Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign F Adam Cracknell (1-Year, 2-Way Deal - $575K)

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

The point is that what a player did two or three years ago isn't relevant if its not what he is now. The Canucks shouldn't just go out and sign Fernando Pisani or Shawn Thornton for the same reason.

Ok, you don't want to look at stats. What did Cracknell do last year that makes you think he is still a useful player?

Uhhh for Utica?

 

[MS]

HEy let's do a Stat.

There is The Info.

\


Come on, ya'll know about his time he spent on that very good Blues 4th line. This isn't some chump...it's a guy who was part of a playoff 4th line line that actually did a thing, they Farklandeded the heck out of the playoffs. That's not nothing.

He had a good 15 or so games in the spring of 2013. That's nice.

He's done nothing in the NHL otherwise.

He's a useful minor-league player who can probably tread water if called up. We needed that player to replace DeFazio in the system, so it's a good signing.

But to act like he's likely to be anything more than that, or likely to be the 2013 version of himself when he clearly wasn't able to find that level of play again in the next two years, is being a bit overly optimistic.

Comparing him to Kenins, in particular, is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Verviticus]

HEy let's do a Stat.

There is The Info.

\


Come on, ya'll know about his time he spent on that very good Blues 4th line. This isn't some chump...it's a guy who was part of a playoff 4th line line that actually did a thing, they Farklandeded the heck out of the playoffs. That's not nothing.

but is it reasonable to expect he can do that again? if you banked on him being able to turn that into something the year after you'd be wrong, and if you had banked on him being able to repeat it the year after that, you'd be wrong again. third time's a charm?

Uhhh for Utica?

no, bitturbo is trying to describe why he thinks cracknell can be a useful depth option. i think we all know he's at least a serviceable player in the AHL

 

[MS]

Wait for it tho, we can turn this neggs.


WHY DID WE SIGN THIS GUY INSTEAD OF SOME OTHER MEDIOCRE PLAYER WE LIKE BETTER.

We should organize a riot i guess.

What on earth are you talking about?

Literally everyone except you has said this is a perfectly sound depth signing that will help out in Utica and be a serviceable callup.

People just took exception to what seemed to be over-the-top praise of him from you - 'suberb signing', legitimate NHL player, comparable to Kenins, etc.

 

[biturbo19]

What on earth are you talking about?

Literally everyone except you has said this is a perfectly sound depth signing that will help out in Utica and be a serviceable callup.

People just took exception to what seemed to be over-the-top praise of him from you - 'suberb signing', legitimate NHL player, comparable to Kenins, etc.

That's the point.

 

[MS]

That's the point.

 

[DL44]

His point... why do people have to take exception to him being positive about the transaction...
i.e. default here is set to negative.

 

[pitseleh]

Because he's wrong? Why bother posting here if you don't want people to engage on your opinions?

 

[a Fool]

His point... why do people have to take exception to him being positive about the transaction...
i.e. default here is set to negative.

Pointing out facts isn't "being negative."

 

[DL44]

Because he's wrong? Why bother posting here if you don't want people to engage on your opinions?

agreed. when you come in 'hot' on a 30 yr old, 82 gm vet on a 2-way... you're inviting people to say.. 'wait a minute'...


This thread went sideways with the word 'superb'. ha ha..

Pointing out facts isn't "being negative."

Sarcasm is all negative..

 

[Intoewsables]

Cool. This is a player I've liked for a while now, even if he's regressed over the last year or two. Should be good AHL depth with the ability to spot in the NHL in a pinch.

biturbo does have a point though. Benning transactions that aren't catastrophic and franchise-crippling are so rare that they're basically superb moves for him.

 

[Ho Borvat]

The point is that what a player did two or three years ago isn't relevant if its not what he is now. The Canucks shouldn't just go out and sign Fernando Pisani or Shawn Thornton for the same reason.

Ok, you don't want to look at stats. What did Cracknell do last year that makes you think he is still a useful player?

Uhhh for Utica?

I would argue he is likely there to fill the void in Utica with Kenins likely leaving.

Cracknell likely only sees NHL time if one of Kenins/Dorsett/Prust get injured for an extended period of time.

If not, hes likely just a physical role player for Utica.

 

[coastal_nuck]

agreed. when you come in 'hot' on a 30 yr old, 82 gm vet on a 2-way... you're inviting people to say.. 'wait a minute'...


This thread went sideways with the word 'superb'. ha ha..



Sarcasm is all negative..

Sarcasm is what you take it as, it is not always in a negative context.

In any case, I don't see how anyone could see this as a bad signing. He adds depth to Utica, not a big deal either way.

 

[StroShow]

less ice time for our prospects in utica

 

[MS]

His point... why do people have to take exception to him being positive about the transaction...
i.e. default here is set to negative.

OK, got it.

Except the default isn't 'set to negative' at all. Nobody said anything negative until someone went a bit over the top with praise and then a couple of us said, 'woah, he's not quite that good'.

Which is not unreasonable.

If we traded Brandon Prust for, say, Josh Jooris tomorrow, everyone would consider that a pretty good move. But if someone came in hyping Jooris as a 25-goal scorer, they'd be told to cool their jets a bit.

 

[Wilch]

I just realized something funny.

Had Benning made all of his trades and signings 2 to 3 years ago for the same dollar amount or assets, those moves would have been considered excellent at the time.

 

[JuniorNelson]

Well ... let's not get carried away.

Is this quote accurate?

 

[Bitz and Bites]

Benning transactions that aren't catastrophic and franchise-crippling are so rare that they're basically superb moves for him.

You know this could turn out to be a very bad move...AC could get called up early in the season and pop in a few goals,make some big hits,kick some *** in scrums and Benning will extend him for three years at 2M+ saying it going rate for character guys who are good in scrums and can excite the crowd.

 

[Bad Goalie]

I would argue he is likely there to fill the void in Utica with Kenins likely leaving.

Cracknell likely only sees NHL time if one of Kenins/Dorsett/Prust get injured for an extended period of time.

If not, hes likely just a physical role player for Utica.

I wish everyone would just accept this for what it is and stop all of this nonsense bickering. The season can't start soon enough. If the season had started this signing would have been a fart in the breeze.

He was signed as veteran for the Comets. He makes a total of 3.
Everyone else in Utica at the moment is a prospect. 10 are straight out rookies. 4 are second year pros one of which is now under a Utica contract after not being resigned by Vancouver (Zalewski). Then there's Jensen and Negrin. The only significant returns above this level are Grenier (who might crack the Vancouver window) and Friesen (who is really a 3rd line AHL center).

Somebody had the nerve to say he shouldn't have been signed because he will take away roles from the kids. One or two injuries to the Canucks in the right spots and there will be nothing but prospects in Utica. They will be the youngest team in the league and you will all be *****ing about how Utica fails to develop your prospects. They can't develop properly in an environment where they are thrown to the wolves. The reason the AHL allows a certain number of vets (every team must have 13 players in the lineup every game who are prospects) is so the kids can operate in a system where they can learn the pro game, be mentored, and play in a competitive environment. Only five in any game may be veterans.

I repeat! The Comets only have 3 on their roster!!!!! Period. If it stays like this, which I think it won't, they would have the fewest number of vets of any team in the AHL.

Again this was an AHL signing to help fill out the Comets roster. He got a 2-way just in case desperation occurs and Vancouver has no one else to call upon. He is not even a twinkle of an idea in Vancouver's plans.

 

[me2]

I wish everyone would just accept this for what it is and stop all of this nonsense bickering. The season can't start soon enough. If the season had started this signing would have been a fart in the breeze.

He was signed as veteran for the Comets. He makes a total of 3.
Everyone else in Utica at the moment is a prospect. 10 are straight out rookies. 4 are second year pros one of which is now under a Utica contract after not being resigned by Vancouver (Zalewski). Then there's Jensen and Negrin. The only significant returns above this level are Grenier (who might crack the Vancouver window) and Friesen (who is really a 3rd line AHL center).

Somebody had the nerve to say he shouldn't have been signed because he will take away roles from the kids. One or two injuries to the Canucks in the right spots and there will be nothing but prospects in Utica. They will be the youngest team in the league and you will all be *****ing about how Utica fails to develop your prospects. They can't develop properly in an environment where they are thrown to the wolves. The reason the AHL allows a certain number of vets (every team must have 13 players in the lineup every game who are prospects) is so the kids can operate in a system where they can learn the pro game, be mentored, and play in a competitive environment. Only five in any game may be veterans.

I repeat! The Comets only have 3 on their roster!!!!! Period. If it stays like this, which I think it won't, they would have the fewest number of vets of any team in the AHL.

Again this was an AHL signing to help fill out the Comets roster. He got a 2-way just in case desperation occurs and Vancouver has no one else to call upon. He is not even a twinkle of an idea in Vancouver's plans.

You guys still need a good top 6 C if my thinking is right, not sold on Friesen, Gaunce (if he switches) or Cassels being ready for that high a rule.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

This thread is to discuss the signing of Adam Cracknell. It is not a thread to Spam; that is against the rules. It is not a thread to talk about Jim Benning; we have one of those already.

If you aren't prepared to add something constructive to this thread, then do us all a solid and don't add anything.

 

[vanuck]

I remember thinking that line with him, Porter and Reaves looked dominant out there in the playoffs for STL a few years back. Thought for sure he would've stuck in the NHL as a capable 4th liner at the very least.

 

[Bad Goalie]

You guys still need a good top 6 C if my thinking is right, not sold on Friesen, Gaunce (if he switches) or Cassels being ready for that high a rule.

You sir would be correct. A #1 center to replace O'Reilly has not been procured. Yet.

Hamilton/#4 #1 pk and face off man.
Cassels/#3
Jones/Friesen #2/RW
missing/#1

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

His point... why do people have to take exception to him being positive about the transaction...
i.e. default here is set to negative.

I think it's more about ... trying not to set the bar too high that this player will almost certainly not meet it.

I remember when the cAnucks signed Bulis and fans all over were calling him a "20 goal scorer." It was not a reasonable expectation for a player who had scored 20 goals exactly once, the season before, and only 20 goals. It meant that even though Bulis honestly was a decent player for us, many fans saw him as a failure because he didn't produce the 20-goal second-line numbers they were expecting. If they instead saw him for what he was, a pretty good 2-way complementary, the evaluation of him would have been more fair.

It's not about "taking exception to someone being positive" it's about lowering the expectation to something more reasonable. If you're expecting him to play to his absolute best stretch of hockey that he achieved one time 3 years ago, you're probably going to be disappointed.

 

[tantalum]

agreed. when you come in 'hot' on a 30 yr old, 82 gm vet on a 2-way... you're inviting people to say.. 'wait a minute'...


This thread went sideways with the word 'superb'. ha ha..

Well I was the one that made it go "sideways" apparently by questioning the use of that word superb and how the player has NHL upside. I simply said fine depth signing but this isn't anything more and we probably don't want to see him getting much if any time with the big club because it either means the team has serious injury problems up front or the likes of Gaunce, Cassels, and Shinkaruk are not progressing well enough to even be a call up.

But yes I took exception to the word superb: "marked to the highest degree by grandeur, excellence, brilliance, or competence". Cracknell and this move quite frankly aren't that. It's depth signing for Utica. That is perfectly fine and is a good move in that regard.