2020 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread II

[MS]

Not according to Jason Botchford..Essentially, its your word against his.

Come on.

You have one throwaway quote from a Botchford article.

Going against that, you have 4 years from 2014-18 where Benning is videoed multiple times running trade talks, mentioned constantly in reports of trade talks, and refers to himself running trade discussions constantly in interviews. Outside of that one quote, there isn't a single shred of evidence that Linden was ever directly involved in trade discussions. Not a single report, and it would have been pretty significant news.

Is it possible that maybe Linden was lightly involved in some discussion at some point and that's what was reported through to Botchford? I don't know. But we can say with an incredibly high degree of certainty that Benning was manning the phones in trade discussions consistently from 2014-2018 because it's literally on video, on numerous occasions. And virtually every significant transaction the team made in this period can be linked to Jim Benning running the trade talks.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Come on.

You have one throwaway quote from a Botchford article.

Going against that, you have 4 years from 2014-18 where Benning is videoed multiple times running trade talks, mentioned constantly in reports of trade talks, and refers to himself running trade discussions constantly in interviews. Outside of that one quote, there isn't a single shred of evidence that Linden was ever directly involved in trade discussions. Not a single report, and it would have been pretty significant news.

Is it possible that maybe Linden was lightly involved in some discussion at some point and that's what was reported through to Botchford? I don't know. But we can say with an incredibly high degree of certainty that Benning was manning the phones in trade discussions consistently from 2014-2018 because it's literally on video, on numerous occasions. And virtually every significant transaction the team made in this period can be linked to Jim Benning running the trade talks.

A throwaway quote..?..Whatever man, that quote is an established fact, ..
The rehabilitation of Trevor Linden’s reputation has begun

Not at all interested in your conspiracy theories. (got caught on videotape discussing a trade?..lol)..Just the facts please.

 

[Bleach Clean]

What you are accusing me of framing is exactly what I think you're doing - combining transactions that are separate. I never said trading those assets makes "everything square" or absolves the previous mistakes and I don't believe that to be true. Those past transactions are already done and can be judged separately.

What I am saying is that it would be possible for a trade moving a negative asset to be successful.

Using them most extreme example, trading negative asset Eriksson and future asset of a 6th round pick for a 7th round pick would be a home run. Conversely, trading Podkolzin and Jamie Benn for a 7th round pick to dump Benn's final year would be awful.

Obviously all potential deals would fall in between those. For example, in my opinion trading Virtanen, Eriksson and Sutter for nothing and then using that 13 million to sign other players would be great. I don't need to factor in that Virtanen was a bad pick, Sutter was a bad trade or Eriksson was a bad signing. I just think it's a good move for the current team. It's important to remember all those bad things when discussing the GM in general but that's a separate issue.

I see what you're saying. You're saying Eriksson is a mistake made. The move to deal Eriksson is a separate transaction.

Ok, so let's consider your example: Eriksson + 6th for a 7th.

In this hypothetical deal, a bad asset is being sold by dropping a round in the draft. Meaning, value is being given up in order to move a bad contract. In terms of value, this is bad, correct? You are paying someone to take on a mistake you made.

If you agree that it is bad, then what you're really arguing is that the degree of assets can be so heavily shifted so as to make it worth the trade off. In a hypothetical sense, agreed (which should resolve this part of the discussion). In a realistic sense, we know better.

Trading Virtanen for nothing is not great.

 

[MS]

A throwaway quote..?..Whatever man, that quote is an established fact, ..

Not at all interested in your conspiracy theories. (got caught on videotape discussing a trade?)..Just the facts please.

I'm sorry, but have you lost your mind here?

The Kesler trade discussions with Benning running them were filmed and put on the Canuck website as a feature video. This is not some 'conspiracy theory'. This is literally the definition of a fact. Likewise, there is tons of video of Benning on the phone (and in person on the floor) discussing a Lucic trade in 2015 and the potential trade-down in 2017.

It is absolutely unequivocal that Jim Benning was running trade discussions for this team from 2014-2018. There is an absolute mountain of evidence to support this and literally nothing to support the opposite.

The only thing you have is one throwaway quote from an unknown source telling Botchford that Linden was on the phones sometimes. We don't know how much, we don't know if this was just once, we don't know who this information is coming from. The lack of awareness of you accusing me of 'conspiracy theories' for saying the GM was making the trades he was on video making while you invent some narrative supported by nothing based on one quote ... is astonishing.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I see what you're saying. You're saying Eriksson is a mistake made. The move to deal Eriksson is a separate transaction.

Ok, so let's consider your example: Eriksson + 6th for a 7th.

In this hypothetical deal, a bad asset is being sold by dropping a round in the draft. Meaning, value is being given up in order to move a bad contract. In terms of value, this is bad, correct? You are paying someone to take on a mistake you made.

If you agree that it is bad, then what you're really arguing is that the degree of assets can be so heavily shifted so as to make it worth the trade off. In a hypothetical sense, agreed (which should resolve this part of the discussion). In a realistic sense, we know better.

Trading Virtanen for nothing is not great.

No, the value of that trade is excellent and the decision to make it is completely independent of the original decision to sign Eriksson. Pretending to misunderstand or disagree with this is pointless.

 

[m9]

I see what you're saying. You're saying Eriksson is a mistake made. The move to deal Eriksson is a separate transaction.

Ok, so let's consider your example: Eriksson + 6th for a 7th.

In this hypothetical deal, a bad asset is being sold by dropping a round in the draft. Meaning, value is being given up in order to move a bad contract. In terms of value, this is bad, correct? You are paying someone to take on a mistake you made.

If you agree that it is bad, then what you're really arguing is that the degree of assets can be so heavily shifted so as to make it worth the trade off. In a hypothetical sense, agreed (which should resolve this part of the discussion). In a realistic sense, we know better.

Trading Virtanen for nothing is not great.

But it's not for nothing, it's to create cap space. And then that cap space can be used to sign other players. If you trade Virtanen for cap room and then don't use the cap space, then yes that would be bad.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'm sorry, but have you lost your mind here?

The Kesler trade discussions with Benning running them were filmed and put on the Canuck website as a feature video. This is not some 'conspiracy theory'. This is literally the definition of a fact. Likewise, there is tons of video of Benning on the phone (and in person on the floor) discussing a Lucic trade in 2015 and the potential trade-down in 2017.

It is absolutely unequivocal that Jim Benning was running trade discussions for this team from 2014-2018. There is an absolute mountain of evidence to support this and literally nothing to support the opposite.

The only thing you have is one throwaway quote from an unknown source telling Botchford that Linden was on the phones sometimes. We don't know how much, we don't know if this was just once, we don't know who this information is coming from. The lack of awareness of you accusing me of 'conspiracy theories' for saying the GM was making the trades he was on video making while you invent some narrative supported by nothing based on one quote ... is astonishing.

MS, you have to accept that Botchford quote. You cannot selectively dismiss it. Don't go the road of POM, who has selectively dismissed quotes only to post quotes as his evidence. That way lies folly.

That said, it's easy to accept that quote and still provide specific pieces of evidence to the contrary. I can think of 3 off of the top of my head. What's more, it leaves POM exposed to the Linden overruling of the 2017 draft. If POM is pushing that Linden was the decision maker so as to resolve Benning's poor record, then Benning should get no credit for the Pettersson pick...

Or, get this: Is Benning then credited with the Hughes pick? Linden was still here during the draft...

Not to mention, there is a post-2017 Benning record that I have posted that still calls into question Benning's competence. More than enough material to slam the door shut on POM's narrative.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I'm sorry, but have you lost your mind here?

The Kesler trade discussions with Benning running them were filmed and put on the Canuck website as a feature video. This is not some 'conspiracy theory'. This is literally the definition of a fact. Likewise, there is tons of video of Benning on the phone (and in person on the floor) discussing a Lucic trade in 2015 and the potential trade-down in 2017.

It is absolutely unequivocal that Jim Benning was running trade discussions for this team from 2014-2018. There is an absolute mountain of evidence to support this and literally nothing to support the opposite.

The only thing you have is one throwaway quote from an unknown source telling Botchford that Linden was on the phones sometimes. We don't know how much, we don't know if this was just once, we don't know who this information is coming from. The lack of awareness of you accusing me of 'conspiracy theories' for saying the GM was making the trades he was on video making while you invent some narrative supported by nothing based on one quote ... is astonishing.

Not a throwaway quote.,not an offhand remark either..It is his published word ...Your going to have to take the" L" for this one.

Jason Botchford: Canucks’ nosedive likely didn’t help Linden’s relationship with regime

 

[Bleach Clean]

But it's not for nothing, it's to create cap space. And then that cap space can be used to sign other players. If you trade Virtanen for cap room and then don't use the cap space, then yes that would be bad.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the $3.5m~ space in cap is worth more to the team than a good middle-6 winger on an RFA deal? Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Also, to our earlier agreement on the hypothetical Eriksson deal: If you adjusted the degree of the assets involved to what we could realistically expect, let's say a 1st rounder to deal him, is that worth the cap space freed? If yes, please elaborate. If not, then would you call that a bad trade?

 

[MS]

MS, you have to accept that Botchford quote. You cannot selectively dismiss it. Don't go the road of POM, who has selectively dismissed quotes only to post quotes as his evidence. That way lies folly.

That said, it's easy to accept that quote and still provide specific pieces of evidence to the contrary. I can think of 3 off of the top of my head. What's more, it leaves POM exposed to the Linden overruling of the 2017 draft. If POM is pushing that Linden was the decision maker so as to resolve Benning's poor record, then Benning should get no credit for the Pettersson pick...

Or, get this: Is Benning then credited with the Hughes pick? Linden was still here during the draft...

Not to mention, there is a post-2017 Benning record that I have posted that still calls into question Benning's competence. More than enough material to slam the door shut on POM's narrative.

I'm not dismissing the Botchford quote. I don't believe he made it up, and I do believe someone told him that. And it wouldn't shock me if Linden occasionally interjected himself into some negotiations in some small way.

However, the balance of evidence would pretty conclusively suggest it couldn't possibly have been anything more than 'a small way'. Again, Jim Benning is on video on multiple occasions running trade talks with no Linden anywhere around. He's been attributed to running trade talks on multiple other reported occasions. He's given hundreds of interviews where he's talked about trade discussions he is having (especially in the run-up to the trade deadline). And outside of this one quote, nobody has ever suggested that Linden was the one dominating trade discussions for the team. And the notion that Linden could have been running trade negotiations here for several years and nobody ever heard anything about it is .. preposterous. It would take a conspiracy theory of epic proportions to explain it.

It's an absolutely pathetic attempt to do a 'BUT LINDEN!' whitewash away of Benning's incompetence in his first 3 years here.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I'm not dismissing the Botchford quote. I don't believe he made it up, and I do believe someone told him that. And it wouldn't shock me if Linden occasionally interjected himself into some negotiations in some small way.

This bears no resemblance to what Botchford actually said, which was that Linden was running the team and making decisions independently. He didn't qualify it or hedge it in any way:

"In fact, it would be Linden on trade calls and making big hockey decisions. There were times when people in the organization would say 'Linden is running this team.'"

 

[m9]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the $3.5m~ space in cap is worth more to the team than a good middle-6 winger on an RFA deal? Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Also, to our earlier agreement on the hypothetical Eriksson deal: If you adjusted the degree of the assets involved to what we could realistically expect, let's say a 1st rounder to deal him, is that worth the cap space freed? If yes, please elaborate. If no, then would you call that a bad trade?

It's not for 3.5 million in cap space, it's for much more when you attach a contract like Eriksson to Virtanen.

I wouldn't trade a 1st to dump Eriksson, no. Do you think Virtanen is worth a 1st?

But if you could trade Virtanen for a fair price (say, a 2nd and 3rd) and then flip those two picks along with Eriksson for nothing I think that might make sense.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I'm not dismissing the Botchford quote. I don't believe he made it up, and I do believe someone told him that. And it wouldn't shock me if Linden occasionally interjected himself into some negotiations in some small way.

However, the balance of evidence would pretty conclusively suggest it couldn't possibly have been anything more than 'a small way'. Again, Jim Benning is on video on multiple occasions running trade talks with no Linden anywhere around. He's been attributed to running trade talks on multiple other reported occasions. He's given hundreds of interviews where he's talked about trade discussions he is having (especially in the run-up to the trade deadline). And outside of this one quote, nobody has ever suggested that Linden was the one dominating trade discussions for the team. And the notion that Linden could have been running trade negotiations here for several years and nobody ever heard anything about it is .. preposterous. It would take a conspiracy theory of epic proportions to explain it.

It's an absolutely pathetic attempt to do a 'BUT LINDEN!' whitewash away of Benning's incompetence in his first 3 years here.

On the other hand, none of this was caught on film. It's believed Linden has a phone and has used it both in the same room as Benning and when he's been absent, but there's no evidence either way and insiders have been silent on the issue.

 

[MS]

Not a throwaway quote.,not an offhand remark either..It is his published word ...Your going to have to take the" L" for this one.

Jason Botchford: Canucks’ nosedive likely didn’t help Linden’s relationship with regime

Your level of delusion is beyond belief.

Again : every major move this team made in the first 3 years of Benning's tenure, Benning is either on video making the move with no Linden anywhere in sight, or has been positively attributed by multiple sources to have been behind the deal and the negotiation.

Botchford's column speaks of Linden's involvement 'increasing' and there was a period from February-July 2017 where he was clearly more involved than at any other time, and I've commented on multiple times that the UFA signings that summer may have had Linden's fingerprints on them. But we made few big moves of note during that period, and Benning is still the guy running the phones and driving trade negotiations at the 2017 Entry Draft.

The notion that Trevor Linden could have been regularly on the phones making trades with other GMs and nobody ever heard about it is ludicrous. It didn't happen.

 

[Hoghandler]

This bears no resemblance to what Botchford actually said, which was that Linden was running the team and making decisions independently. He didn't qualify it or hedge it in any way:

"In fact, it would be Linden on trade calls and making big hockey decisions. There were times when people in the organization would say 'Linden is running this team.'"

It’s hard not to laugh at all the effort that goes into dismissing any success under Benning, while absolutely no mention of Linden’s role in hockey ops during his tenure. Not sure if people are being willfully ignorant, or just have a poor understanding of the prior management structure. Never mind the massive influence ownership played in the direction this team went in.

IMO decisions look to be improving since Lindens departure. Management has done a better job in his absence. Whether that continues going forward remains to be seen, but there should be little doubt this has occurred.

So yeah, instead of some empty suit occupying the top organizational position, having a major say in important personnel decisions, how about fill that role with an excellent executive with a good track record in negotiations and management.

 

[sting101]

Now they might just leave for nothing in return because the team cannot afford to sign.

Seriously? i have done about 10 different cap friendly mock ups and easily fit both in various scenarios.

It's just a matter of do you want to keep Toffoli 28 or Tanev almost 31 and whether these are worthwhile investments going forward with the Petey and Hughes contracts looming.

 

[Hoghandler]

Benning himself did not turn draft fortunes around. Brackett's direct impact did so. Benning's indirect impact did so, but his direct impact was very limited.

The rolodex comment is pure gold. Thank you for that, made me smile.

The scouting turned around because Jim Benning re-built the staff, from the top down. He is responsible for turning it around. It was his decision to appoint a young, relatively inexperienced guy to the top position. Benning was brought in to turn the clubs fortunes around at the draft table, and he did it, in short order.

Were you not aware of Bennings tremendous connections in the scouting community? Thought this was common knowledge.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Why is all of this in the roster and fantasy GM thread? This is my last sanctuary on this forum...can't you guys take this to the Management thread?

 

[MS]

The scouting turned around because Jim Benning re-built the staff, from the top down. He is responsible for turning it around. It was his decision to appoint a young, relatively inexperienced guy to the top position. Benning was brought in to turn the clubs fortunes around at the draft table, and he did it, in short order.

'Turned around'. Yeah, right. Again, if Trevor Linden doesn't step in on the Pettersson pick, our drafting is below average under Jim Benning.

The scouting 'turned around' because :

1) lots of lottery picks.

2) Judd Brackett.

If Jim Benning put in such great measures to fix our drafting, why is basically every 'hit' we've had (Boeser, Gaudette, Madden, Rathbone, Pettersson) either directly from Brackett and his league or directly attributable to Brackett pushing hard for the selection? If our drafting is 'fixed', why is our CHL drafting still so terrible? How about those 2016-17 drafts, which would have been the worst two-draft period in franchise history if Benning would have had his way on Glass?

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics as the Benning crowd tries to paint Benning as a genius for hiring Brackett while simultaneously defending him for getting rid of him and going back to Ron Delorme, the guy who ruined our drafting here for years.

Were you not aware of Bennings tremendous connections in the scouting community? Thought this was common knowledge.

Tremendous scouting connections plus $10 will buy you a cheeseburger.

Ron Delorme has tremendous connections in the scouting community, too. He's also a really crappy scout.

 

[Bleach Clean]

It's not for 3.5 million in cap space, it's for much more when you attach a contract like Eriksson to Virtanen.

I wouldn't trade a 1st to dump Eriksson, no. Do you think Virtanen is worth a 1st?

But if you could trade Virtanen for a fair price (say, a 2nd and 3rd) and then flip those two picks along with Eriksson for nothing I think that might make sense.

If the goal is to serve the now, above all else, then you could justify Virtanen/1st/2nd+3rd/Other.

If the goal is the long-term, the cap space isn't worth the assets listed. Ride out the contract.

Worth is a function of the goal.

For Virtanen, his cap space is not a better asset than him, short or long-term. When instead used to deal Eriksson, refer to the above.

 

[bandwagonesque]

If the goal is to serve the now, above all else, then you could justify Virtanen/1st/2nd+3rd/Other.

If the goal is the long-term, the cap space isn't worth the assets listed. Ride out the contract.

Worth is a function of a goal.

For Virtanen, his cap space is not a better asset than him, short or long-term. When instead used to deal Eriksson, refer to the above for explanation.

No one's saying this is the goal, which is why no one's proposing the sort of trade you mention.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The scouting turned around because Jim Benning re-built the staff, from the top down. He is responsible for turning it around. It was his decision to appoint a young, relatively inexperienced guy to the top position. Benning was brought in to turn the clubs fortunes around at the draft table, and he did it, in short order.

Were you not aware of Bennings tremendous connections in the scouting community? Thought this was common knowledge.

Are you familiar with the Post Hoc fallacy? Look it up.

I'm guessing this gets deleted or moved, so it's not worth addressing your comments beyond that.

 

[Hoghandler]

Mind numbing that you can look at the scouting in the 5-10-20 year window leading up to Bennings hire and compare it to what has transpired under his watch and not call that anything but a marked improvement at the draft table. It’s orders of magnitude better.

It’s universally recognized by every single media member in this market that drafting has been turned around for the better since Benning came aboad. This isn’t being disputed by anyone, except for you.

You can keep trying to pin all the success on a single person, in Judd Brackett. But at some point you need to clue in to the fact this team drafted like garbage under Gillis, with Brackett at the table. It was Benning’s decision to revamp and re-shuffle his staff that led to success.

Weren’t you complaining when Crawford was fired and claiming Ron Delorme is now going to take on a major role, which would lead to the Canucks demise? I’m going to assume yes.

I have a feeling you will be wrong again. With Benning this time handing the reins over to a young, upstart in Todd Harvey. Time will tell.

 

[bandwagonesque]

The notion that Trevor Linden could have been regularly on the phones making trades with other GMs and nobody ever heard about it is ludicrous. It didn't happen.

We did hear about, years ago, from Jason Botchford, and your denial is nearly an identical but opposite phrasing of his affirmation.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Delete