Confirmed with Link: [CAR/VAN] Canucks acquire D Ethan Bear (18% retained), C Lane Pederson for 5th Round Pick in '23

[MS]

It would be a non issue if there wasnt already parallels and they didnt literally say the same justifications as the last idiots..

You want to complain about specifics on player types, the specific players are good targets, but thats the opposite of the point that generally speaking the similarities are a concern.

As you state ppl are raising said concerns because of the previous regime and traumatic decade.

But we changed management to the best most progressive in the world, so its disappointing to some that it seems very similar.

Again - the 'similarities' are because people are paranoid and looking so hard for them. It's seeing Jesus in the toast.

In 8 years of Jim Benning, there is literally 1 transaction similar to the Ethan Bear transaction, where we got a pretty cheap established mid-20s NHL player for a small asset. That was the Leivo trade, and that was a good trade.

But OMG AGE GAP like we've just traded a 2nd round pick for Linden Vey.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Again - the 'similarities' are because people are paranoid and looking so hard for them. It's seeing Jesus in the toast.

In 8 years of Jim Benning, there is literally 1 transaction similar to the Ethan Bear transaction, where we got a pretty cheap established mid-20s NHL player for a small asset. That was the Leivo trade, and that was a good trade.

But OMG AGE GAP like we've just traded a 2nd round pick for Linden Vey.

Similarities exist. More than one or two.
They're not hard to see you really dont have to look.
Pretending they dont exist is just ignorantly covering your eyes.
I get that you're on board with this regime and like to make excuses and justifications but pretending no parallels exist is not living in reality.
(And u make one yourself on the rutherford interview..)

Again, your specifics about mid 20s this and leivo that are irrelevant.
The issue is generalizations, not specifics.
The specific players and assets are good targets/value.

If they said they like stud and hes young and handsome nobody would care, they literally said the same age gap bs reasoning.

Just dont say we dont care about a young big rhd bc "he's 5 years away" and there's no issues.

 

[MS]

Similarities exist. More than one or two.
They're not hard to see you really dont have to look.
Pretending they dont exist is just ignorantly covering your eyes.
(And u make one yourself on the rutherford interview)

Again, your specifics about mid 20s this and leivo that are irrelevant.
The issue is generalizations, not specifics.

If they said they like bear and hes young and handsome nobody would care, they literally said the same age gap bs reasoning.

Just dont say we dint care about a young big rhd bc he's 5 years away and there's no issues.

Those 'similarities' are the sorts of things that half the NHL would say when making similar moves.

'We're trying to improve our team by adding younger players instead of quick fixes with older players'. OOOOH, TERRIFYING.

There are probably 27 out of 32 teams who are trying to compete and improve their teams and lots of them will be saying similar things. It doesn't mean they're all similar to arguably the worst management group of all time.

The specifics are absolutely not irrelevant. People are taking specific bad moves and generalizing that they're similar to specific new moves based on something like 'adding a mid-20s player' when if you do anything more than scratch the surface it's not the same at all.

And again, the problem with Benning was 'age gap moves' generally. It was that he specifically targeted bad players and specifically paid *way* too much for those bad players.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Those 'similarities' are the sorts of things that half the NHL would say when making similar moves.

'We're trying to improve our team by adding younger players instead of quick fixes with older players'. OOOOH, TERRIFYING.

There are probably 27 out of 32 teams who are trying to compete and improve their teams and lots of them will be saying similar things. It doesn't mean they're all similar to arguably the worst management group of all time.

The specifics are absolutely not irrelevant. People are taking specific bad moves and generalizing that they're similar to specific new moves based on something like 'adding a mid-20s player' when if you do anything more than scratch the surface it's not the same at all.

And again, the problem with Benning was 'age gap moves' generally. It was that he specifically targeted bad players and specifically paid *way* too much for those bad players.

Specifics are irrelevant when the issues ppl have are general similarities.
Few ppl are complaining about bear or stud specifically given the acquisition costs and potential improvements.

Benning coined the age gap nonsense strategy, new management just stated a very similar reasoning...

Thats it. Thats all there is.
Complaining about Complaining and then comparing specifics to generalizations is stupid and a waste of time.

 

[timw33]

But the reasons can be the same....while the outcomes are drastically different when they are targeting players who are bad lotto tickets (and pay outsized prices to acquire these lotto tickets).

 

[MS]

Specifics are irrelevant when the issues ppl have are general similarities.

Benning coined the age gap nonsense strategy, new management just stated a very similar reasoning...

Thats it. Thats all there is.
Complaining about Complaining and then comparing specifics to generalizations is stupid and a waste of time.

No, they didn't state a very similar reasoning.

'We're trying to improve by adding younger players who fit our long-term vision' is not the same as 'we're specifically targeting a specific age range because we don't think we have enough players in that age range'.

Again, the 'general similarities' are nonsense. You could find 'general similarities' to 20 NHL teams if you strain hard enough, fixate on one thing, and ignore the actual details of what's happening.

The one 'general similarity' is that both groups are/were amongst the 27 teams trying to improve their teams and win hockey games instead of being in the 3-5 teams trying to intentionally lose hockey games.

 

[VanillaCoke]

No, they didn't state a very similar reasoning.

'We're trying to improve by adding younger players who fit our long-term vision' is not the same as "were specifically targeting a specific age range because we don't think we have enough players in that age range'.

Again, the 'general similarities' are nonsense. You could find 'general similarities' to 20 NHL teams if you strain hard enough, fixate on one thing, and ignore the actual details of what's happening.

The one 'general similarity' is that both groups are/were amongst the 27 teams trying to improve their teams and win hockey games instead of being in the 3-5 teams trying to intentionally lose hockey games.

Except they did say both those things...





Of course you can find similarities league wide, but the other 20 teams dont have the same decade of idiocy to compare to.

 

[MS]

Except they did say both those things...

Where did he say that he was acquiring Bear because we didn't have many 25 y/o players?

We have tons of players in his age range.

And like 80% of NHL trades are prospects/picks for established players. It's kind of implied in the trade that that's the whole point. Everyone should know this without them saying anything.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Where did he say that he was acquiring Bear because we didn't have many 25 y/o players?

We have tons of players in his age range.

"Where did he say this or that specific thing?!"

If you dont see the similarities in those quotes then you're being disingenuous.

It's not just one or two ppl saying it sounds similar. Nor one or two incidents that are similar. Definitely not hard to draw comparisons, being purposefully hard headed and saying there is ZERO is just ridiculous.

And bc of said trauma and idiocy ppl are seeing similarities that exist, generally speaking.

Similar.
Thats it.
Read; Not exactly specifically the same.

 

[MS]

"Where did he say this or that specific thing?!"

If you dont see the similarities in those quotes then you're being disingenuous.

It's not just one or 2 ppl saying it sounds similar.

Similar.
Thats it.
Read; Not exactly specifically the same.

And again, there are a ton of teams making a ton of similar trades and of course there will be superficially similar-ish comments made.

There are like 5 types of transactions you can make in the NHL. Every team makes most of them. It is f***ing tiresome to hear 'Oh, that's similar to Benning' panic just because Benning (like all GMs) did something superficially similar once upon a moonbeam.

If you think the problem with age gap was the actual 'age gap' part you don't understand at all. The problem with the age gap transactions was that they acquired bad players for obscenely high prices for what they were getting.

 

[VanillaCoke]

And again, there are a ton of teams making a ton of similar trades and of course there will be superficially similar-ish comments made.

There are like 5 types of transactions you can make in the NHL. Every team makes most of them. It is f***ing tiresome to hear 'Oh, that's similar to Benning' panic just because Benning (like all GMs) did something superficially similar once upon a moonbeam.

If you think the problem with age gap was the actual 'age gap' part you don't understand at all. The problem with the age gap transactions was that they acquired bad players for obscenely high prices for what they were getting.

And Again, those tons of teams dont have disastrously bad previous mgmt to compare to.

So those similar comments, moves, specifics dont matter.

 

[MS]

And Again, those tons of teams dont have disastrously bad previous mgmt to compare to.

So those similar comments, moves, specifics dont matter.

And defaulting to searching for general similarities to the disastrously bad previous management instead of evaluating this group and their moves on their own merit is the traumatized victim mentality I was referring to in my original post.

 

[VanillaCoke]

And defaulting to searching for general similarities to the disastrously bad previous management instead of evaluating this group and their moves on their own merit is the traumatized victim mentality I was referring to in my original post.

The whole point is you dont have to search out anything or be paranoid or look very hard or eat jesus toast.

Its bc of said traumatic decade that the similarities are easy to see, especially when new mgmt says them themselves.

 

[nuxnux1]

Give it up vanillacoke you got schooled

 

[MS]

The whole point is you dont have to search out anything or be paranoid or look very hard or eat jesus toast.

Its bc of said traumatic decade that the similarities are easy to see, especially when new mgmt says them themselves.

1) What the previous group did has nothing to do with anything at this point. I would hope I have the critical thinking skills to be able to evaluate things on their own merit rather than have my opinion coloured by non-connected events of the past.

2) You *are* reaching and looking hard for this if anything about this Bear trade is triggering Benning memories and 'similarities'.

3) Again, when referring to 'age gap' trades specifically, if you are triggered by the general type of player acquired or the benign things said about that player, you are totally failing to understand why Benning's age gap moves were so poor. The problem there was nothing to do with the idea and everything to do with the execution. And if you're ignoring the execution to complain about the idea, you're in Bad Take Land.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

It's so dumb. Trading a small asset for a reclamation project is one of the most common types of transactions in this league. Every team does this here and there.

But because the previous group turned it into a weird part of a plan, gave it a name, and then did it really really badly ... everyone here freaks out when the team makes a totally normal small transaction.

This fanbase right now is like a traumatized assault victim who thinks their attacker might be lurking around every corner and sees their attacker in every face on the street.

I have no idea what is going on with you lately... Your posts are getting weirder by the day.

 

[MS]

I have no idea what is going on with you lately... Your posts are getting weirder by the day.

I don't think anything is weird about that post.

I want to have constructive, rational discussion about this management group, what they're doing well, what they're doing poorly, if what they're doing is working to make their bigger plan play out well.

And - to be very clear - there are plenty of reasons that you could have a negative take on this group right now.

But what's insufferable right now is this endless JUSTLIKEBENNINGJUSTLIKEBENNINGJUSTLIKEBENNING drone from people here every time something happens from people who can't articulate why the move they're criticizing is bad other than just to invoke lame comparisons to the previous regime because Jim Benning maybe made a kind of similar transaction once a bunch of years ago. It sucks.

 

[RutherPlan]

I don't think anything is weird about that post.

I want to have constructive, rational discussion about this management group, what they're doing well, what they're doing poorly, if what they're doing is working to make their bigger plan play out well.

And - to be very clear - there are plenty of reasons that you could have a negative take on this group right now.

But what's insufferable right now is this endless JUSTLIKEBENNINGJUSTLIKEBENNINGJUSTLIKEBENNING drone from people here every time something happens from people who can't articulate why the move they're criticizing is bad other than just to invoke lame comparisons to the previous regime because Jim Benning maybe made a kind of similar transaction once a bunch of years ago. It sucks.

You don't get it. You were the king pessimist here and now your followers are lost.

 

[MS]

You don't get it. You were the king pessimist here and now your followers are lost.

Oh, I'm definitely realizing that some people were liking my posts more because of the anger than the content, and that some people weren't actually reading what I was saying at all. And that some people have just gotten used to being angry hot take merchants, I think.

I was 'king pessimist' because things were so incredibly so obviously so incompetent, not because I enjoyed being negative. I was one of the most positive people here during the Gillis years, aside from when it came to evaluating prospects. And I try to take my time before coming to conclusions and allow things to play out before fully evaluating. Right now things are not incredibly obviously incompetent, so I'm not going to be extremely negative. And I'm not going to allow prior events to taint my perception of current events.

If, a year from now, things look like a total clusterf***, then I will again be very negative.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I don't think anything is weird about that post.

I want to have constructive, rational discussion about this management group, what they're doing well, what they're doing poorly, if what they're doing is working to make their bigger plan play out well.

And - to be very clear - there are plenty of reasons that you could have a negative take on this group right now.

But what's insufferable right now is this endless JUSTLIKEBENNINGJUSTLIKEBENNINGJUSTLIKEBENNING drone from people here every time something happens from people who can't articulate why the move they're criticizing is bad other than just to invoke lame comparisons to the previous regime because Jim Benning maybe made a kind of similar transaction once a bunch of years ago. It sucks.

Because its the same f***in plan just executed better. It will lead to more mediocrity.

Get off your high horse.

 

[MS]

Because its the same f***in plan just executed better. It will lead to more mediocrity.

Get off your high horse.

I mean, if they do dumb shit like the Boeser contract, sure it will.

It's the same f***ing plan Florida had. It's the only plan that they could really take from the position they were left in.

Again, any plan involving tanking is video game shit not operating in reality and if you're basing your takes off that as your preferred baseline expectation ... all you've done is set yourself up for disappointment.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I mean, if they do dumb shit like the Boeser contract, sure it will.

It's the same f***ing plan Florida had. It's the only plan that they could really take from the position they were left in.

Again, any plan involving tanking is video game shit not operating in reality and if you're basing your takes off that as your preferred baseline expectation ... all you've done is set yourself up for disappointment.

Its the Miller boat anchor that is setting up a second decade of mediocrity. Boeser will be off the books in 3.

There is nothing coming from the farm. There is almost no tradeable assets.

Where does this leap from bottom10 team to competing with Colorado and Tampa etc. come from?

 

[Svencouver]

I feel like every move which is not trading underperforming players over 25 years old for picks is going to be construed as a "Benning-like" at this point lol

 

[strattonius]

This management group clearly has a better concept and grasp of the market value of players. Their transactions are clearly targeted at points in which they get a good price or take advantage of a team with little leverage like Carolina with Bear.

We haven't seen a homerun yet but they are taking good gambles. The competence level compared to our last management group is light years better.

But the bar was so low with Benning its still hard to see where exactly we stand in terms of competency league wide. Are we still bottom pack? Middle pack? Near the top? There hasn't really been enough time to say. I'm in agreement with MS - if you are drawing absolute parallels with this management group to the last one based on some of these transactions, you are quite simply looking for something that's not there.

- Studnicka for example. He will likely be a bust; However, we acquired this player and an open roster spot for a couple of C prospects. It's a low level transaction but the calculation and planning is there. Benning would have moved a pick for this player.
*it's one example but it shows there's more nuance to understanding these transactions.

 

[Svencouver]

Bear and Studnicka are the sorts of players that smart, savvy teams target. Players that have good qualities, have shown promise, but haven't gotten the opportunities to shine on their team because of organizational strength at their position.

Bear didn't work as a bottom 2 D in Carolina, and Studnicka didn't work as a 4C in Boston. Bear *did* work in Edmonton for reasonable stretches of NHL hockey as a top 2 high-minute defenseman. Studnicka would probably be in the lineup right now with Krejci out. These are *not* Baertschi, Gudbranson, Pouliot sorts of age gap acquisitions and "reclamation projects" of shitty players with trivial name recognition and draft prestige. All 3 of the aforementioned busts *were* actively playing up the lineup and had plenty of opportunity to succeed before they were acquired. But they sucked, and they also, surprise, sucked here (I do think Baertschi was an unsung hero in his tenure here, but I digress). That's a consequence of bad pro scouting. It is not a consequence of deciding to acquire a player out of another teams surplus for a draft pick, which is a completely normal trade that good teams do all the time.