18/19 MGMT thread VII. WARNING POST #25

[valkynax]

I never said it was all Gillis fault. If you are going jump into a middle of a conversation. At least go back and read some messages before the previous message so you get caught up on what's going on.

You guys keep playing the age old pathetic "But Gillis" card, while ignoring that most of the stupid shit (the ones I named are just a couple) Dim Jim did these years got nothing to do with what Gillis left.

If you get a declining roster, trade away the pieces you can and get some assets back, get ready for rebuild. Dim Jim instead said he can turn the team around in a hurry, and he can't even do that right. No one expect Dim Jim to take the team to any height when he first arrived. Just look at the list of players he acquired...it's like a list of the hottest burning garbage in the league that Dim Jim thought are treasures that he must snag first before anyone else.

Yet half a decade passed, the Gillis card is STILL being played despite having almost no players left from the Gillis era.

 

[Nolan Bombgardener]

So you think words speak louder than action? So what JB said this and that, the action on the ice proves that JB did inherita big mess.

When you use the phrase, "actions speak louder than words", you're supposed to compare the person's words with the person's actions, not their words versus the situation they are in.
Jim Benning's actions were those of a man who thought he had the necessary pieces to compete instead of requiring a rebuild. He traded draft picks for roster players; he signed high priced free agents; he said he could "turn this around in a hurry" and did the exact things that someone who genuinely believed those words would do.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

So you think words speak louder than action? So what JB said this and that, the action on the ice proves that JB did inherita big mess. Don't forgot the second year you still had a bunch of Gillis players. The second year you still had players like Sedins Edler Hamhuis Tanev Higgins Hansen Burrows Weber. The main core was still Gillis player. When you take over a team when pretty almost all the main core start to decline and within a few years. A lot of them are not in the nhl anymore. This proves that he did inherit a decling roster

Answer these questions

Did JB inherit a decling roster and most players best days were behind them. Also of a lot players were close to retirement. Yes or No? If No, explain?

Gillis players Sedins Kesler Higgins Burrows Hansen Weber Hamhuis Edler Tanev Garrison. So we could got so much more for these players? Give me examples what we could of got? A comparable player as examples or a reliable source?

So you think it's okay in 6 drafts from 2008 to 2013 and you only have Horvat and Hutton to show for. Yes or No?If No explain why.

Just a word. When you having arguments. Maybe try to analyze a little more and dig a little deeper.

I gave lot of reasons why JB inherited a big mess. When a new GM takes over and when you didn't inherited that many good young players. An aging roster, most player are declining and close to retirement.

Wrong, the action on the ice proved that with a coach a little better than Tortorella, the team could compete. If that was a so big of a mess you claim, how the hell did we get into playoffs in that year? Care to answer this or just move your goalposts over and over again? If it was Gillis fault, why the new GM miss so blantantly half of his drafts? Why do we have just 2 top 4 NHL Defenders left by Gillis, and 2 youngish Def that are 3rd pairing on a good team, and one of them was left by Gillis, and the rest of our D is utter garbage assembled by the new GM? Even if it was true (the declining roster), a good GM would trade them as soon as possible. Why did Benning stand pat? Don't tell me about the NMC and NTC because in his first offseason, Benning traded 2 Defenders with NMC/NTC (Bieksa and Garrison) for 2nd rounders, so your claim is, again, false.

First and foremost, you don't order me to answer questions. The first one I already answer and proved it. The others, after you change your manners because it seems my arguments are making you angry. Why? Did your plan went sideways? Your only excuse is "but, Gillis", try another one because almost 5 years later, this is Benning's team and it's a bottom dweller with lots of crappy overpaid players.

 

[Bleach Clean]

So you think words speak louder than action? So what JB said this and that, the action on the ice proves that JB did inherita big mess. Don't forgot the second year you still had a bunch of Gillis players. The second year you still had players like Sedins Edler Hamhuis Tanev Higgins Hansen Burrows Weber. The main core was still Gillis player. When you take over a team when pretty almost all the main core start to decline and within a few years. A lot of them are not in the nhl anymore. This proves that he did inherit a decling roster

Answer these questions

Did JB inherit a decling roster and most players best days were behind them. Also of a lot players were close to retirement. Yes or No? If No, explain?

Gillis players Sedins Kesler Higgins Burrows Hansen Weber Hamhuis Edler Tanev Garrison. So we could got so much more for these players? Give me examples what we could of got? A comparable player as examples or a reliable source?

So you think it's okay in 6 drafts from 2008 to 2013 and you only have Horvat and Hutton to show for. Yes or No?If No explain why.

Just a word. When you having arguments. Maybe try to analyze a little more and dig a little deeper.

I gave lot of reasons why JB inherited a big mess. When a new GM takes over and when you didn't inherited that many good young players. An aging roster, most player are declining and close to retirement.

I don't understand why you keep pushing points no one agrees with? You have been heard, people just don't agree with your logic.

1. JB inherited a declining roster, yes, but there were still multiple good assets on that declining roster. Do not obfuscate asset value with a team being poor in a given season.

2. We will never agree on what those players could have received. For anecdotal evidence, take a look at the Kesler and Garrison trade threads. These moves were panned by the majority. Does that signify great returns?

3. Gillis's draft record is _NOT_ ok. That's why he was fired.

4. Since we're giving out advice: Understand that when you have presented an argument and it is largely panned, take a second to look at the argument you are making. Maybe, just maybe, there's something wrong with it?

All told, even if we were to entertain the idea that Benning inherited a veritable wasteland, what did he do with it? His execution has been atrocious. Where has the GM excelled in converting assets? Drafting? Signings? Trades?

You say it takes time? Ok, that's a fair point. I agree, it takes time. What is being critiqued here is the GM's execution within that time. The false assumption here is that the end point, the now, could not have been averted regardless of the GM's execution.

 

[Intangibos]

Imagine owning a major sports franchise and firing the GM for the scouts he was provided with, whom he was in the process of replacing, to hire a scout as your GM completely neglecting all the non-scouting jobs a GM is responsible for which, unlike scouting, there aren't entire departments dedicated to.

Imagine that previous GM bringing in veterans to solidify the team for a run that cost next to nothing like Samuelsson, Torres, Malhotra, Hamhuis, Higgins, Lapierre, Ehrhoff and then blaming that previous GM for the replacement GM not being able to acquire those quality pieces due to "not having enough assets" so he's forced to trade more than the previous GM ever did for lesser quality players.

Imagine that

 

[Canucks1096]

The teams young core could easily have been Horvat, Nylander, Pasternak, Point, and Boeser. Those are realistically who we could have had with what Gillis left. Plus a defense with A prime Tanev, a young Hutton and probably one of Vatanen or Theodore.

Everything was there.

That is a great core in less then 2 years of a new GM being here, and is just the first round picks and hitting on one second round pick. A second round pick most here wanted.

But please by all means continue making excuses, it is kind of funny to read.

So you named 3 players from the 2014 draft that are legit 1st liner. Can you tell me a bunch of teams that got 3 legit 1st line players in one draft? You said it is so easily, a must happened a lot.

You can say that for every single team. If this team should of picked this player. No team has a perfect draft record. He has hit 3 out 5 of 1st round pick, one of them being a late pick. Has his draft record been perfect? No but that's not the main reason why the rebuild is not done yet.

Realistically you need 8 qualities pieces to finish rebuild. Leafs and Jets got the rebuild done. Half of the reason is on what those teams inherited.

No matter how many try to spin it. He didn't inherited many yoing players. That's not even debateable.

With those picks, chances are we don't get Pettersson or Hughes. So that changes everything. That is the reason this type of argument is not a valid argument.

The funny thing is in the Virtanen thread, a lot of people say he is better pick than Nylander. On this thread, people think need to mock JB drafting so now Virtanen is not the right pick. Some people on this thread are just debating for the sake of debating. People need to pick one lane and stick. Don't changes lanes all the time.

 

[Intangibos]

So you named 3 players from the 2014 draft that are legit 1st liner. Can you tell me a bunch of teams that got 3 legit 1st line players in one draft? You said it is so easily, a must happened a lot.

You can say that for every single team. If this team should of picked this player. No team has a perfect draft record. He has hit 3 out 5 of 1st round pick, one of them being a late pick. Has his draft record been perfect? No but that's not the main reason why the rebuild is not done yet.

Realistically you need 8 qualities pieces to finish rebuild. Leafs and Jets got the rebuild done. Half of the reason is on what those teams inherited.

No matter how many try to spin it. He didn't inherited many yoing players. That's not even debateable.

With those picks, chances are we don't get Pettersson or Hughes. So that changes everything. That is the reason this type of argument is not a valid argument.

The funny thing is in the Virtanen thread, a lot of people say he is better pick than Nylander. On this thread, people think need to mock JB drafting so now Virtanen is not the right pick. Some people on this thread are just debating for the sake of debating. People need to pick one lane and stick. Don't changes lanes all the time.

"If we drafted well we wouldn't have had an opportunity to draft other good players, so Benning sucking is a good thing!"

Yikes. I'm hesitant to even classify that line of "thought" as an argument.



Also, if that's the case, wouldn't Gillis "leaving Benning with nothing" be the reason we have guys like Hughes and Pettersson? Wow... Gillis is actually is great at the draft!

 

[Canucks1096]

You guys keep playing the age old pathetic "But Gillis" card, while ignoring that most of the stupid **** (the ones I named are just a couple) Dim Jim did these years got nothing to do with what Gillis left.

If you get a declining roster, trade away the pieces you can and get some assets back, get ready for rebuild. Dim Jim instead said he can turn the team around in a hurry, and he can't even do that right. No one expect Dim Jim to take the team to any height when he first arrived. Just look at the list of players he acquired...it's like a list of the hottest burning garbage in the league that Dim Jim thought are treasures that he must snag first before anyone else.

Yet half a decade passed, the Gillis card is STILL being played despite having almost no players left from the Gillis era.

But the main point you are not getting is that you need high end pieces to finish the rebuild. I am talking about topine players, top pairing D. Those players that JB inherited couldn't get those players.

Leafs and Jets both got good because inherited a good player. Some lottery luck and good 1st round drafting

How in the world do we get a number 1 D with the players JB inherited.

Let's go through the list Sedins Edler didn't want to leave

Garrison and Kesler gave two teams.

Higgins Burrows Hansen were 3rd line players

 

[y2kcanucks]

But the main point you are not getting is that you need high end pieces to finish the rebuild. I am talking about topine players, top pairing D. Those players that JB inherited couldn't get those players.

Leafs and Jets both got good because inherited a good player. Some lottery luck and good 1st round drafting

How in the world do we get a number 1 D with the players JB inherited.

Let's go through the list Sedins Edler didn't want to leave

Garrison and Kesler gave two teams.

Higgins Burrows Hansen were 3rd line players

Which is why it was always a terrible idea for Benning to trade away as many draft picks as he did. That's on Benning, not Gillis.

 

[Jyrki21]

The insistence by The Faction to heap scorn on the last guy, who was extremely competent, while heaping praise on things Benning does because “aw shucks he’s one of us” or whatever kept reminding me of something, and I couldn’t put my finger on it.

And it finally just came to me – it’s Frank Grimes and Homer from that Simpsons episode.

 

[Bleach Clean]

But the main point you are not getting is that you need high end pieces to finish the rebuild. I am talking about topine players, top pairing D. Those players that JB inherited couldn't get those players.

Leafs and Jets both got good because inherited a good player. Some lottery luck and good 1st round drafting

How in the world do we get a number 1 D with the players JB inherited.

Let's go through the list Sedins Edler didn't want to leave

Garrison and Kesler gave two teams.

Higgins Burrows Hansen were 3rd line players

How to get a #1 D: Trade player for pick, draft #1 Dman with pick. Usually, #1 Dman are found within the top60~ pick range.

When you say that the roster players on the Canucks could not have gotten core players, are you completely throwing out the possibility of loading up on futures and just drafting well?

Also, what forced JB to pull the trigger when Kesler and Garrison were being restrictive in their trade destinations?

There is definitely spin here. You have that right, no question. I’m not sure you realize where it’s coming from.

 

[racerjoe]

So you named 3 players from the 2014 draft that are legit 1st liner. Can you tell me a bunch of teams that got 3 legit 1st line players in one draft? You said it is so easily, a must happened a lot.

You can say that for every single team. If this team should of picked this player. No team has a perfect draft record. He has hit 3 out 5 of 1st round pick, one of them being a late pick. Has his draft record been perfect? No but that's not the main reason why the rebuild is not done yet.

Realistically you need 8 qualities pieces to finish rebuild. Leafs and Jets got the rebuild done. Half of the reason is on what those teams inherited.

No matter how many try to spin it. He didn't inherited many yoing players. That's not even debateable.

With those picks, chances are we don't get Pettersson or Hughes. So that changes everything. That is the reason this type of argument is not a valid argument.

The funny thing is in the Virtanen thread, a lot of people say he is better pick than Nylander. On this thread, people think need to mock JB drafting so now Virtanen is not the right pick. Some people on this thread are just debating for the sake of debating. People need to pick one lane and stick. Don't changes lanes all the time.

I named 3 players that Benning should have easily been able to draft as a draft guru. Two that this board wanted, and one that his former team wanted.

Benning inherited 3 young players. Horvat, tanev, 6th overall, and a player (kesler) who could have netted at least 1 other. ( I think 2, but lets be generous). So that would be 4, boeser would make 5. In two years, without changing a thing this team could have had 4 building block pieces.

This doesn't mention other trades like Hamhuis, bieksa, Garisson, Hansen, or a draft guru being able to find a guy in the rounds not named the first round. That isn't spin. This isn't debatable and it is beig generous.

Also Most people on this board wanted nylander or Ehlers there is multiple polls and it shows Virtanen was only wanted by a small minority.

We don't have a chance at Petterson or Hughes... Yeah BECAUSE WE WOULD BE A GOOD TEAM!

 

[valkynax]

But the main point you are not getting is that you need high end pieces to finish the rebuild. I am talking about topine players, top pairing D. Those players that JB inherited couldn't get those players.

Leafs and Jets both got good because inherited a good player. Some lottery luck and good 1st round drafting

How in the world do we get a number 1 D with the players JB inherited.

Let's go through the list Sedins Edler didn't want to leave

Garrison and Kesler gave two teams.

Higgins Burrows Hansen were 3rd line players

So f***ing what? Did anyone expect Dim Jim to magically sow a bunch of beans which will grow up to be top line players? Hell no. Everyone knows it's gonna be over payment if you want to trade in these pieces, so most of the time, you draft. And his draft has been underwhelming to say the least. Plus, tell me, how many draft picks had Dim Jim acquire for the team and kept it for the team?

The main point YOU are not getting and continues to deflect to Gillis, is that Dim Jim did not do nearly enough with what he had. Not only did he try to take a shortcut, despite saying that there are no shortcuts, he fumbled and failed to deliver a retool. Again, I'm not making this shit up, Dim Jim himself said it back then.

- No one expected Sedins to be traded
- Edler has NMC sure, but is Dim Jim the only GM in history who has to deal with NMC? Why can other GMs deal with it when Dim Jim cannot?
- Hansen and Burrows trades were fine
- Kesler trade was passable, but this fat tub of guts thought it's a good idea to turn all that plus more into Sutter and Gudbranson

And again, are you aware of the long list of garbage players Dim Jim brought in? Or are you just conveniently ignoring it to make Dim Jim look better and yet again deflect all blames to Gillis?

 

[racerjoe]

The insistence by The Faction to heap scorn on the last guy, who was extremely competent, while heaping praise on things Benning does because “aw shucks he’s one of us” or whatever kept reminding me of something, and I couldn’t put my finger on it.

And it finally just came to me – it’s Frank Grimes and Homer from that Simpsons episode.

Oh my god yes! Can we see this in a comic?

 

[Canucks1096]

Which is why it was always a terrible idea for Benning to trade away as many draft picks as he did. That's on Benning, not Gillis.

4th round for Pouliot
5th round for Larsen
6th for Etem
5th for Prust
3rd for Pedan
2nd for Baer

Which 1st line player and top pairing D JB could of drafted if he didn't trade those picks?

The funny thing when these trades are made. It is usually 50/50 on people liking the trade. Now those players don't work out and now people are acting like experts saying don't trade your picks.

 

[Black Noise]

4th round for Pouliot
5th round for Larsen
6th for Etem
5th for Prust
3rd for Pedan
2nd for Baer

Which 1st line player and top pairing D JB could of drafted if he didn't trade those picks?

The funny thing when these trades are made. It is usually 50/50 on people liking the trade. Now those players don't work out and now people are acting like experts saying don't trade your picks.

You forgot the 2nd for Gudbranson. Debrincat was picked right after that pick.

Good job leaving that out.

 

[Canucks1096]

You forgot the 2nd for Gudbranson. Debrincat was picked right after that pick.

Good job leaving that out.

Ok. Can you answer the rest?

 

[valkynax]

You forgot the 2nd for Gudbranson. Debrincat was picked right after that pick.

Good job leaving that out.

Ha if it was just 2nd for Gudbranson I'd be alright with it.

It's McCann plus the 2nd plus a 4th for Gudbranson haha.

And while we are at it, 2nd round for Linden Vey...yeah...

 

[sandwichbird2023]

4th round for Pouliot
5th round for Larsen
6th for Etem
5th for Prust
3rd for Pedan
2nd for Baer

Which 1st line player and top pairing D JB could of drafted if he didn't trade those picks?

The funny thing when these trades are made. It is usually 50/50 on people liking the trade. Now those players don't work out and now people are acting like experts saying don't trade your picks.

I wouldn't say its near 50-50 at all. I feel like (without going back and reading each of those trade threads) aside from the Baertschi trade, its been overwhelmingly not well regarded on this board with those trades (and the Gudbranson one as well). There are several vocal JB supporter that praises everything he does and flood those threads with kudos I'm sure, and that might be why you feel it was 50-50?

Also, if JB didn't mean he can turn around the team in a hurry, and wasn't trying to prop up a declining mess of a team he inherited (as you claim), why did he sign Miller, Vrbata, Eriksson, traded Kesler for "now" piece in Bonino, hold on to Hamhuis just to lose him for nothing, etc etc? Are any of those moves a sane GM should make when he "inherited a mess"?

 

[valkynax]

Later round picks got less value and are much harder to draft with, no one is disputing that. But you still try your best, who knows if any of the picks will turn out well or not if we don't at least make an attempt.

Outside of Baertschi, the rest are far below NHL standards. I can ask you the same question: are you able to tell me with 100% confidence that the players we would've drafted with those picks will be worse than the ones listed? You can't. No one can.

 

[y2kcanucks]

4th round for Pouliot
5th round for Larsen
6th for Etem
5th for Prust
3rd for Pedan
2nd for Baer

Which 1st line player and top pairing D JB could of drafted if he didn't trade those picks?

The funny thing when these trades are made. It is usually 50/50 on people liking the trade. Now those players don't work out and now people are acting like experts saying don't trade your picks.

You also forgot the 2nd rounder given away in the Sutter trade, and the 2nd rounder given away in the Vey trade, and the 2nd rounder given away in the Gudbranson trade.

Convenient though, considering you're coming up with illogical excuses to support Benning.

 

[Canucks1096]

You also forgot the 2nd rounder given away in the Sutter trade, and the 2nd rounder given away in the Vey trade, and the 2nd rounder given away in the Gudbranson trade.

Convenient though, considering you're coming up with illogical excuses to support Benning.

Ok. Can you answer my question. Thanks

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

4th round for Pouliot
5th round for Larsen
6th for Etem
5th for Prust
3rd for Pedan
2nd for Baer

Which 1st line player and top pairing D JB could of drafted if he didn't trade those picks?

The funny thing when these trades are made. It is usually 50/50 on people liking the trade. Now those players don't work out and now people are acting like experts saying don't trade your picks.

The people who understand how probability works hate these trades. He made these trades because he was too impatient to wait for his own picks to develop. Other teams knew these prospects were nearly busted and would require waivers, so they suckered JB to give up picks for them. Giving yourself the lowest probability every draft is not what teams in need of rebuild should be doing.

 

[racerjoe]

Ok. Can you answer my question. Thanks

If we take all the picks Point and Debrincat if i am not mistaken.

 

[valkynax]

Ok. Can you answer my question. Thanks

Read my post above.

- it's impossible to answer the question you asked without actually having used those picks. If you really want an answer, my answer will be: it'll be very unlikely any of the draft picks pan out, but NOT impossible.
- my question to you is: are you able to say with 100% certainty that the players drafted via those picks will absolutely be worse than those we traded in?