18/19 MGMT thread VII. WARNING POST #25

[WTG]

"For example, the first layer beyond the Big Three is a four-man grouping that includes three different types of wingers — Tkachuk, who is strong from the top of the circles down; Dubois, who has a strong 200-foot game; and Nylander, whose skill and hockey sense are considered elite — and the one defenceman Juolevi, who's viewed as the best all-around blueliner in the draft."

https://www.tsn.ca/matthews-goes-wire-to-wire-as-tsn-s-top-prospect-1.511597

Oh look at that in Bob's list Tkachuk was BPA too. Strange. Even above PLD.
Look at the aggregated lists of every mock draft. You'll see the least amount of diversity in the top 5. The top 5 for the most part was cemented.
Nobody had Nylander ahead of Tkachuk.

I'm so done with arguing this, I have an exam to study for.

 

[Jimbo57]

Oh look at that in Bob's list Tkachuk was BPA too. Strange. Even above PLD.
Look at the aggregated lists of every mock draft. You'll see the least amount of diversity in the top 5. The top 5 for the most part was cemented.
Nobody had Nylander ahead of Tkachuk.

I'm so done with arguing this, I have an exam to study for.

Nobody said that Juolevi was BPA. What I am arguing is that Juolevi was in the ballpark of where the Canucks picked and was less of a reach than Pettersson was. On draft day JB wasnt the slobbering lunatic for making that pick that some in here are trying to paint him as.

Exam? It makes sense...you probably less than 25 years old and outside of the past 3 years have only seen good Canuck teams. News flash junior...you arent entitled to cup contending teams every year.

 

[Black Noise]

Of course PNHLe means nothing, it DOES NOT suit your narrative that 4 canuck prospect dmen are on that list.

Did I sat it means nothing? No, but it isn't some end all be all metric. You have to take it in objectively. According to PNHLe we'd be better off having Fox, Hronek, Gildon and Mitchell. Personally, I'd take our 4 over those 4 but the metric says otherwise. I assume you'd agree with the metric that that group of 4 is better than right?

So if a player is performing well, but players around him are also performing well, then he is not a great pick? LOL. sure.

Sorry but my definition of a great pick is more than "is doing what is expected of him at that draft spot". Pettersson is a great pick. Boeser is a great pick. Demko is a great pick. Woo is not a great pick yet.

He is a great pick. Someone asked me to post the names of players taken post top 10 that make the Canuck prospect pool highly ranked. I included WOO. Just because you want to twist this into an anti Benning agenda does not change that.

Ah, fantastic argument. You included him in our Top 10 prospects? Wow, must be a stud then.

Fact: he is currently in the top 2 or 3 goalies that this country has to put in net for this year's tournament. He is an excellent pick.

So you're just completely ignore my entire point and write "FACT" in front of what you've already said? f*** what a great argument.

What does what some Utica fans think have to do with anything i mentioned above? Juolevi was putting up excellent numbers up to the time of his injury. Wasnt he top 2 or 3 in rookie d man scoring in the AHL...but of course you will find a way to diminish that.

Sorry but I care more about what objective Utica fans that actually watch games say about Juolevi than your homer ass.

 

[valkynax]

You are making things up as you go. This is not my logic, you are desperately grasping at straws. You are the genius that said this d core is horrible. I asked you a simple question of how you would have fixed it. All you can do is revert to your frothing at the mouth "dim jim" talk. All noise no substance.



Are you 5 years old? Just because management tells you that they are going to compete doesnt mean you have to buy it. Its not like they are going to say "this situation is horrible, we have to suck for 5 years". You sound like a little kid that got his toy taken away "but Jim said we are going to try and win a cup soon" wah wah.



Do you have the ability to think for yourself? All you do is regurgitate the same tired rhetoric the same cast of 10-15 sadsakkers in here play over and over. Gillis was a fine GM but he left the cupboards dry in his attempts to win a cup. He also handed out many challenging contracts. This current regime has been hindered by these factors. Anyone claiming otherwise is out to lunch.



Toronto missed the playoffs 10/11 years leading up to the 2016 season. They won the draft lotto and inherited better players.



Speaking of gibbering lunatics....when did you start watching hockey? 2005 maybe? LOL.

Your logic is, we need D, so Dim Jim drafted the "best" D in that year (LMAO).

So with that logic, if we need D, we should take Hanifin instead of McDavid.

Toronto's build didn't start until they trade away their big pieces with horrible contracts. I don't expect this team to be turned around the same time, teams are different, sure. But the basic philosophy is the same, you get rid of the old core and put in a new one, usually hoarding up picks to help achieving the goal. Tell me again, how many draft picks did our glorious dear leader obtain since he came?

You accuse me of repeating the same rhetoric, yet it is YOU who continues to play the NMC and But Gillis card. You said I'm like a little kid, yet it is YOU who continues to hurl juvenile insults with nothing to back up your bullshit posts.

At least Pastor of Muppets and Svencouver put thoughts into their posts and makes sense to some degree. You should learn from them.

Actually, no, don't. This is highly entertaining to us.

 

[WTG]

Nobody said that Juolevi was BPA.

Glad we can agree.
Bad pick. Terrible pick.

Exam? It makes sense...you probably less than 25 years old and outside of the past 3 years have only seen good Canuck teams. News flash junior...you arent entitled to cup contending teams every year.

I'm young so I'm entitled.
BIG BRAIN LOGIC THERE.

 

[Melvin]

Do people think if we had a different gm since 2014, we wouldn't have any prospects? How do you defend this position?

Waiting for a response.

 

[rypper]

Would love it if you guys could put an actual cogent argument together.

Here is Jim Benning's plan to turn around the canucks and here are some of the steps that show he knows what he's doing.

I'd still love to see an actual reply to this. (Or any of the other ways @Melvin has posed it.

 

[Jimbo57]

Did I sat it means nothing? No, but it isn't some end all be all metric. You have to take it in objectively. According to PNHLe we'd be better off having Fox, Hronek, Gildon and Mitchell. Personally, I'd take our 4 over those 4 but the metric says otherwise. I assume you'd agree with the metric that that group of 4 is better than right?

The metric shows me that 4 canuck picks, 2 of which are taken past first round, who are D men are performing very well as of this month. Someone asked me to post the names of prospects that make our pool highly coveted. There is a reason that multiple sources rank Vancouver's prospect pool amongst the best in the NHL. Guys like rathbone and woo substantiate the rankings.

Sorry but my definition of a great pick is more than "is doing what is expected of him at that draft spot". Pettersson is a great pick. Boeser is a great pick. Demko is a great pick. Woo is not a great pick yet.

So woo is not a great pick yet but Demko is?

So you're just completely ignore my entire point and write "FACT" in front of what you've already said? **** what a great argument.

Your point was garbage. You stated that DiPietro is no big deal. I say tell that to team Canada. I then posted Pronman who clearly states the Canucks have the best prospect pool in the NHL in goal. Yeah, Dipietro...no big deal. Keep pumping your narrative.

Sorry but I care more about what objective Utica fans that actually watch games say about Juolevi than your homer ass.

My "homer ass" said that Juolevi was amongst the top rookie D men in the AHL in scoring prior to his injury. You dont like facts so you resort to name calling and the usual third grade recess rhetoric.

 

[tantalum]

I was actually shocked the Bruins let Benning join the canucks before the draft. But they did. And let's be honest, while he may not have sheets of final Bruins rankings with him he should have known where the Bruins were leaning and who they/he liked. He got the chance to compare and contrast with a completely independent scouting department.

I can't believe for an instant Benning just sat back and let the canucks scouting department run things if things weren't gelling with his personal beliefs...beliefs formed by intimately involved with Bruins scouting. And if he bowed to other people instead of standing up for what would be his final decision to make...well it's just another reason to add to the big pile of reasons he isn't suited for the job.

 

[Jimbo57]

Your logic is, we need D, so Dim Jim drafted the "best" D in that year (LMAO).

So with that logic, if we need D, we should take Hanifin instead of McDavid.

Yeah because picking Tkachuk was as obvious as picking McDavid. You really are out to lunch.

Toronto's build didn't start until they trade away their big pieces with horrible contracts. I don't expect this team to be turned around the same time, teams are different, sure. But the basic philosophy is the same, you get rid of the old core and put in a new one, usually hoarding up picks to help achieving the goal. Tell me again, how many draft picks did our glorious dear leader obtain since he came?

Toronto management inherited a team that missed the playoffs for nearly a decade and had already accumulated good young players. They also won a draft lottery for one of the best players that has come out since Crosby. They have also benefited from the top UFA to hit the market in years- Tavares wanted to play in Toronto since he was a little kid. Toronto's management has benefits that JB never has had.

You accuse me of repeating the same rhetoric, yet it is YOU who continues to play the NMC and But Gillis card. You said I'm like a little kid, yet it is YOU who continues to hurl juvenile insults with nothing to back up your bull**** posts.

Ill repeat this one more time because I think you have problems connecting the dots. Gillis was a good GM, but he left an abhorrent cupboard of talent for this current regime. You can continue to stick your head in the sand and pretend that this has not hindered the current team.

At least Pastor of Muppets and Svencouver put thoughts into their posts and makes sense to some degree. You should learn from them.

You mean you dont like it when i take the same tone you do with others? Poo hoo.

 

[Black Noise]

The metric shows me that 4 canuck picks, 2 of which are taken past first round, who are D men are performing very well as of this month. Someone asked me to post the names of prospects that make our pool highly coveted. There is a reason that multiple sources rank Vancouver's prospect pool amongst the best in the NHL. Guys like rathbone and woo substantiate the rankings.

I really hate how overrated Rathbone is getting. He's played 11 games in the worst NCAA conference while playing with the NCAAs leading defenceman. Can we maybe wait for him to do this more consistently before pegging him as a great prospect?

So woo is not a great pick yet but Demko is?

Demko put up .922 in the AHL last year and was probably their best player. How can you not see the difference between performing at the pro level and the junior level?

If Woo puts up big AHL numbers next season than yeah he'll be a great pick.

Your point was garbage. You stated that DiPietro is no big deal. I say tell that to team Canada. I then posted Pronman who clearly states the Canucks have the best prospect pool in the NHL in goal. Yeah, Dipietro...no big deal. Keep pumping your narrative.

2 out of Team Canada's last 14 WJC are NHLers. And they're f***ing Steven Mason and Jake Allen. Why are you treating Team Canada's judgement to such a high standard when the goalies they choose become actual NHLers less than 10% of the time, and shitty ones at that?

Also Pronman thought Mittelstadt was better than Pettersson so I dont really give a shit what he thinks.

My "homer ass" said that Juolevi was amongst the top rookie D men in the AHL in scoring prior to his injury. You dont like facts so you resort to name calling and the usual third grade recess rhetoric.

"Usual"? The f***? This is the first time I've ever responded to you. Also Utica fans have noted that Juolevi's points are mainly PP and he is poor defensively. I haven't watched him this year but I prefer to use their opinion (since they watch him regularly) than just looking at box stats.

 

[Canucks1096]

You compare with two of the most successful rebuilds and you blame Gillis (oh Benning bros are so similar in their arguments) but you forget two things: none of the Maple Leafs or Jets/Trashers previous GM's had the same success in building a contender like Gillis did. You start in different situations because we, Canucks, were at least in the second round most of the years (and reach the Finals), and both Trashers and Maple Leafs never went to the second round. So the picks are not comparable, not you even can claim the Gillis mess since he had a lot of worse picks to work with.

But, now you say you need 5 or 6 years but Benning said himself he could turn this in a hurry, then he would need 3 to 4 years and now the 5 to 6 years. Next year, we will need 7 to 8 years too? And if you need 8 good pieces, why didn't Benning get more tools (draft picks or prospects) to get those 8 pieces in the previous 4 years? Can you give a reasonable explanation beside "but Gillis" argument, since it is exhausted after the three year period, as per Benning?

By the way, you should check Benning's quote history, it doesn't fit with your post.

That is true. Jets and Leafs were a lot worse than the Canucks and had better picks. But that still doesn't change the fact Benning inherited a mess with an aging roster and not a lot of good players. Your argument still doesn't change what Benning inherited. Gillis still had 6 1st round picks and there is one nhl player to show for.

Maybe I am missing your point but in a way it seem you are indirectly agreeing with my main point. You did bring up the fact that Gillis was successful and didnt get the high pick. So in away you are agreeing that Benning didnt inherited much. To me it doesn't really matter why he didn't inherited much. The fact is he didn't Inherited. Not sure why we need to get into specifics of it.

What does Benning have to do with my argument? My argument it takes more than 3 to 4 years because of evidences I showed. Short rebuilds you inherited and use your own 1st round picks. Benning didnt inherited much so it will take longer. You did indicate that Leafs and Jets had high picks and thats why they got those players. So again You are indirectly saying you need high picks is to get those players for a rebuild. Benning has his own picks. Realistically Canucks vets wasn't worth a high pick

Canucks need a number 1 and number D. So how do the Canucks get those players. If you were GM would you trade A potential number 1 or number 2 D for Burrows or Bieksa?

Back to the Jets and Leafs. Both didn't get high end pieces while trading there Vets.

Your argument seem like you are in a defensive mode defending why Benning didnt inherited much. So if you go down that route. It seem to you are agreeing with my points

Sorry if I am missing your point. I was little confuse on where you try to go with this

 

[Jimbo57]

I really hate how overrated Rathbone is getting. He's played 11 games in the worst NCAA conference while playing with the NCAAs leading defenceman. Can we maybe wait for him to do this more consistently before pegging him as a great prospect?

Ill state this again, im getting tired of stating this: someone asked me to post the names of prospects that make Vancouver's pool highly coveted. I posted a metric showing that Rathbone and Woo are preforming very well - in the top 25 or 26 of their peers. Vancouver has some great prospects taken outside of the top 10 in the draft. Their pool is highly ranked by multiple sources. ive posted 3 links to these sources. How you want to digest or discredit that info is up to you.

If Woo puts up big AHL numbers next season than yeah he'll be a great pick.

so if he puts up great numbers next year, and those taken around him also put up great numbers...according to you..he would not be a great pick?

2 out of Team Canada's last 14 WJC are NHLers. And they're ****ing Steven Mason and Jake Allen. Why are you treating Team Canada's judgement to such a high standard when the goalies they choose become actual NHLers less than 10% of the time, and ****ty ones at that?

How these guys turned out is irrelevant to my point. My point is as of right now team Canada considers DiPietro as one of the top 2 or 3 goalies in the country for his age. I also posted Pronman who stated that they Canucks have the best 1-2 punch in net in terms of prospects. He was a great pick. Is this so hard to understand. We are talking about current prospect pool not about how these guys may turn out in 3 years. For @#$# sakes.

"Usual"? The ****? This is the first time I've ever responded to you. Also Utica fans have noted that Juolevi's points are mainly PP and he is poor defensively. I haven't watched him this year but I prefer to use their opinion (since they watch him regularly) than just looking at box stats.

His points are mainly PP- nice way to try and discount his points...as if other D men who generate offence dont rack up points on the PP. You are discounting the fact that he was amongst the top d men in scoring in the AHL prior to his injury just because it doesnt fit the "juolevi is garbage" narrative.

 

[ATypicalCanadian]

I didn't say that.
How about you answer my question, do you think Benning has scouted Gaudette/Tryamkin/Forsling more than 2 games?

There seems to be a misconception how much Benning really does in terms of amateur scouting. He simply doesn't see near the number of games that scouts of individual regions/leagues do. He's going make the occasional scouting trip, but so does every GM.

His job is to influence the direction of the scouting with the trends he sees that lead to success in the NHL. GM's as a whole just don't provide input past first round picks(especially the top 10). Gillis and Brackett have both said this previously.

 

[Numba9]

Do people think if we had a different gm since 2014, we wouldn't have any prospects? How do you defend this position?

If we had a different GM everything would likely be very similar, maybe a little worse or maybe a little better but very similar. It all comes down to expectations. You guys can throw around the Canucks record the last 4 years but the vast majority of people were expecting the losing considering the state of the team when Benning took over. What most people expected was that the GM build a new elite core through drafting which Benning has done a good job of.

Most people have the expectation that pro scouting is will likely be bad when you are in the process of building a new core, because you are not a hot destination for UFAs and you don't have the quality assets to bring in quality players through trade.

The new GM (if Benning is fired) will have different expectations of good pro scouting and winning games similar to when Gillis arrived.

 

[Black Noise]

so if he puts up great numbers next year, and those taken around him also put up great numbers...according to you..he would not be a great pick?

I used his peers to show that what he's doing right now is consistent with what early 2nds do in junior. Go back in time and it still applies. Once prospects reach the AHL is when they should be judged. So yes, if somehow all ealry 2nd defenceman put up big AHL numbers than they would be good picks. But right now you can't say that because literally every decent early 2nd round pick puts up Woo's numbers in his draft+1. When you hit pro is where there are big changes and much more variability, as you can see with Lind.

How these guys turned out is irrelevant to my point. My point is as of right now team Canada considers DiPietro as one of the top 2 or 3 goalies in the country for his age. I also posted Pronman who stated that they Canucks have the best 1-2 punch in net in terms of prospects. He was a great pick. Is this so hard to understand. We are talking about current prospect pool not about how these guys may turn out in 3 years. For @#$# sakes.

The whole basis of having a good prospect pool is the assumption that they will be good in 3+ years. If you don't care about how they will do at the pro level and just care about junior stats then whats the point?

His points are mainly PP- nice way to try and discount his points...as if other D men who generate offence dont rack up points on the PP. You are discounting the fact that he was amongst the top d men in scoring in the AHL prior to his injury just because it doesnt fit the "juolevi is garbage" narrative.

The people watching Juolevi are the ones saying he isn't good. Not me. I don't have a narrative. I'd love for Juolevi to be a Top 2 defenceman, but he's nowhere even close to that.

 

[Askel]

Oh dear god its starting again. I also love that anyone who doesn't like Benning is a spoiled kid now. And still 5 years later its still Gillis fault even though almost every good player on this team was acquired by Gillis (Yes Pettersson and Boeser is the exceptions). Weird in 5 years banning still hasn't been able to acquire one d-man that is better than the three Gillis guys who are still here.

Rathbone is 3rd in d-man scoring on his team, Its not like he is dominating that level. Woo is playing fine hockey, but it'd not like he is separating himself from the players around him.

Oh and yes Joulevi was a bad pick. When you are being outperformed by the player everyone wanted the Canucks to draft that makes it bad. He is also being outplayed by McAvoy, Sergachev and Chuchryn if Canucks had picked one of those guys everything would be fine. Right now he is 5th overall that is not in the NHL in his draft+3 year. And thats bad, really bad.

 

[timw33]

Jimbo, you should just keep posting that NHLe tweet. Look forward to you citing it as if it's the scriptures from now until some (or all) of those prospects fails to meet those expectations.

 

[Jimbo57]

I used his peers to show that what he's doing right now is consistent with what early 2nds do in junior. Go back in time and it still applies. Once prospects reach the AHL is when they should be judged. So yes, if somehow all ealry 2nd defenceman put up big AHL numbers than they would be good picks. But right now you can't say that because literally every decent early 2nd round pick puts up Woo's numbers in his draft+1. When you hit pro is where there are big changes and much more variability, as you can see with Lind.

Fair enough. This does not take away from the point I was making before you jumped in. We have some really good post top 10 picks in our system.

The whole basis of having a good prospect pool is the assumption that they will be good in 3+ years. If you don't care about how they will do at the pro level and just care about junior stats then whats the point?

You are floundering here man. You asked me what makes DiPietro special (basically). I told you that he is one of the chosen WJ goalies. I also posted a link to a third party that states the Canucks have the best prospect tandem in net. DiPietro is an excellent pick. Hypothesizing about the future does not take away from this point. Bringing up Steve Mason, or whoever, does not diminish the fact that Dipietro is a blue chip goalie prospect and is being recognized as one of the top in the country for his age group.

The people watching Juolevi are the ones saying he isn't good. Not me. I don't have a narrative. I'd love for Juolevi to be a Top 2 defenceman, but he's nowhere even close to that.

The subjective opinions of one or two guys supposedly watching the games means little to me. The kid got off to a bad start, and he really started to improve prior to his injury. He was amongst the top rookie D men in that league in terms of points.

 

[valkynax]

Oh dear god its starting again. I also love that anyone who doesn't like Benning is a spoiled kid now. And still 5 years later its still Gillis fault even though almost very good player on this team was acquired by Gillis (Yes Pettersson is the exception). Weird in 5 years banning still hasn't been able to acquire one d-man that is better than the three Gillis guys who are still here.

Rathbone is 3rd in d-man scoring on his team, Its not like he is dominating that level. Woo is playing fine hockey, but it'd not like he is separating himself from the players around him.

Oh and yes Joulevi was a bad pick. When you are being outperformed by the player everyone wanted the Canucks to draft that makes it bad. He is also being outplayed by McAvoy, Sergachev and Chuchryn if Canucks had picked one of those guys everything would be fine. Right now he is 5th overall that is not in the NHL in his draft+3 year. And thats bad, really bad.

You know what, I'm starting to see the Benning bros separate into tiers. Some, like Svencouver, while having very little I agree with, seems to put effort and thought into their posts, which can lead to productive discussion and I find that respectable.

And then there are those whose posts are so bad even other Benning supporters treat these posts like Amy Schumer.

 

[Jimbo57]

If we had a different GM everything would likely be very similar, maybe a little worse or maybe a little better but very similar. It all comes down to expectations. You guys can throw around the Canucks record the last 4 years but the vast majority of people were expecting the losing considering the state of the team when Benning took over. What most people expected was that the GM build a new elite core through drafting which Benning has done a good job of.

Most people have the expectation that pro scouting is will likely be bad when you are in the process of building a new core, because you are not a hot destination for UFAs and you don't have the quality assets to bring in quality players through trade.

The new GM (if Benning is fired) will have different expectations of good pro scouting and winning games similar to when Gillis arrived.

excellent post.

 

[Melvin]

If we had a different GM everything would likely be very similar, maybe a little worse or maybe a little better but very similar. It all comes down to expectations. You guys can throw around the Canucks record the last 4 years but the vast majority of people were expecting the losing considering the state of the team when Benning took over. What most people expected was that the GM build a new elite core through drafting which Benning has done a good job of.

Most people have the expectation that pro scouting is will likely be bad when you are in the process of building a new core, because you are not a hot destination for UFAs and you don't have the quality assets to bring in quality players through trade.

The new GM (if Benning is fired) will have different expectations of good pro scouting and winning games similar to when Gillis arrived.

So basically the best defense of Benning is that he doesn't matter, that the gm of a team is essentially irrelevant because of the way the league is structured.

I can get behind that to some extent.

 

[y2kcanucks]

OK Just keep repeating should have drafted Tkachuk Nylander?? You do realize that Dal Colle Bennett Puljujarvi were all rated higher than the guys you wanted (Ritchie Barbashev Konecny Vilardi lol) the Canucks picks and the players who you now in hindsight covet. These are 17/18yr old kids it's obviously not an exact science. Your picks are so bad i'm suprised you don't hold JB in high regard actually or could at least have some humility?

My Hero? That is funny. See thats the thing Y2K i can look at the body of work of Jb and pick at things i like and things i dislike. I dont have to pick some side and refuse to admit that he has done anything good.....oh well Pettersson is gonna be the best C of all time as a Canuck thankfully we didnt take your boy.

The Canucks had no chance to draft MDC, Bennett, or Puljujarvi. But if they all fell to the Canucks, and the Canucks drafted them I wouldn't be complaining. They would have drafted the consensus BPA and missed. That happens. But like I said, when you go away from the consensus and you're wrong, you deserve a hailstorm of criticism.

I wanted Brendan Lemieux, not Barbashev. If you're going to call me out on something at least be right about it. And I was perfectly happy with Boeser. I had Konecny ranked above him, but made it clear that I would be happy with either. Ritchie I was extremely high on, and was wrong to prefer him over Nylander or Ehlers. And Vilardi...I had no idea he would develop a serious back problem after being drafted. If I had that information I wouldn't have been high on him, obviously. I still think, if healthy, he could be a dominant player. I just hope the missed development time so far doesn't hurt him too much.

But this is about management, not about me. I get you like to deflect whenever it's proven management blundered, but let's try to keep things on topic, mmmkay?

I look at Benning's body of work and can pick things I like and things I dislike. One list is extremely lopsided, while the other has maybe 3-4 things on it. I'll let you put together which list is which.

 

[member 290103]

Oh look at that in Bob's list Tkachuk was BPA too. Strange. Even above PLD.
Look at the aggregated lists of every mock draft. You'll see the least amount of diversity in the top 5. The top 5 for the most part was cemented.
Nobody had Nylander ahead of Tkachuk.

I'm so done with arguing this, I have an exam to study for.

A goddam veterinary exam!?

 

[Askel]

If we had a different GM everything would likely be very similar, maybe a little worse or maybe a little better but very similar. It all comes down to expectations. You guys can throw around the Canucks record the last 4 years but the vast majority of people were expecting the losing considering the state of the team when Benning took over. What most people expected was that the GM build a new elite core through drafting which Benning has done a good job of.

Most people have the expectation that pro scouting is will likely be bad when you are in the process of building a new core, because you are not a hot destination for UFAs and you don't have the quality assets to bring in quality players through trade.

The new GM (if Benning is fired) will have different expectations of good pro scouting and winning games similar to when Gillis arrived.

Or maybe the Canucks would have been better if Bennings regime hadn't pissed away 2 top 6 pick getting a 3rd liner and d-man thats still not in the NHL.

If Benning had got good value for pieces like Kesler, Garrison and Hamhuis the Canucks would be better of. If they hadn't spent 7 draft picks on the stupid age gap plan, loosing high picks for crap like Vey,Pedan and the likes. Trading Kassian and a pick for Prust is another move that everyone knew was stupid from the get go.

Giving up assets and cap space to Move on from the cheap but effective Bonino to the Sutter who was not an upgrade. Re-signing Sbisa to a ridiculous deal.If Benning hadn't given up a young player in McCann plus picks for a bottom pairing d-man everything would be better.

Signing Eriksson, Beagle, Gagner and Shaller useless players who are payed more than 10 million between them and are not upgrades on guys like Gaunce, Archibald or Granlund.

There are to many misstakes here. Benning regime has made to many misstakes, everyone responsible for this mess should be fired. Being the worst team in hockey for 3 years should be enough to get anyone fired.

I want a great GM , great GM:s win stuff, makes their team elite. I dont want a mediocre one, I want a good one. I think it was time to fire Gillis because his team was getting stale, unfortunately the Canucks downgraded into this mess.