Carnal
Registered User
- May 29, 2018
- 228
- 251
Closer then my English is two bean corect,Hey, I was an English major. That was pretty close, don't you think?
Closer then my English is two bean corect,Hey, I was an English major. That was pretty close, don't you think?
The team is going to be giving 110%!Math adds up...
Major Lindgren? What outfit?Hey, I was an English major. That was pretty close, don't you think?
And even though Dahlen bombed it was by far the single best transaction Benning has ever made in terms of getting value in a deal that made sense for where the team was at.
It was literally the only rebuild-type trade Benning has ever done.
The pick acquired for MDZ was less than the pick the Ducks got for MDZ....but I guess they got 18 games of Luke Schenn.Wait, no love for the draft pick acquired for Del Zotto? Goldobin for Burrows?
Wait, no love for the draft pick acquired for Del Zotto? Goldobin for Burrows?
(...tries hard to get the discussion moving on from arithmetic ...)
Wait, no love for the draft pick acquired for Del Zotto? Goldobin for Burrows?
(...tries hard to get the discussion moving on from arithmetic ...)
Goldobin was for Hansen and Benning said he only made that move because of the expansion draft. It was an expansion draft move, not a rebuilding move.
Goldobin was for Hansen, and that deal was expansion draft motivated (Benning said so himself). If it weren't for the expansion draft Hansen would have remained a Canuck.
A 7 for MDZ isn't a rebuild transaction
But they had to move their own 7th for a back-up goalie, so they're no further ahead. All it did was recoup a crappy pick (that Anaheim actually got more from the same player) to replace the one they moved because they can't manage an NHL roster properly and needed to put a Junior goalie against the 2nd best offense in the NHL.On MDZ, I disagree: signing a free agent, however marginal, then dumping that player for a pick, however low, is a very minor rebuilding move.
But they had to move their own 7th for a back-up goalie, so they're no further ahead. All it did was recoup a crappy pick (that Anaheim actually got more from the same player) to replace the one they moved because they can't manage an NHL roster properly and needed to put a Junior goalie against the 2nd best offense in the NHL.
But they had to move their own 7th for a back-up goalie, so they're no further ahead. All it did was recoup a crappy pick (that Anaheim actually got more from the same player) to replace the one they moved because they can't manage an NHL roster properly and needed to put a Junior goalie against the 2nd best offense in the NHL.
On MDZ, I disagree: signing a free agent, however marginal, then dumping that player for a pick, however low, is a very minor rebuilding move.
So the Hansen trade eventually netted Linus Karlsson and... what? What happened with San Jose's 4th round pick on 2017? Google is giving me no joy.
I guess the point is that even when Benning does something right, it's probably of no consequence anyways.
So the Hansen trade eventually netted Linus Karlsson and... what? What happened with San Jose's 4th round pick on 2017? Google is giving me no joy.
I guess the point is that even when Benning does something right, it's probably of no consequence anyways.
Edit: Ugh. Now I'm getting deals mixed up. Hansen netted us Goldobin, Gunnarsson, and Palmu. Burrows netted Karlsson. Still looking very underwhelming when it comes to rebuilding moves.
They traded it to Chicago for two lower picks that they used on Gunnarsson and Palmu.
Chicago took Tim Soderlund.
Had San Jose won the Cup the Canucks could have drafted Kole Lind in the first round.
Trading off old assets at the deadline - particularly expiring contracts like Burrows - are not rebuilding moves. Those are standard, bare-minimum moves that every team at the trade deadline should either be doing or trying to do. The fact that this team has missed the playoffs for 4 years and we can name these kind of deals on one hand and the eventual returns have offered almost nothing of value is brutal.
If moving Burrows for Dahlen is a move any team ought to have made, it's a bit odd Ottawa moved Dahlen for Burrows, wouldn't you say?
If that's how you see things then trading away a 7th round pick for a goalie for the remainder of the year was a "go for it" move.
No, it was a move made because the team didn't have enough healthy goaltenders and had nothing to do with the team's ambitions that season.If that's how you see things then trading away a 7th round pick for a goalie for the remainder of the year was a "go for it" move.
If moving Burrows for Dahlen is a move any team ought to have made, it's a bit odd Ottawa moved Dahlen for Burrows, wouldn't you say?
But he did trade Hansen for a prospect; would there not have been other moves he could have made that would have brought back a player that didn't have to be protected? If not, then I withdraw the claim.