2018 Management Discussion, Pt. II

[CanaFan]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. He hadn't played for the Rangers in 4 years at that point and had already played in MSG half a dozen times as a Canadien. A junk player who isn't NHL caliber doesn't get a guaranteed spot in the lineup just because the team happens to be playing a team he played for a half decade prior.

Hope his tantrum was worth it to him, as that NY game ended up being his last in the NHL. Was a completely gutless move by pretty much everyone involved.

Yes, but as a fan isn’t it better to just be happy about everything?

 

[Horse McHindu]

So back to the original topic, is there any reason Prust was a “good move” other than a desire to avoid being critical of anything this management group does? Anything objective and demonstrable? Anything at all?

In my opinion, the management group felt that Gaunce needed some more time on the farm and wasn't quite ready for the bigs.

After being slapped around by Calgary in the playoffs that past April, Benning also felt that the team needed to get tougher, and that they needed someone else besides Dorsett sticking up for the kids. Since management also wanted to bring in McCann, they felt like he needed some protection. The Canucks also wanted to get rid of a guy (Kassian) that had bad off-ice habits and replace him with a guy (Prust) who up until that point, had been a lockerroom leader everywhere he had been.

Unfortunately, the move did not pan out. Prust was never the same after his ankle injury, and his freak-out in NYR was not a good sign of character/leadership.

I believe that I have explained this a number of times.

 

[CanaFan]

In my opinion, the management group felt that Gaunce needed some more time on the farm and wasn't quite ready for the bigs.

After being slapped around by Calgary in the playoffs that past April, Benning also felt that the team needed to get tougher, and that they needed someone else besides Dorsett sticking up for the kids. Since management also wanted to bring in McCann, they felt like he needed some protection. The Canucks also wanted to get rid of a guy (Kassian) that had bad off-ice habits and replace him with a guy (Prust) who up until that point, had been a lockerroom leader everywhere he had been.

Unfortunately, the move did not pan out. Prust was never the same after his ankle injury, and his freak-out in NYR was not a good sign of character/leadership.

I believe that I have explained this a number of times.

So how was it a good move? Is good pro scouting and evaluation not a consideration in your world?

 

[Horse McHindu]

So how was it a good move? Is good pro scouting and evaluation not a consideration in your world?

It didn't end up being a good move, even if there was logic and reason behind it.

If a basketball player has an open shot and has no teammates open and decides to shoot for a three........but misses, was he at fault for taking the shot? No. He took the shot because it was the correct decision to make, even though he missed. If he gets a similar opportunity in the future, he should do the same thing.

Trading Kassian (lockerroom cancer) and a 5th for Prust was the correct move to make. Everything up to that point suggested that Prust was a reknowned lockerroom leader that would add toughness and grit to the line-up. Benning took the shot and he missed.

 

[Canucker]

It didn't end up being a good move, even if there was logic and reason behind it.

If a basketball player has an open shot and has no teammates open and decides to shoot for a three........but misses, was he at fault for taking the shot? No. He took the shot because it was the correct decision to make, even though he missed. If he gets a similar opportunity in the future, he should do the same thing.

Trading Kassian (lockerroom cancer) and a 5th for Prust was the correct move to make. Everything up to that point suggested that Prust was a reknowned lockerroom leader that would add toughness and grit to the line-up. Benning took the shot and he missed.

No, even waiving Kassian was a better option than trading a pick along with him for a bum like Prust...who himself should have been considered waiver fodder at that point in his career. Yet again another display of terrible asset management by Benning.

 

[rypper]

I can't remember a time in watching hockey, from a general manager of any team in the league, where mentorship was such a talking point until Benning and Linden took over. It's taken on a life of it's own, almost "meme" territory.

I'm sure it was something other GM's think/thought about but never with such focus. I saw a clip yesterday of the Canucks from a few years back when they watched a remembrance day parade in Ottawa. Seeing younger guys surrounded by Malhotra, Burrows, the Sedins. That was good leadership, and we didn't have to hear about in every talking point.

 

[timbermen]

There's been some bad trades but they were all minor deals.Whats been great asset management is the Canucks now have one of the best group of prospects in the entire league.Who cares about Kassian and a 5th.look at the prospect voting list, the Canucks have 20 solid prospects and at least 5 will be impact players.They won't make the playoffs next year(Sedins left some big boots to fill)but after that, look out.I'll probably get a warning for this but i'm going to say it anyway.....I'm optimistic about the future.

 

[Canucker]

There's been some bad trades but they were all minor deals.Whats been great asset management is the Canucks now have one of the best group of prospects in the entire league.Who cares about Kassian and a 5th.look at the prospect voting list, the Canucks have 20 solid prospects and at least 5 will be impact players.They won't make the playoffs next year(Sedins left some big boots to fill)but after that, look out.I'll probably get a warning for this but i'm going to say it anyway.....I'm optimistic about the future.

Nothing wrong with being optimistic about the future, because really, what else can you be optimistic about? The past? I just don't see much reason to be optimistic about this management's ability to build a team capable of contending for the Stanley Cup.

 

[CanaFan]

It didn't end up being a good move, even if there was logic and reason behind it.

If a basketball player has an open shot and has no teammates open and decides to shoot for a three........but misses, was he at fault for taking the shot? No. He took the shot because it was the correct decision to make, even though he missed. If he gets a similar opportunity in the future, he should do the same thing.

Trading Kassian (lockerroom cancer) and a 5th for Prust was the correct move to make. Everything up to that point suggested that Prust was a reknowned lockerroom leader that would add toughness and grit to the line-up. Benning took the shot and he missed.

That’s a ridiculous analogy. Basically what you’re arguing is for no objective measure of anything as long as it was well intended. In that case drafting Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen, and Gaunce were all good picks by Mike Gillis since they seemed like good ideas at the time.

Congrats, you’ve just rendered objective assessment of performance moot.

 

[bossram]

But Zack wasn't in his freshman year in this comparison.

Yes he was. Werenski's freshman season was his draft season. He was an historically young freshman.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

It didn't end up being a good move, even if there was logic and reason behind it.

If a basketball player has an open shot and has no teammates open and decides to shoot for a three........but misses, was he at fault for taking the shot? No. He took the shot because it was the correct decision to make, even though he missed. If he gets a similar opportunity in the future, he should do the same thing.

Trading Kassian (lockerroom cancer) and a 5th for Prust was the correct move to make. Everything up to that point suggested that Prust was a reknowned lockerroom leader that would add toughness and grit to the line-up. Benning took the shot and he missed.

Thanks for adding the necessary context behind the move. Who would’ve thought Benning’s moves make sense given the context he was working in?

Always remember that when someone is trying to dishonestly spin a web of Benning bashing they always remove important context, because they have to. It’s the only way it’ll work but for people who understand context they will see right through it.

For example, they will say that we traded a younger player and a pick for an older player that stunk. Without context, a true statement. But remember that half the truth is a lie. That statement removes context in 3 fundamentally misleading ways.

1. They don’t indicate the young player Kassian was a problem in the room which changes everything. Before that context is given Kassian appears to be a desirable asset and after he is revealed to be the exact opposite.

2. They refer to the 5th rounder in the deal as simply “a pick.” This context removing trick plays on people’s psychology of overvaluing the mystery box rather than the known commodity because hey Connor McDavid came from “a pick” too! There’s no distinction between a 200th pick or a 1st overall pick when you take away that context but in reality the 5th rounder in the Prust deal had a negligible 1% chance of ever turning into anything valuable. So you can see why someone who already decided to conclude it was a bad trade would be motivated to leave out that context.

3. Prust was certainly older and he certainly did stink here. However leaving out the important part of how his injury influenced that, as you pointed out, changes the entire reality of the player. Prust showed he was a good smart bottom six player who killed penalties well, had speed, good IQ, and good playmaking before his injury. They leave out that he was a fan favourite on his previous teams to paint him merely as the player he was post injury. An injury and decline that was not predictable and is one of the fluke things that happens in sports.

When the truthful context is added, the trade actually becomes a young inconsistent locker room cancer with 3rd line upside plus a negligible asset for an excellent veteran 4th liner, which was actually a good trade. I know you know this and keep telling it like it is Hindustan, and I’m sorry about all the personal attacks I see against you. You can take heart and refuge knowing that it only happens because they ran out of actual arguments against you.

 

[Hit the post]

I fail to see how dealing a so-called "lockeroom cancer" for another lockeroom cancer (wah, wah, mean coach Willie won't let me play in New York) is a positive (not to mention throwing in a late round pick for good measure).

 

[Fire Benning]

Even if the deal was only a 5th for Prust I would rather have the 5th back. Prust is quite possibly my least favourite Canuck ever.

 

[Horse McHindu]

That’s a ridiculous analogy. Basically what you’re arguing is for no objective measure of anything as long as it was well intended. In that case drafting Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen, and Gaunce were all good picks by Mike Gillis since they seemed like good ideas at the time.

Congrats, you’ve just rendered objective assessment of performance moot.

LOL. What the heck are you even talking about?

That's not what I'm arguing for at all.

I clearly said that the Prust move didn't pan out.

As far as your Hodgson analogy goes, I don't understand what you're getting at.

Gillis, and the entire hockey world for that matter, felt that Hodgson was a great pick at #10. The general consensus was that Hodgson was the BPA. And so in that sense, Gillis made the right play and took the shot. Unfortunately, he missed. And since this is a results-oriented business, and since Gillis missed with almost all of his picks, he now works as a Professor at the University of Victoria.

 

[Canucker]

That’s a ridiculous analogy. Basically what you’re arguing is for no objective measure of anything as long as it was well intended. In that case drafting Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen, and Gaunce were all good picks by Mike Gillis since they seemed like good ideas at the time.

Congrats, you’ve just rendered objective assessment of performance moot.

I think there is validity to the point though that at the time of the draft these were widely (at least with Hodgson, Schroeder, Gaunce and to a much lesser degree Jensen) viewed as good picks by Gillis...I think there needs to be some measure of blame as to how these players were developed (or weren't), instead of just labeling them "bad picks". I think labelling a pick as a "failed" prospect may be more accurate than a bad pick.

 

[CanaFan]

LOL. What the heck are you even talking about?

That's not what I'm arguing for at all.

I clearly said that the Prust move didn't pan out.

As far as your Hodgson analogy goes, I don't understand what you're getting at.

Gillis, and the entire hockey world for that matter, felt that Hodgson was a great pick at #10. The general consensus was that Hodgson was the BPA. And so in that sense, Gillis made the right play and took the shot. Unfortunately, he missed. And since this is a results-oriented business, and since Gillis missed with almost all of his picks, he now works as a Professor at the University of Victoria.

Lol it’s that hard to figure out eh?

Fine, I slow it down for you.

You say “Prust was the right move” because you liked the idea and ignored the actual results.

So let’s apply this type of lazy standards to our previous GM who is demonized around here for his “terrible” drafting. If we ignore the fact that only one of these players actually worked panned out as NHLers and instead only judge them based on how they were thought of at the time of the draft (all were well regarded prospects), then we should all agree that Gillis made “the right picks” because he was intending to draft talent and skill. Because outcomes don’t matter, only what you were “trying” to do.

Did you manage to catch it all this time?

 

[racerjoe]

It didn't end up being a good move, even if there was logic and reason behind it.

If a basketball player has an open shot and has no teammates open and decides to shoot for a three........but misses, was he at fault for taking the shot? No. He took the shot because it was the correct decision to make, even though he missed. If he gets a similar opportunity in the future, he should do the same thing.

Trading Kassian (lockerroom cancer) and a 5th for Prust was the correct move to make. Everything up to that point suggested that Prust was a reknowned lockerroom leader that would add toughness and grit to the line-up. Benning took the shot and he missed.

Can you please explain how he was a locker room cancer? He had off ice issues, but these did not seem to hurt him in the locker room, He was liked better than Prust, stood up for teammates better, and could have just been waived if you were worried about his off ice issues. Instead of bringing in an actual locker room cancer who had to be waived and couldn't play.

As to your analogy it takes out context. Would you rather have JR Smith with the ball or Lebron James... It matters who is taking the shot. If you are shooting like 10% maybe someone else should be taking that shot.

 

[CanaFan]

I think there is validity to the point though that at the time of the draft these were widely (at least with Hodgson, Schroeder, Gaunce and to a much lesser degree Jensen) viewed as good picks by Gillis...I think there needs to be some measure of blame as to how these players were developed (or weren't), instead of just labeling them "bad picks". I think labelling a pick as a "failed" prospect may be more accurate than a bad pick.

Sure but that doesn’t stop the JBFC including the above poster from ripping Gillis’ drafting on a regular basis. Which is funny because suddenly results don’t matter, only your intention.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Lol it’s that hard to figure out eh?

Fine, I slow it down for you.

You say “Prust was the right move” because you liked the idea and ignored the actual results.

Except I didn’t actually ignore the actual results.

I’ve admitted countless times that the Prust trade didn’t pan out. The irony of you feeling compelled to “slow things down for someone,” lmao.

 

[CanaFan]

Thanks for adding the necessary context behind the move. Who would’ve thought Benning’s moves make sense given the context he was working in?

Always remember that when someone is trying to dishonestly spin a web of Benning bashing they always remove important context, because they have to. It’s the only way it’ll work but for people who understand context they will see right through it.

For example, they will say that we traded a younger player and a pick for an older player that stunk. Without context, a true statement. But remember that half the truth is a lie. That statement removes context in 3 fundamentally misleading ways.

1. They don’t indicate the young player Kassian was a problem in the room which changes everything. Before that context is given Kassian appears to be a desirable asset and after he is revealed to be the exact opposite.

2. They refer to the 5th rounder in the deal as simply “a pick.” This context removing trick plays on people’s psychology of overvaluing the mystery box rather than the known commodity because hey Connor McDavid came from “a pick” too! There’s no distinction between a 200th pick or a 1st overall pick when you take away that context but in reality the 5th rounder in the Prust deal had a negligible 1% chance of ever turning into anything valuable. So you can see why someone who already decided to conclude it was a bad trade would be motivated to leave out that context.

3. Prust was certainly older and he certainly did stink here. However leaving out the important part of how his injury influenced that, as you pointed out, changes the entire reality of the player. Prust showed he was a good smart bottom six player who killed penalties well, had speed, good IQ, and good playmaking before his injury. They leave out that he was a fan favourite on his previous teams to paint him merely as the player he was post injury. An injury and decline that was not predictable and is one of the fluke things that happens in sports.

When the truthful context is added, the trade actually becomes a young inconsistent locker room cancer with 3rd line upside plus a negligible asset for an excellent veteran 4th liner, which was actually a good trade. I know you know this and keep telling it like it is Hindustan, and I’m sorry about all the personal attacks I see against you. You can take heart and refuge knowing that it only happens because they ran out of actual arguments against you.

Stop it, you’re breaking my heart. Maybe we should take up a GoFundMe for this poster because of all the injustices you think are being done against him lol

 

[Canucker]

Sure but that doesn’t stop the JBFC including the above poster from ripping Gillis’ drafting on a regular basis. Which is funny because suddenly results don’t matter, only your intention.

Agreed...the goal posts seem to be in perpetual movement.

 

[CanaFan]

Except I didn’t actually ignore the actual results.

I’ve admitted countless times that the Prust trade didn’t pan out. The irony of you feeling compelled to “slow things down for someone,” lmao.

Yes and you’ve said that the entire thing “was the right move” which counteracts saying it didn’t pan out.

If we ignore how things turn out then we can say anything “was the right move”.

I feel like I’m not slowing this down enough for some reason cause it’s still not sinking in.

 

[CanaFan]

Technically however, Benning made the right move by bringing him in.

Just in case you forgot what we were discussing.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Just in case you forgot what we were discussing.

Ugggh.

Whatever point you were trying to make, you can have it. Victory for CanaFan. [MOD]

 

[Motte and Bailey]

I fail to see how dealing a so-called "lockeroom cancer" for another lockeroom cancer (wah, wah, mean coach Willie won't let me play in New York) is a positive (not to mention throwing in a late round pick for good measure).

Another post, another false equivalence based on the absence of context.

Are you putting Kassian’s antics up against Prust being upset in a situation where it’s reasonable to be upset and calling them the same?

By that standard then Luongo was an extreme locker room cancer because he not only was upset at not playing the Winter Classic but also demanded a trade. Do you think Luongo is a huge locker room cancer too? I bet you won’t. The evidence you presented does not warrant the belief that Prust was a locker room cancer. Nice try though.