Offseason grades so far

[Cousin Strawberry]

Thank fuck Blob doesnt load a mountain of rational statistical drivel on here. This isnt the place for logic and reason...

If it was half of us would be gone. This is a comedy club with some fringe facts and pseudo-logic directing the line of humour to remain somewhat relevant.

[Carl Yagro]

CC trade announcement:
Doc sends Reef 4 "have"s in exchange for future considerations

You mean 4 "could of"s in exchange for future hindsight

[Blob Mckenzie]

Do you even know what they gave away in those trades?

But walk us thru those 7 or 8 picks that they just gave away....

Take care...

Sorry rikster - this is always the stupidest argument to try and determine who the Canucks may have picked but here goes:

2015 Canucks trade a 2015 2nd round pick #53, they could of drafted Vince Dunn, Anthony Cirelli, Denis Malgin, Domink Simon, MArkus Nutuvaara, all of these guys played over 100 games in the NHL since then and they may have been used to fill holes on the current team.

2016 Canucks traded 2016 2nd #33 and 2016 4th #94, 5th round #124 2016 2nd from ANA #55, they could of drafted, Alex Debrincat, Samuel Girad, Victor Mete, Jesper Bratt, all of these guys plaed over 100 NHL games

2017 Canucks traded 7th round, #157, SJS #112 they could of drafted Drake Batherson and Sebastian Aho, Drake played only 20 games but Aho well nothing needs to be said about him.

All of these numbers are from Hockey DB and they only go to the 2017/18 season it seems. If you take into account last season full numbers this list would look worse.

So if the Canucks kept all those picks they could/may/pray of/have had some good players, hell in Aho they would have a legit 1st or 2nd d pairing guy on the cheap.

EDIT - rikster, I am not saying you are stupid just that type of argument of asking the what ifs that CANNOT be answered properly.

Good work but the point I was making was that sometimes I think Blob just makes things up and doesn't take the time to analyse moves or investigate the way you just did...

I'm not a fan of the drive bye post where someone will say "trading away a first round pick is always the wrong thing to do"...

I would rather the poster make that claim and then lay out why they think that is the case....Otherwise what's the point of debating?

Take care..

Lol this just was a drive by post. What a hypocrite. I make things up. They traded three 2nds, a 3rd, and a 4th for waiver wire level players. Are you too lazy or or too thick to dig up these trades? I’m not doing it for you.

So I make shit up and the mod says I’m a L I A R. His words.


Enjoy your echo chamber

[rikster]

Do you even know what they gave away in those trades?

But walk us thru those 7 or 8 picks that they just gave away....

Take care...

Sorry rikster - this is always the stupidest argument to try and determine who the Canucks may have picked but here goes:

2015 Canucks trade a 2015 2nd round pick #53, they could of drafted Vince Dunn, Anthony Cirelli, Denis Malgin, Domink Simon, MArkus Nutuvaara, all of these guys played over 100 games in the NHL since then and they may have been used to fill holes on the current team.

2016 Canucks traded 2016 2nd #33 and 2016 4th #94, 5th round #124 2016 2nd from ANA #55, they could of drafted, Alex Debrincat, Samuel Girad, Victor Mete, Jesper Bratt, all of these guys plaed over 100 NHL games

2017 Canucks traded 7th round, #157, SJS #112 they could of drafted Drake Batherson and Sebastian Aho, Drake played only 20 games but Aho well nothing needs to be said about him.

All of these numbers are from Hockey DB and they only go to the 2017/18 season it seems. If you take into account last season full numbers this list would look worse.

So if the Canucks kept all those picks they could/may/pray of/have had some good players, hell in Aho they would have a legit 1st or 2nd d pairing guy on the cheap.

EDIT - rikster, I am not saying you are stupid just that type of argument of asking the what ifs that CANNOT be answered properly.

Good work but the point I was making was that sometimes I think Blob just makes things up and doesn't take the time to analyse moves or investigate the way you just did...

I'm not a fan of the drive bye post where someone will say "trading away a first round pick is always the wrong thing to do"...

I would rather the poster make that claim and then lay out why they think that is the case....Otherwise what's the point of debating?

Take care..

Lol this just was a drive by post. What a hypocrite. I make things up. They traded three 2nds, a 3rd, and a 4th for waiver wire level players. Are you too lazy or or too thick to dig up these trades? I’m not doing it for you.

So I make shit up and the mod says I’m a L I A R. His words.


Enjoy your echo chamber

There you go again....Just make s*it up for the sake of making s*it up...

Reality be damned...

Later...

[Carl Yagro]

Well, well... looks like Blob has got a new sparring partner

[2Fingers]

CC trade announcement:
Doc sends Reef 4 "have"s in exchange for future considerations

You mean 4 "could of"s in exchange for future hindsight

It’s Christmas be nice

[Strangelove]

So I make shit up and the mod says I’m a L I A R. His words.

Ahhhh... are Bwobby's widdle feewings hurt?

L I A R is one word btw... even Reefy "could of" told you that!

Take care..

[UWSaint]

Do you even know what they gave away in those trades?

But walk us thru those 7 or 8 picks that they just gave away....

Take care...

Sorry rikster - this is always the stupidest argument to try and determine who the Canucks may have picked but here goes:

2015 Canucks trade a 2015 2nd round pick #53, they could of drafted Vince Dunn, Anthony Cirelli, Denis Malgin, Domink Simon, MArkus Nutuvaara, all of these guys played over 100 games in the NHL since then and they may have been used to fill holes on the current team.

2016 Canucks traded 2016 2nd #33 and 2016 4th #94, 5th round #124 2016 2nd from ANA #55, they could of drafted, Alex Debrincat, Samuel Girad, Victor Mete, Jesper Bratt, all of these guys plaed over 100 NHL games

2017 Canucks traded 7th round, #157, SJS #112 they could of drafted Drake Batherson and Sebastian Aho, Drake played only 20 games but Aho well nothing needs to be said about him.

All of these numbers are from Hockey DB and they only go to the 2017/18 season it seems. If you take into account last season full numbers this list would look worse.

So if the Canucks kept all those picks they could/may/pray of/have had some good players, hell in Aho they would have a legit 1st or 2nd d pairing guy on the cheap.

EDIT - rikster, I am not saying you are stupid just that type of argument of asking the what ifs that CANNOT be answered properly.

Reefer, you have the wrong Sebastian Aho in 2017.

And they could have selected many of those players instead with the picks they had. But they didn’t.

Neither did lots of teams who selected players who ended up being worse than the guys you mentioned.

One can always look at where a team picked, take the best guy selected after the pick and say what if, and build a rock star team.

This analysis of what if is no different than that.

I am going to put together something on this when I have time. But I know the bottom line because I’ve done the analysis before (1) Benning’s initial strategy was foolish and yet (2) it is Not likely to have materially mattered when it comes to the timing of the rebuild and the strength of the team moving forward.

[DonCherry4PM]

To apply a blanket statement to the Canucks situation and defend it by saying trading picks is a bad idea is complaining for the sake of complaining...

Sorry, its the way I see it ... if you want to go into detail as to why trading away a draft pick today which will be at worst 2 drafts away is a bad idea for the Vancouver Canucks I'm open to a change of opinion...

Hey, Rikster,

Good to see you back posting on a regular basis.

Rather than a complete blanket statement would you prefer to call it a rule of thumb, particularly for a GM who, I think most would agree, has shown his greatest skill to be at the drafting table?

I agree that trading and signing UFA's or players out of college are all possible ways to improve the team in addition to drafting.

But to date, on your assessment of JB's actions, would you say that JB has improved the team most by:

1) trading picks for players,
2) signing players in free agency,
3) signing players out of college, or
4) drafting players?

I am not going to take the time to list every move JB has made and compare them but I think it is pretty clear from any somewhat reasonable assessment that JB has made the greatest improvements to the team (to date) by drafting. And it isn't even close.

My opinion is that JB's drafting skills have shown a trend line of improvement (with a bit of a blip in 2016 but the story isn't yet written ) and I don't see any reason why this won't continue or flatline. Based on that, I would submit that a late 1st round pick can be converted by JB into a player of Brock's talent or even better. And it wouldn't seem a stretch that an earlier first round pick could be converted by JB into a player of Pettersson's or Hughes' talent. Of course, there is always risk and nothing is a sure thing. There would have to be a player of that potential available to JB wherever he picks and development would have to go properly. But even with Miller, there is a chance this past season wasn't an anomaly, there is a chance he could get hurt, there is a chance he could not find chemistry on the team, etc.

I can understand how you would disagree, but, notwithstanding the above-noted risk, I would rather have another gamebreaker like Boeser (or Petterson or Hughes) in two to four years and another 3rd round pick than I would have Miller now. That isn't to say I don't like Miller. I do. But I am of the opinion that the opportunity cost (given JB's "genius" as drafting) is too great. That said, I can fully understand how the "now" nature of Miller would play into your assessment of the trade.

Now if JB is gone by the time we get to make the pick and (heaven forbid) we have a GM with Gillis skills at the drafting table, this trade will go down as being (at that point) an uncontested win. But I think we are all hoping that won't happen.

Cheers.

Hi DonCherry4PM

The short answer to your question is all 4....

I don't judge decisions and moves made against perfection, I am more like the politician who once said "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues then vote for me, if you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues then see a psychiatrist....

I also view things in an "as compared to" world where I judge how our GM is building the organization as compared to what other GM's are doing...

And I go back to the state of the organization when Gillis was fired and think about the prediction an analyst made when he thought it could take the team as long as 7 years to become a serious contender again...That's how broke it was...

Benning has a clear philosophy in building a team which is to insulate and mentor the kids of the future with quality veterans....Agree or disagree but that is the philosophy which was sold to ownership and I agree with it...For the first two years the media and some fans were consumed with rebuild or retool and ignored Bennings philosophy even though he reminded them of it every time it came up...

So he inherited a system void of a future...In particular he inherited a team with just 1 core player in Horvat in its entire system...

He also inherited a veteran team with lots of movement clauses, some he wanted to retain to help the kids and others had little value or devalued themselves by exercising their movement clauses...

He has used each of the 4 methods of acquiring players you listed and each has given differing degrees of help....

I don't fret about the moves which didn't work out or didn't work out as well as hoped because I don't expect my GM to pitch a perfect game...

You can get into the hall of fame by hitting a baseball successfully 3 1/2 times out of 10, and they all don't have to be for homeruns...

If a move produced a just a single or the odd time a move didn't work out and would be considered a strikeout, I'm ok as long as the team is trending in the right direction...

I think the team is headed in the right direction and rather than complain about the singles or the strikeouts, I applaud the work management has done so far...If Benning and company felt that moving the pick for Miller was the right move at the right time then I am on side with it and even as amateur GM's it's very easy to write the case for why the move was a smart move to make...

As a season ticket holder who lives on the Island, when I go to games I expect to be entertained and for a while I stopped attending the games because they had very little entertainment value...

Last year was fun, in particular the Avs game and the Leaves games...it's been awhile since the entertainment value has been so high and I expect an even better year this year...

Take care...

Hey, Rikster,

I would agree that all 4 methods (drafting, trading and signing UFA's or players out of college) have been used by JB to get the team to where it is now, but I think it is patently obvious that JB's drafting has played the greatest role in the team's improvement.

It is clear that you prefer to use a more holistic methodology for evaluating JB's moves which seems a very reasonable perspective. Evaluating from that perspective, I agree that the team is moving in the right direction and is much more exciting to watch than it was a few years ago.

But while you may prefer solely a holistic approach in your evaluation of JB's management, I prefer to assess each of his moves on an individual basis in addition to the holistic approach (largely because I love talking hockey and assessing moves on a case-by-case basis provides much more material to discuss than just sticking to the holistic approach and also because looking at each move in detail actually aids in a holistic analysis). It is possible to love the team and think management is decent and that progress is being made while still being objective and recognizing that some moves are home runs, others base hits, other fouls and others strikes (continuing the baseball analogy).

As for your political analogy, I would vote for Benning in a Canuck election, but, as with politics, in discussing his strategy/platform/actions with others I prefer to be clear on which of these I support and feel are effective and which I do not and why. That isn't complaining. It is analysis, evaluation and commentary which is largely the purpose of this site (Brian or Corn, please correct me if this understanding is in error).

So while you may see the Miller trade as a win while looking from a holistic standpoint, I can say that on a case-by-case basis I feel it is an over-payment (my reasons for which were expounded upon above). It's neither accurate to label your perspective as that of a cheerleader nor mine as that of a complainer.

Cheers,

[ESQ]

I am going to put together something on this when I have time. But I know the bottom line because I’ve done the analysis before (1) Benning’s initial strategy was foolish and yet (2) it is Not likely to have materially mattered when it comes to the timing of the rebuild and the strength of the team moving forward.

Can't wait for that.

At first blush, I wouldn't agree with (1) - IMO, Benning gave up minimal assets (no 1st, no top-tier prospects) to acquire depth veterans. For all the hand-wringing over cap space, he has yet to make a move that has held him back due to cap space. He can extend Brock, he added a top-4d, a top-6 winger, and a great middle-6 winger.

Even though the assets given up for mediocre players are marginal, I suppose it was foolish to the extent his moves prevented a full tank. Given the performance of full-tank teams, I haven't believed aiming for #1 has been a good strategy under the new lottery rules.

Point 2, I totally agree with.

But I look forward to your post, because I always find your posts persuasive...and definitive!

[UWSaint]

edit: goofy formatting, delete

[UWSaint]

At first blush, I wouldn't agree with (1) - IMO, Benning gave up minimal assets (no 1st, no top-tier prospects) to acquire depth veterans. For all the hand-wringing over cap space, he has yet to make a move that has held him back due to cap space. He can extend Brock, he added a top-4d, a top-6 winger, and a great middle-6 winger.

Even though the assets given up for mediocre players are marginal, I suppose it was foolish to the extent his moves prevented a full tank. Given the performance of full-tank teams, I haven't believed aiming for #1 has been a good strategy under the new lottery rules.

Point 2, I totally agree with.

But I look forward to your post, because I always find your posts persuasive...and definitive!

Your points on # 1 are correct, but you are conflating points 1 and 2. JB’s initial strategy was foolish because it was extremely unlikely to accomplish the goal it sought to fulfill. Adding vets isn’t a goal; and that’s not quite what JB did.... stay tuned, will post something tomorrow.

[Cousin Strawberry]

U W is like yoda riding in ESQs backpack while he does flips and shit.

Later You-Dubya will raise reefers corolla from the ditch out in ditchmond

[Strangelove]

U W is like yoda riding in ESQs backpack while he does flips and shit.

Later You-Dubya will raise reefers corolla from the ditch out in ditchmond

Yes Danny, Yoda and his green light sabre hmmm....




A ditch in Richmond?? That might take a while...

[Cousin Strawberry]

My one that became self aware was green...that must mean something