LOL

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Cousin Strawberry
MVP
MVP
Posts: 12933
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: LOL

Post by Cousin Strawberry »

Cherry Picker wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:08 am
Chef Boi RD wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:56 pm Way too much love in the air right now
I love all you guys. Just like that kid loved Old Yeller.
I've often wondered if Shane was nailing the mom after Joey went bed and thats why he fucked off
If you need air...call it in
PG_Canuck
CC Veteran
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:04 am

Re: LOL

Post by PG_Canuck »

Definitely some people that would just rather be right than see the Canucks succeed. I noted the fact that our young core progressing isn’t exactly shocking and it should be expected. I don’t have time to go back and forth with some people who just want to use random words from the dictionary to sound a bit smarter.

I’ll say, I am ok with how Benning has operated lately, but he quite clearly stumbled upon Pettersson and Hughes by just not building a good enough team and getting high picks - I think to say he was actively rebuilding, when the majority of his targets in previous years were age-gap players, is quite wrong. Nor did he stockpile draft picks in any year, he traded more than he acquired or near the same IIRC. That’s not ‘rebuilding’ in my eyes, that’s just being bad with bad pro-scouting and getting high picks that have since transformed the teams outlook.

Not taking anything away from actually selecting Pettersson/Hughes/Boeser, no one can deny that, but I don’t think this was your typical rebuild.
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8113
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: LOL

Post by Meds »

PG_Canuck wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:05 am Definitely some people that would just rather be right than see the Canucks succeed. I noted the fact that our young core progressing isn’t exactly shocking and it should be expected. I don’t have time to go back and forth with some people who just want to use random words from the dictionary to sound a bit smarter.

I’ll say, I am ok with how Benning has operated lately, but he quite clearly stumbled upon Pettersson and Hughes by just not building a good enough team and getting high picks - I think to say he was actively rebuilding, when the majority of his targets in previous years were age-gap players, is quite wrong. Nor did he stockpile draft picks in any year, he traded more than he acquired or near the same IIRC. That’s not ‘rebuilding’ in my eyes, that’s just being bad with bad pro-scouting and getting high picks that have since transformed the teams outlook.

Not taking anything away from actually selecting Pettersson/Hughes/Boeser, no one can deny that, but I don’t think this was your typical rebuild.
You won’t find an argument on these boards about this not being a typical rebuild. Benning’s real moves came when Linden left. Before that it was a “rebuild” that was designed to be loyal to a few vets, namely the Sedins, and give them every opportunity to get it done.

I’d say Benning wanted to tear it down when he came here but ownership said make the playoffs we aren’t done yet.

This is why owners hire GMs to run their shiny toys. One, they don’t know enough about hockey, and two, it gives them a scapegoat to fire when the inevitable happens. Lol.
User avatar
Mickey107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13536
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: LOL

Post by Mickey107 »

The Sedins were always going to be permitted to retire as Canucks. Don't think that wasn't a factor in the way it played out.
"evolution"
User avatar
Cherry Picker
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1569
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:56 am

Re: LOL

Post by Cherry Picker »

The Brown Wizard wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:04 am
Cherry Picker wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:08 am
Chef Boi RD wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:56 pm Way too much love in the air right now
I love all you guys. Just like that kid loved Old Yeller.
I've often wondered if Shane was nailing the mom after Joey went bed and thats why he fucked off
I think you're confusing your Shane with your Old Yeller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_(film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Yeller_(film)

If your confusion is caused by rabies, I can swing by. :twisted:
We are all Snidely Whiplash.
ESQ
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3162
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: LOL

Post by ESQ »

PG_Canuck wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:05 am Definitely some people that would just rather be right than see the Canucks succeed. I noted the fact that our young core progressing isn’t exactly shocking and it should be expected. I don’t have time to go back and forth with some people who just want to use random words from the dictionary to sound a bit smarter.

I’ll say, I am ok with how Benning has operated lately, but he quite clearly stumbled upon Pettersson and Hughes by just not building a good enough team and getting high picks - I think to say he was actively rebuilding, when the majority of his targets in previous years were age-gap players, is quite wrong. Nor did he stockpile draft picks in any year, he traded more than he acquired or near the same IIRC. That’s not ‘rebuilding’ in my eyes, that’s just being bad with bad pro-scouting and getting high picks that have since transformed the teams outlook.

Not taking anything away from actually selecting Pettersson/Hughes/Boeser, no one can deny that, but I don’t think this was your typical rebuild.
It certainly wasn't the rebuild in the style of Edmonton/Buffalo/Toronto/New Jersey etc. etc. - and obviously none of those rebuilds turned out, or if they can be considered completed it took twice as long as Benning's method.

Funny that he continued the "age-gap" acquisition method to get JT Miller and Tanner Pearson, but nobody's complaining about that anymore.

Also, unlike Edmonton/Buffalo/Toronto/New Jersey, Benning succeeded without a single ounce of draft lottery luck, managing to drop the most spots in the draft out of any team in the league.

Its a fair point that he didn't stockpile picks, but my personal opinion is that a Linden Vey is more valuable than a 2nd-round pick, and I could really care less about picks under the second round.

A nice counterpoint to the Benning Rebuild wll be the Red Wings - now entering Year 4 of no playoffs, and IMO no prospect of playoffs for a couple years at least, despite being helmed by two highly-regarded GMs in Holland and Yzerman. Holland had 21 picks in his last 2 drafts, and Yzerman had 11 last year, lets see if that pans out any better by the equivalent point in Benning's re-build.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 20437
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: LOL

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

Linden Vey is about as valuable as a used condom

So ESQ would you just deal all the picks under round 2 for washed our prospects like Vey and Pedan etc?

The Pearson acquisition was undoing a horrible shitty trade. I’m glad to have him but I would have taken a 7th to unload Gudbranson at that point.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
Raile
MVP
MVP
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:24 am

Re: LOL

Post by Raile »

Doyle Hargraves wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:17 pm Linden Vey is about as valuable as a used condom

So ESQ would you just deal all the picks under round 2 for washed our prospects like Vey and Pedan etc?

The Pearson acquisition was undoing a horrible shitty trade. I’m glad to have him but I would have taken a 7th to unload Gudbranson at that point.
It sounds like if ESQ was in charge our beloved pipeline of prospects would not include Adam Gaudette, Tryamkin, Tyler Madden, Will Lockwood, Mike DiPietro, Jack Rathbone..

So basically he's saying he preferred the Mike Gillis approach.. ;)
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 20437
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: LOL

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

Raile wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:02 pm
Doyle Hargraves wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:17 pm Linden Vey is about as valuable as a used condom

So ESQ would you just deal all the picks under round 2 for washed our prospects like Vey and Pedan etc?

The Pearson acquisition was undoing a horrible shitty trade. I’m glad to have him but I would have taken a 7th to unload Gudbranson at that point.
It sounds like if ESQ was in charge our beloved pipeline of prospects would not include Adam Gaudette, Tryamkin, Tyler Madden, Will Lockwood, Mike DiPietro, Jack Rathbone..

So basically he's saying he preferred the Mike Gillis approach.. ;)
:lol:
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
ESQ
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3162
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: LOL

Post by ESQ »

Doyle Hargraves wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:17 pm Linden Vey is about as valuable as a used condom

So ESQ would you just deal all the picks under round 2 for washed our prospects like Vey and Pedan etc?

The Pearson acquisition was undoing a horrible shitty trade. I’m glad to have him but I would have taken a 7th to unload Gudbranson at that point.
Vey, Pedan, Pearson. One for three. That's a lot better odds than picking in the 3rd-7th round.
User avatar
Cousin Strawberry
MVP
MVP
Posts: 12933
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: LOL

Post by Cousin Strawberry »

Cherry Picker wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:20 pm I can swing bi
:wow:

:lol:

Whenever someone says that I cant resist...its my thats what she said
If you need air...call it in
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 20437
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: LOL

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

ESQ wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:55 pm
Doyle Hargraves wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:17 pm Linden Vey is about as valuable as a used condom

So ESQ would you just deal all the picks under round 2 for washed our prospects like Vey and Pedan etc?

The Pearson acquisition was undoing a horrible shitty trade. I’m glad to have him but I would have taken a 7th to unload Gudbranson at that point.
Vey, Pedan, Pearson. One for three. That's a lot better odds than picking in the 3rd-7th round.
Pearson wasn’t acquired for a draft pick “under the 2nd round”
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 28134
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: LOL

Post by Strangelove »

.
BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE!!! :scowl:

Kick an HFer in the nether regions or go home!
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Chef Boi RD
MVP
MVP
Posts: 19474
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: LOL

Post by Chef Boi RD »

PG_Canuck wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:05 am Definitely some people that would just rather be right than see the Canucks succeed. I noted the fact that our young core progressing isn’t exactly shocking and it should be expected. I don’t have time to go back and forth with some people who just want to use random words from the dictionary to sound a bit smarter.

I’ll say, I am ok with how Benning has operated lately, but he quite clearly stumbled upon Pettersson and Hughes by just not building a good enough team and getting high picks - I think to say he was actively rebuilding, when the majority of his targets in previous years were age-gap players, is quite wrong. Nor did he stockpile draft picks in any year, he traded more than he acquired or near the same IIRC. That’s not ‘rebuilding’ in my eyes, that’s just being bad with bad pro-scouting and getting high picks that have since transformed the teams outlook.

Not taking anything away from actually selecting Pettersson/Hughes/Boeser, no one can deny that, but I don’t think this was your typical rebuild.
I strongly disagree with “stumbling” on Pettersson and Hughes. The very vast majority I included wanted either or of Vilardi or Glass. There was hardly a soul in sight who wanted Pettersson. The great MS wanted Vilardi. Benning and his staff had Pettersson ranked no. 1 on their list and had Hughes no. 3 on their list.

Typical rebuild? Like Buffalo. Who are well on their way to their 8th lottery pick in a row. The last 7 drafts they’ve picked jnthe top 8 somewhere. Two of them 1st overalls, one a second overall. Looks like their stumbling into Eichel, Dahlin, Reinhart, Mittlestadt, Nylander, Ristolainen, Cozens ain’t working out for them all that well. The wrong stumbling? Maybe the upcoming stumble will prove to be the right stumble. Meanwhile! Vancouver Canucks!!
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
User avatar
Cousin Strawberry
MVP
MVP
Posts: 12933
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: LOL

Post by Cousin Strawberry »

I agree with the Chef

once is a stumble...3 is a trend. Benning and his staff have an eye for top end talent. Its not just adding those 2 either. Theres depth at every position (although defense is their weakness there are still pieces stewing in development) and hes hitting on all but 1 1st round pick so far.


Pod looking like another key piece.
If you need air...call it in
Post Reply