Canucks Managerial Thread

[VanillaCoke]

I cant believe some ppl will make up stories and defend management dumping garrison as a good decision, and then also be incredulous that corrado was claimed.

 

[Verviticus]

Bright side, at least were going to get rid of him.

"well, i was reluctant to stay because of family issues, but when my girlfriend and I saw the generous offer, i thought, you know what, we do want to be part of the canucks family for the next eight years!"

 

[me2]

Fringe players..

Shame we couldn't have flipped him for a 2nd or some other team's quality young Dmen prospect.....

It seems unfair the Canucks are the only team that doesn't have a Benning to trade with.

 

[MS]

you cant keep saying this. the chance of him being claimed was not low. it was a really easy, predictable thing. ****, someone in the thread even called the team

edit: its reasonable to have the opinion that he wasnt good enough, and we couldnt afford to keep him as an asset anymore. i dont really agree. but apparently multiple teams claimed the guy and toronto was just the highest. that he was going to be claimed was pretty obvious and predictable

There have been dozens of 23-24 y/o prospect AHL defenders waived over the last 3 years at this time, many better than Frank Corrado. The only one claimed was Ryan Stanton, by us.

I really don't care that some people thought this was going to happen. Some people have thought every player we've waived in the last decade would get claimed, including Vey and Markstrom. People were posting quotes from Pierre McGuire that Vey would surely be claimed a couple days ago.

Difference with Corrado is that he was a year younger. Did that make the difference? Maybe.

But it really doesn't matter. There was no point in keeping him here. At all. It was the right decision to waive him.

 

[Intoewsables]

"well, i was reluctant to stay because of family issues, but when my girlfriend and I saw the generous offer, i thought, you know what, we do want to be part of the canucks family for the next eight years!"

Don't joke about this kind of stuff.

 

[greasy goals]

I cant believe some ppl will make up stories and defend management dumping garrison as a good decision, and then also be incredulous that corrado was claimed.

Can we all agree Garrison, properly handled, is easily worth a 1st on the trade market?

 

[Zarpan]

essentially if Dim Jim had drafted Corrado, he'd been given a roster spot immediately.

That's an opinion that isn't really supported by actual events so far.

Clendening, Bonino, Forsling aren't on the Canucks anymore, and Vey is in Utica, so Benning is certainly willing to part with players he acquired.

As well, there doesn't seem to be that much favouritism of his draft picks. Heck, posters were concerned that McCann wouldn't make the roster despite deserving to.

Corrado was beaten out by Hutton and neither are Benning draft picks.

Benning's problem is more a lack of asset management and negotiating skills.

 

[Verviticus]

There have been dozens of 23-24 y/o prospect AHL defenders waived over the last 3 years at this time, many better than Frank Corrado. The only one claimed was Ryan Stanton, by us.

I really don't care that some people thought this was going to happen.

Difference with Corrado is that he was a year younger. Did that make the difference? Maybe.

yes, of course it did. you're right - if he was a year older, he falls into a pretty obvious precedent of being ignored on waivers. he isnt a year older, and the obvious happened :shrug:

 

[rune74]

can this **** stop? if you dont understand why something is being discussed, just ignore it.

I understand just fine why people do it...just I think they are doing it for other reasons...right?

 

[Zarpan]

Some people have thought every player we've waived in the last decade would get claimed, including Vey and Markstrom. People were posting quotes from Pierre McGuire that Vey would surely be claimed a couple days ago.
.

That's definitely true... Some people thought Biega would be claimed too.

If the predictions about fringe NHL players being claimed are right 10-20% of the time and wrong 80%-90%, I don't think one can say that it was quite predictable.

 

[MS]

But our management team would then have to correctly identify who was worth taking off waivers ... and then actually pick them off waivers instead of trading picks for them.

I agree with your general argument in isolation but I disagree with you that you can segregate this issue from the other crap that has been going on.

Oh, I agree our management would screw that up.

Again, I don't see any problem with what they did here and believe it was 100% correct. And I will *never* criticize a team for cutting a player who didn't deserve to make the team on merit.

 

[Pip]

Babcock on Corrado....

well of course he's going to say that...

management and coaching talking up a new player isn't really noteworthy

 

[Tiranis]

I agree with your general argument in isolation but I disagree with you that you can segregate this issue from the other crap that has been going on.

This is where I stand on this.

 

[Tim McCracken]

essentially if [MOD] Jim had drafted Corrado, he'd been given a roster spot immediately.

No kidding, eh? Just like that Hutton guy who beat Corrado out. Damn Benning should be fired just on the premise that he burned a year off Corrado's ELC for one lousy, futile playoff game making him waiver eligible this year instead of next.

 

[Addison Rae]

No kidding, eh? Just like that Hutton guy who beat Corrado out. Damn Benning should be fired just on the premise that he burned a year off Corrado's ELC for one lousy, futile playoff game making him waiver eligible this year instead of next.

The fact that you're trying to put this on Gillis shows how utterly biased you are.

You ice the best team you can in the playoffs, Corrado was tracking incredibly and looked like he'd be a sure fire NHL player by the time his ELC was out. Darn Gillis for not being able to predict the future!!!11

If we're placing blame on anyone here for losing Corrado for nothing it's entirely on Benning. That being said I really don't care much as Corrado is far from anything special.

 

[F A N]

I cant believe some ppl will make up stories and defend management dumping garrison as a good decision

Maybe you are just ignoring other people's valid arguments to support your own view?

Garrison never truly fit in here with Hamhuis, Edler, Tanev, and Bieska ahead of Garrison. Garrison wasn't even used on the 1st unit PP on a regular basis. Let's not deny the fact that the consensus view on here was that it would be great if one of those guys (not named Tanev) was traded. Very few of us were for keeping all those guys for the rest of their contracts. Linden decided to keep Edler and that led to Tanev being tied to Edler to keep Edler from imploding. Garrison either slots in with Hamhuis or he's the 5th Dman. Unfortunately for Garrison, Bieksa was seen as a core player in that locker room and being a right side defenseman and a good old fit for Hamhuis he had the edge. You may have wanted more for Garrison but the decision to trade him and his contract was one that anyone here should be able to support.

At the time of the trade, Garrison was about to turn 30 and had 4 years left on his contract with full NTC. Hamhuis and Bieksa had 2 years left with full NTCs. Clearly, the defense was an area that Benning wanted to and would have to address sooner rather than later. One year later, both Garrison and Bieksa are gone and Hamhuis may soon follow or be re-signed.

I was a supporter of Garrison. He's certainly a solid top 4 defenseman in the league. Fit wise he never proved to be a good fit.

 

[Addison Rae]

Maybe you are just ignoring other people's valid arguments to support your own view?

Garrison never truly fit in here with Hamhuis, Edler, Tanev, and Bieska ahead of Garrison. Garrison wasn't even used on the 1st unit PP on a regular basis. Let's not deny the fact that the consensus view on here was that it would be great if one of those guys (not named Tanev) was traded. Very few of us were for keeping all those guys for the rest of their contracts. Linden decided to keep Edler and that led to Tanev being tied to Edler to keep Edler from imploding. Garrison either slots in with Hamhuis or he's the 5th Dman. Unfortunately for Garrison, Bieksa was seen as a core player in that locker room and being a right side defenseman and a good old fit for Hamhuis he had the edge. You may have wanted more for Garrison but the decision to trade him and his contract was one that anyone here should be able to support.

At the time of the trade, Garrison was about to turn 30 and had 4 years left on his contract with full NTC. Hamhuis and Bieksa had 2 years left with full NTCs. Clearly, the defense was an area that Benning wanted to and would have to address sooner rather than later. One year later, both Garrison and Bieksa are gone and Hamhuis may soon follow or be re-signed.

I was a supporter of Garrison. He's certainly a solid top 4 defenseman in the league. Fit wise he never proved to be a good fit.

Yeah, that's sheer ********. Garrison fit in excellently with Hamhuis, they formed the best pairing on the team and many argued that Garrison was actually the best d-man on the Canucks in 2012/2013. Garrison was a much better fit with Hamhuis than Bieksa was at that stage of their careers.

It was a bonehead move to trade him, I simply cannot fathom how some people think having 5 top 4 dman is a bad thing. The Canucks D is always among the most beat up in the league, having excellent D depth is a strength, not a weakness. Now we're left with 3 top 4 guys.

Suggesting that we should support trading a good top 4 guy on an excellent contract for a guy that just cleared waivers is mindboggling.

 

[Nomobo]

So you think paying Sbisa/Miller 10 million a year is a net positive when it comes to revenue?

Right or wrong, they are trying to make money is what I'm saying.

 

[Addison Rae]

Right or wrong, they are trying to make money is what I'm saying.

And they're doing a terrible job of it (making money means making the playoffs)

Instead of spending 10 million on Sbisa and Miller, you could be spending only 5.8 million on Lack and Garrison. The latter group is a mile and a half better, and only making close to half as much.

Makes zero sense.

 

[Nomobo]

Babcock on Corrado....

What do you think he's going to say? " He's not that good but we'll give him a whirl"?
Naive.

 

[PM]

The Garrison trade and everything that followed was a complete disaster. Not to mention it was just an overall bad way to treat a player. Seriously how can anyone possibly defend this:

Garrison (+7th) -> 2nd rounder -> Linden Vey -> Waived Linden Vey

We turned a top-4 dman (and a 7th) into a player so bad we were willing to lose him for nothing.

 

[Pip]

Hamhuis-Garrison was a fantastic shutdown pairing. He absolutely did fit here.

 

[LeftCoast]

Yeah, that's sheer ********. Garrison fit in excellently with Hamhuis, they formed the best pairing on the team and many argued that Garrison was actually the best d-man on the Canucks in 2012/2013. Garrison was a much better fit with Hamhuis than Bieksa was at that stage of their careers.

It was a bonehead move to trade him, I simply cannot fathom how some people think having 5 top 4 dman is a bad thing. The Canucks D is always among the most beat up in the league, having excellent D depth is a strength, not a weakness. Now we're left with 3 top 4 guys.

Suggesting that we should support trading a good top 4 guy on an excellent contract for a guy that just cleared waivers is mindboggling.

Everything Benning has done is about 2 degrees of separation from Ryan Miller.

The Garrison trade was necessary because he tied up $6M in salary cap on Ryan Miller.

If he hadn't have trade Garrison, he wouldn't have acquired Linden Vey and probably would have kept Santorelli instead. Vey was cheaper (and younger) than Santo, but this was necessitated by the Miller signing.

Sbisa was the cheaper replacement for Garrison. Sbisa's new contract and Vey's combined equate to Garrison's.

 

[vanuck]

The problem arises when you have a GM bleeding assets like Benning, then losing someone like Corrado is actually pretty painful where it should be a non-issue.

This organization has managed to lose Garrison, Forsling, Corrado, McNally and Stanton in slightly more than a year with absolutely nothing to show for it, save for a Schroeder replacement for the AHL.

That's just an astonishing number of D-men we've given away for peanuts.

But our management team would then have to correctly identify who was worth taking off waivers ... and then actually pick them off waivers instead of trading picks for them.

I agree with your general argument in isolation but I disagree with you that you can segregate this issue from the other crap that has been going on.

Pretty much how I feel. As a standalone move, I agree with it in theory. But there's always the huge caveat with Sbisa on the team (and undeserving players holding down spots). Thus pretty much every decision they make has asterisks on it due to general incompetence. Though this isn't to say that Corrado is looking great right now either and even on a Gillis roster he'd probably still be waived.

Edler-Tanev
Hamhuis-Garrison
Stanton-Weber/Bieksa

Unless you're willing to keep Corrado as the 7th D, though in no circumstance would anyone rational keep Sbisa over him regardless.

 

[Jack Tripper]

In the big scheme of things, it's minor move. Small loss. Clearly not catastrophic.

The problem is, it's just the latest in a long line of inefficient (or more accurately, dumb) moves Benning continually makes. All those losses eventually add up the mess Benning has left this team in.

my position as well

i do find it bizarre that this loss of a rapidly devaluing prospect for nothing is somehow the tipping point for some segments of the media to begin a re-examination of the deplorable benning transactions of the past two seasons, but that could be the ultimate silver lining of the corrado loss

hearing linden on the radio basically being unaware/unable to justify the higgins-on-ir option communicates to me that this option was likely not even considered as an equal choice

The problem arises when you have a GM bleeding assets like Benning, then losing someone like Corrado is actually pretty painful where it should be a non-issue.

This organization has managed to lose Garrison, Forsling, Corrado, McNally and Stanton in slightly more than a year with absolutely nothing to show for it, save for a Schroeder replacement for the AHL.

quoted again for emphasis, because i disagree that you can neatly compartmentalize the corrado loss with the greater asset bleed on the blueline