Canucks Management and Ownership Thread v30.0 (Post #186)

[dellzor]

D Sedin H Sedin L Eriksson
T Konecny B Horvat W Nylander/ N Ehlers
A Burrows N Bonino R Vrbata
M Tkachuk J McCann J Hansen

C Tanev
A Edler
B Hutton
D Hamhuis
G Forsling
B Montour
N Tryamkin
L Sbisa
A Biega

J Markstrom
E Lack

vs

D Sedin H Sedin B Sutter
S Baertschi B Horvat J Hansen
A Burrows M Granlund L Eriksson
J Megna/M Chaput B Gaunce D Dorsett/ J Skille

C Tanev
A Edler
B Hutton
E Gudbranson
N Tryamkin
L Sbisa
A Biega

R Miller
J Markstrom

That first roster would be nice to watch.

 

[clunk]

Two obvious picks in Nylander/Ehlers and Tkachuk and this team is so drastically different and so much further ahead.

 

[DFAC]

Two obvious picks in Nylander/Ehlers and Tkachuk and this team is so drastically different and so much further ahead.

Not to mention having Forsling and a guy like Roland McKeown in the pipes on D.....

 

[clunk]

Not to mention having Forsling and a guy like Roland McKeown in the pipes on D.....

We could have just had a fan vote on here and ended up so much better off.

 

[TheBleedingEdge]

Tkachuk-Horvat-Ehlers....

The could have beens really hurt, I cant support this management team whatsoever.

 

[Cancuks]

Not to mention having Forsling and a guy like Roland McKeown in the pipes on D.....

If Lord Benning hadn't traded Forsling he likely wouldn't have drafted Juolevi and we would have had Tkachuk. Then again, he might have traded the pick for Evander Kane or something.

 

[dellzor]

Community-based GM it is

 

[tantalum]

Not even end of November and they are playing the "we knew it wasn't going to be quick" card. Took until march or so last year.

I see very little to get excited about. There are a couple of intriguing prospects....every team has them. That I don't find exciting because it not like they are over burdened with good young players. If they were then that could be exciting. Instead what they have is a bad team, spending near the cap and nothing on the farm. Management who says guns bad contracts, makes bad trades, and lets a farm team fend for themselves with insufficient talent.

There is nothing to get excited about that indicates this is going to end any time soon with these buffoons at the helm.

 

[banme*]

The premise of this discussion is effectively: bad drafting between 2006-2012 = bad team. I disagree. Drafting is an avenue to creating a better team, but it is not an imperative. It comes down to the definition of a bad-middling-good team.

The true top line players you listed above are from 1999... The Canucks have squeezed out two eras from that one draft... 17 years ago.





But how did the WCE squad come to be? Who's willfully ignoring that?

Who's ignoring how Luongo got here?

Your statement about "naturally both eras were well supplemented by trades", tells me that you treat these events as a given... No, those trades essentially _created_ eras. Without them, you wouldn't have the WCE era at all. Nor would you have the Sedins-led Canucks reach the heights they had achieved. Remember, they were front-liners when Nonis orchestrated 2 playoff misses in 3 years. How did Gillis get them there without drafting over his tenure? If you say "development", then I would say: The Sedins were already 1st liners, are we really localizing that development to Kesler?





How is anyone pretending that the only problem this franchise has ever faced is Jim Benning? How does that even become an accusation when it has been acknowledged that the team has drafted poorly for... forever? When I have said on numerous occasions that Gillis has to own his drafting record? This makes no sense whatsoever.

The discussion here is "bad drafting from 2006-2012 = bad team now". No. That is incorrect. You could have ended up with a middling team without Benning touching a thing! You could have cycled vets for picks, picked up undervalued talent, traded better, negotiated signings better, developed your prospects better and created an influx of talent via drafting for volume within 3 years etc... etc.. That assertion by CL should be contested. It's an attribution error. This team could have very easily been "middling" (A Wild Card team), draft picks from 2006 to 2012 turning up or not.

Again, banking on statistical anomalies in the Sedins and incredibly bad trades by other GMs isn't good practice. We're awful because we have an awful GM, but we aren't a good/top team because we drafted poorly for a very long time, and I would legitimately rather be where we are than a perennial wild card team. We need to bring in a new GM asap to take advantage of that though.

 

[Mad Brills*]

LOL at linden saying aquilini has his back

 

[Jyrki21]

It showed that the Blue Jackets weren't smart enough to insure Horton's contract to avoid this problem in the first place...

No, they weren't able to insure it because of Horton's pre-existing risk. The Jackets may have made some missteps over the years, but they didn't break with standard procedure out of stupidity.

 

[Hit the post]

No, they weren't able to insure it because of Horton's pre-existing risk. The Jackets may have made some missteps over the years, but they didn't break with standard procedure out of stupidity.

Didn't know about that (not being able to insure him); course, that begs the question - why acquire him in the first place with that kind of risk.

 

[Jyrki21]

Didn't know about that (not being able to insure him); course, that begs the question - why acquire him in the first place with that kind of risk.

I guess it's a calculated risk... they may be poorer than other organizations, but they are still, obviously, an NHL franchise with some money. That said, the topic has been debated a fair bit before, apparently. Here is a post from the Jackets' forum:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=98462527&postcount=77

Lori Schmidt and I have discussed this back and forth as the story didn't make sense. As it turns out, the Jackets couldn't get insurance on "the rest of Horton's body and appendages." What she has been told after asking sources within the team is that the reason that Horton wasn't insured was because of the number and nature of the exclusions from coverage. In other words, it wasn't just the shoulder that was excluded though it is not clear what else might have been excluded. I suspect head injuries were excluded based on Horton's prior history. As such, someone looked at the situation and determined "ah, heck, what would the insurance really cover that could be career ending," or something along those lines.

Portzline incorrectly focused on the shoulder and the fact that Horton was going to be out half the season, etc. The fact that Horton was going to be out half the season was probably brought up in passing in the litany of reasons why Horton went uninsured, but it is a red herring. It was the exclusions from coverage that drove the decision not to insure Horton and instead use the league provided insurance on another player.

None of this answers the bigger question--did the Jackets consider this when they signed Horton in the first place? Knowing that this is a budget team, if you also know a player is effectively uninsurable, the contract is a huge risk when you factor in Horton's age and injury history.

It sounds like there was some misinformation floating about at the time, too.

 

[Donuts]

that virtanen pick - i never liked it since i was in huge favor of nylander or ehlers at the time.
and i thought benning was calling tkachuks name last draft as well.

2 obvious picks that could really help the canucks offense. joulevi can be very good but at the draft i wanted tkachuk after dubois/pulju were gone.


he needs to get better in drafting early 1st rounders. just go for consensus picks.

 

[ginner classic]

The two sweetest words in the English language.

De-flect! De-flect!

Three Sweetest Words:

"We were wrong"

Two Sweetest Words:

"I resign"

Sweetest word of all:

"Rebuild"

 

[ginner classic]

that virtanen pick - i never liked it since i was in huge favor of nylander or ehlers at the time.
and i thought benning was calling tkachuks name last draft as well.

2 obvious picks that could really help the canucks offense. joulevi can be very good but at the draft i wanted tkachuk after dubois/pulju were gone.


he needs to get better in drafting early 1st rounders. just go for consensus picks.

He needs to stop drafting by need. He needs to fire half his amateur scouts. He needs to fire all of his pro scouts. He needs to have someone responsible for player development (and Utica) that has a clue what they are doing. He needs to stop trading draft picks. He needs to learn how to use a computer.

He needs........errrr.... maybe....he just needs to ****ing resign.

 

[PM]

Can't believe we still have well over half the season left. Never been so bored of a team so early in the season before and I'm a fan of some pretty terrible teams. I can't even hope for a trade to make things exciting as bad trades is what caused this mess in the first place and I have zero faith in Benning's trading abilities. Darkest timeline indeed and I still think it has the potential to get even worse.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Three Sweetest Words:

"We were wrong"

Two Sweetest Words:

"I resign"

Sweetest word of all:

"Rebuild"

Unfortunately these idiots think they are already part of a rebuild.

 

[Fat Tony]

Can't believe we still have well over half the season left.

Barely at the one-quarter mark.

 

[vancityluongo]

I would legitimately rather be where we are than a perennial wild card team. We need to bring in a new GM asap to take advantage of that though.

And where exactly are we? Seems to me like they're gunning to be a perennial wild card team by sacrificing futures. What you're saying is true if a) it isn't essentially the stated goal of management to be a 7th-10th place team every year b) they didn't sacrifice future to get there and sort of just had that team while collecting futures.

It's not ideal, but probably much better to be a perennial wild card team like Minnesota or Nashville where one favorable signing (Ryan Suter) or trade (Shea Weber for PK Subban) can set you up to possibly be more. The Canucks are probably 5+ big "wins" from being a wildcard contender now, another few from being a real playoff contender and another couple to becoming a favorite. Opposite, they're maybe 5+ moves away from having anything resembling a rebuild.

Even for a good GM with the mentality of Trader Jim, that can't just happen overnight.

 

[valkynax]

And where exactly are we? Seems to me like they're gunning to be a perennial wild card team by sacrificing futures. What you're saying is true if a) it isn't essentially the stated goal of management to be a 7th-10th place team every year b) they didn't sacrifice future to get there and sort of just had that team while collecting futures.

It's not ideal, but probably much better to be a perennial wild card team like Minnesota or Nashville where one favorable signing (Ryan Suter) or trade (Shea Weber for PK Subban) can set you up to possibly be more. The Canucks are probably 5+ big "wins" from being a wildcard contender now, another few from being a real playoff contender and another couple to becoming a favorite. Opposite, they're maybe 5+ moves away from having anything resembling a rebuild.

Even for a good GM with the mentality of Trader Jim, that can't just happen overnight.

I think being wild card/playoff is only worth it if a team is on an upward trajectory in terms of overall progress. This means said team MUST already have a very healthy stack of talents, from top to bottom, elite to blue chip, who are projected to be the next core. In this case, these young talents can benefit greatly from playoff experience, lead by some great vets.

Right this team is closer to the sun than they are to having the next core.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

I think being wild card/playoff is only worth it if a team is on an upward trajectory in terms of overall progress. This means said team MUST already have a very healthy stack of talents, from top to bottom, elite to blue chip, who are projected to be the next core. In this case, these young talents can benefit greatly from playoff experience, lead by some great vets.

Right this team is closer to the sun than they are to having the next core.

No owner would agree with this opinion. Unless you are a trash team, most teams push for the playoffs.

 

[valkynax]

No owner would agree with this opinion. Unless you are a trash team, most teams push for the playoffs.

Oh I completely agree, no one's dumb enough to tell their fans: hey we gonna give up and get picks.

But how they would act is a different thing. Remember the old Leafs and Flames? Our team is in that state right now, futureless and cupless.

 

[vancityluongo]

I think being wild card/playoff is only worth it if a team is on an upward trajectory in terms of overall progress. This means said team MUST already have a very healthy stack of talents, from top to bottom, elite to blue chip, who are projected to be the next core. In this case, these young talents can benefit greatly from playoff experience, lead by some great vets.

Right this team is closer to the sun than they are to having the next core.

I just don't get the bolded. A downward trajectory is bad no matter what - but lottery aside, it's worse for a hockey team to be second last trending towards last instead of in a 7th playoff spot heading downward for an 8th playoff spot. Literally, you're just further away from being a good team. Staying a perennial playoff team is a difficult feat. Just ask Calgary or Colorado.

Even without an abundance of blue chip, elite talent to take over from the aging core of a middling playoff team, it is possible to acquire those players without the scorched earth approach. Jim Benning's willingness to do so when he was first hired made him an appealing candidate. Unfortunately, his execution has been worse than a monkey firing darts at a print out of all the available players/prospects in the league. And to double down, he's still trying beyond the point where it's crystal clear that this team needs the scorched earth approach.

The San Jose example always gets shouted down with "Who on the Canucks drafted by Gillis is Logan Couture?!?!" so I'll use a different example. The post-Alfredsson Sens. Instead of burning it all down, they moved vets like Spezza to get younger, faster and to generally change what was a rapid decline into what is now a steady upswing. During that time they found good young players like Turris, Hoffman and Stone. Add a few more like Dzingel coming up now, take advantage of deals with unearthed value (Phaneuf) and you have a basis for a solid, if not spectacular team in the future. They're better off because they obviously have Karlsson driving most of that upswing, so it's not apples to apples but by committee (Horvat + Nylander/Ehlers + Tkachuk + Boeser + McCann + Shinkaruk + Kassian + Tanev + Edler + Hutton + McKeown + Markstrom) you could have some decent things happening.

 

[banme*]

And where exactly are we? Seems to me like they're gunning to be a perennial wild card team by sacrificing futures. What you're saying is true if a) it isn't essentially the stated goal of management to be a 7th-10th place team every year b) they didn't sacrifice future to get there and sort of just had that team while collecting futures.

It's not ideal, but probably much better to be a perennial wild card team like Minnesota or Nashville where one favorable signing (Ryan Suter) or trade (Shea Weber for PK Subban) can set you up to possibly be more. The Canucks are probably 5+ big "wins" from being a wildcard contender now, another few from being a real playoff contender and another couple to becoming a favorite. Opposite, they're maybe 5+ moves away from having anything resembling a rebuild.

Even for a good GM with the mentality of Trader Jim, that can't just happen overnight.

A bottom 5 team being forced into a rebuild by terrible management.