This thread is an example of why I do not visit that much. The problem is not Benning and Linden. It is the owner. He refuses tom accept the full rebuild we need. The guy believes you can rebuild on the fly and dictating to the guys that they are to build a team that need to be competitive. That is why Erickson for a 6 year 36mill contract, Gagner got a 3 year 9.6 contract and MDZ got 2 year 6 mill--the owner dictated it. Sadly I think we may need to sink to a new hell to get the owner to stop being so hands on and let people do their thing.
The problem with placing it all on the owner is that it turns the management team into teflon (ie nothing sticks) no matter how badly the management does its job. By making the assumption that they are simply following the owner's direction you're excusing them from responsibility not only for the direction taken but from all responsibility for failing to accomplish their goals.
If the owner is dictating the direction then the management has filed to accomplish what it was hired to do-and said it could do-and deserves to be fired. Finishing 28th and 29th in successive years and at the very least out of the playoffs, almost certainly bottom 10 and possibly bottom 5 again is neither making the playoffs nor contending to do so. Their decisions have failed to retool the Canucks into a contending team.
If the owner isn't dictating the direction and management has chosen its own direction, meandering in a Family Circle type way around making the playoffs now and each and every season and placing that ahead of building for the future, saying they wouldn't trade picks or prospects and then spending the next thee years doing that and making decisions that are sometimes fine but at other times irrational, then the management team has failed both in choosing its goals and in accomplishing its goals-whatever they've been.
Btw, it's interesting to note how different this forum is compared with CDC, where the posters are overwhelmingly in favour of locking Benning up to a lengthy extension as soon as possible.
In any case, the management has:
-failed to compete for the playoffs each and every year (they competed-and made it-one year out of four)
-chosen to trade both picks and prospects for current help, cutting down the chances of getting good players in the future
-overpaid players of marginal value
-made some horrendous trades (as well as some that have worked out well)
-drafted somewhere between ok and well, with some bad picks but other good ones (it's still early to judge draft picks-very few are NHL players so far so they remain prospects
-done poorly so far at getting value out of players it has drafted.
As an example of the last of those points, look at the 2014 draft.
1(6) Virtanen-There were better options available to be drafted but Virtanen can be a useful player. The decision to play him in Vancouver in 2015-16 was ridiculous and imo hindered his development. He shows signs of doing some good things now, but the chances of him ever developing into better than a 3rd liner aren't looking good.
1(23) McCann-After drafting him the Canucks rushed him to the NHL and kept him there for a full season, imo almost ruining him and certainly hurting his value (though he now appears to be coming along in Florida.) Then with his value lowered they traded him together with other future assets for a tough, stay at home defenceman who was on an expiring contract and looking for a huge pay raise (he reportedly had turned down $5 million per and term from the Panthers before Vancouver acquired him) and who is weak in his on-ice decision making, who has been oft-injured and will probably leave in free agency this summer unless vastly overpaid. If Gudbranon leaves as a free agent this summer, what value have the Canucks gotten from drafting McCann? If the Canucks sign Gudbranson for too much term and too much money have the Canucks gotten any value out of drafting McCann? (Only those with heads in the clouds would say yes to that last question.)
2(36) Thatcher Demko-tracking well in Utica. It might be better for his development if there was an actual AHL-level defence in front of him.
2(50) traded for Linden Vey, who was gifted a lineup spot and eventually allowed to leave as a free agent
3(66) Nikita Tryamkin-a very fine talent, but there is a very good chance the Canucks will get no future value out of him.
3(85) traded to NYR for Derek Dorsett, who had one season left on his contract and was then signed to a ridiculous extension. Dorsett is a favourite in Vancouver but how much good is he going to be doing for the Canucks when they become competitive again? The extension to which he was signed was foreseeably terrible and many of us wrote about that at the time, including pointing out that the problem was not only the money but the term given his size, playing style and fighting were likely to shorten the length of time he could remain an effective player.
5(126) Gustav Forsling. Excellent pick. Of essentially no value to the Canucks as he was traded for Adam Clendening, who isn't good enough to play in the NHL and was included as a throwin on another controversial trade.
6th and 7th rounds-Kyle Pettit and MacKenzie Stewart, out of whom the Canucks are getting and will get no value.
So, given two picks in the 1st round, 2 in the 2nd round and 2 in the 3rd round, the Canucks will get far less value than they should have given the choice of players drafted. That drop in value from what could have been gained from the draft is not due to the decisions of the owners but due to decisions made by the management team (including coaching) after the draft. *. How much good has it done to have a GM whose purported strength is assessing amateur players?
* Some argue that in Tryamkin's case it isn't decisions made by the Canucks after drafting him that lower the value he is likely to bring. If indeed it is just that he prefers to play in Russia, then the decision to draft him looks much less favourable than indicated just by the player's potential. Either way, it is not ownership bringing a decrease in value to that pick. Yes, by itself it is just one decision. I'm looking at indications that even when the Canucks have drafted some useful prospects, they've at least so far gotten next to no value for those prospects and the outlook for the future isn't what it could be given just the ability of the drafted players.
