Player make up of contending teams vs Vancouver- Where the teams get their players (Discussion)

[canucklehead44]

I once heard Burke say something along the lines of good trading is the best way of building a strong team. Drafting and development can be a lot more random and difficult, and typically free agent signings have a bad return on investment. Also to draft good players consistently you usually need to finish lower in the standings, and to acquire draft picks you often are selling off current talent. 

The 94 team we got lucky with Bure due to a loophole (he would have gone first overall) so he is a bit of an anomaly. Linden was drafted 2nd overall. But a lot of that team came through great trades:

• Courtnall and Ronning finished 2nd & 3rd in scoring, traded for Jeff Butcher (who was winding down his career by the time we had that run) and Dan Quinn who also kind of fell off after that. Also picked up Momesso who was a big part of that team and a big tough guy who could score. 
• Lumme was acquired for a 2nd round pick
• Greg Adams and Kirk McLean acquired in exchange for Patrick Sundstrom who was out of the league by the time we went to the finals

West Coast Express

• Naslund for Stojanov
• Linden for Bertuzzi & McCabe
• McCabe + pick to draft the Sedins
• Mogilny for Morrison
• Bure for Jovanovski
• Schaefer for Salo

The team was obviously missing a solid goaltender but we were very competitive on the back of some good trades. While we did draft the Sedins it was a unique situation (we traded to draft them, we didn't just end up drafting them with our given pick). Ohlund was the one guy who was more of a natural home grown pick. 

 

2011 Team

• Sedins
• Bertuzzi for Luongo
• Patrick White for Christian Ehrhoff

This team actually relied a little less on big trades. Kesler, Edler, Schneider, Jensen and Bieksa were draft picks. Samuelsson, Hamhuis, Burrows, Malhotra were signings, and we made some really solid trades acquiring Higgins and Torres at the deadline. I guess one key thing is none of our signings were high cost (other than maybe Hamhuis). 

 

One thing none of these teams had were way over paid UFA signings, which was a huge trend under Benning's regime. 

I like our homegrown talent. JT Miller is a great player acquired via trade, but overall we are still pretty bloated between bad trades and bad signings. 

 

[Dazzle]

9 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Benning also burned a lot of draft capital not just before but this year, leaving the prospect pool pretty dry.

 

Having a good core is good but the lack of draft picks has lead to either lack of players in the system to help support the core or lead to overpaying for these supporting players. 

 

Tampa's strength is that they could always replace certain players with guys in their system, something Benning never bothered to do. 

The team was barren with Gillis' picks/overall handling of the roster (particularly for the latter half of his tenure). The prospect picks were significantly better under Benning than Gillis. It's not hard to figure out that the Canucks got shafted big time, in a way that Tampa never did.

 

And to be perfectly honest, Tampa Bay really did luck out. They've had very few draft busts, even for low picks, relative to the average draft pick. "Good judgement" is a lazy way of explaining why they did have some draft busts.

 

If the Canucks had the drafting luck that Tampa did, this team would be in a very very different situation, but few can compare to Tampa Bay's successes. Your comparison to Tampa, therefore, is pretty unreasonable.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

2 hours ago, canucklehead44 said:

I once heard Burke say something along the lines of good trading is the best way of building a strong team. Drafting and development can be a lot more random and difficult, and typically free agent signings have a bad return on investment. Also to draft good players consistently you usually need to finish lower in the standings, and to acquire draft picks you often are selling off current talent. 

The 94 team we got lucky with Bure due to a loophole (he would have gone first overall) so he is a bit of an anomaly. Linden was drafted 2nd overall. But a lot of that team came through great trades:

• Courtnall and Ronning finished 2nd & 3rd in scoring, traded for Jeff Butcher (who was winding down his career by the time we had that run) and Dan Quinn who also kind of fell off after that. Also picked up Momesso who was a big part of that team and a big tough guy who could score. 
• Lumme was acquired for a 2nd round pick
• Greg Adams and Kirk McLean acquired in exchange for Patrick Sundstrom who was out of the league by the time we went to the finals

West Coast Express

• Naslund for Stojanov
• Linden for Bertuzzi & McCabe
• McCabe + pick to draft the Sedins
• Mogilny for Morrison
• Bure for Jovanovski
• Schaefer for Salo

The team was obviously missing a solid goaltender but we were very competitive on the back of some good trades. While we did draft the Sedins it was a unique situation (we traded to draft them, we didn't just end up drafting them with our given pick). Ohlund was the one guy who was more of a natural home grown pick. 

 

2011 Team

• Sedins
• Bertuzzi for Luongo
• Patrick White for Christian Ehrhoff

This team actually relied a little less on big trades. Kesler, Edler, Schneider, Jensen and Bieksa were draft picks. Samuelsson, Hamhuis, Burrows, Malhotra were signings, and we made some really solid trades acquiring Higgins and Torres at the deadline. I guess one key thing is none of our signings were high cost (other than maybe Hamhuis). 

 

One thing none of these teams had were way over paid UFA signings, which was a huge trend under Benning's regime. 

I like our homegrown talent. JT Miller is a great player acquired via trade, but overall we are still pretty bloated between bad trades and bad signings. 

 

You seem to ignore the fact that the foundation was set by other people, not Gillis. When you look at the fact that Gillis couldn't draft any replacements for his inherited pieces, you'll see that the prospect pool was actually being drained and/or not being accumulated.

 

In short, the 2011 team was largely a product of Gillis' predecessors, mixed in with some lucky, effective Gillis signings. When you see the draft picks after 2011, you'll see very poor draft picks regardless of the picks that Gillis did possess. For all the excuses made for the Gillis draft picks, Tampa Bay interestingly could continue their success, and it was their draft picks that saved them the money, which might otherwise be used for UFA.

[DownUndaCanuck]

I don't think drafting, signing via UFA or finding via trade really matter. The most important thing is that when you look at drafting - Tampa had some very high picks but also have some fantastic scouts who found some gems in later rounds. 

 

The fact is that the draft is how you find your best players, because value-wise they're not going to be available or worth it via UFA or trades. No team wants to trade or let walk their top players so they're not going to be available via UFA or trade. You don't trade a 1st overall player who is worth more value to the team if you keep him.

 

Tampa's built their dynasty from drafting-out. They've done everything brilliantly and deserve where they are right now, but it started with sucking for a few years in a row and harvesting 1st overall/top picks. Unlike Edmonton though, Tampa are much more balanced. They don't have two 120 point players, instead they have a top forward in Stamkos, arguably the best defenceman over the last 5-10 years in Hedman and a star goalie - essentially a top player at each position. Then they've fleshed out (mainly via draft and development) to complement this core 3 with Kucherov, Point, Sergachev and Palat. 

 

If you look back at the Blackhawks and Penguins' strong teams recently, they'd done the same things. Top-3 picks in a few years in a row, then flesh out the core with either later picks, UFAs or via trades.

 

Sadly you really need a couple of years of top-3 picks to be successful in this day and age. There aren't many teams who have made it to the top without those top players. The only time the Canucks were at the top was when our top picks Henrik and Daniel were in their prime. 

 

Is there a way Petey, Hughes and Demko can mimic these strong cores? I'm not sure. Petey isn't really that big/tough, and Hughes isn't anywhere near as strong defensively as Hedman, but Demko is as good as any goalie can be. Horvat is a fairly high pick and a very solid playoff-type player though. We have a solid core we've drafted relatively highly (but not as high as these other Cup winning teams), and currently have complemented them with some great players (Miller, Garland, Boeser) but in a 7 game playoff series where your best players play against other team's best players 20 minutes a night, you need your top stars to be able to do it all. They need to hit, defend and LASTLY, out-score the opponent. In my book, your top forwards and top defencemen need to out-defend the other team.

 

That's why Edmonton got bounced. That's why Tampa keep winning - their forwards defend better than any other. Can Petey defend and play physical with the best of them? He's got an incredible defensive hockey awareness, but lacks the physicality. Same goes for Hughes who looked very strong defensively last season. Then compare him to a beast like Hedman and we realise he's quite far off.

 

Obviously blowing up the core isn't going to happen and we'll just have to wait 5-10 years for this core to hand over the torch to the next core, but all we can realistically do is try to complement this current core with players who fill those needs - big, tough, defensively-strong players.

[iinatcc]

On 6/14/2022 at 1:54 AM, Dazzle said:

The team was barren with Gillis' picks/overall handling of the roster (particularly for the latter half of his tenure). The prospect picks were significantly better under Benning than Gillis. It's not hard to figure out that the Canucks got shafted big time, in a way that Tampa never did.

 

And to be perfectly honest, Tampa Bay really did luck out. They've had very few draft busts, even for low picks, relative to the average draft pick. "Good judgement" is a lazy way of explaining why they did have some draft busts.

 

If the Canucks had the drafting luck that Tampa did, this team would be in a very very different situation, but few can compare to Tampa Bay's successes. Your comparison to Tampa, therefore, is pretty unreasonable.

Well no matter what Gillis did Benning had 8 years to make something out of the team. A contender? Probably not but 2 playoff appearances in 8 years (one being the bubble year) and missing the last two years is not a good look.

 

Two quote from people in Sportsnet (well paraphrasing) 

 

Shane Malloy - You don't have to hit a home run all the time (since Tampa has had their misses), but you can't keep stepping on landmines either (which I assume was Benning).

Thomas Drance - in Benning's time the team had 3 high (10 or higher) 1st round picks that netted 0 value to the team (Virtanen, Juolevi, and the OEL/Garland trade). 

 

These two statements more or less sums up the disaster of Benning's tenue. 

 

[DrJockitch]

33 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Well no matter what Gillis did Benning had 8 years to make something out of the team. A contender? Probably not but 2 playoff appearances in 8 years (one being the bubble year) and missing the last two years is not a good look.

 

Two quote from people in Sportsnet (well paraphrasing) 

 

Shane Malloy - You don't have to hit a home run all the time (since Tampa has had their misses), but you can't keep stepping on landmines either (which I assume was Benning).

Thomas Drance - in Benning's time the team had 3 high (10 or higher) 1st round picks that netted 0 value to the team (Virtanen, Juolevi, and the OEL/Garland trade). 

 

These two statements more or less sums up the disaster of Benning's tenue. 

 

It is easy to look at certain players and say hey Benning wasn’t that bad, Quinn and EP are good and look his RFA contracts were pretty good…

End of the day though his evaluations of where the team was were consistently wrong and he left a team that had the incredible combination of small, soft, slow, lacking high end talent and low end depth all while being capped out and one of the worst prospect pools in the league. Oh yeah and some boat anchor contracts that are near impossible to move. 
Not a huge fan of some of the things Rutherford did on previous teams but none of his teams were in shambles when he left like the Canucks.  Some hard decisions need to be made to fix the mess he left behind. 

[Dazzle]

On 6/14/2022 at 12:25 AM, DownUndaCanuck said:

I don't think drafting, signing via UFA or finding via trade really matter. The most important thing is that when you look at drafting - Tampa had some very high picks but also have some fantastic scouts who found some gems in later rounds. 

 

The fact is that the draft is how you find your best players, because value-wise they're not going to be available or worth it via UFA or trades. No team wants to trade or let walk their top players so they're not going to be available via UFA or trade. You don't trade a 1st overall player who is worth more value to the team if you keep him.

 

Tampa's built their dynasty from drafting-out. They've done everything brilliantly and deserve where they are right now, but it started with sucking for a few years in a row and harvesting 1st overall/top picks. Unlike Edmonton though, Tampa are much more balanced. They don't have two 120 point players, instead they have a top forward in Stamkos, arguably the best defenceman over the last 5-10 years in Hedman and a star goalie - essentially a top player at each position. Then they've fleshed out (mainly via draft and development) to complement this core 3 with Kucherov, Point, Sergachev and Palat. 

 

If you look back at the Blackhawks and Penguins' strong teams recently, they'd done the same things. Top-3 picks in a few years in a row, then flesh out the core with either later picks, UFAs or via trades.

 

Sadly you really need a couple of years of top-3 picks to be successful in this day and age. There aren't many teams who have made it to the top without those top players. The only time the Canucks were at the top was when our top picks Henrik and Daniel were in their prime. 

 

Is there a way Petey, Hughes and Demko can mimic these strong cores? I'm not sure. Petey isn't really that big/tough, and Hughes isn't anywhere near as strong defensively as Hedman, but Demko is as good as any goalie can be. Horvat is a fairly high pick and a very solid playoff-type player though. We have a solid core we've drafted relatively highly (but not as high as these other Cup winning teams), and currently have complemented them with some great players (Miller, Garland, Boeser) but in a 7 game playoff series where your best players play against other team's best players 20 minutes a night, you need your top stars to be able to do it all. They need to hit, defend and LASTLY, out-score the opponent. In my book, your top forwards and top defencemen need to out-defend the other team.

 

That's why Edmonton got bounced. That's why Tampa keep winning - their forwards defend better than any other. Can Petey defend and play physical with the best of them? He's got an incredible defensive hockey awareness, but lacks the physicality. Same goes for Hughes who looked very strong defensively last season. Then compare him to a beast like Hedman and we realise he's quite far off.

 

Obviously blowing up the core isn't going to happen and we'll just have to wait 5-10 years for this core to hand over the torch to the next core, but all we can realistically do is try to complement this current core with players who fill those needs - big, tough, defensively-strong players.

But that's the thing though... if drafting doesn't matter, why did you finish your sentence with the rest?

 

Can't believe people are willing to overlook Gillis' obvious draft blunders over a few seasons of winning. Can't believe that people forget that his inability to develop players is a direct reason why the Canucks had next to no prospects by the end of it.

Gillis had some winning seasons, yes, but if we just ignore the faults, what we see is a bunch of people who are only seeing one side of the story.

[iinatcc]

On 6/16/2022 at 8:38 AM, Dazzle said:

But that's the thing though... if drafting doesn't matter, why did you finish your sentence with the rest?

 

Can't believe people are willing to overlook Gillis' obvious draft blunders over a few seasons of winning. Can't believe that people forget that his inability to develop players is a direct reason why the Canucks had next to no prospects by the end of it.

Gillis had some winning seasons, yes, but if we just ignore the faults, what we see is a bunch of people who are only seeing one side of the story.

Gillis didn't draft Juolevi, Virtanen, traded away McCann and Forsling. In addition he was not the one that missed out on the 2nd round in 2017 despite having two picks, and as well as his 2nd round pick the season after. 

 

Yes you can blame Gillis for the lack of development of prospects but Benning hasn't done a good job either. Besides the goalies who was properly developed that came from the Canuck's farm system under Benning's time?

 

The funny thing about Benning is that the one he has done a better job than Tamps is drafting in the 1st round. Pettersson, Hughes, McCann and potentially Podkolzin were better than what Yzerman (when he was the Bolt's GM) picked in the 1st round.

 

What Tampa did so much better was in everything else, even if their 1st round picks didn't hit, they got some good returns from that also from Dourin and Namestnikov that ended up being important pieces in their current cup wins. Plus a combination of good team friendly deals + successful later round picks (Kucherov, Point, Palat, Killorn, and Cirelli) make up their lack of success in the area Benning was actually better in. 

[Dazzle]

On 6/18/2022 at 2:42 AM, iinatcc said:

Gillis didn't draft Juolevi, Virtanen, traded away McCann and Forsling. In addition he was not the one that missed out on the 2nd round in 2017 despite having two picks, and as well as his 2nd round pick the season after. 

 

Yes you can blame Gillis for the lack of development of prospects but Benning hasn't done a good job either. Besides the goalies who was properly developed that came from the Canuck's farm system under Benning's time?

 

The funny thing about Benning is that the one he has done a better job than Tamps is drafting in the 1st round. Pettersson, Hughes, McCann and potentially Podkolzin were better than what Yzerman (when he was the Bolt's GM) picked in the 1st round.

 

What Tampa did so much better was in everything else, even if their 1st round picks didn't hit, they got some good returns from that also from Dourin and Namestnikov that ended up being important pieces in their current cup wins. Plus a combination of good team friendly deals + successful later round picks (Kucherov, Point, Palat, Killorn, and Cirelli) make up their lack of success in the area Benning was actually better in. 

You're seriously missing so big explanations here.

 

First off, every GM has misses in the first round. You are partially right that other players drafted make up for those losses at time, and nothing can be more true than with Tampa Bay. They drafted Brayden Point, for example.

 

Tampa Bay's drafting (and luck) is far and away better than almost all teams. The fact that they were so successful at the draft means they could save more money by putting in legitimate homegrown products. The farm system is naturally better because of these players. Given how Gillis absolutely EFF'd up every draft pick that he had, it's a little bit hilarious that you'll make excuses for his drafting in order to criticize Benning.

 

Gillis' drafting is horrendous bad, and that absolutely has to be acknowledged when taking into account Benning's failures. The foundation was so bare - it's baffling how people forgot this.

[iinatcc]

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

You're seriously missing so big explanations here.

 

First off, every GM has misses in the first round. You are partially right that other players drafted make up for those losses at time, and nothing can be more true than with Tampa Bay. They drafted Brayden Point, for example.

 

Tampa Bay's drafting (and luck) is far and away better than almost all teams. The fact that they were so successful at the draft means they could save more money by putting in legitimate homegrown products. The farm system is naturally better because of these players. Given how Gillis absolutely EFF'd up every draft pick that he had, it's a little bit hilarious that you'll make excuses for his drafting in order to criticize Benning.

 

Gillis' drafting is horrendous bad, and that absolutely has to be acknowledged when taking into account Benning's failures. The foundation was so bare - it's baffling how people forgot this.

I've acknowledged this. But you would think even so by year 7 or 8 of Benning's time, the team would have been good enough to either make the playoffs or have a prospect pool that isn't bone dry (due to giving up draft picks). 

 

Problem with Benning is mostly the team wasn't trending up under him. Even if Gillis miatakes impacted the first few years, the team should have been further along then they currently are 

[Dazzle]

6 hours ago, iinatcc said:

I've acknowledged this. But you would think even so by year 7 or 8 of Benning's time, the team would have been good enough to either make the playoffs or have a prospect pool that isn't bone dry (due to giving up draft picks). 

 

Problem with Benning is mostly the team wasn't trending up under him. Even if Gillis miatakes impacted the first few years, the team should have been further along then they currently are 

The prospect pool isn't bone dry though, lol.

 

Benning's biggest mistake was keeping Green employed for as long as he did.

[iinatcc]

24 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

The prospect pool isn't bone dry though, lol.

.

These say otherwise

 

https://theathletic.com/2988312/2022/01/14/wheelers-2022-nhl-prospect-pool-rankings-no-28-vancouver-canucks/

 

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/in-a-twist-of-irony-benning-leaves-next-canucks-gm-a-near-empty-prospect-cupboard-4833869

 

And this has been a talking point in Sportsnet 650

[Dazzle]

7 hours ago, iinatcc said:

These say otherwise

 

https://theathletic.com/2988312/2022/01/14/wheelers-2022-nhl-prospect-pool-rankings-no-28-vancouver-canucks/

 

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/in-a-twist-of-irony-benning-leaves-next-canucks-gm-a-near-empty-prospect-cupboard-4833869

 

And this has been a talking point in Sportsnet 650

It's a bit ironic because they (media pundits) said the same thing with Gillis.

 

A prospect pool being dry versus a lot of the players making that roster are two very different situations. Gillis left the team in complete shambles - an aging core, with no draft picks worth mentioning.

 

Benning has left a core that is relatively young,  with some prospects potentially making the big club.

 

A little bit disingenous of a talking point you have there because there are still lots of people still making excuses for Gillis lmfao. "But but but they are a playoff team!!!"

Edited June 20, 2022 by Dazzle

[Alflives]

35 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

It's a bit ironic because they (media pundits) said the same thing with Gillis.

 

A prospect pool being dry versus a lot of the players making that roster are two very different situations. Gillis left the team in complete shambles - an aging core, with no draft picks worth mentioning.

 

Benning has left a core that is relatively young,  with some prospects potentially making the big club.

 

A little bit disingenous of a talking point you have there because there are still lots of people still making excuses for Gillis lmfao. "But but but they are a playoff team!!!"

Gillis was created our most successful team ever.  Our owner was foolish not allowing Gillis to rebuild when told it was what we needed.  Sat Shaw was talking about an interview the old Team radio did with Gillis just before Aquilini fired him.  Sat talked about how Gillis said he wasn’t going to be anyone’s “yes” man.  Benning came in and filled that role. 

Now we have JR.  Our owner needs to keep his nose out of setting the direction of the club.  JR knows what is best.  He will make the needed changes, providing our owner allows it. 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Alflives

[wai_lai416]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

It's a bit ironic because they (media pundits) said the same thing with Gillis.

 

A prospect pool being dry versus a lot of the players making that roster are two very different situations. Gillis left the team in complete shambles - an aging core, with no draft picks worth mentioning.

 

Benning has left a core that is relatively young,  with some prospects potentially making the big club.

 

A little bit disingenous of a talking point you have there because there are still lots of people still making excuses for Gillis lmfao. "But but but they are a playoff team!!!"

i mean that's usually the cycle teams go thru no? you go all in when you think you are close and empty everything to try and win a cup and then you are left with an aging core/no prospect and then go into a full rebuild? there's plenty of teams that went all in and left with nothing and go into a full rebuild.. the problem with vancouver was they went all in reached the end of the cycle.. suppose to go into a full rebuild to start restocking/rebuilding.. but instead went for a retools for like 5 years before finally willing to rebuild and it was honestly not even a proper rebuild taking shortcuts wherever possible. like when was the last time u saw a rebuilding team capped out every single year lol. washington pittsburgh and boston is also reaching that stage.. aging core with a pretty empty prospect pool.. only difference is they reach the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. detroit went thru the same thing after winning their last cup

[iinatcc]

2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

It's a bit ironic because they (media pundits) said the same thing with Gillis.

 

A prospect pool being dry versus a lot of the players making that roster are two very different situations. Gillis left the team in complete shambles - an aging core, with no draft picks worth mentioning.

 

Benning has left a core that is relatively young,  with some prospects potentially making the big club.

 

A little bit disingenous of a talking point you have there because there are still lots of people still making excuses for Gillis lmfao. "But but but they are a playoff team!!!"

Point about Gillis both can be true. But what does it say about Benning (who claims to come from a scouting background) that he left the Canucks with a prospect pool as bad as Gillis? 

 

Plus aside from Rathbone or maybe Lockwood who else do the Canucks have? While I am sure you can name a few more I am sure it pales in comparison to most of the teams in the league (hence Canucks were ranked 28th in the article)

 

Also a relatively young core with a culture of losing isn't exactly a recipe of success. Case in point Edmonton or Buffalo. And it probably attributes to the "country club" culture being reported right now 

[Dazzle]

8 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Point about Gillis both can be true. But what does it say about Benning (who claims to come from a scouting background) that he left the Canucks with a prospect pool as bad as Gillis? 

 

Plus aside from Rathbone or maybe Lockwood who else do the Canucks have? While I am sure you can name a few more I am sure it pales in comparison to most of the teams in the league (hence Canucks were ranked 28th in the article)

 

Also a relatively young core with a culture of losing isn't exactly a recipe of success. Case in point Edmonton or Buffalo. And it probably attributes to the "country club" culture being reported right now 

In that case, might as well blow up the team with your mindset.

[iinatcc]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

In that case, might as well blow up the team with your mindset.

Actually an option I was thinking actually 

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, iinatcc said:

Actually an option I was thinking actually 

Let's complain about Benning and how he didn't do a rebuild, so let's blow it up and rebuild.

 

There's really no need to "blow it up". There are good pieces in place. It just needs some tweaking. No need to throw away draft picks - just retool. Honestly, the Canucks would've made the playoffs if Green didn't stay as long as he did. You take the same Benning team from this year with Green and put it with Boudreau. That's what happened.

 

So this is less about Benning's team being bad as it is about Green being a bad coach.

[DrJockitch]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Let's complain about Benning and how he didn't do a rebuild, so let's blow it up and rebuild.

 

There's really no need to "blow it up". There are good pieces in place. It just needs some tweaking. No need to throw away draft picks - just retool. Honestly, the Canucks would've made the playoffs if Green didn't stay as long as he did. You take the same Benning team from this year with Green and put it with Boudreau. That's what happened.

 

So this is less about Benning's team being bad as it is about Green being a bad coach.

This team pulled itself up to the threshold so many times and could never step through, they kept falling flat on their faces when the moment came. Every chance they had to take control of their fate they would drop games they shouldn’t. 
Yeah the end of season run was a lot of fun and yeah it was encouraging to an extent but putting together a middle of the road part of a season isn’t really something to hang your hat on. 
With the changes Benning made there is no certainty that it would have gone better for Bruce if he had been here all year, there were so many new players.  Heck, it may have ended worse if Bruce was here all year if the team started similarly which given the degree of change is realistically possible no matter who the coach was.  With no coaching change bump it may have been worse (or maybe better from an asset acquisition standpoint). I don’t think that is what would have happened but recognize it is as possible as the fantasy that we were clearly a playoff team if Bruce was coaching us all year. 
I think big changes will come though PA is somewhat handcuffed by the number of bad deals that are Benning’s legacy.  As I have been saying all along, I think the fact that JR was displeased enough with the Canucks management structure that he mostly cleared it out has to be reflective of what he thinks of the makeup of the team, in need of major renovations.