Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:06 pm MS' zombies running amok today...

An excellent point.

Almost as good as RG’s.

WIN: DonCherry4PM

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:22 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:01 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:50 pm He might have done it as well as it could be done, but it was a foolish plan that cost them resources and time on the real rebuild.

So in your opinion your Vancouver Canucks led by a new young core could have been fighting a playoff spot at the deadline

... years earlier?

I guess Ronning's Ghost must be the real genius here...

"Fighting for a playoff spot" is not the objective -- not even an intermediate one. The goal is a sufficient concentration of talent at one time to actually compete for the Cup. Failing to load up on draft picks earlier in the process hurt that goal. I think that's sufficiently clear to everyone who is not of the "Benning can do no wrong" camp that it does not qualify as a genius insight.

While I obviously don't think that Benning can do no wrong, I think that had he come in and loaded up on picks in the first 2 or 3 seasons here, he would have been handed his walking papers and the next guy in would have had to start at square one, so we'd be no better off. However chances are that some of our draft picks that we are quite happy with would have been much different and we'd be lamenting a continued history of piss poor scouting and drafting.

The fact that his first year at the helm saw us fluke out into the playoffs, thanks to a year in the western conference that is really not unlike this one in terms of where teams are at in the standings, really hurt any kind of rebuild plans any sane person was pitching and pushed it back a couple of seasons.

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:21 pm WIN: DonCherry4PM

Did you just eye-roll a proclamation of victory?

You should know better, Strange.

Those are sacred. Don't mess with them.

If we don't respect proclamations of victory, the only thing left is complete and utter forum carnage (or "Cornage" if our great leader wills it).

Do you want to live in that world, Strange? Do you?

DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:26 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:21 pm WIN: DonCherry4PM

Did you just eye-roll a proclamation of victory?

You should know better, Strange.

Those are sacred. Don't mess with them.

If we don't respect proclamations of victory, the only thing left is complete and utter forum carnage (or "Cornage" if our great leader wills it).

Do you want to live in that world, Strange? Do you?

WIN: DonCherry4PM

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:06 pm MS' zombies running amok today...

Errand boys sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:28 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:22 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:01 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:50 pm He might have done it as well as it could be done, but it was a foolish plan that cost them resources and time on the real rebuild.

So in your opinion your Vancouver Canucks led by a new young core could have been fighting a playoff spot at the deadline

... years earlier?

I guess Ronning's Ghost must be the real genius here...

"Fighting for a playoff spot" is not the objective -- not even an intermediate one. The goal is a sufficient concentration of talent at one time to actually compete for the Cup. Failing to load up on draft picks earlier in the process hurt that goal. I think that's sufficiently clear to everyone who is not of the "Benning can do no wrong" camp that it does not qualify as a genius insight.

While I obviously don't think that Benning can do no wrong, I think that had he come in and loaded up on picks in the first 2 or 3 seasons here, he would have been handed his walking papers and the next guy in would have had to start at square one, so we'd be no better off. However chances are that some of our draft picks that we are quite happy with would have been much different and we'd be lamenting a continued history of piss poor scouting and drafting.

The fact that his first year at the helm saw us fluke out into the playoffs, thanks to a year in the western conference that is really not unlike this one in terms of where teams are at in the standings, really hurt any kind of rebuild plans any sane person was pitching and pushed it back a couple of seasons.

Good post 6’-9”! Can’t disagree much

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:50 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:05 pm the rebuild that they were attempting, one that tries to remain competitive and has roster players who are vets that can help show kids what it takes to play in the NHL and are still of an age that they might be useful pieces when the team is winning again.

And this, this "re-tool on the fly" concept, is my principle objection to the Benning era. He might have done it as well as it could be done, but it was a foolish plan that cost them resources and time on the real rebuild.

Did he have a choice? No not much of one. Or are you simply choosing to ignore the pressures that were coming from above.

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:47 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:31 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:15 pm anyone continuing to defend these players and these moves is either a troll or a retard.

it's really not as bad as you make it sound.

Blob is clearly doing some "retarded trolling" here...

Blob’s posts lack clarity when he’s angry posting. It’s similar to Tourette’s

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:22 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:01 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:50 pm He might have done it as well as it could be done, but it was a foolish plan that cost them resources and time on the real rebuild.

So in your opinion your Vancouver Canucks led by a new young core could have been fighting a playoff spot at the deadline

... years earlier?

I guess Ronning's Ghost must be the real genius here...

"Fighting for a playoff spot" is not the objective -- not even an intermediate one. The goal is a sufficient concentration of talent at one time to actually compete for the Cup. Failing to load up on draft picks earlier in the process hurt that goal. I think that's sufficiently clear to everyone who is not of the "Benning can do no wrong" camp that it does not qualify as a genius insight.

How many draft selections has Jimbro made as our Canuck Supreme Leader? I believe each team is awarded with 7 picks per draft. Jim has been at the draft table 5 times with the Canucks. That would be 35 picks (5 drafts) if he had not traded away nor acquired any picks. How many draft selections has Jimbro Genius made with Vancouver?

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:51 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:50 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:05 pm the rebuild that they were attempting, one that tries to remain competitive and has roster players who are vets that can help show kids what it takes to play in the NHL and are still of an age that they might be useful pieces when the team is winning again.

And this, this "re-tool on the fly" concept, is my principle objection to the Benning era. He might have done it as well as it could be done, but it was a foolish plan that cost them resources and time on the real rebuild.

Did he have a choice? No not much of one. Or are you simply choosing to ignore the pressures that were coming from above.

Never mind the perceived pressure from above. How about all the NTC's he inherited annnnd the Sedins were under contract for a few more years.
Like the dude says, Did he have a choice?

dangler wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:06 pm

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:51 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:50 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:05 pm the rebuild that they were attempting, one that tries to remain competitive and has roster players who are vets that can help show kids what it takes to play in the NHL and are still of an age that they might be useful pieces when the team is winning again.

And this, this "re-tool on the fly" concept, is my principle objection to the Benning era. He might have done it as well as it could be done, but it was a foolish plan that cost them resources and time on the real rebuild.

Did he have a choice? No not much of one. Or are you simply choosing to ignore the pressures that were coming from above.

Never mind the perceived pressure from above. How about all the NTC's he inherited annnnd the Sedins were under contract for a few more years.
Like the dude says, Did he have a choice?

I remember Linden once getting hammered in an interview repeatedly with “why are you not doing a full rebuild”. Linden kept responding with “because we can’t”, repeat and repeat and repeat. It boggles the mind the lack of credibility this gets from some dingbat fans and media out there. For some reason they can’t grasp the concept of an owners mandate

Like I’ve said, Benning has done a decent job considering the circumstances

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:53 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:47 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:31 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:15 pm anyone continuing to defend these players and these moves is either a troll or a retard.

it's really not as bad as you make it sound.

Blob is clearly doing some "retarded trolling" here...

Blob’s posts lack clarity when he’s angry posting. It’s similar to Tourette’s

Curious, do you 2 have each other on speed dial or something?

The way you back each other is, hmmmm, interesting to say the least.

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:06 pm

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:53 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:47 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:31 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:15 pm anyone continuing to defend these players and these moves is either a troll or a retard.

it's really not as bad as you make it sound.

Blob is clearly doing some "retarded trolling" here...

Blob’s posts lack clarity when he’s angry posting. It’s similar to Tourette’s

Curious, do you 2 have each other on speed dial or something?

The way you back each other is, hmmmm, interesting to say the least.

, he said as he "backed" Blob yet again.

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:14 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:50 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:05 pm the rebuild that they were attempting, one that tries to remain competitive and has roster players who are vets that can help show kids what it takes to play in the NHL and are still of an age that they might be useful pieces when the team is winning again.

And this, this "re-tool on the fly" concept, is my principle objection to the Benning era. He might have done it as well as it could be done, but it was a foolish plan that cost them resources and time on the real rebuild.

And I remain unconvinced that this was Benning's plan.

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:51 pm Did he have a choice? No not much of one. Or are you simply choosing to ignore the pressures that were coming from above.

You will note that I said "the Benning era". You may also recall previous posts wherein I was careful to say "the ownership-management group".

But for purposes of this board, the buck needs to stop somewhere. If you go down the ownership interference rabbit-hole, how do you know that any of the bad moves by Gillis, or the good moves by Benning, were not the result of ownership pressure?
("I heard the Aquabros really had a hard-on for Ballard, so Mike negotiated that one with a gun to his head."
"Yeah, but I heard they insisted on drafting Pettersson, so I guess it evens out.")

Truth is, whenever you hear a retired NHL GM talk about the job, they explain that managing the owner is a big part of it. Perhaps a deficiency in this regard is an Achilles heel of an otherwise brilliant hockey executive.

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:28 pm While I obviously don't think that Benning can do no wrong, I think that had he come in and loaded up on picks in the first 2 or 3 seasons here, he would have been handed his walking papers and the next guy in would have had to start at square one, so we'd be no better off.

They'd have those extra picks, and the players that came with them, who would be the right age to be part of the new core -- which, while promising, clearly needs more support.

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:28 pm However chances are that some of our draft picks that we are quite happy with would have been much different and we'd be lamenting a continued history of piss poor scouting and drafting.

There's no reason to assume that, if Benning were fired for doing what most of the hockey world could see was right (and the fact that they were saying it may have bought him some indulgence from ownership), the next GM would not have made equally good use of the high draft picks. Heck, even notoriously poor drafter Mike Gillis did OK when he got a top-ten draft pick.

dangler wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:06 pm Never mind the perceived pressure from above. How about all the NTC's he inherited annnnd the Sedins were under contract for a few more years.
Like the dude says, Did he have a choice?

The Garrison trade was sufficient to demonstrate that Benning was perfectly capable of unloading an NTC when he felt like it.
(Interesting note in passing that Garrison went on to have a pretty good season after he was traded.)

Perhaps more important to note that at least one passionate Benning advocate has shifted position from "Everything Benning does is excellent" to "that thing wasn't his fault".