Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:08 am
The old party line about not being able to handle a rebuild. In case you forget I’m the guy who wants the GM to acquire more picks in order to rebuild and develop a deep organization similar to what the Jets and Predators have done. You and your crew want to fastrack the rebuild by trading picks and kids for mid 20 something players like Sutter, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Vey, Pedan, Pouliott etc. You guys can’t wait for future draft picks to develop and want instant gratification. But it’s me that can’t handle a rebuild.
This point continues to evade the apologists*. They keep preaching their false narrative notwithstanding direct evidence to the contrary. But then how could they continue to be apologists if they actually responded with something other than ad hominens when presented with reasoned analysis?
*Replace "cultist(s)" with "apologist(s)" at your discretion.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:08 am
The old party line about not being able to handle a rebuild. In case you forget I’m the guy who wants the GM to acquire more picks in order to rebuild and develop a deep organization similar to what the Jets and Predators have done. You and your crew want to fastrack the rebuild by trading picks and kids for mid 20 something players like Sutter, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Vey, Pedan, Pouliott etc. You guys can’t wait for future draft picks to develop and want instant gratification. But it’s me that can’t handle a rebuild.
This point continues to evade the apologists*. They keep preaching their false narrative notwithstanding direct evidence to the contrary. But then how could they continue to be apologists if they actually responded with something other than ad hominens when presented with reasoned analysis?
*Replace "cultist(s)" with "apologist(s)" at your discretion.
"The point" has been addressed by "the apologists" many, many times.
All those players were young when they were brought in.
(it's not "instant gratification" when you bring in young developing players while retaining the standard number of picks)
(and for the billionth time no kid/prospect was given up in the Sutter trade)
Lord knows folks like Blob and Reef have responded with their share of ad hominens.
(not that I mind, humour is good too... but you are pretty silent on those ones)
These folks ignore "reasoned analysis"... so eventually one tires of wasting one's time.
Lol Sutter and Gudbranson were 5 and 6 year vets when brought in, they weren’t developing. Vey stunk and so did Pedan.
“The standard number of picks”. Like we can’t acquire extra ones... just choose the “standard number of picks”. What a crock of shit. I would venture to say the Canucks are slightly below “the standard number of picks” during Elmer’s tenure
Yes no extra picks went out in the deal for Sutter. An extra pick should have come back considering he was making a lot more money than the equal guy we traded for him. Bonino is equal to Sutter at worst and made half the money Birdbones did.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:55 pm
Lol Sutter and Gudbranson were 5 and 6 year vets when brought in, they weren’t developing.
Sutter doesn't count in this conversation because no kid/pick was given up.
That's one-billion-and-one times for those keeping track.
The Guds was 24.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:55 pm
Vey stunk and so did Pedan.
Ahh but they were YOUNG when they were brought in (Pedan 21, Vey 22).
So it's not "instant gratification"... as you called it.
Yes those 2 didn't turn out well, but that doesn't mean the philosophy is unsound (it's done all the time).
Pedan was ruined by concussions and Vey was ruined by attempted murder.
Who knew.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:55 pm
I would venture to say the Canucks are slightly below “the standard number of picks” during Elmer’s tenure
Strangelove wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:32 pm
What question?
The one that re-started the thread:
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:18 am
So will this be the year that this is finally Bennings team? He’s now had five drafts, he’s heading to his fifth UFA season and hes had 4 + years to make trades. At what point does this team become his creation?
Pedan and Vey were ruined because they were shitty players. Their organizations knew this and pawned them off on Lennie Small.
For the one billionth and second time, an overpaid slug like Sutter should have had a 2nd attached him. Not a pick swap. Canucks should have been able to keep the 2nd and gotten the 3rd back for taking on a bigger salary and helping the Penguins out. You have trouble getting this through your thick skull. When teams help a team out of cap hell there is a benefit to doing so.
Gudbranson had five years in the league. Guys usually are what they are at that point. And like we have seen he hasn’t improved at all in two years.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:08 am
The old party line about not being able to handle a rebuild. In case you forget I’m the guy who wants the GM to acquire more picks in order to rebuild and develop a deep organization similar to what the Jets and Predators have done. You and your crew want to fastrack the rebuild by trading picks and kids for mid 20 something players like Sutter, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Vey, Pedan, Pouliott etc. You guys can’t wait for future draft picks to develop and want instant gratification. But it’s me that can’t handle a rebuild.
This point continues to evade the apologists*. They keep preaching their false narrative notwithstanding direct evidence to the contrary. But then how could they continue to be apologists if they actually responded with something other than ad hominens when presented with reasoned analysis?
*Replace "cultist(s)" with "apologist(s)" at your discretion.
Yep the Instant Gratification Crew can’t see the forest for the trees. They like to spew out about everyone else not being able to handle a rebuild but it is they who are in denial.
Say no yo the IGC.... just as bad as the NDP.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:22 pm
Pedan and Vey were ruined because they were shitty players. Their organizations knew this and pawned them off on Lennie Small.
Dragging another one into the ditch Blobby?
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:22 pm
For the one billionth and second time, an overpaid slug like Sutter should have had a 2nd attached him.
This conversation was started by YOU complaining about giving up kids/picks for "instant gratification".
YOU said Mr Sutter was acquired in said fashion.
YOU were wrong and now YOU are trying to move the goalposts.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:22 pm
Gudbranson had five years in the league. Guys usually are what they are at that point.
No, 24-year-old defensemen are usually not all they can be at that age.
Strangelove wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:45 pm
"The point" has been addressed by "the apologists" many, many times.
All those players were young when they were brought in.
(it's not "instant gratification" when you bring in young developing players while retaining the standard number of picks)
(and for the billionth time no kid/prospect was given up in the Sutter trade)
You could apply the same reasoning to Burke's acquisition of Phil Kessel.
He was young an still developing. Hell, the leaves, despite not being able to draft Tyler Seguin in 2010 or Dougie Hamilton in 2011, still had the "standard number of picks" at the entry draft (7 in 2010, and 9 in 2011).
This was Benning's strategy his first couple years here (trying to take a short-cut, although thankfully he never went Full Burke). Like the leaves did, it appears the Canucks have learned this lesson, and have adopted a more traditional rebuild strategy.
