[Report] Canucks claim Brad Richardson off waivers

[Baggins]

4 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I would also say that Allvin has walked into a difficult position, The team cannot afford to keep what it had which wasn't good enough and needs to resign players and he has to hope other teams see value in what he wants to trade, (knowing he has to unleash them and have concerns with) and he will need to do that without including picks and cap, I don't think Allvin has anywhere the team Gilles got and will take longer than Gilles did and we won't see big improvement for 2-3 years, but i like the message they are sending

My point was actually bothe had much better starting points than Benning. But I think Allvin is in as good or possibly abetter position than Gillis was. Hughes, Pettersson, and Demko, are younger than the Sedins and Luongo were. Allvin has younger high end talent to work with that could create a longer window. Gillis inherited a better overall D, and Allvin a better forward group. It's pretty comaprable. 

[Dr. Crossbar]

5 hours ago, The Lock said:

The thing is, there's going to be some similarities between current management and previous management. Realistically, did the previous management do absolutely everything wrong? Was the JT Miller trade bad? Was every contract signed bad? Was every hiring bad? My guess is that no one can say that everything was bad and absolutely mean it. So then this means previous management did some things right. Not everything of course since they're gone, but they did some things well enough to have stayed here for almost a decade.

 

So then there are going to be similarities with current management while probably having some differences. Why? Because if previous management did some things right, it would make sense for current management to continue to do those things while fixing the errors of the past.

 

So when I hear this whole notion of people seeing deja vu, all I can think is "of course this is going to happen". Not in a bad way, but in a way that would make sense. It seems like people expect the complete opposite. People seem to want to think "Benning bad, don't do anything Benning would do", but really that's more detrimental than helpful if we started to do the things Benning actually did right incorrectly.

 

Also, current management will make mistakes. Everyone does. We have to realise this as well. Nothing's ever going to be perfect and to expect such is just not feasible. But, as you've said, it's still too early and we won't know what good/bad moves will take place at this point until later.

I appreciate you writing all of that but this is all getting a bit more complex and unnecessarily overanalyzed. That wasn't my intent. 

 

I really do understand the points you make. Totally get it. My issue isn't whether management is perfect or doesn't get everything right ... no one does and of course mistakes happen. I'm not expecting that at all.

 

For me, it's really just as simple as ... "Hey, I notice in interviews and pressers that some of their talking points are the same. I'm a bit surprised by that. We just heard 8 years of those same talking points. Deadline day was ok but underwhelming and we brought in a 37 year old. I certainly understand the reasoning but it also feels a bit too familiar. It could be something or it could be nothing. I hope it's not a red flag."

 

It's really just that simple for me. Not a big deal. If I'm wrong, good, I'll be glad and the first to say so.

 

For the record, I'm not remotely close to coming from a place of "Benning bad, don't do anything Benning would do." That's way too simplistic, childish and immature. That's not what I'm saying.

 

This fanbase is frustrated and fatigued after nearly a decade of Benning. We were consistently asked to have patience to allow management to get the team younger, faster, skilled, developed while also finding diamonds in the rough elsewhere. Some of that younger messaging even goes back to Torts. So when we picked up a 37 year old, albeit justifiable, it made me unexpectedly pause for a minute and go, hmmmm. Nothing more.

 

Also, I just think it would be more prudent and savvy - especially from a PR standpoint - if the new regime didn't say similar things out of the gate. That's just me. I wish they were a bit more individually unique and fresh in their messaging.

 

I'm just questioning whether they realize they won't have nearly the same amount of runway with fans if they just repeat similar taking points. 

 

Like I said, it could be something or it could be nothing. 

 

For now, I want to pull back from the ledge on this because it really is so early. The offseason will be a much better gauge. 

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Dr. Crossbar

[Dr. Crossbar]

16 hours ago, bigbadcanucks said:

Maybe I can add another perspective...

 

Benning and Weisbrod would have probably panicked and signed Motte to a 3 year $3M AAV (like they did with Roussel and Beagle, and to some degree, Pearson at a higher AAV last spring).  Allvin and Rutherford, to their credit, stayed cool and calm and got whatever the market allowed for a fourth line winger, which was a fourth round pick.

 

The Richardson waiver claim won't even be a footnote to this season once it's over.  This move tells me that Allvin and Rutherford are interested in ensuring Abbotsford has a decent run into the Calder Cup tourney.  Richardson is a placeholder for the balance of this season and you'll probably forget that he played parts of the final 18 games of the 2021-22 season once the season is over.

 

Motte is fast, disciplined and all the things JR/PA have talked about wanting their players to be, but there is a capped amount of money to spend on players like Motte, which is further exacerbated by the way Benning spent money like a drunken sailor.  If Motte's agent and the team were far apart on a value for Motte, then I'm glad the current management let Motte go. At the very least, we know now that JR/PA won't be spending $3M AAV on fourth line forwards.

 

Hindsight is 20/20, and now that we've watched another failed season come and go (in 18 games), wouldn't it be great to see Loui E r i k s s o n's $6M, Roussel's $3M and Beagle's $3M come off the books rather than having OEL $7.25M albatross hanging over the team?  Even for this season, I would have much rather had Edler at $3.5M cap hit than OEL for $7.25M.  But that's the parting gift Benning left all of us, and I bring this up because this is another example of Benning's short-sightedness and lack of vision for the franchise.

 

I might be delusional, but I believe the current management is much more prudent with asset management and handling of cap, and have a vision of where they want the team to be, whereas Benning and his group of drunken sailors (that being him and Weisbrod) did not.

Thanks for the different perspective. I hope you're right.

 

I really do want to see new management succeed. I just don't want to see or hear the same things all over again. This fanbase deserves better. 

 

I wasn't nearly critical enough with Benning and company. I had a lot of hope, patience, and support despite a number of red flags very early on in the process.

 

I guess the Benning placeholders and aging vets are just too fresh in my memory so the Richardson pickup just hit a nerve.