Confirmed with Link: [VAN/VGK] Canucks acquire F Brendan Leipsic for D Philip Holm

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
You along with the other Haters on this thread have shown ZERO ability to be objective. One of the reasons I would not even bother trying to explain why some of us actually don't mind Benning........

LOL that's the reason? I think the reason is more to do with not being able to come up with a reasonable, fact based argument. I've read tons of arguments on here, reddit, CDC, Facebook and Twitter. All those pro-Benning arguments are stupid, ignore facts, appeal to authority, make zero sense, or are easily shot down with facts.
 

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
You along with the other Haters on this thread have shown ZERO ability to be objective. One of the reasons I would not even bother trying to explain why some of us actually don't mind Benning........

We could easily come up with a dozen reasons to be pro Benning but you would find a way to refute every single one of them. Zero ability to give any credit where credit is due really affects your and the rest of the Haters credibility.......

Yep, this is the type of post I’m talking about. All vitriol, no substance.
 

VancouverJagger

Not trying to fit in
Feb 26, 2017
2,213
2,025
Vancouver - Coal Harbour
Yes once again - further posts illustrating my point. Anyone who has the audacity to think Benning isn't horrible gets shamed and told how stupid their arguments by all the armchair beer league GM's in here who now watch every 2nd Canuck game religiously and are fully qualified based on that to give opinions........

*Yawn.......... There really is no point in here trying to speak up. I'll let you guys get back to revelling in your anger.........Enjoy :thumbu:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mergatroidskittle

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
Yes once again - further posts illustrating my point. Anyone who has the audacity to think Benning isn't horrible gets shamed and told how stupid their arguments by all the armchair beer league GM's in here who now watch every 2nd Canuck game religiously and are fully qualified based on that to give opinions........

*Yawn.......... There really is no point in here trying to speak up. I'll let you guys get back to revelling in your anger.........Enjoy :thumbu:

You haven’t made any arguments though. Just yelling at people and comparing them to kids who eat crayons.

But sure, they’re the jerks and you’re the victim.
 

hellstick

Registered User
Nov 2, 2006
4,523
1,956
Abbotsford
Yes once again - further posts illustrating my point. Anyone who has the audacity to think Benning isn't horrible gets shamed and told how stupid their arguments by all the armchair beer league GM's in here who now watch every 2nd Canuck game religiously and are fully qualified based on that to give opinions........

*Yawn.......... There really is no point in here trying to speak up. I'll let you guys get back to revelling in your anger.........Enjoy :thumbu:
I would like to hear your thoughts on why Benning isn't horrible. Can you share them? Or are you just going to complain about not voicing an opinion?
 

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
You along with the other Haters on this thread have shown ZERO ability to be objective. One of the reasons I would not even bother trying to explain why some of us actually don't mind Benning........

We could easily come up with a dozen reasons to be pro Benning but you would find a way to refute every single one of them. Zero ability to give any credit where credit is due really affects your and the rest of the Haters credibility.......

Show me a decent argument then in your opinion. The ones that started this current debate were absolute crap and even the poster that brought them here agreed. As has been pointed out, if there is truthful reason behind an argument it will be heard and debated accordingly. That reason can't be well because...
 

tyhee

Registered User
Feb 5, 2015
2,535
2,612
Except he wasn’t drafted solely because he fought and beat Lindros. At that time there was a premium on big guys who could score, battle for position in front of the net with behemoth defencemen, and beat up Eric Lindros. Stojanov might have done all this if it wasn’t for some serious injuries. Turns out we should have picked Tkachuk (x2)... but I put that more on the Antoski pick.

The thing is, there’s more sides to these arguments than many here will admit

Of course there was a premium on big guys who could score, as is always the case. It's extremely questionable judgment, though, to suggest that Stojanov should ever have been projected to fit that description at the NHL level.

In his draft year he scored 45 points (25 goals and 20 assists) in 65 games. That's not big junior production-not enough to even suggest he could be a scorer in the NHL. In his D-1 season he'd scored 8 points (4 goals, 4 assists) in 37 OHL games.

He was drafted 7th overall. His junior team also had Jeff Bes, the same age as Stojanov but listed as 6' tall and 190 lb. Bes outscored Stojanov in their draft year with 70 pts in 66 games (23 goals, 47 assists) compared to Stojanov's 45 pts but didn't get drafted at all until the following season, when he went in the 3rd round after a 102 pt season.

I looked at hockeydb.com and did a quick check counting players who were 16 and 17 years of age in Stojanov's draft year (his 17 year old season) and there were 31 players in the league who scored more points than he did, another 25 17 or younger who scored more in the WHL another and at least another 21 in the QMJHL (where the age of quite a few players is missing.)

That is at least 77 players in major junior alone who were draft year or younger and outscored Stojanov that season. Lindros and Falloon, the first two choices, both scored more than 3 x the number of points in fewer games. The last three picks in the 1st round from major junior that season all outscored Stojanov's 45 points by a large margin-Glen Murray (18th overall and a good size himself) got 65 pts and 82 penalty minutes, Trevor Halvorson (21st overall) 95 pts and Dean McAmmond (22nd overall) 68 pts and 108 penalty minutes. Two of those three had lengthy and productive NHL careers after being drafted much later than Stojanov.

It wasn't just that Stojanov's scoring at the major junior level didn't suggest he could be an NHL player. He was a slow skater and his speed clearly would need to pick up to play regularly in the NHL.

Which got Stojanov drafted 7th overall, his 45 pts in 65 games or size (listed on hockeydb at 6'4-232) and leading his team by a lot with 179 penalty minutes?

Picking Stojanov was selected by the Bleacher Report in 2011 as the worst first round pick in Canucks' history. NHL Power Rankings: Worst First-Round Draft Pick for Each Team The article mentions he wasn't fast enough to play in the NHL. (I suspect that Patrick White has probably surpassed Stojanov as the worst 1st round pick in Canucks' history, but at the time of the article White had just finished his university career.)

It's completely reasonable to suggest drafting Stojanov was awful decision making and deserves to be questioned. Thinking he was likely to be a scorer or even reasonable player at the NHL level was questionable and, as it turned out, mistaken.

Imo 7th overall was ridiculously early to draft an enforcer who was going to have to greatly improve his skating to keep up at the NHL level.
 
Last edited:

ProstheticConscience

Check dein Limit
Apr 30, 2010
18,459
10,107
Canuck Nation
Yes once again - further posts illustrating my point. Anyone who has the audacity to think Benning isn't horrible gets shamed and told how stupid their arguments by all the armchair beer league GM's in here who now watch every 2nd Canuck game religiously and are fully qualified based on that to give opinions........

*Yawn.......... There really is no point in here trying to speak up. I'll let you guys get back to revelling in your anger.........Enjoy :thumbu:
And this is exactly why you guys get ganged up, poor [mod] that you are.

You present no argument, no facts, no principles on which your opinion could rest on, you just dish out insults, complain and leave.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Bruce Banner

Nude Cabdriver Ban
Mar 25, 2008
7,946
3,217
Streets Ahead
When opinions aren’t rooted in evidence, and particularly when they rely on circular arguments like “This guy’s a GM so I’m sure he knows better than you”, it’s not “closed-minded” to reject them, it’s basically part of the scientific method. To start from the idea that all views are equally valid is an example of the golden mean fallacy.

For example, taking Alek Stojanov 7th overall because he once fought Eric Lindros in the OHL is pretty awful decision-making, and deserves to be questioned.

I don't want to get into a discussion where I somehow have to defend our selection of Stojanov. He was a bad pick and trading him for Naslund was one of the greatest trades the Canucks have ever pulled off.

What I was arguing against was the oversimplification of opposing arguments that happens here all the time. Stojanov wasn't drafted solely on the basis that he beat up Lindros. That was definitely a tick in the win column for him, though. The thing was that after Probert scored 29 goals riding shotgun for Yzerman, that type of player became very attractive. Stojanov had shown signs that he could be that kind of player. He was a legit heavyweight who could put the puck in the net, on occasion. The lack of skating speed, although a definite issue, was not as big a drawback as it is today. Someone who could go into the corners with Lindros and take up space in front of the net vs. Hatcher was what they were hoping for. He was generally assumed to be a high first round pick. These days, those kind of guys go in the 2nd like Gadjovich or even later.

Anyway, it was a bad pick, but I'd argue, not an idiotic one. At least not on the level of hurr durr they only picked him because he beat up Lindros. The reason they picked him has more depth and subtlety... same can be said about many Canuck moves, but discussion here doesn't always take that into account. Is what I'm saying.
 
Last edited:

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
You along with the other Haters on this thread have shown ZERO ability to be objective. One of the reasons I would not even bother trying to explain why some of us actually don't mind Benning........

We could easily come up with a dozen reasons to be pro Benning but you would find a way to refute every single one of them. Zero ability to give any credit where credit is due really affects your and the rest of the Haters credibility.......

If every single one of those reasons can be refuted then perhaps the ones being closed minded are those of you who are pro Benning but refuse to open your minds to those reasons that refute why you're pro Benning?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Burton

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,739
23,887
Yes once again - further posts illustrating my point. Anyone who has the audacity to think Benning isn't horrible gets shamed and told how stupid their arguments by all the armchair beer league GM's in here who now watch every 2nd Canuck game religiously and are fully qualified based on that to give opinions........

*Yawn.......... There really is no point in here trying to speak up. I'll let you guys get back to revelling in your anger.........Enjoy :thumbu:

So what makes your opinion so special?

You've yet to make any sort of case and are playing a victim - THAT is the main reason people get "shamed". You post drive-by comments screaming from the rooftops that we're are wrong, but don't provide any sort of argument. How do we take you seriously? It's honestly embarrassing from your standpoint.

We are more than welcome to easily debunk any argument you present because we've done it millions of times already....but you won't because you likely know it'll happen.

Benning supporters all seem to have that in common, funnily enough,
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
I dont know what this thread is about anymore and perhaps I missed it but the Canucks were all set to select Peter Forsberg (who was a projected 2nd rounder) when PHI scooped him at 6. I think the Stojanov pick was becuase they werent prepared.
 

Frankie Blueberries

Allergic to draft picks
Jan 27, 2016
9,097
10,545
I believe Benning supporters fall into a few different categories:

a) The die hard Canucks fan that is too emotionally invested in the team to use logic or reason to justify their views. They just want to root for the team and are always way too optimistic for everything because it gives them the illusion of hope. I can empathize for these types of fans, I felt this way to a lesser extent when I was younger. I think the majority of Benning supporters fall under this category.

b) The appeal to authority crowd. Benning won a cup in 2011, don't you remember? He knows what he is doing. I assume these types of people are the same people that would justify a Jonathan Cheechoo trade if it happened in 2008, since he won the Richard in 2006, he must still be an elite goal scorer right? These fans ignore all context, circumstances, and largely live on historical facts that are no longer relevant.

c) The fans that do not follow the team or the league very closely. They don't watch all of the games. They don't have a good understanding of how the salary cap and CBA works. They don't realize how prospects/draft picks should be valued. They just like hockey, I guess?

If a Benning supporter falls outside of these categories, I assume they base their opinions on emotion and not on logic or reasoning. Which seems fairly accurate based on the above posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MS

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,584
15,946
one last stojanov OT (where did that discussion come from?)

i was curious so i ran a quick catalogue search:

The Globe and Mail (Canada)
June 22, 1991 Saturday
The top 10 people to look for in today's draft: No. 1, Eric Lindros

BY AL STRACHAN
BUFFALO

IT'S all but impossible to predict the entire first round of the National
Hockey League draft. There are too many variables and any last-minute
change of plans by a given team then alters the thinking of others who
draft later.

However, this is a rough idea of what to expect:

1. Quebec Nordiques. Eric Lindros. No surprises or late trades.

2. San Jose Sharks. Pat Falloon. There's still an extremely strong sentiment for Boston University defenceman Scott Lachance but the Sharks need a scoring forward.

3. New Jersey Devils. If Lachance is still available, he'll be picked here. If he's gone, look for the Devils to trade this pick, probably to Hartford who will take Falloon.

4. New York Islanders. They love Kamloops' defenceman Scott Niedermayer.

5. Winnipeg Jets. They had been toying with the idea of picking a European, but with John Paddock as coach, they'll grab Michigan defenceman Aaron Ward.

6. Philadelphia Flyers. This could be the big shocker. They're leaning toward Sweden's Peter Forsberg who many teams see as a second-rounder. Another Swede, Markus Naslund, is a possibility.

7. Vancouver Canucks. There's disagreement, but Saskatoon defenceman Richard Matvichuk will probably emerge as the consensus pick.

8. Minnesota North Stars. They covet defenceman Alex Stojanov of Hamilton.

9. Hartford Whalers. This pick could be flipped in a trade with New Jersey. The Devils like left wing Patrick Poulin. The Whalers would probably grab defenceman Brent Bilodeau.

10. Detroit Red Wings. If this scenario is accurate, the Wings will be able to get a defenceman they hadn't expected, Phillipe Boucher of Granby.

USA TODAY
June 21, 1991, Friday, FINAL EDITION
Putting the top picks in order

USA TODAY hockey writer Kevin Allen ranks the top 25 prospects for Saturday's National Hockey League entry draft at the Buffalo Aud (noon, SportsChannel America):

Name Pos. Ht. Wt. Last team GP G A Pts.
1. Eric Lindros C 6-5 228 Oshawa (OHL) 57 71 78 149
2. Pat Falloon RW 5-10 192 Spokane (WHL) 61 64 74 138
3. Scott Lachance D 6-1 190 Boston U. 31 5 19 24
4. Scott Niedermayer D 6-0 195 Kamloops (WHL) 57 26 56 72
5. Aaron Ward D 6-2 200 U. of Michigan 46 8 11 19
6. Richard Matvichuk D 6-3 190 Saskatoon (WHL)68 13 36 49
7. Phillipe Boucher D 6-3 190 Granby (QHL) 69 21 46 67
8. Alex Stojanov LW 6-4 220 Hamilton (OHL) 62 25 20 45
9. Brent Bilodeau D 6-4 220 Seattle (WHL) 55 7 18 25
10. Martin LapointeRW 5-11 197 Laval (QHL) 64 44 54 98
11. Patrick Poulin LW 6-1 208 St. Hyacin. (QHL) 56 32 38 70
12. Tyler Wright C 5-11 170 Swift Current (WHL)66 41 51 92
13 Rene Corbett LW 6-0 176 Drummondville (QHL)45 25 40 65
14. Pat Peake C 6-0 185 Detroit (OHL) 63 39 51 90
15. Brian Rolston C 6-0 175 Detroit (NAJHL)36 49 46 95
16. Glenn Murray LW 6-2 200 Sudbury (OHL) 66 27 38 65
17. Eric Lavigne D 6-3 207 Hull (QHL) 66 11 11 22
18. Mike Pomichter C 6-1 198 Springfield (NEJ)38 61 64 125
19. Darcy Werenka D 6-2 210 Lethbridge (WHL)72 13 37 50
20. Martin Rucinsky C 5-11 170 Czechoslovakia 56 24 21 45
21. Jeff Nelson C 5-11 180 Prince Albert (WHL)72 46 74 120
22. Jim Campbell C 6-3 180 Northwood HS 24 38 43 81
23. Markus Naslund RW 5-11 176 Sweden 32 10 9 19
24. Jamie Pushor D 6-4 192 Lethbridge (WHL)71 1 13 14
25. Peter Forsberg C 5-10 165 Sweden 23 7 1017
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

USA TODAY
June 21, 1991, Friday, FINAL EDITION
Falloon's hometown eager for word on favorite son

BYLINE: Kevin Allen
DATELINE: BUFFALO

The San Jose Sharks can make some hay in the wheat-country town of Foxwarren, Manitoba, Saturday if they make Pat Falloon the first draft pick in franchise history.

The 132 residents of Foxwarren are so committed to their hometown hero that last month, each farmer did his own daily chores, then worked at the Falloon farm so Falloon's father could watch his son in the Memorial Cup.

Farmers put two-way radios in their tractors to get updates from the 40 or so folks gathered at the Falloon house to watch the game via satellite.

They will be gathered again Saturday to see if Sharks general manager Jack Ferreira takes Falloon over U.S.-born defenseman Scott Lachance and Kamloops (B.C.) defenseman Scott Niedermayer.

''Falloon's a goal-scorer,'' said Cliff Fletcher, lame-duck Calgary Flames president soon be president of the Toronto Maple Leafs. ''He reminds me of a young Joey Mullen.''

Falloon seems the logical choice for the Sharks, who received 12 young defensemen and few scorers in the dispersal and expansion drafts, but the choice is difficult.

''Niedermayer is an exciting player,'' Quebec general manager Pierre Page said. ''He could be another Paul Coffey.''

And Lachance is a two-way player who could be a defensive mainstay for a decade.

Lachance, of Bristol, Conn., leads what could be one of the most productive first rounds for U.S.-born players. As many as five are projected first-round picks.

In a draft heavy on defensemen, Michigan natives Pat Peake and Brian Rolston are among the chosen few offensive-minded players. Both would like to go to the hometown Red Wings, but that seems unlikely given Detroit's depth at center.

They are projected mid-round picks, followed by centers Mike Pomichter of North Haven, Conn., and possibly Jim Campbell of Lake Placid, N.Y.

After Eric Lindros, Falloon, Lachance and Niedermayer, the most talked- about player is 220-pound wing Alex Stojanov.

''He won't score 50 goals,'' said Brian Burke, Vancouver's director of hockey operations, ''but he's the kind of guy who might get you 30 goals and 300 penalty minutes.''

The Toronto Star
March 30, 1991, Saturday, SATURDAY EDITION

BYLINE: By Mark Zwolinski Toronto Star

Top prospects: Eric Lindros, of course, led the OHL's entry in the Valvoline top draft prospect award, a monthly polling of media members who rate the top players from the Canadian Hockey League (OHL, QMJHL and Western Hockey League) available for the NHL draft in June.

Here's a look at the top five from each league:

OHL: 1. Lindros; 2. Pat Peake, Detroit Ambassadors; 3. Dennis Purdie, London Knights; 4. Alex Stojanov, Hamilton Dukes; 5. Glen Murray, Sudbury Wolves.

QMJHL: 1. Patrick Poulin, St-Hyacinthe Lazers; 2. Philippe Boucher, Granby Bisons; 3. Yanic Perreault, Trois-Rivieres Draveurs; 4. Martin Lapointe, Laval Titans; 5. Rene Corbet, Drummondville Voltigeurs.

WHL: 1. Scott Niedermayer, Kamloops Blazers 2. Pat Falloon, Spokane Chiefs; 3. Jeff Nelson, Prince Albert Raiders; 4. Brent Bilodeau, Seattle Thunderbirds; 5. Lee J. Leslie, Prince Albert Raiders.

so yes, a very bad pick. but not nearly as gigantic of a reach as people have suggested over the years.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,584
15,946
I believe Benning supporters fall into a few different categories:

a) The die hard Canucks fan that is too emotionally invested in the team to use logic or reason to justify their views. They just want to root for the team and are always way too optimistic for everything because it gives them the illusion of hope. I can empathize for these types of fans, I felt this way to a lesser extent when I was younger. I think the majority of Benning supporters fall under this category.

b) The appeal to authority crowd. Benning won a cup in 2011, don't you remember? He knows what he is doing. I assume these types of people are the same people that would justify a Jonathan Cheechoo trade if it happened in 2008, since he won the Richard in 2006, he must still be an elite goal scorer right? These fans ignore all context, circumstances, and largely live on historical facts that are no longer relevant.

c) The fans that do not follow the team or the league very closely. They don't watch all of the games. They don't have a good understanding of how the salary cap and CBA works. They don't realize how prospects/draft picks should be valued. They just like hockey, I guess?

If a Benning supporter falls outside of these categories, I assume they base their opinions on emotion and not on logic or reasoning. Which seems fairly accurate based on the above posts.

by "base their opinions on emotion and not on logic or reasoning," do you mean a sizable (d) category of fans who are so fragile and still angry about the 2011 finals, which for reasons we could debate all day they have decided to blame on mike gillis, that they will allow themselves to believe the best of his polar opposite to the contrary of any and all observable evidence?
 

ProstheticConscience

Check dein Limit
Apr 30, 2010
18,459
10,107
Canuck Nation
I believe Benning supporters fall into a few different categories:

a) The die hard Canucks fan that is too emotionally invested in the team to use logic or reason to justify their views. They just want to root for the team and are always way too optimistic for everything because it gives them the illusion of hope. I can empathize for these types of fans, I felt this way to a lesser extent when I was younger. I think the majority of Benning supporters fall under this category.

b) The appeal to authority crowd. Benning won a cup in 2011, don't you remember? He knows what he is doing. I assume these types of people are the same people that would justify a Jonathan Cheechoo trade if it happened in 2008, since he won the Richard in 2006, he must still be an elite goal scorer right? These fans ignore all context, circumstances, and largely live on historical facts that are no longer relevant.

c) The fans that do not follow the team or the league very closely. They don't watch all of the games. They don't have a good understanding of how the salary cap and CBA works. They don't realize how prospects/draft picks should be valued. They just like hockey, I guess?

If a Benning supporter falls outside of these categories, I assume they base their opinions on emotion and not on logic or reasoning. Which seems fairly accurate based on the above posts.

There's more.

d) The none-too-bright fans who fail to construct coherent arguments for their positions, come here, get destroyed, leave all bitter and angry. They just simply don't understand statistics or probability, or any of the new shiny stats the numbers nerds use to back up their positions. Much like Trump voters trying to debate with university-educated liberals, they love to pretend their enemies all think the same thing because of "groupthink" or "echo chambers" rather than admit to themselves logical and statistical analyses beyond their understanding led those people to the same conclusions.

e) The contrarians. They see us all agree Benning is garbage, they must attack us on his behalf. Win/loss records are mere numbers on a screen; the real fun is going on CAPSLOCK-fueled rants.

f) Astroturf. Barely a notch above pedophiles imho.
 

Lindgren

Registered User
Jun 30, 2005
5,942
3,848
I think Benning should have been let go. I even think there's merit to the argument that the current management group is bad enough that getting the first overall pick could turn out to be a bad thing.

At the same time, the implication that the anti-Benning crowd have a monopoly on rationality is wrong. I've seen plenty of circular reasoning, straw men, mistaking speculation for absolute proof, and extreme hyperbole from those critical of management.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,087
13,874
Missouri
Back to Leipsic....I think he's showing why an organization that lacks a fully developed farm system and hasn't had time to actually stock up on prospects was willing to let him go for, at best, playoff depth on the blueline. They saw too many holes in his game to make him a viable long term option in the NHL.

IT doesn't necessarily make it a bad trade or anything just that my summary of the trade at the time was "meh". It still is "meh".
 
Last edited:

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
I think Benning should have been let go. I even think there's merit to the argument that the current management group is bad enough that getting the first overall pick could turn out to be a bad thing.

At the same time, the implication that the anti-Benning crowd have a monopoly on rationality is wrong. I've seen plenty of circular reasoning, straw men, mistaking speculation for absolute proof, and extreme hyperbole from those critical of management.

Who has made such an implication?
 

VancouverJagger

Not trying to fit in
Feb 26, 2017
2,213
2,025
Vancouver - Coal Harbour
Hahah - I just caught up on some of the responses to my posts. I might as well shout at the wall and expect it to move. Let me post 3 little points that will perfectly illustrate further what I've been saying.

1 Boeser - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?
2 Gaudette - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?
3 EP - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?

:popcorn:
 

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,288
14,030
Hiding under WTG's bed...
2 Gaudette - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?


:popcorn:

FANTASTIC pick by Benning. And you do know how he got that pick in the first place right? Gillis dealt Diaz for that 5th round pick. Canucks picked somebody ELSE with their own 5th round pick (it was an earlier pick than the acquired pick via Gillis trade).

:popcorn:
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
I believe Benning supporters fall into a few different categories:

a) The die hard Canucks fan that is too emotionally invested in the team to use logic or reason to justify their views. They just want to root for the team and are always way too optimistic for everything because it gives them the illusion of hope. I can empathize for these types of fans, I felt this way to a lesser extent when I was younger. I think the majority of Benning supporters fall under this category.

b) The appeal to authority crowd. Benning won a cup in 2011, don't you remember? He knows what he is doing. I assume these types of people are the same people that would justify a Jonathan Cheechoo trade if it happened in 2008, since he won the Richard in 2006, he must still be an elite goal scorer right? These fans ignore all context, circumstances, and largely live on historical facts that are no longer relevant.

c) The fans that do not follow the team or the league very closely. They don't watch all of the games. They don't have a good understanding of how the salary cap and CBA works. They don't realize how prospects/draft picks should be valued. They just like hockey, I guess?

If a Benning supporter falls outside of these categories, I assume they base their opinions on emotion and not on logic or reasoning. Which seems fairly accurate based on the above posts.

hey now.
 

xtra

Registered User
May 19, 2002
8,323
4,765
Vancouver
Visit site
Hahah - I just caught up on some of the responses to my posts. I might as well shout at the wall and expect it to move. Let me post 3 little points that will perfectly illustrate further what I've been saying.

1 Boeser - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?
2 Gaudette - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?
3 EP - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?

:popcorn:
Boeser - who was pushed for by brackett would go higher

Gaudette- if benning was so high on him and predicted his explosion why did he risk him in the fifth round? Or is he expecting Carl Neil, Dmitri Zukhenov and briesbois to be better players than Gaudette? You can get lucky in late picks.

Pettersson - I love the kid he’s doing amazing but he’s not beating out Nico who has 50 points in the NHL, I don’t see Dallas and Colorado passing on the dmen the took as makar could have been an Olympian this year and heiskanen is at 0.66 points per game in Finland.

So it comes down to Patrick and Pettersson so he would be a top 5 pick still maybe 1 spot difference.


Your entire arguement for why to keep benning around is based on 2 players brackett pushed for (see the articles floating on this board) and Pettersson who would go one or two spots higher in his draft.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
Back to Leipsic....I think he's showing why an organization that lacks a fully developed farm system and hasn't had time to actually stock up on prospects was willing to let him go for, at best, playoff depth on the blueline. They saw too many holes in his game to make him a viable long term option in the NHL.

IT doesn't necessarily make it a bad trade or anything just that my summary of the trade at the time was "meh". It still is "meh".

he's got some drive on an off the ice that i like. i'd call him a ronning light for now. or maybe a bradley heavy. either way, if he sustains what he has brought he's miles ahead of motte, boucher and goldobin at being in the nhl.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->