Blight for Wright - Canucks already at less than 10% chance to make the playoffs

[Provost]

11 hours ago, Dazzle said:

This of course would mean that you suck (as many of us are) at player valuation.

Hmmm literally everything in my post you quoted turned out to be true.  The team fell apart the next season due to cap issues.

 

Heck, I even said something nice about Benning in it… so your whinging about everything saying anything nice about him was proven false by… ummm you.

 

Hoisted by your own petard is the fun saying that fits here.

 

On 1/27/2020 at 11:12 AM, Provost said:

Yep, how many people would think that we win the trade if we had traded Petterson or Hughes for Miller.  His play is only half the equation, that elite level of first rounder going Tampa’s way is still on the table.

 

JB has gotten half of the equation right, Miller’s play is exceeding expectations, he is fitting in with the group, and he is having a career year.  None of those things were guaranteed when the trade was made.

 

The other half of the equation is the return, anyone who ignores that isn’t making any sense.  I said right from the beginning we “probably win” this trade if the pick is in the 20’s or later in the round.  We “probably lose” if it ends up being a top 3 lottery pick.  Picks between that are messy and less clear on the outcome of winning or losing.

 

Miller’s fit and play likely means that if we end up finishing with a 12-18th pick, then surrendering that probably still leaves us a winner... not something you could say right when the trade happened.  If that is where we are this year we had better give up that pick.  Everything has gone right for us this year with relative health and lots of players having career years.  The likelihood of that repeating next year isn’t that high, and we are likely to have a worse roster “on paper” due to cap constraints.

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Provost

[Quint]

 

Good match!

[Provost]

35 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Fact: The Canucks HAD a choice to defer the 1st rounder, so this is actually protected. We used that to pick Podkolzin. And given that we did finish better the next year, it was very much a calculated move that worked out.

Ummm what are you on about.  If you are going to have a random snit and necro old posts, at least have the vaguest idea what you are talking about.

 

The Canucks did not defer the first round pick for Miller…

 

FACT:

The trade happened after Podkolzin was already drafted by us, so it had literally zero to do with him or that pick.

 

You should go to bed while you are behind.  For all this whinging about the regime that got fired, I can only assume you are actually Weisbrod and just have plenty of time on your hands.

 
… and predictably you will now start waffling and name calling by inventing a new story to cover your ignorance.

Before you invent a story that you weren’t just completely wrong about everything you posted and “really” the genius Benning had the trade in place but purposefully waited until after he drafted Podkolzin “effectively deferring the pick”.  (See, I can read your mind and even post your nonsense before you have a chance to). You might want to save yourself further embarrassment and Google his statements and all the stories of the time.  He was trying to trade for Barrie or PK Subban at the 2019 draft and couldn’t make a deal for them, so he ended up moving on to Miller as a plan C at the last minute.

 

All of this foolishness from you because of some weird fetish for defending trading a 2nd round pick for Linden Vey of all players… yeeesh.

[Dazzle]

8 minutes ago, Provost said:

Ummm what are you on about.  If you are going to have a random snit and necro old posts, at least have the vaguest idea what you are talking about.

 

The Canucks did not defer the first round pick for Miller…

 

FACT:

The trade happened after Podkolzin was already drafted by us, so it had literally zero to do with him or that pick.

 

You should go to bed while you are behind.  For all this whinging about the regime that got fired, I can only assume you are actually Weisbrod and just have plenty of time on your hands.

 
… and predictably you will now start waffling and name calling by inventing a new story to cover your ignorance.

Before you invent a story that you weren’t just completely wrong about everything you posted and “really” the genius Benning had the trade in place but purposefully waited until after he drafted Podkolzin “effectively deferring the pick”.  (See, I can read your mind and even post your nonsense before you have a chance to). You might want to save yourself further embarrassment and Google his statements and all the stories of the time.  He was trying to trade for Barrie or PK Subban at the 2019 draft and couldn’t make a deal for them, so he ended up moving on to Miller as a plan C at the last minute.

 

All of this foolishness from you because of some weird fetish for defending trading a 2nd round pick for Linden Vey of all players… yeeesh.

Whatever, lol. It's not like you'll genuinely make an attempt at addressing your hypocrisy.

[Provost]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Whatever, lol. It's not like you'll genuinely make an attempt at addressing your hypocrisy.

Oh, so just going to breeze past and ignore that your entire argument about my supposed hypocrisy is based on you literally inventing things that didn’t happen?

 

Bold move…

[Dazzle]

Just now, Provost said:

Oh, so just going to breeze past and ignore that your entire argument about my supposed hypocrisy is based on you literally inventing things that didn’t happen?

 

Bold move…

Talking to you is such a waste of time. I pointed out your hypocrisy in criticizing the trade of draft picks, and you spun it around to talk about how this is different.

 

And gotta love your argument that the Miller trade was still a 'loss' for Benning.

 

Can't make up this stuff.

[wai_lai416]

the schedule for the canucks is so terrible.. a bunch of back to back home games + relatively easy schedule right up to trade deadline.. then all hell break loose. like we can be in a playoff race right up to the deadline then the next 2 weeks fall right out of it.. but because we are so close i don't see us doing anything at the TDL maybe moving a motte.. if we don't win 5 of the 7 coming up against colorado minnesota dallas st louis x2 vegas x2.. we might already be out of the race.. i don't see 4-3 being good enough 

[IBatch]

18 hours ago, Provost said:

So much work on your end with so little substance.

You spent a bunch of time scouring through hundreds of my past posts to find some "gotcha" moment.  

With all that work, all you could find was me literally saying what I am saying here that trades can be good or bad depending on how they turn out in the end. 

Again, even the quote you worked so hard to try to catch me on again goes COMPLETELY against your point that if anyone thinks we should any trade for a pick at any time in our entire club's future, they also have to also logically admit that trading for Linden Vey was a good idea.  You are spouting pure crapola, and that is just a dumb thing for you to be arguing.  I can say sending out a 4th round pick for reinforcement on a playoff run this year while still saying we shouldn't have traded for Linden Vey... there is absolutely nothing hypocritical about that.

You quoted me saying that the Miller trade would be a win if the unprotected 1st round pick (at the time I posted that we didn't know what the pick would end up being) ended up being late in the round; "might" be a win if it was a mid round pick; and would likely be a loss if it ended up being a top lottery pick like Petterson or Hughes.  That isn't some sort of crazy take...  I still don't trade Petterson or Hughes for Miller even today which was what I said then.

If Miller ends up walking for nothing, and we didn't win anything his entire time under club control and the pick that was given up for him (Mukhamadullin) turns out to be a mainstay top 4 young defenceman that contributes to his team for a decade... I still say that trade was a loss, and that Benning misjudged the timing and that the team wasn't in a spot to be trading away unprotected 1st round picks.
 

Don't want to pipe in ... but how can you say that trade was a loss?   It's one of the best trades the club has made in a long long time.   Probably since Bertuzzi. 

 

Four years of how Miller has performed, is better then a first rounder outside of maybe the top five.    He's durable enough that we could expect he'd have played most of the each season if they were 82 games.   The par bar for a 6th overall is 400 games ... that's it.   More then that a good pick.   And he's playing like a winner of course because wow look at him go.    We weren't going to be that bad without him we're we?  Maybe. The only thing that would make it debatable is if he walks.   And even then, you'd be hard pressed to find a four year segment all-time, where a Canuck had that much impact after the obvious guys.   And of course that's not what happened - we had a choice of what first rounder it would be, and made the correct choice there (what season) ... so it was somewhat protected wasn't it.    Look what Chariot just got as a rental...TB could lose in the first round and end up paying for the same thing (doubt it) a 22nd ish overall.   For one playoffs.    As far as the timing goes yes i agree that's a pickle.    Team never bottomed out really (that's not just my opinion, also the opinion of THN, SN and others) ... we didn't even get one top 3 pick (but should have OJs draft).    

 

Miller gives us options and we don't know where that's going yet.   But you can bet he's traded next TDL if we can't reach a contract.    And that will recover more then what was paid for sure.  Plus we got his services etc...OR he's our next Captain for 6-7 years.    For a 22nd and a third.   I was shocked too when we traded for him,  but didn't take long to see it as a good deal for us IF he was just another Horvat.   To me that was worth it.    He's turned out to be much much more.   Every GM in the league would have done the same deal except for those picking top 1-5 or so in hindsight.    

 

Edit:  Around 22-55 have the same odds of playing 100 NHL games - 50%.   Third rounders 12.5%.... When was the last 3rd rounder we've drafted that made an impact?   Edler i believe.    Too bad JB bumbled in other areas, but wouldn't put this one of the loss side of the ledger, even if he walks it's a win.    The timing for sure is what i think your pointing out - that is debatable.   Guess we get to find out under the JR/Allvin era.   Bruce loves the guy it's obvious and why wouldn't he.    If he walks for nothing but some playoffs it's still a win.   If he walks and just the bubble run well i think id agree it was tactically a mistake, but the trade itself was a great one, and that cap space is still going to help. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by IBatch

[Goal:thecup]

18 hours ago, Provost said:

Do you even read the stuff you quote or just try to be contrary because people bully you at school/work and you need to get frustrations out?

Great point!

 

[Fanuck]

And back to something a little closer to the topic, I found Sutter's recent comments on the Wild Card race in the west amusing.  Of course it's easy for him to write off the wild card spot as a waste of time since his team is doing quite well, but how much truth is in his comments?  Would he say the same thing if his team was 2pts out of WC position, doubtful. 

 

His quote is here:  

 

WILD-CARD WOES

Calgary Flames head coach Darryl Sutter's team currently occupies first place in the Pacific Division.

Good thing, too.

Sutter didn't mince words when discussing the playoff chances of the Western Conference's two eventual wild-card seeds, especially as the Colorado Avalanche continue to run away with the Central Division.

"If you are a wild-card team I sure as hell don't want to play Colorado in the first round," said one of the Jack Adams Award front-runners for NHL coach of the year.

"It's going to be a waste of eight days."

[Alflives]

Is Wright going to be a dominant player?  Looking like he's likely a good second line centre.  Nothinig wrong with that, but not exactly the best time to tank if he's the goal.  

[Provost]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

The timing for sure is what i think your pointing out - that is debatable.   Guess we get to find out under the JR/Allvin era.   Bruce loves the guy it's obvious and why wouldn't he.    If he walks for nothing but some playoffs it's still a win.   If he walks and just the bubble run well i think id agree it was tactically a mistake, but the trade itself was a great one, and that cap space is still going to help. 

Aside from the fact I literally said in my post that he necro'ed the Miller trade was likely a win (as long as we didn't end up giving up a top 3 pick), him bringing in Miller was a smokescreen for his failed argument that if anyone ever suggests making a trade for any picks they are being "hypocrites" for not praising Benning for doing the same to bring in Vey and Baertschi.

That is clearly just completely false.  Where the pick is matters and where the team is during its competitive window matters (a deal like a 4th for Vatrano when in a playoff race) is different than a 2nd round pick for Baertschi when we are skidding along the bottom of the league and facing a full rebuild.  They just aren't the same thing at all.  The Vey/Baertschi trades can be criticized because they didn't accomplish anything.  For those 2nd round picks we could have had Brandon Montour and Rasmus Andersson in our lineup right now.  That doesn't mean any trade for any pick is automatically a bad idea or automatically a bad idea.  Context matters, and that isn't hypocritical.

On the Miller front, I didn't say the Miller trade was a loss... my comment was illustration about how trades get to be judged on how they end up working out in the end.  I made the very specific comment that IF he walked for nothing AND we didn't win anything AND the pick we gave up for him ends up being a really good player for a decade... then the trade ends up as a loss.  All of those possibilities are still on the table.  Maybe we are in a playoff race for a wildcard spot next year and find we can't trade Miller again?  Maybe a not yet extended Miller has a season ending injury in training camp next season and then can't be traded?

By what metrics can you call it a win in that case?   No team success in or even making the playoffs, losing a good prospect that would be playing on a cheap ELC, and also really not accomplishing anything but make our draft position worse (for those picks we didn't just give away) for a few years when we badly needed more prospects.  Actually winning games and success in the playoffs is the only actual metric that matters.  If we didn't do that his entire tenure and it cost us success in the future... then absolutely a loss.  Cap space isn't a win when that cap space wouldn't have been used in the first place on the player, and having an efficient ELC contract instead is actually the win.  The idea of trying to parse it out was a "tactical mistake" but also a win just doesn't make sense.  A "tactical mistake" that hurts the team is just a loss and you can't just logically say that even though the result for the team was bad... the trade was a win.

There is a reason bad teams that aren't competitive tend not to give away their top picks.  

Edited March 17, 2022 by Provost

[IBatch]

15 minutes ago, Provost said:

Aside from the fact I literally said in my post that he necro'ed the Miller trade was likely a win (as long as we didn't end up giving up a top 3 pick), him bringing in Miller was a smokescreen for his failed argument that if anyone ever suggests making a trade for any picks they are being "hypocrites" for not praising Benning for doing the same to bring in Vey and Baertschi.

That is clearly just completely false.  Where the pick is matters and where the team is during its competitive window matters (a deal like a 4th for Vatrano when in a playoff race) is different than a 2nd round pick for Baertschi when we are skidding along the bottom of the league and facing a full rebuild.  They just aren't the same thing at all.  The Vey/Baertschi trades can be criticized because they didn't accomplish anything.  For those 2nd round picks we could have had Brandon Montour and Rasmus Andersson in our lineup right now.  That doesn't mean any trade for any pick is automatically a bad idea or automatically a bad idea.  Context matters, and that isn't hypocritical.

On the Miller front, my comment was illustration about how trades get to be judged on how they end up working out in the end.  I made the very specific comment that IF he walked for nothing AND we didn't win anything AND the pick we gave up for him ends up being a really good player for a decade... then the trade ends up as a loss.  All of those possibilities are still on the table.  Maybe we are in a playoff race for a wildcard spot next year and find we can't trade Miller again?  Maybe a not yet extended Miller has a season ending injury in training camp next season and then can't be traded?

By what metrics can you call it a win in that case?   No team success in or even making the playoffs, losing a good prospect that would be playing on a cheap ELC, and also really not accomplishing anything but make our draft position worse (for those picks we didn't just give away) for a few years when we badly needed more prospects.  Actually winning games and success in the playoffs is the only actual metric that matters.  If we didn't do that his entire tenure and it cost us success in the future... then absolutely a loss.  Cap space isn't a win when that cap space wouldn't have been used in the first place on the player, and having an efficient ELC contract instead is actually the win.  The idea of trying to parse it out was a "tactical mistake" but also a win just doesn't make sense.  A "tactical mistake" that hurts the team is just a loss and you can't just logically say that even though the result for the team was bad... the trade was a win.

There is a reason bad teams that aren't competitive tend not to give away their top picks.  

Provost it's ok to be wrong you know.    It's what teaches you for the next time.  Mistakes are the mana for making things better later.    Not sure what most of this reply means.    Of course we won the Miller trade without context.   And we won't know if we won it tactically for awhile yet, all depends on what happens next.    No disagreement there.   Not sure what most of this reply means.   Also you can't say we could of had this guy and could have had that guy.   Every single team that trades a pick can say the same thing - same as every single draft from the start.   MTL would have been better off drafting Dionne for example.   Scored 400 ish more points on much much worse teams.    

[Boudrias]

38 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

And back to something a little closer to the topic, I found Sutter's recent comments on the Wild Card race in the west amusing.  Of course it's easy for him to write off the wild card spot as a waste of time since his team is doing quite well, but how much truth is in his comments?  Would he say the same thing if his team was 2pts out of WC position, doubtful. 

 

His quote is here:  

 

WILD-CARD WOES

Calgary Flames head coach Darryl Sutter's team currently occupies first place in the Pacific Division.

Good thing, too.

Sutter didn't mince words when discussing the playoff chances of the Western Conference's two eventual wild-card seeds, especially as the Colorado Avalanche continue to run away with the Central Division.

"If you are a wild-card team I sure as hell don't want to play Colorado in the first round," said one of the Jack Adams Award front-runners for NHL coach of the year.

"It's going to be a waste of eight days."

I consider Miller a gift horse that the Canucks have to cash in on. 

[D-Money]

Just now, Boudrias said:

I consider Miller a gift horse that the Canucks have to cash in on. 

It's tough, because Miller is definitely the engine of the team right now. Trade him, and basically the next 2 seasons or so are write-offs. And would likely have a negative effect on some of our other players.

 

However, it's entirely plausible - likely even - that this will be by far the best season of Miller's career. It is very unlikely that he will be as good as this for the majority of his next contract. If it goes sideways, it could really screw us for a few years.

 

I'm torn as to what is best for the long-term good of the team. But I know for sure that they won't be trading him now. Maybe the offseason, if the extension talks don't go well, but they have to keep him now.

[Kevin Biestra]

4 hours ago, IBatch said:

Four years of how Miller has performed, is better then a first rounder outside of maybe the top five.    He's durable enough that we could expect he'd have played most of the each season if they were 82 games.   The par bar for a 6th overall is 400 games ... that's it.   More then that a good pick.   And he's playing like a winner of course because wow look at him go.    We weren't going to be that bad without him we're we?  Maybe. The only thing that would make it debatable is if he walks.   And even then, you'd be hard pressed to find a four year segment all-time, where a Canuck had that much impact after the obvious guys.

 

That's kind of an interesting question now that you mention it...

 

I guess the obvious guys for most people are Linden, Sedins, Bure, Naslund, McLean, Luongo and Bertuzzi...

 

I'd say Smyl and King Richard achieved more as well in their best four year stretch.  Then I guess it's time to start thinking with Tanti, Gradin, Gary Smith, Mogilny, Andre Boudrias, Ronning, Courtnall, Kurtenbach, Kesler, Lever, Sundstrom, Rota.

 

That might be it though.  Being a top 10 scorer this year really elevates JT's cache if he can maintain it.  Not many Canucks have ever done that once.

 

I guess Quinn Hughes might be up there already if he has a good year next year.  We've had plenty of good defensemen but none of the offensively gifted ones were at the top of their game for four years in a row.  Guys like Ohlund and Snepsts might have done their thing at peak levels for four years.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Kevin Biestra

[Boudrias]

3 minutes ago, D-Money said:

It's tough, because Miller is definitely the engine of the team right now. Trade him, and basically the next 2 seasons or so are write-offs. And would likely have a negative effect on some of our other players.

 

However, it's entirely plausible - likely even - that this will be by far the best season of Miller's career. It is very unlikely that he will be as good as this for the majority of his next contract. If it goes sideways, it could really screw us for a few years.

 

I'm torn as to what is best for the long-term good of the team. But I know for sure that they won't be trading him now. Maybe the offseason, if the extension talks don't go well, but they have to keep him now.

If Miller is moved before the TDL it will have to be an offer that the Canucks cannot refuse. My perspective is mid term of 2-3 years out. Moving Miller absolutely has to improve the d-side game for it to happen. It is fun to watch the team have success right now but the d-core is not good enough for playoffs. 

[Provost]

 

43 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Not sure what most of this reply means.    

Then you weren't actually reading the thing Dazzle was arguing and should go back and actually read the thread that you jumped in on and responded to.

Do you agree that either trading picks away is 100% a good idea or 100% a bad idea regardless of what round the pick is or where the team is in its competitive window?

It is impossible that Gillis trading picks when we were a President's trophy team was a good idea, but Benning trading them was a bad idea when we were at the bottom of the league and not close to competing?  You believe that trading away a 4th round pick is the same as trading away a 2nd round pick, that those picks have the same value?

Answer that, as that is what he was arguing.  He kept saying it was hypocrisy to believe otherwise.  That if someone didn't like the Linden Vey trade, they have to then also dislike all trades that involve picks or are hypocrites. 

If you also agree with those patently false assertions, you are just plain wrong.  Obviously and obstinately so.
 

21 hours ago, Dazzle said:

No, this is where you're missing the point. Plenty of teams have bolstered their roster for draft picks. Gillis did it all the time, and no one seemed to have an issue about it, even though the trade for a rental Derek Roy was really, really expensive, in hindsight. It cost a couple of draft picks. I suppose if a team that didn't know how to draft under that GM, it wouldn't have been so bad on paper, but this contributes towards the prospect pool erosion.

 

Here's what's wrong with the narrative. Many people have criticized Benning for having a supposedly empty prospect pool (totally a false observation, but let's run with this), you're ok with trading away draft picks then?

 

Better still, we criticized Benning for trading draft picks, but suddenly we're a playoff team that can afford to throw away draft picks? 

 

I just think the whole narrative about Benning trading draft picks is dishonest because we're seeing people like you advocate for the exact same thing. I don't know how you don't see it.

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Provost

[Gurn]

Thursday, games that matter:

Stars at Habs                                Dallas is tied with Vancouver for 3rd Wild Card spot, but they have 3 games in hand

Preds at Flyers                              Preds are in 1rst wild card, 7 points up with a game in hand

Penguins at Blues?                      Blues in 2nd in Central, 9 points up with 2 games in hand

Sabres at Oilers                           Oil 3 points up, with a game in hand

Sharks at Kings                           Sharks are 7 points back, with 2 games in hand; Kings are 7 points up, Canucks with game in hnad

Panthers at Knights                     Knights 4rth in division 1 point up, Canucks with game in hand

Wings at Canucks                       

21 games left in season.

 

[Provost]

4 minutes ago, gurn said:

Thursday, games that matter:

Stars at Habs                                Dallas is tied with Vancouver for 3rd Wild Card spot, but they have 3 games in hand

Preds at Flyers                              Preds are in 1rst wild card, 7 points up with a game in hand

Penguins at Blues?                      Blues in 2nd in Central, 9 points up with 2 games in hand

Sabres at Oilers                           Oil 3 points up, with a game in hand

Sharks at Kings                           Sharks are 7 points back, with 2 games in hand; Kings are 7 points up, Canucks with game in hnad

Panthers at Knights                     Knights 4rth in division 1 point up, Canucks with game in hand

Wings at Canucks                       

21 games left in season.

 

Big night.

I think we can realistically remove the Predators and Blues as important games at this point though, catching them would require them to go on extended losing streaks for the rest of the season.  Kings are probably out of reach as well, and San Jose is too far back.  I am really only looking at Edmonton and Vegas, to a much lesser extend Dallas as their games in hand are important and even with their injuries they are pretty far ahead.