2019 Off-Season Non-Management Thread - Canucks/Boeser talking 4-5 years, $7m AAV - Kypreos)

[y2kcanucks]

This is incorrect. You can get good players at any point in a cycle. Your pro-scouting has to be good though. Almost moneypuck, in a way.

There is value out there, with or without high end picks. With or without being competitive. You just have to recognize it. Benning does not, and it doesn’t look like he ever will.

Case in point: 2016 when I was saying we should sign Jonathan Marchessault. He turned into a very good player. Could have been had for a milly.

 

[sting101]

I'd actually argue that was one of his better pro D signings/acquisitions. No I'm not joking. Signing a UFA D for depth to a one year deal on a fairly cheap contract. Course, after FIVE YEARS, if this is one of his better pro scouting D signings/acquisitions; that indicates just how good the rest of his 'managerial skills' were. Even Dave 'Do Nothing' Nonis got Willie Mitchell (in fewer seasons).

yes but Mitchell came home to a good team that could compete

 

[Bleach Clean]

yes it does if you start using names that were meant to be in certain roles and had to play higher in the lineup and then got exposed.

I dont want to get into into re hashing it. The core sucked and when role players play from behind they generally suck also. Look at the btm 10 teams the last 5 yrs and give me a list of the good players they aquired during Bennings tenure that didnt cost them substantial assets or crazy cap dollars.

Y2K has already listed one example. But sure, set out the parameters of what constitutes "crazy cap dollars" and I will put a list together. I'll do the homework.

Your general premise is highly dubious. Effectively, you're saying that if said players didn't have to play higher in the line-up, they wouldn't be exposed, and so therefore would be regarded as good players. It supposes that pro-scouts around the league can't discern between a good and bad player outside of their best fitting environment. It's clearly false.

 

[Hit the post]

yes but Mitchell came home to a good team that could compete

How good were we though? At the time he signed, we had missed the playoffs the season before. And prior to the lockout season, only won all of two playoff series in the previous 10 years (missing the playoffs 4 of those 10 years).

 

[bandwagonesque]

So...we're back to being heckled because we're expecting a gm who makes bad moves the vast majority of the time to make bad moves?

And hilarious to see Pettersson used as an example of a good move. As if picking a good player with a 5th overall draft pick is something weird and arcane. Show you how bad his performance really is when not ****ing up something extremely basic is heralded as something special.

For the most part, they aren't heralding it as something special. It's a test case to see if certain posters can simply admit Benning or the front office in general made a good decision, without qualifying it or mentioning past poor decisions only marginally related to it. Most can't.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

What for you is more significant and annoying/frustrating?

People's pre conditioned negative responses to Benning acquisitions?

Or

Benning's poor pro scouting resulting in a general theme of bad trades and signings?

I agree with you about those pre conditioned negative responses that I have seen people here have... but perhaps there is reason for that??

I would say both are equally annoying to me. It annoys me that Benning has made so many blunders, but I also believe in telling it like it is - he’s done some good things, but there’s a tendency to reflexively dislike anything he says or does (or might do).

Not saying everyone here is guilty of that, but there are those who are.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

For the most part, they aren't heralding it as something special. It's a test case to see if certain posters can simply admit Benning or the front office in general made a good decision, without qualifying it or mentioning past poor decisions only marginally related to it. Most can't.

Complete crap. When Benning actually does something objectively good, it is almost universally applauded. Can you remember the thread for the Burrows trade? How about the Hansen trade? Even if the returns have ended up being nothing special down the road, Benning was actually doing something sensible: trading older, declining vets for young players.

We're just getting really sick of "But Pettersson! But Boeser!" every time Benning's name is mentioned. By now there's a large enough body of work that demonstrates there's a lot more bad than good with this guy. We're long past the point of taking individual deals or players in isolation.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I would say both are equally annoying to me. It annoys me that Benning has made so many blunders, but I also believe in telling it like it is - he’s done some good things, but there’s a tendency to reflexively dislike anything he says or does (or might do).

Not saying everyone here is guilty of that, but there are those who are.

There are, and there are those that blindly promote whatever he does. In any given sample of the fanbase, you will find both extremes. To me, these segments stay this way until specifics are addressed. When someone is lazily condemning a Benning move, address it then and there. Outline why the criticism is needless. The same should be done to the argument that blindly follows the thone, if you will.

Without specifics, it's arguing semantics and stereotypes. It will lead nowhere.

 

[Cupless44]

When it comes to July 1 and Benning’s UFA record there is no room for debate that it is abysmal. Whether you support Benning or don’t like him, nothing to even discuss there.

 

[Melvin]

I would say both are equally annoying to me. It annoys me that Benning has made so many blunders, but I also believe in telling it like it is - he’s done some good things, but there’s a tendency to reflexively dislike anything he says or does (or might do).

Not saying everyone here is guilty of that, but there are those who are.

I would argue that it would be quite difficult for you to find much evidence of this actually happening. When people dislike a transaction, they almost always outline exactly why they dislike it and give clear logic and reasons for disliking it. When you dismiss those reasons and accuse them of "reflexively dislik[ing] anything he does," you are engaging in an ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking the person's motives instead of his argument. This behaviour (the tendency to focus on motive over argument) is the single most frustrating thing about trying to engage on this forum.

The problem with those who champion everything that Benning does is that this behaviour tends to pretzel them into making extremely poor arguments, and it is those arguments that are then torn apart, as they should be. If someone who is very against Benning (such as myself) is similarly making really bad arguments in an attempt to discredit Benning, then those arguments too deserve to be shredded. By focusing instead on my motive instead of my argument you are not discrediting anything I say and are just lowering the quality of discourse without addressing my argument.

I cannot communicate the level of frustration involved in putting a lot of careful thought into an opinion, taking the time to write it all out here with as much reason as you can and then having people dismiss it "you just hate it cause you hate everything benning does!" and knowing that this non-response is perfectly within the forum rules even though it does nothing to advance the discussion.

Having said that, of course we are all biased because we are all human, and it's impossible to ever come to any opinion about something Benning does without it being coloured by your previous opinions of him. That is true of 100% of the people here. All we can do is try to be self-aware and put forth the best arguments we can, hoping that others will check us if we argue poorly.

 

[Carnal]

I would say both are equally annoying to me. It annoys me that Benning has made so many blunders, but I also believe in telling it like it is - he’s done some good things, but there’s a tendency to reflexively dislike anything he says or does (or might do).

Not saying everyone here is guilty of that, but there are those who are.

Seriously? You find people posting annoyingly here on the same level as the GM of your favourite team consistently screwing up trades and signings?

I've read an anti Benning poster here arrogantly boasting about how he's always right, which is annoying I suppose. But I'd rather put up with that all day if we had a GM who was even just 50% in his trades and signings.

Am I out to lunch on this?

 

[polarbearcub]

When it comes to July 1 and Benning’s UFA record there is no room for debate that it is abysmal. Whether you support Benning or don’t like him, nothing to even discuss there.

When Radim vrbata and Ryan Miller are still your best ufa signings .. 5 years later... you know it’s bad

 

[The Drop]

Why do canuck fans do this to themselves?

 

[polarbearcub]

Why do canuck fans do this to themselves?

Was sundin there buying a bbq too?

I find it virtually impossible that EK could be hanging with Canucks and ownership downtown and not a single photo emerged.

And secondly he’s still property of the sharks. Any. Hanging around Canucks ownership would be tampering. If he wanted to speak to the Canucks ownership he would have done so quietly

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

lmao "trever"

 

[Carnal]

Why do canuck fans do this to themselves?

I heard this too. My neighbour has an uncle who used to go fishing with Dana Murzyn's second cousin, and he was under the impression that Karlsson will be signing here too. I will see if I can find the tweet...

 

[Melvin]

Why do canuck fans do this to themselves?

Who is Tej Dhaliwal?

 

[polarbearcub]

Who is Tej Dhaliwal?

Who is he? An idiot who can’t spell who’s full of shit

 

[The Drop]

Karlsson at a steakhouse in Van is gonna go down in history.

 

[Melvin]

Who is he? An idiot who can’t spell who’s full of ****

No, that's his friend.

 

[rypper]

Who is Tej Dhaliwal?

Owner/optometrist at image optical on kingsway apparently.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Why do canuck fans do this to themselves?

Yeah, that would totally be tampering. Nice try, Tej.

 

[The Drop]

Who is Tej Dhaliwal?

Just some twitter guy. I just posted it because it’s a slow day

 

[Bleach Clean]

I would argue that it would be quite difficult for you to find much evidence of this actually happening. When people dislike a transaction, they almost always outline exactly why they dislike it and give clear logic and reasons for disliking it. When you dismiss those reasons and accuse them of "reflexively dislik[ing] anything he does," you are engaging in an ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking the person's motives instead of his argument. This behaviour (the tendency to focus on motive over argument) is the single most frustrating thing about trying to engage on this forum.

The problem with those who champion everything that Benning does is that this behaviour tends to pretzel them into making extremely poor arguments, and it is those arguments that are then torn apart, as they should be. If someone who is very against Benning (such as myself) is similarly making really bad arguments in an attempt to discredit Benning, then those arguments too deserve to be shredded. By focusing instead on my motive instead of my argument you are not discrediting anything I say and are just lowering the quality of discourse without addressing my argument.

Very well said.

I think, however, that MC is right in that there is a choice, at the margins, to lean one way or the other. That in those circumstances, bias can show through when neutrality would be the logical course.

Like you, I hate Benning's work on the whole. That said, on the few occasions he does something good, as in holding firm on the Edler situation, I credit him. Those occurrences are few and far between, but they're there.

Anyways, this is commentary on the minority opinion. The majority of posters can recognize a sound argument when it is made.

 

[polarbearcub]

No, that's his friend.

Ok fine.

Still tampering