Canucks Managerial Discussion | Part 18

[racerjoe]

That's more of a Gillis thing.

Baertschi Granlund Vey Larsen Kesler Bieksa?

This was a report, we didn't trade him in conference, it has been brought up a lot, I think but not sure it was a 30 thought.

 

[Cupless44]

What about Brisebois makes you think that? No matter how you slice it, our GM ended up getting the worst return, just like in his other deals, and just like at the deadline. Are we not allowed to be critical anymore?

Of course, what else would we do here lol. I just think there are bigger fish to fry. I think this is a back up goalie for which a 3rd and 7th is not that bad a return.

 

[Peter10]

Boo hoo. Like Lack is the only goalie who has had issues or growing pains with a new goalie coach. Luongo and Miller both did with Melanson. Comes with the territory of being a good NHL goalie.

Hard to believe we are still talking about Lack. You realize Carolina is in the market this off season for a #1 goaltending upgrade? Likely moving on from Cam Ward, but yet another team that sees Lack as a back up.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Thom...canes-Offseason-Outlook-Part-1-of-4/231/76897

That is one of several articles I have seen with the same message.

Lack is an average NHL goalie, a back up to most around the league. At 28 his own team doesn't see him as the starting solution. Sweden doesn't see him as a solution ona watered down World Championship team. He wasn't in huge demand last summer and no Benning could not have gotten a high pick for him.

Sorry, this is one that you guys hang on Benning that is way over dramatized.

Well the impact of dealing him might not be that big if you just look at talent but it was just another way of alienating the fanbase (or parts of it) to make a move that does absolutely nothing for the franchise (keeping Miller)

Unfortunately thats a pattern that kind of goes throughout the moves that were made during the last couple of years. That team is losing more and more personality just for the sake of turning the roster over. When you re-tool or re-build or whatever you want to call it, you have to give the fans something to be excited about. Yet they go out and acquire a bunch of barely average guys like Vey, Sbisa, Granlund and whoever and sell them as the new core. It took Granlund about 2 games before he was appointed as the 2nd line center despite playing poorly. Before the Horvat-Baertschi-Virtanen line played kind of solid. Granlund takes over and Sven+Jakes performance takes a hit. Now Etem playing with Horvat gets a little hot-streak - see a pattern?

As many have said before, most of Bennings move could be seen as average or at least only minor losses if you look at them in a vacuum. However, if you combine them all it just looks poor and its not just the trades itself but also what follows them. See the Granlund example I mentioned. See Vey getting gifted icetime, same for Sbisa. See Dorsett never getting scratched despite some real poor games this year but he is a culture carrier getting paid for being good in the room. See Prust who had to completely screw it up before getting scratched. See Sutter starting the season on the Sedin-Wing after being acquired to be the 2nd line center. See Miller getting start after start despite being obviously exhausted from playing too much. See Bartkowski getting top 4-5 minutes each and every game and never being into consideration to be scratched.

I could go on and on but even I get bored. The regime is playing favorites trying everything to make their guys and decisions to look good. Läck is just a symbol for that. If those bias werent there, the guys would have gone with Läck and Markstrom this year and would have spent the Miller contract were it was needed more but they had to make the point that their marquee signing Miller is still the man.

P.S.: I wouldnt consider anything Hockeybuzz related as a halfway reliable source, its an atrocious place run by fraud but thats just my personal opinion.

 

[racerjoe]

Yeah, I seriously don't buy that.

We haven't drafted a single Russian from 2008-2013. You really don't need to look beyond that to realize Benning was a key facilitator in bringing Tryamkin on board.

Not what I said at all, and why I don't quote that poster.

I think he let our Russian scouts pick a player, and they picked Tryamkin. I think he let our OHL scouts pick, and they picked McCann, I think he let our NCAA scouts pick and they picked a goalie.

There was probably some talk of who got what pick depending on who was available, but that is how I see it, and judging from what Benning has said, it seems likely.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Not what I said at all, and why I don't quote that poster.

I think he let our Russian scouts pick a player, and they picked Tryamkin. I think he let our OHL scouts pick, and they picked McCann, I think he let our NCAA scouts pick and they picked a goalie.

There was probably some talk of who got what pick depending on who was available, but that is how I see it, and judging from what Benning has said, it seems likely.

"He let our Russian scout pick"- wow could you downplay this any more? He single handily did away with years of backwards thinking when it came to Russian players.

Do you honestly believe that synthesizing draft lists and making selections came down to that simplistic a decision making process?

 

[Cupless44]

Exactly. He's losing assest on every trade? He's signing overpriced contract? Blatant disregard for the salary cap? Meh, just draft baby! I am sure once the drafting is good, he trade all those people hes drafted, over spend to resign them, and lose actually valuable pieces thanks to the salary cap.

To me it is pick your battles.

You want to vent....pick the Shinkaruk trade. Doesn't make sense to me on many levels either. Forsling another great target....how did they not know Clendening care barely skate? Sbisa....no need to sign him for that much.

But 2 years calling out the MacKenzie Stewart pick? Has a 7th round pick even ever made the Canucks?
Lack..ho hum...glorified back up. They went with experience and over paid a bit, Miller will be off the books when it matters.

I don't think drafting is all that matters. I do think it is the most important thing. I do think good drafting can overcome a few mistakes...like throwing out 1.75 for a year of Bartkowski and it not working out the way you hoped. Gambling a 2nd on Vey, who had excelled in the AHL.

 

[Cupless44]

Well the impact of dealing him might not be that big if you just look at talent but it was just another way of alienating the fanbase (or parts of it) to make a move that does absolutely nothing for the franchise (keeping Miller)

Unfortunately thats a pattern that kind of goes throughout the moves that were made during the last couple of years. That team is losing more and more personality just for the sake of turning the roster over. When you re-tool or re-build or whatever you want to call it, you have to give the fans something to be excited about. Yet they go out and acquire a bunch of barely average guys like Vey, Sbisa, Granlund and whoever and sell them as the new core. It took Granlund about 2 games before he was appointed as the 2nd line center despite playing poorly. Before the Horvat-Baertschi-Virtanen line played kind of solid. Granlund takes over and Sven+Jakes performance takes a hit. Now Etem playing with Horvat gets a little hot-streak - see a pattern?

As many have said before, most of Bennings move could be seen as average or at least only minor losses if you look at them in a vacuum. However, if you combine them all it just looks poor and its not just the trades itself but also what follows them. See the Granlund example I mentioned. See Vey getting gifted icetime, same for Sbisa. See Dorsett never getting scratched despite some real poor games this year but he is a culture carrier getting paid for being good in the room. See Prust who had to completely screw it up before getting scratched. See Sutter starting the season on the Sedin-Wing after being acquired to be the 2nd line center. See Miller getting start after start despite being obviously exhausted from playing too much. See Bartkowski getting top 4-5 minutes each and every game and never being into consideration to be scratched.

I could go on and on but even I get bored. The regime is playing favorites trying everything to make their guys and decisions to look good. Läck is just a symbol for that. If those bias werent there, the guys would have gone with Läck and Markstrom this year and would have spent the Miller contract were it was needed more but they had to make the point that their marquee signing Miller is still the man.

P.S.: I wouldnt consider anything Hockeybuzz related as a halfway reliable source, its an atrocious place run by fraud but thats just my personal opinion.

You make some good points. The transitional players Benning has brought in until the kids are ready are very uninspiring.

Noted about Hockeybuzz. That was just one article at my fingertips quickly I have seen portraying Carolina is looking for a starting goaltending upgrade. Not the only place I have heard or seen it. Just couldn't be bothered to look deeper for the thread.

 

[Hit the post]

I don't think drafting is all that matters. I do think it is the most important thing.

Player development trumps drafting in most cases IMHO.

 

[Cupless44]

Player development trumps drafting in most cases IMHO.

I kind of lump them together..drafting and development. You are quite right, you have to develop your home grown players. But you have to draft them, elite level players mainly come through the draft. A 26 year old Stamkos hitting the market is a rarity and costs the moon.

 

[Hit the post]

I kind of lump them together..drafting and development. You are quite right, you have to develop your home grown players. But you have to draft them, elite level players mainly come through the draft. A 26 year old Stamkos hitting the market is a rarity and costs the moon.

True enough. I was mainly looking at the "Oilers model" of how having high picks in itself don't mean success.

 

[thepuckmonster]

True enough. I was mainly looking at the "Oilers model" of how having high picks in itself don't mean success.

Also the Oilers only drafted forwards and couldn't draft their way out of a shoebox past the top 10.

 

[coldsteel79]

The 'some' related to names on their 100-150 person draft list, not picks themselves. We have no idea what impact that had. It could have substantially affected the draft or not at all.

Well at least you agree you have no idea about it, because you don't, I don't, nobody does that's not in the organization.

 

[MS]

Well at least you agree you have no idea about it, because you don't, I don't, nobody does that's not in the organization.

EXACTLY.

All I've said all along as that we don't know what happened or how that draft shook out exactly, other than it was some combination of existing staff supervised by Benning. Maybe it was 50/50? Who knows. Benning himself has indicated that it was generally run as usual by Crawford with him interjecting on 'some' players. That's all we know.

But when I try to say this to people hyping that draft as 'Draftsaviour Benning single-handedly fixing our terrible drafting overnight' ... I get told I don't know what happened. Meanwhile they continue on with their complete guess that that draft was all Benning, which is just as credible as guessing that he had absolutely zilch to do with the draft.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Also the Oilers only drafted forwards and couldn't draft their way out of a shoebox past the top 10.

Yeah. The Oilers are a terrible example for many reasons but one lesson to learn should be that you need to pile up later round draft picks because you can't rely on just the first round picks. Edmonton's drafting outside the 1st round has been absolutely putrid, and they basically had no extra picks.

I don't even understand how they would up with no 2nd or no 3rd in some years.. Just what.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Yeah. The Oilers are a terrible example for many reasons but one lesson to learn should be that you need to pile up later round draft picks because you can't rely on just the first round picks. Edmonton's drafting outside the 1st round has been absolutely putrid, and they basically had no extra picks.

I don't even understand how they would up with no 2nd or no 3rd in some years.. Just what.

I want to amend the top 10 part to top 5 because Nurse looks like crap too, he's dumber than a sack of pogs. He's basically trending to be Barrett Jackman 2.0.

 

[a Fool]

Nurse looks like crap too, he's dumber than a sack of pogs.

I'd say, "dumber than a sack of slammers," considering his play style.

 

[Hit the post]

Reminds me of an old Tiger Williams quote (re: on a Canucks prospect)...."He's all the tools but no toolbox").

 

[thepuckmonster]

I'd say, "dumber than a sack of slammers," considering his play style.

Slammers are valuable, he's worth a sack of free knock off Power Ranger pogs where they're called "Energy Fighters".

 

[vancityluongo]

I wonder what the fascination in this thread is for posters who legitimately believe and have stated that they don't care about anything the team does as long as Benning drafts well -- they seemingly don't even care if he acquires extra picks or better picks or really anything, as long as Benning is drafting.

What's the purpose of defending that position endlessly over and over without any variation on the argument or position? It's been this way for 12 months without any adjustment for the season that just happened. What's the point? I honestly don't get it.

I rarely post here and go days without reading the board anymore and when I do I'm amazed these same arguments are being repeated time and again. I'd argue that it's barely even a discussion of current management. It's basically "well, my position is that regardless of anything that happens, as long as Benning is GM that's all that matters at this point because he can draft."

Perplexing.

My guess is that a lot of people that seem to be taking this position became fans of the team post-2010 and witnessed a great team make it to the Finals and then suddenly fall off a cliff (somewhat). Most of the media hacks during this time did all they could to sewer Gillis and the narrative was (somewhat rightfully) that poor drafting closed the window on the team as a Cup contender. Enter Jim Benning, supposed drafting savant. The anti-Gillis in many ways. Of course there will be support for him amongst casual fans as long as he can throw some teenagers into the lineup. Any 'analysis' beyond that is just "wait and see!!!" so it's impossible to refute even with the most logical reasoning.

Agreed though that it's taking an awfully long time for the "wait and see" crowd to adjust to the team face planting even harder than expected. Scary thing is it might take Virtanen/McCann busting at age 25 (Hodgson style) for that crowd to admit that Benning isn't a scouting genius. Even that might not do it. Although it's obviously good for the team to draft well, having a major hit in Boeser might buy Benning some time in terms of fan appeasement, which could be terrible if the mismanagement everywhere else continues.

 

[Diamonddog01]

I wonder what the fascination in this thread is for posters who legitimately believe and have stated that they don't care about anything the team does as long as Benning drafts well -- they seemingly don't even care if he acquires extra picks or better picks or really anything, as long as Benning is drafting.

What's the purpose of defending that position endlessly over and over without any variation on the argument or position? It's been this way for 12 months without any adjustment for the season that just happened. What's the point? I honestly don't get it.

I rarely post here and go days without reading the board anymore and when I do I'm amazed these same arguments are being repeated time and again. I'd argue that it's barely even a discussion of current management. It's basically "well, my position is that regardless of anything that happens, as long as Benning is GM that's all that matters at this point because he can draft."

Perplexing.

In regards to your last paragraph, I'm in the exact same boat.

I think it's unfair to state it's only one side repeating themselves - the same arguments arebeing repeated by both sides. The discussions are stale and repetitive and have been for some time.

I can only speak for myself but I don't think drafting is a panacea for everything wrong with the team, nor is it the case that I 'don't care about anything else'. That being said I do feel that great drafting will go a long way towards rebuilding this franchise.

I'm not as high on Benning as when he first was hired (I was also among the minority who loved the Garrison trade, and still do) however I also don't feel his contracts or trades have been as bad as many make them out to be. So it's not so much I don't care it's that the negatives have been overblown imo, and relatively speaking I don't think Sutter being overpaid by 500k, or the team losing a 3rd round pick to acquire the better player, is really going to be the difference between success and failure. That doesn't mean the Sbisa contract isn't horrid and was not an egregious mistake.

I would also add I don't think that asset management, as it's interpreted around here, is the primary goal of a GM or again as important as some make it out to be. Winning trades and 'managing assets' should be secondary as opposed to the focus.

 

[Hit the post]

(I was also among the minority who loved the Garrison trade, and still do)

I suspect if you limit that to the context of: "our blueline needed rebalancing because far too much cap space was spent on left side D to the deteriment [lack of good quality depth] on the right side", you'd find that "minority" *FAR* larger.

In fact, include me in THAT category. Garrison needed to be dealt (but not at the cap cost of essentially replacing him with Pizza).

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

EXACTLY.

All I've said all along as that we don't know what happened or how that draft shook out exactly, other than it was some combination of existing staff supervised by Benning. Maybe it was 50/50? Who knows. Benning himself has indicated that it was generally run as usual by Crawford with him interjecting on 'some' players. That's all we know.

But when I try to say this to people hyping that draft as 'Draftsaviour Benning single-handedly fixing our terrible drafting overnight' ... I get told I don't know what happened. Meanwhile they continue on with their complete guess that that draft was all Benning, which is just as credible as guessing that he had absolutely zilch to do with the draft.

Which players? Virtanen? McCann? Demko? Tryamkin? Which of these top 90 picks would you say Benning had little or no influence on?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Yeah. The Oilers are a terrible example for many reasons but one lesson to learn should be that you need to pile up later round draft picks because you can't rely on just the first round picks. Edmonton's drafting outside the 1st round has been absolutely putrid, and they basically had no extra picks.

I don't even understand how they would up with no 2nd or no 3rd in some years.. Just what.

Between 2009 and 2013 the oilers had 22 top 90 picks.

You guys are just wrong on this point. The oilers model is the one people want to follow here.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

My guess is that a lot of people that seem to be taking this position became fans of the team post-2010 and witnessed a great team make it to the Finals and then suddenly fall off a cliff (somewhat). Most of the media hacks during this time did all they could to sewer Gillis and the narrative was (somewhat rightfully) that poor drafting closed the window on the team as a Cup contender. Enter Jim Benning, supposed drafting savant. The anti-Gillis in many ways. Of course there will be support for him amongst casual fans as long as he can throw some teenagers into the lineup. Any 'analysis' beyond that is just "wait and see!!!" so it's impossible to refute even with the most logical reasoning.

Agreed though that it's taking an awfully long time for the "wait and see" crowd to adjust to the team face planting even harder than expected. Scary thing is it might take Virtanen/McCann busting at age 25 (Hodgson style) for that crowd to admit that Benning isn't a scouting genius. Even that might not do it. Although it's obviously good for the team to draft well, having a major hit in Boeser might buy Benning some time in terms of fan appeasement, which could be terrible if the mismanagement everywhere else continues.

Oh I didn't realize it was as simple as that those that agree with Benning are casual fans while those that disagree with Benning think hockey on th next level. How condescending of you.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I suspect if you limit that to the context of: "our blueline needed rebalancing because far too much cap space was spent on left side D to the deteriment [lack of good quality depth] on the right side", you'd find that "minority" *FAR* larger.

In fact, include me in THAT category. Garrison needed to be dealt (but not at the cap cost of essentially replacing him with Pizza).

That's why I prefer to look at the bigger picture than scrutinizing a trade in a vacuum.

Garrison was moved out for Sbisa. Period. Benning is on video saying he won't deal Garrison until he's sure he's getting Sbisa back in the Anaheim trade. Tht is just absolutely abysmal. Almost beyond belief.