Canucks Management & Ownership Discussion | Part 24

[VanillaCoke]

I don't think Benning is done being Benning yet either, something else is going to happen before opening day next season...

 

[geebaan]

thanks for making me laugh so hard i just heard silence.

raymond is the worst player of all time.

wellwood
raymond
ballard

worst players ever

And with that, goes the last shred of credibility you had.

2009-10 Vancouver Canucks NHL 82 25 28 53

If Baertschi ever has a season like this, let me know.

 

[CanaFan]

thanks for making me laugh so hard i just heard silence.

raymond is the worst player of all time.

wellwood
raymond
ballard

worst players ever

Factually incorrect.

Worse players (excluding rookies) simply on the 2015-16 Vancouver Canucks squad alone, let alone the entire NHL from the Great War until today:

- Linden Vey
- Markus Granlund
- Matt Bartowski
- Luca Sbisa
- Brandon Prust
- Derek Dorsett
- Chris Higgins
- Emerson Etem
- Alex Burrows
- Yannick Weber

Borderline (i.e. about the same or slightly worse than Raymond but probably better than Wellwood)

- Brandon Sutter
- Sven Baertschi


Starts to show why that team finished 28 out of 30 teams, eh?

 

[y2kcanucks]

thanks for making me laugh so hard i just heard silence.

raymond is the worst player of all time.

wellwood
raymond
ballard

worst players ever

Wrong as usual.

All 3 players are quite useful given a certain role. Raymond, before being piledriven into the boards and breaking his back, was a useful 2nd line forward.

 

[racerjoe]

how about an 8 point 2 goal in 24 playoff games 2nd line winger? would you take that guy.

Benning logic says other wise, we have a player who puts up similar numbers in the playoffs only we called him foundational, and paid him a fat contract. We also got him saying he would help us in the playoffs.

 

[MS]

Benning logic says other wise, we have a player who puts up similar numbers in the playoffs only we called him foundational, and paid him a fat contract. We also got him saying he would help us in the playoffs.

Yup, Benning decided it was real smart to spend $5 million on two players who had a combined 2 goals in 96 career playoff games between them, and actually tried hyping them as 'guys who help in the playoffs'.

Just completely out of touch with the sport of hockey in 2016.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Yup, Benning decided it was real smart to spend $5 million on two players who had a combined 2 goals in 96 career playoff games between them, and actually tried hyping them as 'guys who help in the playoffs'.

Just completely out of touch with the sport of hockey in 2016.

He wouldn't be the only recent Canucks GM to spend big on playoff duds.

 

[jimmythescot]

I have to say, I'm starting to see some method in the madness. I don't agree with most of the trades made, and Benning definitely has his eye set on certain people who he is willing to pay whatever price to acquire, but saying that I think I can see what he's trying to do.

He's building from the back out, and we're starting to resemble the Preds of a few years back. When the Sedins eventually retire we look like we'll have a very good goalie and defence and some good complimentary forwards. Teams like that usually don't do too well, so it'll just take a year or two of calamity and we should be sitting pretty.

That said, I'm probably just displaying Pareidolia and seeing patterns in things that aren't really there.

 

[banme*]

Of course I admit that. These boards are by nature repetitive, especially in the offseason. Everyone here says several things quite repetitively.

And when it comes to Benning, there aren't really any interesting shades of grey to argue - the guy simply could not possibly be more flat-out moronic and incompetent. So every discussion is going to be pretty similar - 'he's a complete, useless idiot'.

I'm bored of saying the same things as well, and as I've said before here, when they've actually done something I've agreed with (ie. waiving Corrado) I've gone out of my way to argue in their favour just for a change. Unfortunately that happens very, very seldom.

Okay.

 

[geebaan]

He wouldn't be the only recent Canucks GM to spend big on playoff duds.

Ah, so you admit thats what he's done

 

[Huggy]

You are ****ing with us, right?

not at all.

raymond is the worst kind of player good when it doesnt matter. invisible and falling down when it does (Scf)

 

[geebaan]

not at all.

raymond is the worst kind of player good when it doesnt matter. invisible and falling down when it does (Scf)

Was that when his back was broken Jeez man, get a clue.

 

[CanaFan]

not at all.

raymond is the worst kind of player good when it doesnt matter. invisible and falling down when it does (Scf)

No, the worst kind of player is bad when it doesn't matter as well as when it does. Id be thrilled if Granlund could be as good as Raymond "when it doesn't matter" since there will be a lot of "it doesn't matter" games for this club in the next 4-5 years. But I'm not holding my breath that he'll ever be even that good.

 

[iloveloov*]

So are you saying you have absolutely *no idea* what we gave up because we aren't in that future yet?

Do you believe in projections, estimates, or basing value on past and present comparables? Most of us do and it is how we deal with the problem of having to deal with assets today that have some uncertainty about their future. Go check out how bond markets work, futures trading, sports betting, stock markets, or any other of hundreds of markets that are based on deriving a value TODAY based on what something is EXPECTED to be worth. It's definitely not wizardry.

Or on a more hockey related note, how would you feel if we traded Olli Juolevi away TODAY for oh, say David Perron? Now we have a pretty good idea of what Perron is (which is a helluva lot better than what Granlund is) but we really don't KNOW what Juolevi is until he makes the NHL and even then is given a few years to get bigger, stronger, and reach his potential. So given that we don't KNOW what Juolevi is today, how would you feel about that trade? Would you:

a) Be fine with it because we don't really know what Juolevi is going to be someday; or

b) Unhappy with it because even if you don't know with 100% certainty you still think it is poor value based on what you THINK he is going to become based on his track record to date?

If it is option A then fine, you at least are consistent in your opinions even if you are probably the only person on HFBoards who would be fine with it. But if it is option B then you should really look at your own argument and whether you actually believe it at all.

The value of a share is what it got traded for last, not its projected value in 5 years if everything goes right.

Make the case that Shinkaruk is to Granlund as Juolevi is to Perron.

You completely missed my point. I never said Shinkaruk's value was significant.

If you don't think Shinkaruk's value was significant then why are you making it an issue? You imply that Shinkaruk and Granlund were worlds apart in value but what have you to back that up?

It should be pretty obvious that a #1 pick who is a high-producing AHL player in his draft+3 year, and has 2.5 years of waiver eligibility remaining is probably worth a 2nd round pick, maybe a 3rd rounder at worst.

What % chance does a 2nd or 3rd round pick have of playing more than 100 NHL games because Granlund already had at the age of 22.

Marko Dano is an incredibly similar prospect and was a key component of both the Brandon Saad and Andrew Ladd deals.

Nope, Dano was a throw-in in both of those deals.

 

[CanaFan]

The value of a share is what it got traded for last, not its projected value in 5 years if everything goes right.

And how do you think the value of what it gets traded for gets determined in the first place? Does the person or corporation acquiring the share just roll a dice to decide what they are willing to pay for it?

Make the case that Shinkaruk is to Granlund as Juolevi is to Perron.

Don't need to. They don't need to be equivalent to disprove your line of thinking. Based on what you wrote, it literally doesn't matter how good anyone "thinks" a player is today, they should defer all judgement until they know definitively what that player is at the NHL level.

So it doesn't matter if the thread is about Shinkaruk, Juolevi, or Auston Matthews. Any trade should not be judged until that player is in the NHL and we know what that play "is" and not what we "think he is".

That is literally your argument so if I am to accept it then it should hold equally for a Juolevi for Perron trade or even a Juolevi for Kevin Bieksa trade.

 

[Samzilla]

And how do you think the value of what it gets traded for gets determined in the first place? Does the person or corporation acquiring the share just roll a dice to decide what they are willing to pay for it?



Don't need to. They don't need to be equivalent to disprove your line of thinking. Based on what you wrote, it literally doesn't matter how good anyone "thinks" a player is today, they should defer all judgement until they know definitively what that player is at the NHL level.

So it doesn't matter if the thread is about Shinkaruk, Juolevi, or Auston Matthews. Any trade should not be judged until that player is in the NHL and we know what that play "is" and not what we "think he is".

That is literally your argument so if I am to accept it then it should hold equally for a Juolevi for Perron trade or even a Juolevi for Kevin Bieksa trade.

That's why I advocated trading "proven" NHL talent Sbisa for "unknown quantity" McDavid while we still had the chance.

 

[MS]

If you don't think Shinkaruk's value was significant then why are you making it an issue? You imply that Shinkaruk and Granlund were worlds apart in value but what have you to back that up?

People have followed this sport for considerable lengths of time, and are quite familiar with the fact that a non-producing healthy scratch about to hit waiver eligibility has pretty much zero value. And Calgary's GM pretty much confirmed that when he said that Granlund was a player they'd probably have to waive next season.

Meanwhile high-scoring 21 y/o AHL players with 2.5 years of waiver eligibility remaining generally have considerable value.

There's no way to 'prove' exactly how much value either player had, but anyone with a lick of common sense should be able to see pretty easily that Shinkaruk had considerably more.

You can't 'prove' that Filip Forsberg had more value than Martin Erat in 2013, either ... but common sense tells you that a #11 overall pick from a year prior should probably net more than an old winger with 4 goals in 40 games.

What % chance does a 2nd or 3rd round pick have of playing more than 100 NHL games because Granlund already had at the age of 22.

Uh, terrible logic.

Just because Borna Rendulic has played more games than a majority of 2nd/3rd round picks doesn't mean he's worth a 2nd round pick. He's dime-a-dozen AHL filler garbage that we got for free.

So is Granlund.

Nope, Dano was a throw-in in both of those deals.

Uh, what?

Dano was the main part in the Saad trade. You can make an argument he was a throw-in in the Ladd deal (I disagree) but definitely not the Saad one.

 

[The Drop]

thanks for making me laugh so hard i just heard silence.

raymond is the worst player of all time.

wellwood
raymond
ballard

worst players ever

All of which are better than your heroes Granlund, Baertschi and Sbisa

 

[The Drop]

And with that, goes the last shred of credibility you had.

2009-10 Vancouver Canucks NHL 82 25 28 53

If Baertschi ever has a season like this, let me know.

Credibility? Really?

 

[me2]

how about an 8 point 2 goal in 24 playoff games 2nd line winger? would you take that guy.

Leave Sutter out of it.

 

[y2kcanucks]

He wouldn't be the only recent Canucks GM to spend big on playoff duds.

Who cares? He's the worst GM in the league. This team won't get better until he's fired.

 

[RandV]

If you don't think Shinkaruk's value was significant then why are you making it an issue? You imply that Shinkaruk and Granlund were worlds apart in value but what have you to back that up?

There's little to back up what Shinkaruk's value was simply because outside of trade deadline deals those types of players rarely get traded. Trading in the NHL isn't a matter of finding another player that has the same arbitrary number as yours then submitting the deal.

There has to be motivation from the other side to complete the deal. Benning probably found and targeted a number of 'equal value' dmen, didn't mean those teams were going to trade them. Usually players of this type are coveted by their organization, up until the point they're about to hit the waiver wire and haven't made it yet.

In forcing a trade through for Shinkaruk, Benning accepted a deal for a player that was a tier below him in value. And we know why it happened - Weisbrod had already passed over Shinkaruk for Poirier in the draft, and Granlund was a 2nd round pick of his from the year before(?) that he thought was a great guy.

 

[Huggy]

Was that when his back was broken Jeez man, get a clue.

yea at the start of game 6 it was too late

 

[ProstheticConscience]

i can see only one bright spot. we will be so bad this year all the fair weather fans will be gone

That's what we said last year.

 

[CanaFan]

yea at the start of game 6 it was too late

Well the team was up 3-2 with a healthy Raymond and then plummeted to 0-2 after the injury.

Using the same shoddy analysis as some others in this thread I have concluded that had he stayed healthy the Canucks would have certainly won the cup.