The Hypocrisy in the Media and the Fanbase about the New Regime

[The Lock]

5 hours ago, Chris12345 said:

Interesting that Burkie continues to be employed....Huge fan.

Burke has a cup ring which often leads to a lot of leeway in getting jobs down the road.

[kanucks25]

10 minutes ago, Baggins said:

So Benning knew well ahead of time a player would be available in free agency and want to sign here? That's some crystal ball. 

Not saying he knew he was going to sign Loui specifically, but he refused to take on cap dumps during the "rebuild" and instead used the free money every year on terrible UFA contracts.

 

10 minutes ago, Baggins said:

I don't blame him for taking a young D-man instead. We needed young players with some potential.

What do you mean he took a young D-man instead? He didn't get anything for Hamhuis...

[StanleyCupOneDay]

3 hours ago, iinatcc said:

I assume Alvin and Rutherford were trying to shape up the d-core but wasn't able to get it done sadly. But what did you really want JR to say entering the season that this "defense isn't good?" that going to kill the morale of the roster.

 

Having said that the team doesn't exactly have any assets to make a deal. Even trading Miller the deal wasn't there and it doesn't help that the team Miller was linked to the most, The Rangers, performed very well this off seasons which makes me believe that Rangers management probably don't see a need to trade for Miller anymore.

 

If there is any hypocrisy at all it's the Benning supporters here. I mean how many people here still defend Benning and blame Gillis for most of Benning's shortcomings and he had 8 years to fix it. Rutherford and Alvin only had a 2/3 of a season d now people are blaming they didn't fix most of Benning's mess.

 

Point is give it time, yes this off season was a disappointment but I think it's fair to give this management time to address the issues the team has.

 

Bad contracts, lack of assets, years of a losing culture. 

 

Maybe I’m blind, but please point me to any non-hater of Benning (note that I didn’t say supporter, there’s a difference between them) saying his mistakes were because of Gillis. I’ll wait.

[StanleyCupOneDay]

3 hours ago, AV. said:

Yep, the bolded in spot on.  Even though I personally think this new regime should be doing more, it's pretty funny to see that the jury is out on them after 8 months from the exact same people who gave Benning (and would have continued giving him) the better part of eight years.

That’s not the point they/we are making. I don’t think I even remember a post from you that wasn’t about bashing Benning btw, so you’re not exactly unbiased.

 

The point is that this team is the same as what Benning constructed and instead of criticism for not doing anything the circle jerk brigade is lavishing the new management with praise for doing absolutely nothing! Had people just said hey give it time before judging I don’t think anyone would be arguing. However that’s not the case, people are hailing the new GM as great when they called the previous one an idiot with the exact same roster as the previous GM. That’s called hypocrisy and bias.

 

Before you go making assumptions I do think as do most non-haters of Benning that it’s far too early to say either way or judge the new managements performance, it’s a wait and see. But for those licking their boots now who were screaming bloody murder with the old group then it’s extremely clear you have an agenda to drive in order to somehow feel you were right before the jury has even been seated.

[The Lock]

4 hours ago, AV. said:

Yep, the bolded in spot on.  Even though I personally think this new regime should be doing more, it's pretty funny to see that the jury is out on them after 8 months from the exact same people who gave Benning (and would have continued giving him) the better part of eight years.

So what exactly are you expecting? At this point I expect to see you in a pretty pink dress looking for that perfect prince charming of management that's at the end of some rainbow next to a pot of amazing trades that ignore everything there is regarding trades and cap space....

[AV.]

4 minutes ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:

That’s not the point they/we are making. I don’t think I even remember a post from you that wasn’t about bashing Benning btw, so you’re not exactly unbiased.

 

The point is that this team is the same as what Benning constructed and instead of criticism for not doing anything the circle jerk brigade is lavishing the new management with praise for doing absolutely nothing! Had people just said hey give it time before judging I don’t think anyone would be arguing. However that’s not the case, people are hailing the new GM as great when they called the previous one an idiot with the exact same roster as the previous GM. That’s called hypocrisy and bias.

 

Before you go making assumptions I do think as do most non-haters of Benning that it’s far too early to say either way or judge the new managements performance, it’s a wait and see. But for those licking their boots now who were screaming bloody murder with the old group then it’s extremely clear you have an agenda to drive in order to somehow feel you were right before the jury has even been seated.

Not surprised that the "Before you go making assumptions" comment is preceded by a block of text that, of course, assumes and contrives YET ANOTHER false notion pushed by Benning supporters.  Apparently now, people have been "praising" this management group?  About what exactly and where?  There have been two moods around here - people restless for moves happen and people thankful that the management team isn't doing stupid $&!# like Benning would be doing.  Any "praise" is stemming from management doing the bare minimum/not doing dumb stuff.  Talk about a low bar for "praise" when people can't even be content with the management team if they're going to get called hypocrites for that.

Look, it's great that you personally might be willing to wait to pass judgment.  Evidently, the OP on the other hand has proven here, and time and time again, that they care more about subtly pumping Benning's tires and agenda-driving than they care about understanding and coming to term with the current status of the Canucks.  Hence, this awkward post made in the middle of the night in late July asking to examine supposed "hypocrisy" when really, the time to ask such a question would be at training camp.

Again, there's a difference between critiquing the current management's performance, and critiquing them with the intention to demonstrate that things are similar/not different to how they were with the old regime, to suggest that a mistake may have been made in switching management personnel.  The former is fine and should be encouraged, the latter (which is going on here) is just mindless drivel.

[AV.]

9 minutes ago, The Lock said:

So what exactly are you expecting? At this point I expect to see you in a pretty pink dress looking for that perfect prince charming of management that's at the end of some rainbow next to a pot of amazing trades that ignore everything there is regarding trades and cap space....

I'm happy to remain patient but I'm also happy to entertain any critiques of management because they've had their probationary period.  Wanting a proactive and accountable management doesn't need to mean that things need to happen literally today or tomorrow; it just needs to happen before it's too late.  The minute you start making excuses for a management team, it's over.  In other words, we can't be going into training camp again with all of our guys who have been OTB.  This is why I say that it's fine for people to criticize this management's passiveness thus far because time is ticking.  What's not fine is to write off this management and say things haven't changed from the previous management, when time spent on the job between both regimes is not even reasonably close to the same amount.

[awalk]

18 minutes ago, AV. said:

Not surprised that the "Before you go making assumptions" comment is preceded by a block of text that, of course, assumes and contrives YET ANOTHER false notion pushed by Benning supporters.  Apparently now, people have been "praising" this management group?  About what exactly and where?  There have been two moods around here - people restless for moves happen and people thankful that the management team isn't doing stupid $&!# like Benning would be doing.  Any "praise" is stemming from management doing the bare minimum/not doing dumb stuff.  Talk about a low bar for "praise" when people can't even be content with the management team if they're going to get called hypocrites for that.

Look, it's great that you personally might be willing to wait to pass judgment.  Evidently, the OP on the other hand has proven here, and time and time again, that they care more about subtly pumping Benning's tires and agenda-driving than they care about understanding and coming to term with the current status of the Canucks.  Hence, this awkward post made in the middle of the night in late July asking to examine supposed "hypocrisy" when really, the time to ask such a question would be at training camp.

Again, there's a difference between critiquing the current management's performance, and critiquing them with the intention to demonstrate that things are similar/not different to how they were with the old regime, to suggest that a mistake may have been made in switching management personnel.  The former is fine and should be encouraged, the latter (which is going on here) is just mindless drivel.

[48MPHSlapShot]

Are we really doing the GM argument again? 

 

Alright fine. 

 

Personally, I'm frustrated with our new management group. They've failed to accomplish any of the goals they set for themselves when they first arrived, and now we're faced with a team that looks very similar, albeit somewhat improved up front, to Benning's 2021/22 team. I haven't seen the creativity I was hoping for from this management group thus far, and when I see Rutherford say "We tried to do this and that, but we couldn't", it doesn't fill me with confidence.

 

With that said, I can acknowledge that with the way the market is right now and the bad contracts Benning saddled us with, it was always going to be difficult for this group to hit the ground running. That doesn't mean I'm not disappointed thus far (I've voiced my displeasure with their offseason numerous times), but it's at least understandable. 

 

As far as Benning goes, I'll start with the positives. The drafting under him was the best the franchise has seen in a long time. Certainly not perfect *coughVirtanenJuolevicough*, but better than it had been in a long time, although consistently having high picks to work with played a big role in that. 

 

Benning also seemed to get better at making trades as his tenure went on, at least up until the disastrous OEL trade. Certainly not saying that his trade record was remotely close to what I would consider "good", but he seemed to be improving in that regard...at least up until the OEL trade. 

 

Now the bad, and there's a lot of bad.

 

Probably the single biggest black mark on a tenure filled with black marks (which contradicts my solitary good grade for Benning....go figure) was Benning's inability to build a defense, despite years and years of high draft picks. The fact that the only full time NHL defenseman on our roster to come out of all of those drafts was Quinn Hughes is inexcusable, and the single biggest reason why we're in the position we're in now.

 

Then there was his tendency to constantly move picks, despite us being a rebuilding team. I understand the logic behind moving picks for young, near NHL-ready players in order to speed up the rebuild. The problem was that those young players (Vey, Baertsch, Stanton, etc...) never panned out. The scouting on that end of things was absolutely atrocious, and move like this cost us dearly in the long run.

 

Then there was his tendency to overpay for veteran free agents. Anyone that knew anything about anything should have known that the players he typically targeted in free agency would be declining assets pretty much as soon as they arrived. I'll give him a mulligan on Player Name, as nobody could have predicted how hard he would fall off, but guys like Beagle, Roussel, Gagne, Poolman, etc... All guys that were declining assets as soon as they put on Canuck colors and put us in cap hell for years. We should have been getting teams to pay us for taking on their bad contracts, not handing out bad contracts of our own. 

 

The fact that Myers, who we all agree is overpaid, is one of Benning's best free agent signings is a testament to how bad Benning was in this regard.

 

Now let's go back to his trade record for a moment. Overall, if we're just looking a number of trades won vs number of trades lost, Benning's +/- is probably about even. That being said, the magnitude of a few of his trade losses greatly outweighs the magnitude of any of his trade wins. In particular The Gudbranson and OEL trades, both of which were absolutely disastrous for the franchise. 

 

Then there was re-upping Green. Not a whole lot to say here. Just another bad move probably cost us the playoffs last year. 

 

Then there was chasing away Judd Bracket. Another massive mistake, this time driven by Benning's own ego, which cost us one of the best scouts in the league. Incidentally, Minnesota's prospect pool is amongst the best in the league now. I imagine Ian Clark wouldn't have been resigned either had Demko not basically begged management to resign him publicly last year. The fact that this was even a question is another black mark on Benning imo. 

 

And then we get to the 2020 offseason. The most destructive offseason that I can remember. Benning's tunnel vision for OEL cost us Tanev, Toffoli and Stetcher, and Benning wasn't even able to get the guy he wanted that offseason. There's absolutely no excuse for how that went down. Not to mention that all of the momentum and goodwill that our playoff run created was lost. 

 

There's more too. The toxic environment that Benning created behind the scenes comes to mind. 

 

At the end of the day our current management deserves criticism for being as passive as they've been thus far imo, but to compare their track record over a handful of months to Benning's 7 years of hell is absurd.

Edited July 30, 2022 by 48MPHSlapShot

[Fred65]

4 hours ago, Vinny in Vancouver said:

Apparently, Travis Green was considered for the Dallas Star' coaching job: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/former-canucks-coach-travis-green-dallas-stars

I heard that too, but here's the imprtant part, he was dismissed

[AV.]

6 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Are we really doing the GM argument again? 

 

Alright fine. 

 

Personally, I'm frustrated with our new management group. They've failed to accomplish any of the goals they set for themselves when they first arrived, and now we're faced with a team that looks very similar, albeit somewhat improved up front, to Benning's 2021/22 team. I haven't seen the creativity I was hoping for from this management group thus far, and when I see Rutherford say "We tried to do this and that, but we couldn't", it doesn't fill me with confidence.

 

With that said, I can acknowledge that with the way the market is right now and the bad contracts Benning saddled us with, it was always going to be difficult for this group to hit the ground running. That doesn't mean I'm not disappointed thus far (I've voiced my displeasure with their offseason numerous times), but it's at least understandable. 

 

As far as Benning goes, I'll start with the positives. The drafting under him was the best the franchise has seen in a long time. Certainly not perfect *coughVirtanenJuolevicough*, but better than it had been in a long time, although consistently having high picks to work with played a big role in that. 

 

Benning also seemed to get better at making trades as his tenure went on, at least up until the disastrous OEL trade. Certainly not saying that his trade record was remotely close to what I would consider "good", but he seemed to be improving in that regard...at least up until the OEL trade. 

 

Now the bad, and there's a lot of bad.

 

Probably the single biggest black mark on a tenure filled with black marks (which contradicts my solitary good grade for Benning....go figure) was Benning's inability to build a defense, despite years and years of high draft picks. The fact that the only full time NHL defenseman on our roster to come out of all of those drafts was Quinn Hughes is inexcusable, and the single biggest reason why we're in the position we're in now.

 

Then there was his tendency to constantly move picks, despite us being a rebuilding team. I understand the logic behind moving picks for young, near NHL-ready players in order to speed up the rebuild. The problem was that those young players (Vey, Baertsch, Stanton, etc...) never panned out. The scouting on that end of things was absolutely atrocious, and move like this cost us dearly in the long run.

 

Then there was his tendency to overpay for veteran free agents. Anyone that knew anything about anything should have known that the players he typically targeted in free agency would be declining assets pretty much as soon as they arrived. I'll give him a mulligan on Player Name, as nobody could have predicted how hard he would fall off, but guys like Beagle, Roussel, Gagne, Poolman, etc... All guys that were declining assets as soon as they put on Canuck colors and put us in cap hell for years. We should have been getting teams to pay us for taking on their bad contracts, not handing out bad contracts of our own. 

 

The fact that Myers, who we all agree is overpaid, is one of Benning's best free agent signings is a testament to how bad Benning was in this regard.

 

Now let's go back to his trade record for a moment. Overall, if we're just looking a number of trades won vs number of trades lost, Benning's +/- is probably about even. That being said, the magnitude of a few of his trade losses greatly outweighs the magnitude of any of his trade wins. In particular The Gudbranson and OEL trades, both of which were absolutely disastrous for the franchise. 

 

Then there was re-upping Green. Not a whole lot to say here. Just another bad move probably cost us the playoffs last year. 

 

Then there was chasing away Judd Bracket. Another massive mistake, this time driven by Benning's own ego, which cost us one of the best scouts in the league. Incidentally, Minnesota's prospect pool is amongst the best in the league now. I imagine Ian Clark wouldn't have been resigned either had Demko not basically begged management to resign him publicly last year. The fact that this was even a question is another black mark on Benning imo. 

 

And then we get to the 2020 offseason. The most destructive offseason that I can remember. Benning's tunnel vision for OEL cost us Tanev, Toffoli and Stetcher, and Benning wasn't even able to get the guy he wanted that offseason. There's absolutely no excuse for how that went down. Not to mention that all of the momentum and goodwill that our playoff run created was lost. 

 

There's more too. The toxic environment that Benning created behind the scenes comes to mind. 

 

At the end of the day our current management deserves criticism for being as passive as they've been thus far imo, but to compare their track record over a handful of months to Benning's 7 years of hell is absurd.

Stupendous post.  I have tears in my eyes from how bang on this is.

[Angry Goose]

I gave Benning & co full autonomy  to do things their way. His group had a lot of time and although dealing with COVID and related cap issues was a struggle, its his job as GM to navigate that.  Ultimately, the team got off to a terrible start last season and it was unclear where this team was going.  I liked JB as a person but he had a very old school approach to running the org and a new approach was needed.

 

Similarly Ill give this mgmt group full autonomy to do things their way.  They have their own share of difficulties to navigate and Ill give them the time/benefit of the doubt to try and do it.  So far, I like the things they have been doing.

[48MPHSlapShot]

8 minutes ago, AV. said:

Stupendous post.  I have tears in my eyes from how bang on this is.

Sad thing is that I was a defender of Benning for the longest time, blinded by the shine of multiple Calder cantidates. It's not difficult to say all of this stuff with the gift of hindsight. The tricky part is calling it out as it's happening. The tendency is always to try and remain positive, but positivity can blinding. I give you kudos for seeing through the bull$&!# and calling it like it was during Benning's tenure. 

[Chris12345]

4 hours ago, Baggins said:

Just saw your comment as "who else did he draft". Didn't realize you only wanted goalies. That wouldn't be much of a list for most GM's. 

Exactly. I couldn't remember I thought it was Sneids and that's it. That's not good or bad, purely facts.

[Chris12345]

44 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I heard that too, but here's the imprtant part, he was dismissed

Was he dismissed or just having fun living in Cali cashing Aqua's cheques?

Edited July 30, 2022 by Chris12345

[The Lock]

4 hours ago, AV. said:

I'm happy to remain patient but I'm also happy to entertain any critiques of management because they've had their probationary period.  Wanting a proactive and accountable management doesn't need to mean that things need to happen literally today or tomorrow; it just needs to happen before it's too late.  The minute you start making excuses for a management team, it's over.  In other words, we can't be going into training camp again with all of our guys who have been OTB.  This is why I say that it's fine for people to criticize this management's passiveness thus far because time is ticking.  What's not fine is to write off this management and say things haven't changed from the previous management, when time spent on the job between both regimes is not even reasonably close to the same amount.

At this point, we might as well have a probationary period of day 1 with these standards. I wouldn't even be surprised if we had a probationary period that's already expired for the next GM that shows up in 10 years' time.

 

Look, I get it. You want results. We all do. But we have to be realistic about getting these results. I'm not saying to give this management group 8 years of probationary. I'm saying that 8 months is a stupidly small amount of time for anything to happen, especially when management literally showed up halfway through the season. This isn't even making excuses at this point and the fact that you're calling out "excuses" is laugahable at best.

 

And don't get me wrong, I totally understand the frustration, but you have to understand that, to do what you seem to want to do, it's like asking for a miracle to happen given our cap situation and the situation of all 31 other teams. It's why I think people are the most unrealistic I've ever seen on this forum. This isn't doable what you want. Period. You could bring in the best GM in the league and we'd most likely have the same results right now. And I don't expect you to accept this, no one's going to accept that they're wrong by some random dude on a forum like this, but this is reality in a semi-truck and it's hitting you at full speed dude. lol

 

Simply put, I'll be 100% surprised if we DON'T go into training camp as we are right now. Not as a knock on management, but as a knock on how hard we have it to improve this team as it stands. This isn't a management issue. This is the reality of our situation.

Edited July 30, 2022 by The Lock

[awalk]

4 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Are we really doing the GM argument again? 

 

Alright fine. 

 

Personally, I'm frustrated with our new management group. They've failed to accomplish any of the goals they set for themselves when they first arrived, and now we're faced with a team that looks very similar, albeit somewhat improved up front, to Benning's 2021/22 team. I haven't seen the creativity I was hoping for from this management group thus far, and when I see Rutherford say "We tried to do this and that, but we couldn't", it doesn't fill me with confidence.

 

With that said, I can acknowledge that with the way the market is right now and the bad contracts Benning saddled us with, it was always going to be difficult for this group to hit the ground running. That doesn't mean I'm not disappointed thus far (I've voiced my displeasure with their offseason numerous times), but it's at least understandable. 

 

As far as Benning goes, I'll start with the positives. The drafting under him was the best the franchise has seen in a long time. Certainly not perfect *coughVirtanenJuolevicough*, but better than it had been in a long time, although consistently having high picks to work with played a big role in that. 

 

Benning also seemed to get better at making trades as his tenure went on, at least up until the disastrous OEL trade. Certainly not saying that his trade record was remotely close to what I would consider "good", but he seemed to be improving in that regard...at least up until the OEL trade. 

 

Now the bad, and there's a lot of bad.

 

Probably the single biggest black mark on a tenure filled with black marks (which contradicts my solitary good grade for Benning....go figure) was Benning's inability to build a defense, despite years and years of high draft picks. The fact that the only full time NHL defenseman on our roster to come out of all of those drafts was Quinn Hughes is inexcusable, and the single biggest reason why we're in the position we're in now.

 

Then there was his tendency to constantly move picks, despite us being a rebuilding team. I understand the logic behind moving picks for young, near NHL-ready players in order to speed up the rebuild. The problem was that those young players (Vey, Baertsch, Stanton, etc...) never panned out. The scouting on that end of things was absolutely atrocious, and move like this cost us dearly in the long run.

 

Then there was his tendency to overpay for veteran free agents. Anyone that knew anything about anything should have known that the players he typically targeted in free agency would be declining assets pretty much as soon as they arrived. I'll give him a mulligan on Player Name, as nobody could have predicted how hard he would fall off, but guys like Beagle, Roussel, Gagne, Poolman, etc... All guys that were declining assets as soon as they put on Canuck colors and put us in cap hell for years. We should have been getting teams to pay us for taking on their bad contracts, not handing out bad contracts of our own. 

 

The fact that Myers, who we all agree is overpaid, is one of Benning's best free agent signings is a testament to how bad Benning was in this regard.

 

Now let's go back to his trade record for a moment. Overall, if we're just looking a number of trades won vs number of trades lost, Benning's +/- is probably about even. That being said, the magnitude of a few of his trade losses greatly outweighs the magnitude of any of his trade wins. In particular The Gudbranson and OEL trades, both of which were absolutely disastrous for the franchise. 

 

Then there was re-upping Green. Not a whole lot to say here. Just another bad move probably cost us the playoffs last year. 

 

Then there was chasing away Judd Bracket. Another massive mistake, this time driven by Benning's own ego, which cost us one of the best scouts in the league. Incidentally, Minnesota's prospect pool is amongst the best in the league now. I imagine Ian Clark wouldn't have been resigned either had Demko not basically begged management to resign him publicly last year. The fact that this was even a question is another black mark on Benning imo. 

 

And then we get to the 2020 offseason. The most destructive offseason that I can remember. Benning's tunnel vision for OEL cost us Tanev, Toffoli and Stetcher, and Benning wasn't even able to get the guy he wanted that offseason. There's absolutely no excuse for how that went down. Not to mention that all of the momentum and goodwill that our playoff run created was lost. 

 

There's more too. The toxic environment that Benning created behind the scenes comes to mind. 

 

At the end of the day our current management deserves criticism for being as passive as they've been thus far imo, but to compare their track record over a handful of months to Benning's 7 years of hell is absurd.

Spot on.

Spot on. 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

At this point, we might as well have a probationary period of day 1 with these standards. I wouldn't even be surprised if we had a probationary period that's already expired for the next GM that shows up in 10 years' time.

 

Look, I get it. You want results. We all do. But we have to be realistic about getting these results. I'm not saying to give this management group 8 years of probationary. I'm saying that 8 months is a stupidly small amount of time for anything to happen, especially when management literally showed up halfway through the season. This isn't even making excuses at this point and the fact that you're calling out "excuses" is laugahable at best.

 

And don't get me wrong, I totally understand the frustration, but you have to understand that, to do what you seem to want to do, it's like asking for a miracle to happen given our cap situation and the situation of all 31 other teams. It's why I think people are the most unrealistic I've ever seen on this forum. This isn't doable what you want. Period. And I don't expect you to accept this, but this is reality hitting you at full speed dude. lol

You do realize I'm not the OP and I'm not the one trying to shade management prematurely or act like hiring them was a mistake?  I'm also not sure why you're saying that I'm impatient and implying that I'm carrying this mentality where I think everything needs to get done immediately, but that isn't at all what I've been communicating. 

Truthfully, I've been fairly indifferent towards the speed at which things have been going, mostly because we'll be a middling team with or without certain movements made, so it matters not to me.  For the sake of management building a foundation of trust and rapport with fans, I'd prefer they'd get stuff done sooner rather than later, so that they're better prepared for future opportunities to improve the team.  This is why it would be a shot to their feet if they come into training camp without having made movement and are returning with many of the players they've had on the trading block, after all they've said about making changes.  But this is ultimately out of all of our control and this is the risk they're taking by moving slowly or passively.  With that said - and I need you to read this part carefully because it's not reflective of how I'm currently feeling - if other people want to criticize the management team for a lack of moves or because they believe they're working too slow and too passively, they have that right and I support the logic behind that. 

The fact is,  this management team has had a TDL, a draft, and are now in a free-agency period - the three major stages of the seasons for player movement.  So, ask yourself - if not during these times/stages of the season to make these major moves, then when?  Again, I have to reiterate - the minute that fans start to lower the expectations and provide more leeway for excuses and explanations than required, it's over. The logic behind this notion shouldn't be too difficult to see.  And yes, the Canucks might have their own specific constraints that impact their business, but so do other teams. 

At the end of the day, good management teams find ways to get things done no matter the circumstances - this is the only reality worth operating in.

[Timråfan]

19 hours ago, Dazzle said:

We have heard many arguments that Benning sucked as a GM. Many articles have fleshed this angle out, so we don't need to drill on this before.

 

The hypocrisy comes in when you have articles like this:

 

https://canucksarmy.com/2022/03/07/canucks-backing-themselves-corners-roster-movement-fixing-one-biggest-issues-benning-era/

The Canucks are no longer backing themselves into any corners on roster movement, fixing one of the biggest issues of the Benning Era

What? This article from Mar 2022 ended up being very wrong; we would be even more cornered than we were with cap space, given the latest free agent signings. The article was partially right though. No one would know what JR/Allvin would do. I don't know if anyone expected the Canucks to do nothing in the TDL.

 

Despite the long-winded criticisms about the roster being not good enough, JR has just recently said in his interview that the defense was good enough.

 

That makes perfect sense why he did nothing. I guess all along we have been sold a lie that Benning was this horribly incompetent managemenr. We are now in a much better state under JR/Allvin now, right? Much of this sentiment has been echoed or perpetuated by the media now.

 

The roster which was said to be poorly constructed is almost the exact same one as what JR/Allvin has now. Our team played so poorly last season under Green, but dramatically resurged under Boudreau. Is the name of the GM that much of an influence in our drastic shift of opinions? Maybe it was a coaching issue from the very beginning which Benning never considered.

 

People who say it's a night and day difference under JR are just lying to themselves. The roster has basically remained the same. We have not collected additional draft picks. AND we are potentially talking about tying ourselves up with a long term contract because we have always loved our players too much.

 

What will it take for people to realize that this is just a re-tooled version of Benning's team? How can we really say that JR 'put his stamp' on this team despite making no roster changes?

 

In order for us to make further changes, we'll have to sell low with our players from now on to free cap space. JR has essentially handcuffed himself by not unloading JT Miller and addressing the so-called holes of this roster. Maybe this is an ownership issue, NOT the personnel one. We are unfortunately backed into a corner, contrary to the overly optimistic article above.

 

Maybe the media has no freaking clue what they're talking about and are just pushing narratives.

 

It seems you are not capable to understand what JR and Allvin talked about. 
They want a faster team. 
They don’t want to spend assets/picks.

The players they want to trade isn’t tradeable.

Bennings players except the core isn’t of any larger interest unless we send assets/draftpicks along. 
 

And finally, the GM isn’t a scout. The GM is a communicater/HR guy first and foremost.

The rest of the organisation are capable to scout, draft, write contract etc.

 

Benning fooled you real hard and those are the hardest to let go. 

[Timråfan]

1 hour ago, AV. said:

You do realize I'm not the OP and I'm not the one trying to shade management prematurely or act like hiring them was a mistake?  I'm also not sure why you're saying that I'm impatient and implying that I'm carrying this mentality where I think everything needs to get done immediately, but that isn't at all what I've been communicating. 

Truthfully, I've been fairly indifferent towards the speed at which things have been going, mostly because we'll be a middling team with or without certain movements made, so it matters not to me.  For the sake of management building a foundation of trust and rapport with fans, I'd prefer they'd get stuff done sooner rather than later, so that they're better prepared for future opportunities to improve the team.  This is why it would be a shot to their feet if they come into training camp without having made movement and are returning with many of the players they've had on the trading block, after all they've said about making changes.  But this is ultimately out of all of our control and this is the risk they're taking by moving slowly or passively.  With that said - and I need you to read this part carefully because it's not reflective of how I'm currently feeling - if other people want to criticize the management team for a lack of moves or because they believe they're working too slow and too passively, they have that right and I support the logic behind that. 

The fact is,  this management team has had a TDL, a draft, and are now in a free-agency period - the three major stages of the seasons for player movement.  So, ask yourself - if not during these times/stages of the season to make these major moves, then when?  Again, I have to reiterate - the minute that fans start to lower the expectations and provide more leeway for excuses and explanations than required, it's over. The logic behind this notion shouldn't be too difficult to see.  And yes, the Canucks might have their own specific constraints that impact their business, but so do other teams. 

At the end of the day, good management teams find ways to get things done no matter the circumstances - this is the only reality worth operating in.

Sorry if I jump in.

What trades can the new management do without spending assets/picks?

Or trade away Miller for less?