CanucksCorner.com Forums

I didn't hear anyone complaining about it. And I have no idea what the dude is ranting on about in the rest of his post regarding a rebuild. One has nothing to do with the other.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:I didn't hear anyone complaining about it. And I have no idea what the dude is ranting on about in the rest of his post regarding a rebuild. One has nothing to do with the other.

Are you splintering from your group? Because your brethren Benning Haters are all over this like white on rice

I critique the man on his job performance which right now is at about a C-. If he is going to get any sort of extension in the next 12-18 months he needs to hit a few home runs. I've seen a few chink hits and bunt singles to go along with a pile of strikeouts and infield flies. His one home run couldn't get away from this tire fire fast enough and returned to Russia.

Right or wrong the Canucks boast one the least talented under 25 cores in the league. I have no idea how Ignitowski is going to clean that up between now and June 2018. He's on the clock for sure whether you and your fellow gulpers want to admit or not. There's no blue chip top liners at # 5 this year so he's going to have to pull a rabbi or two out of a hat.

Safe to say if we are bottom five again the next two seasons Benning will be gone. I think if next season points to significant improvement, even if we miss the playoffs, he will get to finish out his last year. As long as the team is on the upward trajectory with talent in the system he will get an extension. To buy himself time he needs to clean house a little bit more.

Falling to the 5oa pick two years in a row sucks big time. The difference between having two NHL ready players, ready for top six duty, all the way to a promising D perhaps another 1-2 years out and a similar type pick this year. While we as fans have nothing but time to wait for these guys to develop Benning's window is closing.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:I critique the man on his job performance which right now is at about a C-.

I think that's somewhat fair, but I think its difficult to separate the team's performance (which is C- at best, more like a big fat F) with the performance of the man who built the team.

There's little doubt that this is Benning's team. We all quibbled when Gillis had his greatest success over how much credit was due to Nonis given the roster overlap, but as of today there are 4 players left that were inherited by Benning, as well as Gillis-picks Horvat and Hutton (and Gaunce, for whatever he's worth).

So we've witnessed Benning rebuild the team, and now we're witnessing the Twinsition. The problem is with the latter - the Twinsition was not planned for, there weren't/aren't players in the prospect pipeline ready to take over the top line.

Gillis probably recognized this when he made the Schneider trade. Unfortunately, he was a few years behind the 8-ball, and we only have Hutton and Horvat to show for 6 years of drafts.

My question is, what could any other GM have done differently? I know Blob will say, not throw in 2nd rounders on trades - fine, that could be, though I don't agree. Even then, you're talking about a 2nd for Vey, a 2nd for a 3rd in the Sutter trade, and maybe the 5th for Larsen and the 7th for Etem. I'd argue the Clendenning-Forsling trade would merit a do-over, however the Baertschi for a 2nd was an obvious win for the Canucks.

Regarding his UFA signings, there's criticism of the big ones - Miller and Eriksson. Miller is opposed by tankers, however this past lottery has clearly demonstrated that building a team by counting on a lottery pick is foolish in the new lottery system. It won't work. Eriksson is a more-than-fair criticism. However, looking ahead to UFAs coming available, if Eriksson isn't as terrible as he seemed this year, it could be that there are no better options available when the Canucks are competitive again. (Sorry folks, Tavares ain't coming here)

The Sharks are similar in a lot of ways - fading, expensive stars in Thornton and Marleau, who's productivity essentially mirrored the Sedins. What's keeping them competitive are excellent draft picks in 03 (Pavelski), 07 (Couture) and an unbelievable trade for Brent Burns by sending 05 first rounder Setoguchi, 10 first rounder Charlie Coyle, and the 2011 1st round pick.

In comparison, those equivalent picks on the Canucks roster - 03 Gudbranson (via McCann and Kesler), 05 Luc Bourdon, 07 Patrick White, 11 Nicklas Jensen (2010 1st rounder went to Florida for Ballard).

Benning trading away 2nd rounders is not going to fix that problem of awful drafting for a decade. Doug Wilson is one of the greatest GMs, but replace Burns, Pavelski and Couture on that team with Erik Gudbranson, and they're a lottery team too.

My point is, I don't believe any of Benning's moves can be blamed for the state of the team. Not even a 2nd for Vey. Benning inherited a decade of awful drafting. Gillis had started to turn it around by the time he got canned, and Benning has continued to improve the drafting and developing.

The one thing caveat is what effect Willie had on the team. Is his system to blame for the terrible performances from the Sedins and Eriksson? I believe those three players determine the fate of the team - they combined for 41 goals, had they combined for 70 goals, that increase in production would have put them at the bottom of playoff-bound teams San Jose, Anaheim and Calgary.

Wishful thinking? Probably, but if we see a big bounce-back from those 3 next season, I believe we'll be in the playoff hunt and Benning will wear the goat-horns for sticking with Willie D for as long as he did.

So unlike many pundits, I see that there's been a five-year plan since Benning arrived, we're coming into year 4, and this upcoming season will be a reasonable time to gauge the plan. He hasn't achieved the impossible (replacing the Twins with what was in stock), but the trajectory *should* be for improvement next season.

Two GMs when hired came in to quite the contrasting situations - Gillis inherited a team on the rise, Benning inherited a team on the slide. Gillis made a couple decent additions in Hamhius (although he was coming here regardless of who was boss), Erhoff, Tanev, got good value in trading Schneider but couldn't draft in those 6 drafts to save his life with the exception of Hutton ("Fire Gillis" - Rogers Arena) in which is playing a major factor to our current situation.

Benning has done quite well in his 3 drafts but has made some errors due to the so called "retool" on the fly crap in which I believe was a mission decision made way over head. You have a terrible combination in Vancouver with a notoriously fickle fan base at the gates, owners who are all about profits and bottom line unlike most sports club owners who treat their teams like a hobby, a company man president in Linden who chose loyalty to the Sedins instead of going full rebuild at the beginning.

I find it funny that Benning gets blamed for everything when in fact he's held captive to the type of owners we have, the fickle market, existing contracts, a company man president, and the Sedins. It was a no win situation for Benning due to the circumstances beyond his control and the everso poor state of the youth and prospect pool he inherited. What saves him for me is how well he's done at drafting and some of his trades (Lack for Brisebios, Burrows for Dahlen, Hansen for Goldobin, Bieksa for a 2nd, Garrison for a 2nd, McCann plus for Gudbranson, 2nd for Baertshi, Shinkaruck for Granlund). He had no control over the Kesler trade, I still believe that Bonino (inury faker), Shrimp Forsling and a 2nd for Sutter and Lockwood will prove to be better for us in the long run

Every GM has bad Vey trade under their belts, big fucking deal and the 3rd for Dorsett is even steven. GIllis had plenty of them - 2nd and a 3rd for Bernier, 2nd and a 3rd (Connauton) for Roy, two 4th round picks for Pahlsson, two firsts (one of them Grabner) and Bernier (who gave up a 2nd and a 3rd for) for the god awful Ballard who we eventually bought out, Booth who we eventually bought out, a 10th overall pick (Hodgson) for a drunk, cokehead party machine in the AHL. Gillis had one draft where we didn't have a pick until the 4th round in which we only had 4 picks in that draft. None of those 4 picks never made hay in the NHL. So we essentially threw away a whole draft class thanks to Gillis and we wonder why we are a mess now? Lets not even go there how all of Gillis NTC contracts have been a nightmare. We should throw boquets at Benning for managing to get rid of one of them in the god awful - Garrison for a 2nd round pick.

The injury bug hasn't helped Benning either since he's been here, out of his control, but it's his drafting especially later in the first round (McCann had enough weight to help land us Gudbranson) and outside the first round that has impressed me (Demko, Tryamkin, Gaudette, Lockwood, Forsling, Brisebios), which is the utmost importance for this club right now. Other than Hutton, Gillis completely shat the bed outside the first round.

RoyalDude wrote: Benning has done quite well in his 3 drafts but has made some errors due to the so called "retool" on the fly crap in which I believe was a mission decision made way over head. You have a terrible combination in Vancouver with a notoriously fickle fan base at the gates, owners who are all about profits and bottom line unlike most sports club owners who treat their teams like a hobby, a company man president in Linden who chose loyalty to the Sedins instead of going full rebuild at the beginning.

Yeah, it's hard to argue with his drafting. Even though other players have turned out to be better than the picks he made, drafting guys like Virtanen and McCann weren't shocking. Juolevi > Tcachuk will have to wait until Juolevi hits the show, but the bar has been set high with Son-of-Keith's performance thus far. Tkachuck is everything we'd hoped Virtanen would be, and it would be hard to be upset with a Nylander-Tkachuk duo right now (understanding Juolevi is yet to come)

While I think the owners are meddlesome, I also believe Benning told them he could get this ship righted quickly. That's not likely to be the case, at least not like the Sharks' 13-14 or Anaheim's 09-13 retools. Obviously these teams had better rosters to retool with, but thats the point, it should have been understood. The team needed a complete teardown, and it took Lindenning nearly 3 years to sell that to the owners, all the while bleeding assets in trades for mediocre players they thought could help immediately. Gillis, btw, was selling that rebuild prior to being canned, and the Schneider-Horvat trade should have been the start.

I think this is the big frustration with the Lindenning crew. Many fans realized this team needed the dynamite to be stacked. Management pushed back on that (their early trades, non-trades, and UFA contracts bear that out). They seem to be firmly in rebuild territory now, and while I think there is some relief that they've finally caught up to much of the fanbase, there's also lingering cynicism due to how long it took to get here.

Island Nucklehead wrote:

RoyalDude wrote: Benning has done quite well in his 3 drafts but has made some errors due to the so called "retool" on the fly crap in which I believe was a mission decision made way over head. You have a terrible combination in Vancouver with a notoriously fickle fan base at the gates, owners who are all about profits and bottom line unlike most sports club owners who treat their teams like a hobby, a company man president in Linden who chose loyalty to the Sedins instead of going full rebuild at the beginning.

Yeah, it's hard to argue with his drafting. Even though other players have turned out to be better than the picks he made, drafting guys like Virtanen and McCann weren't shocking. Juolevi > Tcachuk will have to wait until Juolevi hits the show, but the bar has been set high with Son-of-Keith's performance thus far. Tkachuck is everything we'd hoped Virtanen would be, and it would be hard to be upset with a Nylander-Tkachuk duo right now (understanding Juolevi is yet to come)

While I think the owners are meddlesome, I also believe Benning told them he could get this ship righted quickly. That's not likely to be the case, at least not like the Sharks' 13-14 or Anaheim's 09-13 retools. Obviously these teams had better rosters to retool with, but thats the point, it should have been understood. The team needed a complete teardown, and it took Lindenning nearly 3 years to sell that to the owners, all the while bleeding assets in trades for mediocre players they thought could help immediately. Gillis, btw, was selling that rebuild prior to being canned, and the Schneider-Horvat trade should have been the start.

I think this is the big frustration with the Lindenning crew. Many fans realized this team needed the dynamite to be stacked. Management pushed back on that (their early trades, non-trades, and UFA contracts bear that out). They seem to be firmly in rebuild territory now, and while I think there is some relief that they've finally caught up to much of the fanbase, there's also lingering cynicism due to how long it took to get here.

I'm quite surprised by the educated hockey fans going all chicken little regarding drafting Juolevi, People, the kid is a good hockey player. You need a good defense core to be a legitimate hockey team in the NHL. We drafted two wingers in the first round of the two previous drafts (Boeser and Virtanen). Everyone in this province pretty much agreed we needed defencemen before we knew what we had with Tryamkin and Stecher. Yes, Tkachuk is a decent player, but so is Juolevi. Unfair to compare when one is in the NHL and one is still in junior.

The 3 most important positions in hockey are goaltending, centre ice and defence.

I'm as frustrated as hell with Virtanen, but as an educated hockey fan, some kids take longer than others, especially power forward wingers. Krieder and Coyle weren't exactly lighting it up in their first few years. Can't write him off yet. When you are big, fast and posess a great shot, there is potential there that you simply cannot write off due to a slow development. The Pens had pretty much given up on Naslund when they traded him to us, we gave up on Grabner. Patience is required with some players

You'd have to be quite ignorant to think that Benning alone set the entire mission statement for those first two seasons. They thought they could squeeze some more juice out of the Sedins and tried to compete and retool at the same time. They tried, didn't work. Now, it's all in on the rebuild, I see nothing wrong with trying to compete with the Sedins in those first two years.

RoyalDude wrote:Unfair to compare when one is in the NHL and one is still in junior.

I said that. Too early to judge. Fair or not, Juolevi will always be judged against Tkachuck, and he's set a high bar. I also mentioned that the Canucks drafting Virtanen likely impacted their thoughts on Tkachuck.

They thought they could squeeze some more juice out of the Sedins and tried to compete and retool at the same time. They tried, didn't work. Now, it's all in on the rebuild, I see nothing wrong with trying to compete with the Sedins in those first two years.

This is the most honest assessment we're likely to see from the Genius Crew.

Agree wholeheartedly IN. Virtanen spooked them off of Taychook. Once they suspected Columbus was going to take Dubois they knew the Oilers would take the other Finn and they began to brace the fans that a D was in their sights. I admit I was spooked and was glad they stayed away from him. I haven't regretted it yet but give me five years, then come back and ask. But I love the year Taychook had.

You were glad they stayed away from Tkachuk ?

Not picking him because they drafted Virtanen is the height of stupidity. If they were adamant that Juolevi was the best player at that pick that's one thing but to pick by position when your organizational depth is horrible at every position is asinine. And all those players the dude mentioned being late bloomers were tracking a hell of a lot better than Virtanen is right now. He's gotten worse every year since he was drafted.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:You were glad they stayed away from Tkachuk ?

Not picking him because they drafted Virtanen is the height of stupidity. If they were adamant that Juolevi was the best player at that pick that's one thing but to pick by position when your organizational depth is horrible at every position is asinine. And all those players the dude mentioned being late bloomers were tracking a hell of a lot better than Virtanen is right now. He's gotten worse every year since he was drafted.

^^^Look at the 20/20 hindsight here. Mr. i told you so.^^^ Unbeleiveable but nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to Bubbles "Chicken Little" McKenzie

Blob Mckenzie wrote:And all those players the dude mentioned being late bloomers were tracking a hell of a lot better than Virtanen is right now. He's gotten worse every year since he was drafted.

Actually, very possible Virtanen ends up like a Grabner. He's got the coming year of waiver exemption, and will then be eligible starting in the 18-19 season. One of the (numerous) negatives to rushing him into the league. Clearly wasn't mature enough, and he might "figure it out" at 22-23, but we'll be in no position to wait that long.

The Canucks will need to decide what they have with him this season, and if he's not in the long-term plans he should be traded (like Grabner was) before he's lost on waivers for nothing (like Grabner was in Florida).

RoyalDude wrote:

Blob Mckenzie wrote:You were glad they stayed away from Tkachuk ?

Not picking him because they drafted Virtanen is the height of stupidity. If they were adamant that Juolevi was the best player at that pick that's one thing but to pick by position when your organizational depth is horrible at every position is asinine. And all those players the dude mentioned being late bloomers were tracking a hell of a lot better than Virtanen is right now. He's gotten worse every year since he was drafted.

^^^Look at the 20/20 hindsight here. Mr. i told you so.^^^ Unbeleiveable but nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to Bubbles "Chicken Little" McKenzie

Do you know what hindsight even is ? I questioned the reason for not picking Tkachuk. That too difficult for you to comprehend?

In the 2014 draft I wanted Ritchie and said so at the time. Virtanen will do well to be another Jack Skille.

If we give up and pack it in on Virtanen like how INbred and Bubbles have, give Jake away for peanuts the way Gillis gave away Grabner to Florida for buyout Ballard along with a first and Bernier we could be looking at a future scenario where Jake is ripping it up and scoring 27 goals for another team like how Grabner did this year. OR! Or we could be patient with Jake avoiding a potential god awful Gillis in your face blunder.

Can you imagine, if we kept Grabner and the first we gave to Florida and drafted one of Kuznetsov or Coyle? Instead we don't draft until the 4th round only to see the 4 picks we drafted from that draft class never pan out. How shitty is that, nothing to show for from an entire draft year, a common Gillis theme unlike Benning