Firstly, I will not be condescended to. I know exactly what this forum is about thank-you.
You clearly needed to condescended to because your last post was a BS strawman. Nobody has ever said that the biggest problem with the organization is Schaller playing over Gaunce.
1440 said:
Secondly, I am going to be pointedly harsh with you because you are a well respected member of this community, but you have produced a lot of what I will call Manure Statements (MS) lately (Your objections to the Carcone-Leivo trade are another example). Other posters invest a certain amount of trust in those who have the time to more closely follow our prospects (in Utica and elsewhere) and I just hope too many aren't misled by the tired anti-Benning analysis.
Please explain what you take issue with about my comments about the Carcone-Leivo trade. Other than having an opinion that didn’t line up with the majority one and that I did my best to back up.
Also, both Carcone and Dahlen were acquired by Benning and my opinions on these players were identical before and after the trade. Likewise both Kero and Granlund were acquired by Benning. Explain how this is ‘anti-Benning analysis’.
1440 said:
Similarly, you argued that Pouliot and Granlund are "turds" that the organization is attempting to "polish". Despite the obvious puns, these are fine depth players who are youngish and who were acquired for players (Pedan and Shinkaruk) with no real NHL futures. Even if they aren't necessarily superb NHLers, no one expects them to be and they are not unnecessarily occupying the Canucks' resources.
No, they aren’t ‘fine depth players’.
They’re awful AHL-level players who are being forced onto the roster due to poor management.
Again, literally every metric available (plus the eye test) tells us pretty conclusively how ineffective these players are. I notice you make no effort to rebut the evidence I presented, present no evidence of your own, and resort to nothing but vagueries when discussing these players.
1440 said:
Yes our GM does not seem to be the most astute guy in the league, but he is hardly "completely incompetent". He is a middling GM with a rebuilding team in a market where fan and media over-analysis has generated an obscene narrative of organizational ineptitude that is simply false. Succeeding as an NHL gm is largely a snowball (win-more) scenario where sheer randomness plays a large role in defining the outcomes for a given team. Simply put, if your team is blessed with a few important, largely random "wins" such as winning a draft lottery, or a game 7 in overtime, the perception of organizational aptitude far outweighs the true merits of these outcomes. For our "in-depth discussion" on this board to have any merit, we have to learn to separate the wheat (the Ericsson contract for instance) from the chaff (Granlund's role), so that we are at least flinging dung across this metaphorical hay-field in such a manner as to fertilize the seeds of cogent discussion.
Benning has proven unequivocally that he’s a completely incompetent GM who is terrible at pretty much every aspect of his job. This has been documented here over and over again.
That he’s made big bad moves doesn’t mean we should ignore small bad moves.