18/19 MGMT Thread XI. We're totally rebuilding! LalalaIcan'thearyoulalala...!

[Motte and Bailey]

The Canucks are currently at a cross-road, either they continue to improve to eventually become a cup contender or they wallow like the Oilers and Sabres. But to reach this point having elite core players without winning the lottery once and never picking above 5th overall is a huge achievement which doesn't get the praise it deserves.

How many teams in modern NHL history have been able to build an elite core without any lottery picks? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

[I am toxic]

Ooo I like this! This is good

D take longer to develop!



Injuries! Who could have known!

Fewer picks means you can draft a better player!

Cap space doesn't matter!

Signings are hard! Trades too!

But Gillis!

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Worst team in the NHL over a 4 year period despite trying to make the playoffs every year is a good job?

The results over that 4 year period was never going to matter. All the work done over that 4 year period to set us up for the future, absolutely it was a good job.

 

[Hodgy]

Translation: "supporting Benning too much should be against the rules"

I’m sorry, but you literally just said Jim Benning, whose team has been the worst team is the NHL over the last four years, is doing a “good job”. A statement like that is either the result of intentional trolling, or some psychological disorder. If it’s the former, then it shouldn’t be tolerated.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

D take longer to develop!



Injuries! Who could have known!

Fewer picks means you can draft a better player!

Cap space doesn't matter!

Signings are hard! Trades too!

But Gillis!

Is it Benning's fault that Gillis left him the most injury prone top pairing in the league?

To boot, one of them with an NTC (Edler) and the other with such an injury history that you could never get fair value for him on the trade market.

Basically being stuck with them.

While the rest of the core was either non-existent (zero NHL level goalies in spite of what some Eddie Lack fanboys might say) or headed for a steep decline (Sedins, Burrows, Higgins, basically all the forwards that previously had any sort of value).

It's pretty incredible that we're here today with an exciting group of extremely talented extremely young and extremely high character guys who are poised to lead the next iteration of the Vancouver Canucks to glory.

Whether he stays or not we will be watching the Jim Benning Canucks for the next 10-15+ years because he built this new core with his vision of how the team should play. With speed, with skill, with smarts. That's the kind of hockey I enjoyed paying to see all year and will continue to enjoy paying to see in the future.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

I’m sorry, but you literally just said Jim Benning, whose team has been the worst team is the NHL over the last four years, is doing a “good job”. A statement like that is either the result of intentional trolling, or some psychological disorder. If it’s the former, then it shouldn’t be tolerated.

That's a false dichotomy. A third possibility is that Benning has actually done a good job. I already laid out my reasoning for why I believe that - why don't you engage that instead of engaging in cheap ad hominem attacks?

 

[Peter10]

Is it Benning's fault that Gillis left him the most injury prone top pairing in the league?

Change was really coming when Benning acquired all those ironmen like Sutter, Gudbranson, Baertschi.

 

[Fatass]

Is it Benning's fault that Gillis left him the most injury prone top pairing in the league?

To boot, one of them with an NTC (Edler) and the other with such an injury history that you could never get fair value for him on the trade market.

Basically being stuck with them.

While the rest of the core was either non-existent (zero NHL level goalies in spite of what some Eddie Lack fanboys might say) or headed for a steep decline (Sedins, Burrows, Higgins, basically all the forwards that previously had any sort of value).

It's pretty incredible that we're here today with an exciting group of extremely talented extremely young and extremely high character guys who are poised to lead the next iteration of the Vancouver Canucks to glory.

Whether he stays or not we will be watching the Jim Benning Canucks for the next 10-15+ years because he built this new core with his vision of how the team should play. With speed, with skill, with smarts. That's the kind of hockey I enjoyed paying to see all year and will continue to enjoy paying to see in the future.

True, we have a couple exciting young players, but we should have a lot more. If Benning would have truly started to rebuild in 2015, the guys with NMC (Sedins, Edler) would have opted to leave - IMO. They knew they only had a few decent seasons left, and would have not wanted to be part of a full rebuild. Hence Linden’s remark of how the team would not do a full rebuild while the Twins were here. Benning needed to say something about the necessity to rebuild properly. He had no personal ties to the old core like Linden, who played with those guys, did.
Rebuilding sooner would mean not: trading away picks, not trading away youth for older guys, and not signing stupid UFA contracts. We would, right now, have several more young, elite and exciting players, instead of just a few. And just a few IS NOT ENOUGH TO COMPETE FOR A CUP.

 

[TruKnyte]

Translation: "supporting Benning too much should be against the rules"

 

[y2kcanucks]

The results over that 4 year period was never going to matter. All the work done over that 4 year period to set us up for the future, absolutely it was a good job.

Except you're wrong. The results do matter when the GM is trying to make the playoffs those years. The transactions Benning made were all done with the intent of making the playoffs.

 

[Hodgy]

That's a false dichotomy. A third possibility is that Benning has actually done a good job. I already laid out my reasoning for why I believe that - why don't you engage that instead of engaging in cheap ad hominem attacks?

He hasn’t done a good job, that’s such a ridiculously stupid starting point given the available data, that it isn’t worthy of being dignified with a response.

Please just leave this forum and never come back. You can go post on one of the other Canucks forums, or if you really need to troll people, why don’t you just post pro-Trump crap on some democratic forum.

 

[lush]

Assuming we draft around 8 and Byram is gone, do you trust Benning & Co to ID the 2nd best D in the draft?

They struck out in 2016
But might have nailed it in 2018

Or do you just take a forward?

High risk/high reward for a GM we think will be replaced...

 

[y2kcanucks]

Assuming we draft around 8 and Byram is gone, do you trust Benning & Co to ID the 2nd best D in the draft?

They struck out in 2016
But might have nailed it in 2018

Or do you just take a forward?

High risk/high reward for a GM we think will be replaced...

Byram is the only defenseman worth drafting in the top 10.

 

[4Twenty]

Assuming we draft around 8 and Byram is gone, do you trust Benning & Co to ID the 2nd best D in the draft?

They struck out in 2016
But might have nailed it in 2018

Or do you just take a forward?

High risk/high reward for a GM we think will be replaced...

Hell no. You don't prioritize position, and when I'm looking I see better prospects than Woo drafted in that 2nd round.....Bode Wilde especially.

 

[Intangibos]

Honestly deep down part of me is curious to see what this fanbase looks like after 5 more years of Benning. How many posts will RMB have?

 

[TruKnyte]

Honestly deep down part of me is curious to see what this fanbase looks like after 5 more years of Benning. How many posts will RMB have?

I think he might be Y2K in disguise.

 

[Peter10]

The results over that 4 year period was never going to matter. All the work done over that 4 year period to set us up for the future, absolutely it was a good job.

So these 4 years of being terrible have brought us Pettersson, Hughes and whoever we get this year. Thats a very poor return for being bad.

 

[xtra]

Hi @RonningMorrisonBooth please explain to me why edler and tanev prevented benning from acquiring any other top 4 dmen? Was there a rule saying they can’t have more top dmen or is that a failure on his part

 

[4Twenty]

Hi @RonningMorrisonBooth please explain to me why edler and tanev prevented benning from acquiring any other top 4 dmen? Was there a rule saying they can’t have more top dmen or is that a failure on his part

Why do you guys care what he says...there is a function where you can ignore users on this forum....You've got to be aware of that right?

It takes reading about 2 sentences to realize he/she is disingenuous and is just here to incite people.

You won't regret it.

 

[xtra]

Why do you guys care what he says...there is a function where you can ignore users on this forum....You've got to be aware of that right?

It takes reading about 2 sentences to realize he/she is disingenuous and is just here to incite people.

You won't regret it.

I know he’s disingenuous but my work computer is on the fritz so the stupidity is entertaining

 

[y2kcanucks]

Honestly deep down part of me is curious to see what this fanbase looks like after 5 more years of Benning. How many posts will RMB have?

Just take a look at Edmonton's fanbase. It would be identical.

 

[UK Canuck]

Jim Benning has been the 2nd worst GM in the NHL since he became the Canucks GM, only beaten to that title by his old pal Chiarelli, imagine trying to win every year and not making a single re-building move yet being the worst team in the NHL over the last 4 years, it is staggering incompetence, the crowning turd on the pile came this year when he realised he didn't have enough Goalies to play in the NHL so we had to play a 7 year old child against the Sharks, he should have fired from a cannon into the sun as soon as they catastrophe happened

 

[Krnuckfan]

No, your point doesn't still stand. The only problem with Hughes was his height and every single publication had him higher (and they said it in their reports) if he was bigger. By the way, McKenzie said the list was a consensus ranking of several NHL scouts and it doesn't reflect the actual lists from the teams.

I love the fact that every single Benning cheerleader love to attack the guys at the Army, when these guys, for several years in a row, predict accurately how good or how bad the players are. The Army made a very favourable report on Tkachuk, on Ehlers/Nylander, on Hughes and on Pettersson, predicting those were the very best picks for us, and yet they are attacked because they use analytics and your "master" doesn't like it.

Wtf are you talking about? I'm the opposite of a benning cheerleader. I think he's a moron. Still doesn't change the fact that hughes wasn't a complete no brainer where the canucks took him.

How does my point not stand? Hughes was the 4th ranked dmen on Bob's final list. There were plenty of scouting service lists which didn't rank hughes as the 2nd best dmen from the draft.

 

[Jyrki21]

Hell no. You don't prioritize position, and when I'm looking I see better prospects than Woo drafted in that 2nd round.....Bode Wilde especially.

I'm pretty sure he meant Hughes by "nailing it in 2018".

I also think a lot of the pronouncements we've heard about Hughes are pretty premature so far, not to say I don't think he will be good.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Wtf are you talking about? I'm the opposite of a benning cheerleader. I think he's a moron. Still doesn't change the fact that hughes wasn't a complete no brainer where the canucks took him.

How does my point not stand? Hughes was the 4th ranked dmen on Bob's final list. There were plenty of scouting service lists which didn't rank hughes as the 2nd best dmen from the draft.

While you're right that some scouting services didn't list Hughes as the 2nd best defenseman in the draft, most did: 2018 NHL Draft Rankings

I agree he probably wasn't a consensus pick (like Tkachuk was in 2016), but he wasn't a reach either. He was part of a group of a few players who you could have made a solid argument for taking at 7.