didn't have a choice, he either honoured the clauses, or he didn't.   If he didn't maybe we'd be able to trade Burrows, Hansen and Bieksa earlier.   The Sedins were never going to get traded.   That said good luck finding any UFAs later ... most get clauses.   

 

Back to Detroit.   Their cycle is the closest to follow ours.   Both GMs mortgaged their future to go for a cup.   Both teams won more games then any other team from 2000-2014 as well.    Holland could make it three straight.   Larkin/Horvat....and Holland picks really didn't work out.   Mantha, Bertuzzi, a few like JV etc.   So was given the boot - the very best GM for two decades.   Going to the HHOF now.    Yzerman.   Man picking Seider was impressive.   Looks like the Tampa Bay stuff is following him.   Born in Cranbrook, a couple hours from where i was.   Sure would be nice if he wanted to GM here but of course like Linden for us, his heart is with Detroit.  

 

As far as doomed goes that's a little much don't you think?   Detroit right now is getting better ... who really knows what they will look like when they come out of there rebuilt rebuild bit kudos for them recognizing they needed to do that.   I do believe that the owners have meddled as far as being impatient and taking short cuts goes.   And get why.   That said the team didn't have much of a choice with a re-tool.   Unless they wanted to send a solid message to all UFAs to stay away.    

 

What i don't like is how things are going right now.   It's definitely not following the script.   After the bubble i felt we had a ways to go but we're also super proud of these guys.   And can't wait to see what they can do next time.   That said it's not following the script anymore is it?   

 

Will just add.  Last year we were losing games for the majority, a lot worse then we've lost all but three games this season.   We had a great game against TO, we're the better team and lost ... then went on a 8-2-1 streak or sometime like that with EP out - right around the same game mark.    Last nights game wasn't terrible lol.   Yeah!   Just again our PK.   Team should be playing like saints if they can't get their PK together. 

 

This is hockey and you just never do know.   A coaching change won't fix a personnel problem, and yes that's on both JB and Green too at this point (waiving JG and trading OJ - who with Myers was our safest pairing last season).    I do agree, if they can't turn things around then it's time for a wholesale clean out.    Ugh.  

[Josepho]

5 hours ago, Dazzle said:

And this is what's wrong with this fanbase. People remember all the good things about Gillis, but rarely the bad. They talk about the playoff successes, but what about the costs?

 

Gillis also:
 

1) didn't draft a defenseman to replace Edler, nor could he draft a depth defenseman in general. Hutton is a pretty decent pick, but that's A LOT of whiffs.

2) didn't draft a goaltender (!)

3) traded away the ONLY goaltending asset that we had to get an unknown draft pick. Can you imagine how horrendous the team would be if Horvat didn't pan out? Awful trade at the time. Was left with an aging Luongo with zero legit goaltending prospects. Zero.

4) Couldn't draft a single forward not named Horvat with however many picks he had.

 

All of this resulted in this evitable decline of the Canucks. Had Gillis drafted ONE player of each position, the Canucks wouldn't have been so bankrupt after Gillis got fired.

 

Moreover, his playoff successes have been due to core pieces by previous GMs. The one good thing Gillis had was adding good supplementary players.

 

Yet there was NOTHING planned for the future.

 

And yeah, all this talk about 1 game to the cup is just fluff talk. Gillis benefitted A LOT from previous tenures, but left the team paying the final bill at the end.

 

Benning/Gillis are equally bad GMs.

If adding good supplementary players (and managing the cap well enough to do so) is so easy, why doesn't Benning do it?

 

You can't just brush off that sorta $&!# like it's nothing. 

[Chris12345]

11 minutes ago, Josepho said:

If adding good supplementary players (and managing the cap well enough to do so) is so easy, why doesn't Benning do it?

 

You can't just brush off that sorta $&!# like it's nothing. 

I'm thinking he needs a core first, particularly on d.

[Josepho]

3 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

I'm thinking he needs a core first, particularly on d.

He's been here 8 years, we've seen the defencemen he's acquired at the pro level, and has only managed to draft Hughes and Rathbone (who is probably comparable to Hutton).

 

The only difference between defencemen drafted by Benning vs Gillis is that Benning had way more top 10 picks to get defencemen.

[MaxVerstappen33]

I think a Phionix style rebuild is doable if ppl really want to do that. We could get stuff for Myers and OEL. OEL's value is good right now. Contenders would want these players. 

 

Keep Petey Demko  Boeser and Hughs Pod and Hog. Trade everything else. 1 year tank , 2 year rebuild around Petey and Hughs.

 

We would bank some picks with Horvat and Miller. And the D men 

 

Retain another million on OEL. He'd return some picks 

 

If it goes to plan we should have another Petey and another Hughs in 2 years 

Edited November 18, 2021 by MaxVerstappen33

[UFCanuck]

On 11/15/2021 at 12:52 AM, dougieL said:

I have heard (not necessarily here) people say that we haven't rebuilt properly or that it's been 8 years of mediocrity under the Benning regime.

 

People are forgetting that for the 2014-15 to 2017-18 seasons, Linden said publicly that it would be unfair to the Sedins to rebuild (the articles can be easily found on Google). In these seasons, we signed Erickson, traded for Gudbranson, traded picks for players, and traded for and re-signed Sutter, among other moves.

 

Only AFTER the Sedins retired did Linden start pushing the proper rebuild. First off, the hypocrisy of this pivot is stunning and not acknowledged enough. Him quitting over the owners not buying into this vision is ludicrous considering his refusal to rebuild while the Sedins were clearly done (combined 14m cap hit, neither exceeded 60pts in any of the last 3 seasons of their career).

 

Second, it is difficult to imagine that the Canucks fan base would have the patience for a full rebuild that would start in the 2018-19 season. If a proper rebuild takes 5 years, this season AND next season might still well be a lottery seasons. We would essentially lose the primes of Demko, Horvat, and part of Boeser's, if they even remained with us through this hypothetical rebuild. 

 

With the drafting of Hughes and the anticipation of Pettersson becoming a quality player, along with the pain of the previous 3 seasons, I could see why the owners wanted Benning to accelerate the process.

 

So no, the rebuild was not done properly, but it is not all on Benning. Sure, Benning has made some questionable moves, but which GM hasn't? The owners, along with Linden, have to bear the brunt of the blame for the overall lack of direction.

 

 

Burrows, Kesler and the Sedins took a massive discount in their primes to win. So they got paid later when they were exiting their primes. 

 

Cool with that, they almost brought us the Cup.

[combover]

Jb era records 

worst pk in the history of the nhl 

Longest goalless streak franchise history 

lowest scoring team franchise history 

Franchise history Second longest losing streak - 9 consecutive losses second to keenan- but JBs the only one in franchise history to achieve such misery twice in one year that’s right two 9 game losing steaks in one season. Lol. 

 

@tas

I know you’ll make excuses but you asked for his other fantastic accomplishments 

he’s also traded away more draft pick than any other Canucks GM 

I d guess he’s let more pending UFAs walk for free to. 
And Those are just  the ones that I know about and they are very surface level I couldn’t imagine how bad it would look for someone who can dive deeper into all the records..

 

 

But hey Keep defending his incompetence it’s really been paying dividends on the ice. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by combover

[DSVII]

7 hours ago, Dazzle said:

And this is what's wrong with this fanbase. People remember all the good things about Gillis, but rarely the bad. They talk about the playoff successes, but what about the costs?

 

Gillis also:
 

1) didn't draft a defenseman to replace Edler, nor could he draft a depth defenseman in general. Hutton is a pretty decent pick, but that's A LOT of whiffs.

2) didn't draft a goaltender (!)

3) traded away the ONLY goaltending asset that we had to get an unknown draft pick. Can you imagine how horrendous the team would be if Horvat didn't pan out? Awful trade at the time. Was left with an aging Luongo with zero legit goaltending prospects. Zero.

4) Couldn't draft a single forward not named Horvat with however many picks he had.

 

All of this resulted in this evitable decline of the Canucks. Had Gillis drafted ONE player of each position, the Canucks wouldn't have been so bankrupt after Gillis got fired.

 

I'm usually on the level with you @Dazzle but don't quite agree here.

 

1.) He did acquire Tanev, who played for Benning in his prime. Edler was only 28 when Gillis left and also in his prime, he didn't need replacing yet. Otherwise, by that timeline, Benning should be drafting Myers and OELs replacements two years ago!

2.) He traded for Markstrom, and left Eddie Lack, who helped the team in the 2015 playoff season. There was organizarional Goaltender depth to supplement Ryan Miller while he developed Demko.

3.) It was the ONLY rebuilding move that Gillis had the opportunity to do, and it worked, we got Bo. I mean, we can say the same criticism of the Miller trade. It would have been horrendous if he didn't pan out, but it did. so we give props. Markstrom was considered the best goaltending prospect on the planet at one point.

4.) Again, Gillis never had the opportunity to, and because his teams finished significantly higher in the standings, the quality of his draft picks were no where near Benning's.

 

No argument it was time for Gillis to go, but one wonders what he would have done if given it one more year. There were already rumors that in 2014 he wanted Dylan Larkin over Jake.

 

Truth be told, Benning's teams were helped tremendously by the small amount of rebuilding moves that Gillis was able to do (Markstrom, Horvat), not to mention a prime Tanev and the infrastructure of a farm system set up (A reminder Gillis didn't have control of his own prospects and had to build Utica from ground up), we can only wonder what Gillis would have done had he been afforded three extra seasons like Benning.

 

Quote

Moreover, his playoff successes have been due to core pieces by previous GMs. The one good thing Gillis had was adding good supplementary players.

It would be an interesting thought experiment to see how well we would have done in the bubble season without Markstrom. Considering we were bottom ten in high danger chances against in the league and treading water because of Marky's vezina quality performances.

 

Quote

Yet there was NOTHING planned for the future.

 

And yeah, all this talk about 1 game to the cup is just fluff talk. Gillis benefitted A LOT from previous tenures, but left the team paying the final bill at the end.

 

Benning/Gillis are equally bad GMs.

He didn't have time to plan for the future, Gillis was essentially handcuffed in his final season and canned immediately after when he suggested it was time to rebuild.

 

And yes, you can say that both Benning/Gillis are bad. Both are depleting their farm systems right now to supplement the on ice product. But Gillis vastly improved his on ice product as a result while Benning is still trying to find ways to tread water.

 

I don't agree that 1 game to the final is just fluff. At this point, our bar is trying to make playoffs.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by DSVII

[Dazzle]

44 minutes ago, DSVII said:

I'm usually on the level with you @Dazzle but don't quite agree here.

 

1.) He did acquire Tanev, who played for Benning in his prime. Edler was only 28 when Gillis left and also in his prime, he didn't need replacing yet. Otherwise, by that timeline, Benning should be drafting Myers and OELs replacements two years ago!

2.) He traded for Markstrom, and left Eddie Lack, who helped the team in the 2015 playoff season. There was organizarional Goaltender depth to supplement Ryan Miller while he developed Demko.

3.) It was the ONLY rebuilding move that Gillis had the opportunity to do, and it worked, we got Bo. I mean, we can say the same criticism of the Miller trade. It would have been horrendous if he didn't pan out, but it did. so we give props. Markstrom was considered the best goaltending prospect on the planet at one point.

4.) Again, Gillis never had the opportunity to, and because his teams finished significantly higher in the standings, the quality of his draft picks were no where near Benning's.

 

No argument it was time for Gillis to go, but one wonders what he would have done if given it one more year. There were already rumors that in 2014 he wanted Dylan Larkin over Jake.

 

Truth be told, Benning's teams were helped tremendously by the small amount of rebuilding moves that Gillis was able to do (Markstrom, Horvat), not to mention a prime Tanev and the infrastructure of a farm system set up (A reminder Gillis didn't have control of his own prospects and had to build Utica from ground up), we can only wonder what Gillis would have done had he been afforded three extra seasons like Benning.

 

It would be an interesting thought experiment to see how well we would have done in the bubble season without Markstrom. Considering we were bottom ten in high danger chances against in the league and treading water because of Marky's vezina quality performances.

 

He didn't have time to plan for the future, Gillis was essentially handcuffed in his final season and canned immediately after when he suggested it was time to rebuild.

 

And yes, you can say that both Benning/Gillis are bad. Both are depleting their farm systems right now to supplement the on ice product. But Gillis vastly improved his on ice product as a result while Benning is still trying to find ways to tread water.

 

I don't agree that 1 game to the final is just fluff. At this point, our bar is trying to make playoffs.

 

 

Ok. The fact that Gillis is given a pass because he finished "significantly higher" in the standings is problematic.

 

Gillis also had:

 

Sedins In their prime, Kesler, Luongo, Schneider. All these pieces were missing when Benning took over. Just saying. Gillis got a big help from the core pieces that were all in their prime. Benning did not have this luxury.

 

Tanev was a good signing. Hamhuis was a good signing.

 

But other flops: Vrbata (except the first year), Garrison, Ballard trade. Sure they didn't necessary cost the Canucks much in terms of capspace. However, the Ballard trade was arguably the worst trade Gillis has made.

 

For a GM that boasted about bold trades, he never really made one that was on par with Benning's offseason one. All he did was deplete assets for the rub.

 

So Gillis was expected to do well, given all the pieces that he had. I don't see why Gillis should be given so much praise, to the point where Benning is being compared for his own playoff failures. The two GMs each had their own failures, which were significant reasons for why they should be fired/would be fired.

 

There's always an excuse for Gillis is my point. "Gillis did bad, but..."

 

No. Gillis was a bad GM that depleted his assets. Benning turned out to be a bad GM as well in a different way.

 

And if you actually look at Gillis' drafting record, If he wasn't throwing picks away, he had no plan to recoup them, nor any plan on drafting players. The players he accumulated over the years ended up doing nothing. Pretty damn developmental record. Gillis, in other words, brought almost nothing for the club on his own, and cost the Canucks more than he contributed, in essence.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

2 hours ago, Josepho said:

If adding good supplementary players (and managing the cap well enough to do so) is so easy, why doesn't Benning do it?

 

You can't just brush off that sorta $&!# like it's nothing. 

If having core pieces is so easy, why does Benning get so much flack for not being able to draft "only" one top four defenseman? Lmfao.

 

There's always some excuse to defend Gillis and his season/playoff records.

[Westcoasting]

1 hour ago, playboi19 said:

Burrows, Kesler and the Sedins took a massive discount in their primes to win. So they got paid later when they were exiting their primes. 

 

Cool with that, they almost brought us the Cup.

Massive? Lol how much?

[ey40]

On 11/15/2021 at 12:52 AM, dougieL said:

I have heard (not necessarily here) people say that we haven't rebuilt properly or that it's been 8 years of mediocrity under the Benning regime.

 

People are forgetting that for the 2014-15 to 2017-18 seasons, Linden said publicly that it would be unfair to the Sedins to rebuild (the articles can be easily found on Google). In these seasons, we signed Erickson, traded for Gudbranson, traded picks for players, and traded for and re-signed Sutter, among other moves.

 

Only AFTER the Sedins retired did Linden start pushing the proper rebuild. First off, the hypocrisy of this pivot is stunning and not acknowledged enough. Him quitting over the owners not buying into this vision is ludicrous considering his refusal to rebuild while the Sedins were clearly done (combined 14m cap hit, neither exceeded 60pts in any of the last 3 seasons of their career).

 

Second, it is difficult to imagine that the Canucks fan base would have the patience for a full rebuild that would start in the 2018-19 season. If a proper rebuild takes 5 years, this season AND next season might still well be a lottery seasons. We would essentially lose the primes of Demko, Horvat, and part of Boeser's, if they even remained with us through this hypothetical rebuild. 

 

With the drafting of Hughes and the anticipation of Pettersson becoming a quality player, along with the pain of the previous 3 seasons, I could see why the owners wanted Benning to accelerate the process.

 

So no, the rebuild was not done properly, but it is not all on Benning. Sure, Benning has made some questionable moves, but which GM hasn't? The owners, along with Linden, have to bear the brunt of the blame for the overall lack of direction.

 

 

I am sorry man, but it is all on him.

He is the manager, he is supposed to have a clear plan/direction that the team needs to follow. Clearly he never has that plan and that is why the Canucks suck year after year. 

 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

45 minutes ago, Westcoasting said:

Massive? Lol how much?

Easily a million bucks a year, each, for the twins and Kesler.
 

Not “massive” but significant, especially taken together, and then with Burrows’ also doing a sweetheart deal at only $2M AAV (at a time when ~30 goal scorers were getting paid about twice that).

 

Taken together, those extensions freed up enough cap space to add another high end player, or even two very good players, to the roster.

 

Top-30 salaries were ~$7M+ at that time, with top-10 players making over $8M and going as high as $10M.

 

The Sedins had already gone from top-30 to top-15 scorers, before signing their matching $6.1M AAV deals (and they would go on to win major awards, including scoring titles, on those deals).

 

Kesler had already cracked the top-15 in scoring, even while playing behind the twins, and handling heavy defensive/matchup duties (but also getting to pad his stats on the power play). $5M was a bargain. Kesler himself said that he was leaving money on the table, because he wanted to win. He would have been a 1C on many teams, and there were plenty of inferior players around the league at that time making $7M+, so even something closer to $6M would have still been very good value.

 

(The much-maligned Luongo deal was also a cap savings of roughly $2M per season, when the team really needed the space, to go all-in on contending for the Cup.)

[alt kilgore]

2 hours ago, DSVII said:

I'm usually on the level with you @Dazzle but don't quite agree here.

 

1.) He did acquire Tanev, who played for Benning in his prime. Edler was only 28 when Gillis left and also in his prime, he didn't need replacing yet. Otherwise, by that timeline, Benning should be drafting Myers and OELs replacements two years ago!

2.) He traded for Markstrom, and left Eddie Lack, who helped the team in the 2015 playoff season. There was organizarional Goaltender depth to supplement Ryan Miller while he developed Demko.

3.) It was the ONLY rebuilding move that Gillis had the opportunity to do, and it worked, we got Bo. I mean, we can say the same criticism of the Miller trade. It would have been horrendous if he didn't pan out, but it did. so we give props. Markstrom was considered the best goaltending prospect on the planet at one point.

4.) Again, Gillis never had the opportunity to, and because his teams finished significantly higher in the standings, the quality of his draft picks were no where near Benning's.

 

No argument it was time for Gillis to go, but one wonders what he would have done if given it one more year. There were already rumors that in 2014 he wanted Dylan Larkin over Jake.

 

Truth be told, Benning's teams were helped tremendously by the small amount of rebuilding moves that Gillis was able to do (Markstrom, Horvat), not to mention a prime Tanev and the infrastructure of a farm system set up (A reminder Gillis didn't have control of his own prospects and had to build Utica from ground up), we can only wonder what Gillis would have done had he been afforded three extra seasons like Benning.

 

It would be an interesting thought experiment to see how well we would have done in the bubble season without Markstrom. Considering we were bottom ten in high danger chances against in the league and treading water because of Marky's vezina quality performances.

 

He didn't have time to plan for the future, Gillis was essentially handcuffed in his final season and canned immediately after when he suggested it was time to rebuild.

 

And yes, you can say that both Benning/Gillis are bad. Both are depleting their farm systems right now to supplement the on ice product. But Gillis vastly improved his on ice product as a result while Benning is still trying to find ways to tread water.

 

I don't agree that 1 game to the final is just fluff. At this point, our bar is trying to make playoffs.

 

 

 

You may not agree with me on everything but this is an excellent summary.

 

On drafting, at least Gillis was not trading away prospects and high 1sts and 2nds.  Even if unsuccessful.

Gillis's drafting problems were based on his being unfamiliar with that area, and so he relied on the scouting team that was already there. One of the least successful amateur scouting departments ever.  (He as said it is one of his biggest regrets was not changing that staff right away)

 

Benning had no such excuse. In fact he was billed as the opposite. Drafting here we come! But he turned out to be a "day to day" annual gambler who dangled our picks and prospects every summer.  As well the two picks that were reported ones he personally insisted on were Virtanen and Joulevi. The two biggest busts.

 

So both failed in building our draft pool.....but in different ways.   And which one was more directly responsible for that?

 

 

Gillis was handcuffed and forced to hire Torts against his wishes.  And when that panned out as he thought it would, and he gave the owners a dose of reality....team needs a rebuild....Torts was right about one thing that core was "stale". For that honesty, Gillis was turfed and a new compliant candidate entered. Desperate to be a GM and who would even sabotage what he was good at, to keep that job.

 

Both GMs had their faults.  Both made mistakes. One is still making them.

 

I also think its kind of a losing strategy and a weak argument to have to go back and find another GM in order to say...but but but he wasn't as bad as this one!" Canucks fans deserve better. Its laughable to blame the current state of the Canucks on a GM who was here 8 freakin years ago.  Nine if you include Gillis's last Lame Duck year.  That's as long as some players would say is a long career in the NHL ffs.  Why is Gillis's name even brought up at this point?!    

 

In all honesty,  I think its an owner problem at the heart of it. I think the players can sense a rot in this organization from the top down with an owner that just can't stop putting his fingers in the pie, with a cuckolded GM, and its affecting their play.  Schmidt saw it and got out before the ink had dried on his contract.

 

The chant really should be "SELL THE TEAM AQUILINI!" 

 

 

[Baggins]

14 hours ago, DSVII said:

Such disrespect for Ben Hutton and Kevin Connauton /s

Don't forget our future first line winger.... Hunter Shinkaruk. 

[alt kilgore]

FIRE GILLIS!!!!!