Pre-Game Talk: 2019-20 Pro-Team Tank Thread - To Infinity and Beyond!

[canucksfan]

One part of the problem of trading cap dumps is a lot of teams seem to also have cap problems or close to it.

 

[Teflon Jim]

Has Jim ever wriggled out of a jam?

Edit: Guddy

When hasn't he the man has a teflon suit.

Edit: He turned Guddy into Pearson , wiggle was so sweet you didn't even notice it.

 

[xtra]

One part of the problem of trading cap dumps is a lot of teams seem to also have cap problems or close to it.

And then do we have the assets to do it?

are we willing to give up a first to get rid
Of loui?

 

[canucksfan]

And then do we have the assets to do it?

are we willing to give up a first to get rid
Of loui?

A team isn’t taking on Loui unless the Canucks pay a steep price. I think a first rounder is too low.

Even Sutter what’s the point for a team to acquire him. He’s injured frequently and has a bigger contract for a declining bottom 6 forward. I don’t know all the teams cap situations heading into next off season but likely for most they don’t have room. As a result, very few teams will be willing to take a cap dump.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I actually agree that it's somewhat likely that Aquilini's penchant for being meddlesome has more to do with why Benning's still here rather than a simple lack of understanding as an owner or anything.

The biggest reason I advocate for a tank is because at some point I reckon even Aqua will have had enough. Mostly because I do happen to think there was something to the rumour of him giving Benning an ultimatum to make the playoffs in 2020. So if he isn't fired this season, perhaps the next. Or the one after.

I'm curious: do you see Aqua tolerating being out of the playoffs forever - even if media/fan perception doesn't ever turn eventually? Surely enough has to be enough at some point, no?

I already know full well they won't sell off pieces at the deadline. I've come to accept that guys like Markstrom and Tanev could easily walk in UFA. If 2019-20 is the probable peak performance of this current group due to oncoming cap issues, then IMO all the more important that they end up failing to make the playoffs this year to maximize the streak of futility.

To get back to this: I definitely believe that Aquilini will tolerate Benning so long as he maintains control via proxy. On merit, Benning should have been fired. On fan backlash, there have been points where he could have been fired. So far, no dice on either front. So what does it mean?

I think it means that the team's immediate fortunes are not tied to Benning's dismissal. And if that's the case, tanking would only serve the purpose of getting a higher pick. Still a good thing in terms of pick quality, but not all that it was thought to be (management changes).

Appreciate the interest int he tank but I don't get why this is so hard and has to be revisited after a win or losing streak? It's been the same now since 2016, at least. Every year, everything is pretty much the same, except every other year we get a good young player. But then they also sign a horrible contract every other year too. etc etc A short win or losing streak changes nothing, just like an injury to Ferland and Sutter.

Benning is a horrible GM. With him as a GM, the team will never win a cup as he will not be able to build a team around 3-4 good players, never mind plan anything. The more the team losses, the more likely he is to be fired- at any point, hence the tank. Obviously Aquilini is a horrible owner, but he did hire Mike Gillis and they got within one game of a cup win. So who knows, maybe if he hires the right guy - who knows. But the writing is clearly on the wall - Benning is not the right guy. All we want is to win a cup, with Benning gone, the chances seemingly get better. I just want to see the Canucks win a cup, not play in a few playoff games, maybe.

I want to see the Canucks win the cup as well. I also don't think Benning is fit to lead them there. What I am attempting to isolate here is the connection between the tank and Benning's dismissal. I don't think the two are tied together. As a result, I'm wondering about how this understanding changes the average tanker's mind set? Do you still want the team to fail even if Benning is retained?

My purpose in bringing this up after a few losses was to suggest that I'm not riding a trend toward this assessment. That recency bias is not a factor for me here.

The statement in bold is what this is all about: I do not believe that more losses equates to a Benning firing. He has put together the 2nd worst team over a span of 4 years. Surely even Aquilini can understand that much?

 

[DS7]

I don't really fundamentally disagree with team Tank, heck I've been on it for 5 years. Nor do i believe Benning is capable of putting together a winning roster, however it doesn't change the fact that we've stumbled (big emphasis on stumbled!) into the makings of a core that can win (Horvat, Boeser, Podholzin/Hoglander, Petey, Hughes).

My worries is this, it'll be 5 seasons of losing for Horvat, 3 for Boeser. These guys have a very real chance of being Taylor Hall'ed out of their primes. I'd like them to see at least some playoff action and remain with us for the long term. I know a few of you are advocating the aggressive approach and trade them and focus on petey and hughes. It's irrational for sure, but I'm still wanting Bo to be here and play competitively.

I know, it's pure irony that in making aggressive moves to foster that winning culture, we've ended up with 4 losing seasons, but doesn't take away the argument that you don't want to keep losing, otherwise it infects the organization and players

 

[4Twenty]

To get back to this: I definitely believe that Aquilini will tolerate Benning so long as he maintains control via proxy. On merit, Benning should have been fired. On fan backlash, there have been points where he could have been fired. So far, no dice on either front. So what does it mean?

I think it means that the team's immediate fortunes are not tied to Benning's dismissal. And if that's the case, tanking would only serve the purpose of getting a higher pick. Still a good thing in terms of pick quality, but not all that it was thought to be (management changes).





I want to see the Canucks win the cup as well. I also don't think Benning is fit to lead them there. What I am attempting to isolate here is the connection between the tank and Benning's dismissal. I don't think the two are tied together. As a result, I'm wondering about how this understanding changes the average tanker's mind set? Do you still want the team to fail even if Benning is retained?

My purpose in bringing this up after a few losses was to suggest that I'm not riding a trend toward this assessment. That recency bias is not a factor for me here.

The statement in bold is what this is all about: I do not believe that more losses equates to a Benning firing. He has put together the 2nd worst team over a span of 4 years. Surely even Aquilini can understand that much?

It's crazy, Aquilini has given Benning such a low bar over these 6 seasons, that this year might actually raise expectations. I imagine Aqua is banking on the playoffs at this stage....if the team falls flat from that expectation, Aqua might get embarrassed and make a change. I think being embarrassed is the big thing....when the fans chanted to fire Gillis, Aqua was embarrassed and made the change. That's the only thing that will get rid of Benning.

I don't really know what I want what I want, but making the playoffs this year raises the bar and odds are they make it (80% right now IIRC). The expectation moving forward is that they would continue to progress, but for those of us who have looked at the cap and lineup for the future, it doesn't look like a clear path.

Benning would be dumb to stand pat at this deadline....this is very likely his best chance to progress in the playoffs.

 

[Jack Burton]

BIG Tank night!

Let's go

Hopefully the Lames can take out TO, Vegas gets it going with the coaching change and the Preds pick up points with all those games in hand.

HM to Chicago for getting it together and getting into the wildcard fight

 

[Bleach Clean]

It's crazy, Aquilini has given Benning such a low bar over these 6 seasons, that this year might actually raise expectations. I imagine Aqua is banking on the playoffs at this stage....if the team falls flat from that expectation, Aqua might get embarrassed and make a change. I think being embarrassed is the big thing....when the fans chanted to fire Gillis, Aqua was embarrassed and made the change. That's the only thing that will get rid of Benning.

I don't really know what I want what I want, but making the playoffs this year raises the bar and odds are they make it (80% right now IIRC). The expectation moving forward is that they would continue to progress, but for those of us who have looked at the cap and lineup for the future, it doesn't look like a clear path.

Benning would be dumb to stand pat at this deadline....this is very likely his best chance to progress in the playoffs.

Hmmm, interesting. Embarrassment may make Aquilini act. There's credence to that thinking. However, has he not been embarrassed already? 4 years of the 2nd worst record in the league should be quite embarrassing, no?

I find that with whatever bar someone puts forward, another is propped up in support. When the Canucks are abhorrent for 4 years, it's about Pettersson and Boeser. When fans are critical of the Miller trade, there's a supporting tweet from Aqua when he's hot. Comparing the first 40 games of last year to this year is a "clear step forward" when the differential is only 3 games (losses last year to wins this year). And on and on... What would embarrass him when his take on the team is already embarrassing?

I don't think losing gets Benning fired. A conflict between owner and GM might. An competent President might. That's about it, IMO.

I don't really fundamentally disagree with team Tank, heck I've been on it for 5 years. Nor do i believe Benning is capable of putting together a winning roster, however it doesn't change the fact that we've stumbled (big emphasis on stumbled!) into the makings of a core that can win (Horvat, Boeser, Podholzin/Hoglander, Petey, Hughes).

My worries is this, it'll be 5 seasons of losing for Horvat, 3 for Boeser. These guys have a very real chance of being Taylor Hall'ed out of their primes. I'd like them to see at least some playoff action and remain with us for the long term. I know a few of you are advocating the aggressive approach and trade them and focus on petey and hughes. It's irrational for sure, but I'm still wanting Bo to be here and play competitively.

I know, it's pure irony that in making aggressive moves to foster that winning culture, we've ended up with 4 losing seasons, but doesn't take away the argument that you don't want to keep losing, otherwise it infects the organization and players

I doubt there is a GM out there that wants to lose.

Pushing to win despite what the team is showing you seems like a pro-playoff argument, and thus not a pro-tank argument.

 

[Jack Burton]

I think the only way Benning gets canned at seasons end is if he blows futures at the TDL, his awesome pro scouting rears it's ugly head and that player(s) is garbage. This team then goes into a free fall down the stretch and completely misses the playoffs.

If this doesn't happen then regardless if we miss the playoffs by a few points or get completely blowen out in the first round...we got Benning for another season

 

[4Twenty]

Hmmm, interesting. Embarrassment may make Aquilini act. There's credence to that thinking. However, has he not been embarrassed already? 4 years of the 2nd worst record in the league should be quite embarrassing, no?

I find that with whatever bar someone puts forward, another is propped up in support. When the Canucks are abhorrent for 4 years, it's about Pettersson and Boeser. When fans are critical of the Miller trade, there's a supporting tweet from Aqua when he's hot. Comparing the first 40 games of last year to this year is a "clear step forward" when the differential is only 3 games (losses last year to wins this year). And on and on... What would embarrass him when his take on the team is already embarrassing?

I don't think losing gets Benning fired. A conflict between owner and GM might. An competent President might. That's about it, IMO.

Well I think he hasn't been embarrassed because he's like the pro-Benning/Anti-Gillis members of the fanbase and has given Benning a low bar because of empty cupboard....rebuilds take time and all that other BS lowbar excuse stuff.

I think the team is getting to the point now, with 80+% odds at the playoffs, where the bar has been raised. If they have a drastic fall to finish this season, while expectations are up....that would be an embarrassing end, and may even get the butts in the seats to chant.

 

[PecaFan]

Losing will get every single gm in the league fired. It’s just a matter of how long they lose.

For some inexplicable reason Jimbecile has had an extremely long leash. But keep losing and even he’s gone. It’s our best hope.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I think the only way Benning gets canned at seasons end is if he blows futures at the TDL, his awesome pro scouting rears it's ugly head and that player(s) is garbage. This team then goes into a free fall down the stretch and completely misses the playoffs.

If this doesn't happen then regardless if we miss the playoffs by a few points or get completely blowen out in the first round...we got Benning for another season

I think it's as simple as if he makes the playoffs or not. If we miss the playoffs, Benning and Green are both gonezo.

The main reason is obviously because Benning has had six years to turn the ship around and will have failed, but I really think the 1st round pick in the Miller trade will put pressure on Aquilini to hire someone new to ensure a playoff berth for 2021. Another factor is that Benning has been abysmal at managing the cap, and this summer will be the team's most important offseason in terms of managing the cap with Markstrom and Tanev being free agents, Virtanen as an RFA, etc. One would think that Aquilini doesn't have much confidence in Benning constructing a roster that is just as good as this season while being under the cap...

 

[4Twenty]

I think it's as simple as if he makes the playoffs or not. If we miss the playoffs, Benning and Green are both gonezo.

The main reason is obviously because Benning has had six years to turn the ship around and will have failed, but I really think the 1st round pick in the Miller trade will put pressure on Aquilini to hire someone new to ensure a playoff berth for 2021. Another factor is that Benning has been abysmal at managing the cap, and this summer will be the team's most important offseason in terms of managing the cap with Markstrom and Tanev being free agents, Virtanen as an RFA, etc. One would think that Aquilini doesn't have much confidence in Benning constructing a roster that is just as good as this season while being under the cap...

That makes a ton of sense and is logical, but I dont think it lines up with reality.

Quinn Hughes' Calder Finalist nomination will be enough of a distraction.

 

[Bgav]

Losing will get every single gm in the league fired. It’s just a matter of how long they lose.

For some inexplicable reason Jimbecile has had an extremely long leash. But keep losing and even he’s gone. It’s our best hope.

Aqua man loves JIMBO. If we miss the playoffs by a couple of points, I doubt he gets fired.

 

[4Twenty]

Aqua man loves JIMBO. If we miss the playoffs by a couple of points, I doubt he gets fired.

In perpetuity?

So say the 8th seed is 93 points, Canucks finish with 87? He wouldn't get fired? What point total would?

What about next year, what if they miss by 3 points this year and next....still GM in Van?

It's such a strange concept to me, that an impatient owner who wants to win one before his dad dies, and fired the past GM for missing the playoffs once, would be content to be "close" to making the playoffs.

It's a really weird situation.

 

[timw33]

In perpetuity?

So say the 8th seed is 93 points, Canucks finish with 87? He wouldn't get fired? What point total would?

What about next year, what if they miss by 3 points this year and next....still GM in Van?

It's such a strange concept to me, that an impatient owner who wants to win one before his dad dies, and fired the past GM for missing the playoffs once, would be content to be "close" to making the playoffs.

It's a really weird situation.

Missing 5 years in a row would put him firmly amongst the worst GMs in modern NHL history. Missing 6 years would crown him as that group's king.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

That makes a ton of sense and is logical, but I dont think it lines up with reality.

Quinn Hughes' Calder Finalist nomination will be enough of a distraction.

Feelsbadman.jpg

 

[VanillaCoke]

Missing 5 years in a row would put him firmly amongst the worst GMs in modern NHL history. Missing 6 years would crown him as that group's king.

We can only pray

 

[xtra]

In perpetuity?

So say the 8th seed is 93 points, Canucks finish with 87? He wouldn't get fired? What point total would?

What about next year, what if they miss by 3 points this year and next....still GM in Van?

It's such a strange concept to me, that an impatient owner who wants to win one before his dad dies, and fired the past GM for missing the playoffs once, would be content to be "close" to making the playoffs.

It's a really weird situation.

If he misses this year it will take a miracle to convince me that it’s not actually Frankie running the team and Jim not really doing much other than being a buffer from
Angry fans

 

[Pavel96]

To get back to this: I definitely believe that Aquilini will tolerate Benning so long as he maintains control via proxy. On merit, Benning should have been fired. On fan backlash, there have been points where he could have been fired. So far, no dice on either front. So what does it mean?

I think it means that the team's immediate fortunes are not tied to Benning's dismissal. And if that's the case, tanking would only serve the purpose of getting a higher pick. Still a good thing in terms of pick quality, but not all that it was thought to be (management changes).





I want to see the Canucks win the cup as well. I also don't think Benning is fit to lead them there. What I am attempting to isolate here is the connection between the tank and Benning's dismissal. I don't think the two are tied together. As a result, I'm wondering about how this understanding changes the average tanker's mind set? Do you still want the team to fail even if Benning is retained?

My purpose in bringing this up after a few losses was to suggest that I'm not riding a trend toward this assessment. That recency bias is not a factor for me here.

The statement in bold is what this is all about: I do not believe that more losses equates to a Benning firing. He has put together the 2nd worst team over a span of 4 years. Surely even Aquilini can understand that much?

I'm not sure how the team's success isn't logically tied to Benning keeping his job. Sure Benning may be on a longer leash than normal, but I think that's more a result of Aquilini trying to save his own face. In the same way, once Jim fires his latest coach he is almost assuredly down to his own last chance - the longer he doesn't fire Green the longer he could be prolonging that hypothetical chance. Aquilini can't really fire three GMs in just over a decade without it starting to come back on him. The longer his sticks with his latest GM, the better the hire looked - to a certain extent that logically runs out at a certain point. As a personal opinion I attribute Jim retaining his job for this long due to that idea and how agreeable and good he must make Aquilini feel, I dunno.

If the team continually does horrible, he will lose his job. How can that not be a given, eventually. However, if the team becomes what gets some GM's fired (a perpetual playoff loser), Jim's personal fan base will have already thrown him a parade. I could see this extending his tenure by another 5 years, because why not. 2-3 more seasons of losing and he'll be gone and then you can actually start to change for the better. Why are we implying this - I am going to start my diet on Monday after binge eating all weekend, logic to rebuilding this team. If Benning is not fit to lead this team to the promise land why is it better to meddle in mediocrity for a few extra seasons, then inevitable fire him - let's get this party started asap.

I think before this thread needs to answer your question, you could explain why the team continually losing would not be connected to it's GM getting fired?

 

[Intangibos]

Just realized Brendan "Black Hole" Gaunce outpaced Beagle in his final year here when he was cast off for not producing enough points.

Nice

 

[rypper]

Just realized Brendan "Black Hole" Gaunce outpaced Beagle in his final year here when he was cast off for not producing enough points.

Nice

Championship Pedigree.

Worth every cent.


/s

 

[vanuck]

To get back to this: I definitely believe that Aquilini will tolerate Benning so long as he maintains control via proxy. On merit, Benning should have been fired. On fan backlash, there have been points where he could have been fired. So far, no dice on either front. So what does it mean?

I think it means that the team's immediate fortunes are not tied to Benning's dismissal. And if that's the case, tanking would only serve the purpose of getting a higher pick. Still a good thing in terms of pick quality, but not all that it was thought to be (management changes).

I do think that Aquilini is willing to live with poor performance for the short-term future. After all, like you said, if his decision was based on merit or even outside perception, Benning probably would've been turfed a few years ago. Though for how long, I'm not sure.

My thinking is that in the long-run Aqua will grow tired of sucking eventually. I have nothing to back this up of course, only the general supposition that all NHL owners ultimately want their teams to contend, and generate playoff revenue at some point or another etc. - which an extended tank would continue to deny him of.

If it takes years and years for it to finally happen, I guess you could say I'm in it for the long haul?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

That makes a ton of sense and is logical, but I dont think it lines up with reality.

Quinn Hughes' Calder Finalist nomination will be enough of a distraction.

Yeah. Just look at the fans here. His supporters are more enamoured with him then ever.