Post-Game Talk: Jets def. Canucks - 5-2 (Pettersson, Miller)

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Why are you talking about Demko?

Just as a comparison to where Marky was in 2014..Ignore it if you like.

 

[RobertKron]

Just as a comparison to where Marky was in 2014..Ignore it if you like.

How would that be a comparison?

Anyway, the point you’re avoiding is that if your idea of Holtby’s “as advertised” ignores his recent struggles and rides on “five years ago he was the best in the world,” how come your assessment of Markstrom in 2014 ignores that five years prior he was considered one of the best future goalies in the world, and only looks at his then-recent struggles - especially since you’re looking at that situation with the benefit of knowing that he ends up turning into a top goalie?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

How would that be a comparison?

Where they were 5+ years after their draft.

 

[RobertKron]

Where they were 5+ years after their draft.

oh okay, so you brought up a different player to make a comparison to another player based on how they were doing a number of years that you got wrong from their draft dates.

 

[I am toxic]

oh okay, so you brought up a different player to make a comparison to another player based on how they were doing a number of years that you got wrong from their draft dates.

It's . . . dizzying

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

How would that be a comparison?

Anyway, the point you’re avoiding is that if your idea of Holtby’s “ad advertised” ignores his recent struggles and rides on “five years ago he was the best in the world,” how come your assessment of Markstrom in 2014 ignores that five years prior he was considered one of the best future goalies in the world, and only looks at his recent struggles - especially since you’re looking at that situation with the benefit of knowing that he ends up turning into a top goalie?

Being a good junior goalie prospect, .......to winning the Vezina, ( plus being named to the NHL first All star team. plus 5 All star appearances) are not even remotely comparable.

I'm not getting your point?

 

[RobertKron]

Furthermore, if five years after his draft (a season where he played like 25 total games) Demko had been up to the Canucks’ standards of taking over the #1 spot, then a full season later they wouldn’t have had to spend a bunch of money, as a capped out team, on gamble that Holtby would become the goalie he was “advertised” to be.

 

[xtra]

Miller and Schmidt are, without a doubt, part of the core. Both are first line/first-pairing guys who are capable of elite play. With the way things are trending, the Canucks will likely pluck a core-quality player out of the draft, as well. POS is right about the core; the problem is everywhere else. I don't think there's a team in the league with such a divide between their top-end talent and the garbage they use to support that core, outside of Edmonton (who have McDraisaitl).

I've seen many hyperbolic claims on here and on Twitter that the Canucks should rebuild and will be competitive in 6-8 years. That's absurd. This team can be turned around very quickly, under the eye of a shrewd GM. This isn't like 2014, where there was largely crap in the cupboards and the "core" was on the wrong side of 30.

Fire Benning/Green and bring an ace management/coaching team and I think people will be surprised how quickly things turn around.

Edler tanev horvat were part of the next core in 2014 and were under thirty.

in fact tanev was younger then than Miller is now

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Edler tanev horvat were part of the next core in 2014 and were under thirty.

in fact tanev was younger then than Miller is now

Tanev was younger than Horvat is now, and was the same age as Boeser.

 

[Zippgunn]

It seems to me to be playing off Audrey, a female name. The way it is capitalized seems very intentional.

Nevertheless, it seems I (and others) have interpreted it incorrectly. Sorry about that.

Wow incredible, you seem VERY sensitive to this sort of thing. Also I have never called the Sedins "sisters". Using femininity-based insults to dis male hockey players is asinine IMHO. As is making ageist remarks...

 

[Hit the post]

Edler tanev horvat were part of the next core in 2014 and were under thirty.

in fact tanev was younger then than Miller is now

But, but Benning inherited nothing!

 

[Zippgunn]

I think coaching has more to do with FA in all honesty. He hasn't wanted to pay a coach since Torts it's no coincidence both coaches were first-timers on extremely cheap salaries.

Of course it is possible that no coach (or GM for that matter) with any kind of reputation to protect or enhance will want to come to the hockey Chernobyl that is Vancouver, where good careers come to die and fine men are reduced to shadows of their former selves...

 

[xtra]

Tanev was younger than Horvat is now, and was the same age as Boeser.

Oh damn and I’ve been told that tanev was too old to be a core piece so does that mean horvat and boeser aren’t considered that either now?

I wonder how certain posters will move that goalpost

 

[nowhereman]

Edler tanev horvat were part of the next core in 2014 and were under thirty.

in fact tanev was younger then than Miller is now

I'll give you Edler and Tanev but Horvat is arguable, as many saw him as a 2nd/3rd tweener center who would likely be a step under a core-level player. The point isn't to get into the tiresome argument of whether or not Benning had anything to work with (but I see your little sewing circle couldn't help itself) but to acknowledge that the Canucks actually do have a pretty strong core to build off this time around and that core can be augmented with quality pieces in short order, under the watch of a strong GM. If you want to get lost in the weeds and bring up names like Edler and Tanev, fine (I really could care less if others don't or didn't consider them core players). But you'd be reaching pretty hard to try and make the case that post-back injury Edler/Tanev/Horvat are a better starting point than Pettersson/Hughes/Boeser/Horvat/Miller/Schmidt, etc. I'm not excusing Benning of his moves but, rather, acknowledging that the next GM won't feel the need to make dumb homerun moves or take on useless projects to make up for a gap in star-level mid-20s talent.

But, but Benning inherited nothing!

And here we ago again...

This place is like a merry-go-round of agenda-driven buzz responses.

 

[xtra]

I'll give you Edler and Tanev but Horvat is arguable, as many saw him as a 2nd/3rd tweener center who would likely be a step under a core-level player. The point isn't to get into the tiresome argument of whether or not Benning had anything to work with (but I see your little sewing circle couldn't help itself) but to acknowledge that the Canucks actually do have a pretty strong core to build off this time around and that core can be augmented with quality pieces in short order, under the watch of a strong GM. If you want to get lost in the weeds and bring up names like Edler and Tanev, fine (I really could care less if others don't or didn't consider them core players). But you'd be reaching pretty hard to try and make the case that post-back injury Edler/Tanev/Horvat are a better starting point than Pettersson/Hughes/Boeser/Horvat/Miller/Schmidt, etc. I'm not excusing Benning of his moves but, rather, acknowledging that the next GM won't feel the need to make dumb homerun moves or take on useless projects to make up for a gap in star-level mid-20s talent.


And here we ago again...

This place is like a merry-go-round of agenda-driven buzz responses.

first let’s get this right I know benning is a terrible GM the point of my posts is to push for people to be co sistent in their arguements. If you disqualify people from the “core benning inherited” cause of age you apply the same here - if that applies to you as well so be it but it wasn’t who I was talking about specifically.

now in relation to our current team

I don’t think Schmidt and Miller are core pieces for the following reasons:

millers attitude this past while has shown he won’t be around if we have another bad season next year and I full expect us to do so. He either walks as a ufa or ends up demanding a trade before then.

schmidt will be “on the wrong side of 30” by the time we have room to add any players to help us compete.

Horvat is interesting - I think he stays but will he want to if next year is a write off like this one and the year after is us struggling to make the playoffs/playoff bubble

once again this is all based on the fact that cause of the benning screwups next season is another lost year due to cap restrictions.

 

[4Twenty]

I'll give you Edler and Tanev but Horvat is arguable, as many saw him as a 2nd/3rd tweener center who would likely be a step under a core-level player. The point isn't to get into the tiresome argument of whether or not Benning had anything to work with (but I see your little sewing circle couldn't help itself) but to acknowledge that the Canucks actually do have a pretty strong core to build off this time around and that core can be augmented with quality pieces in short order, under the watch of a strong GM. If you want to get lost in the weeds and bring up names like Edler and Tanev, fine (I really could care less if others don't or didn't consider them core players). But you'd be reaching pretty hard to try and make the case that post-back injury Edler/Tanev/Horvat are a better starting point than Pettersson/Hughes/Boeser/Horvat/Miller/Schmidt, etc. I'm not excusing Benning of his moves but, rather, acknowledging that the next GM won't feel the need to make dumb homerun moves or take on useless projects to make up for a gap in star-level mid-20s talent.


And here we ago again...

This place is like a merry-go-round of agenda-driven buzz responses.

Interesting irony between sewing circle and an agenda driven response.

Horvat was a 9th overall pick. It’s agenda to diminish what he was.

It’s agenda to excuse Benning’s execution and work because of his inheritance. Yet you continue it right here.

 

[Hit the post]

first let’s get this right I know benning is a terrible GM the point of my posts is to push for people to be co sistent in their arguements. If you disqualify people from the “core benning inherited” cause of age you apply the same here - if that applies to you as well so be it but it wasn’t who I was talking about specifically.

now in relation to our current team

I don’t think Schmidt and Miller are core pieces for the following reasons:

millers attitude this past while has shown he won’t be around if we have another bad season next year and I full expect us to do so. He either walks as a ufa or ends up demanding a trade before then.

schmidt will be “on the wrong side of 30” by the time we have room to add any players to help us compete.

Horvat is interesting - I think he stays but will he want to if next year is a write off like this one and the year after is us struggling to make the playoffs/playoff bubble

once again this is all based on the fact that cause of the benning screwups next season is another lost year due to cap restrictions.

Heh, wasn’t Edler about the same as core player Schmidt is now when Benning came aboard? So add in a then 24 year old Tanev and a 31 year old Hamhuis; that’s three quarters of a top four in year one of Jethro Bodine. All of those guys knew how to play without the puck in their own zone.

 

[nowhereman]

first let’s get this right I know benning is a terrible GM the point of my posts is to push for people to be co sistent in their arguements. If you disqualify people from the “core benning inherited” cause of age you apply the same here - if that applies to you as well so be it but it wasn’t who I was talking about specifically.

now in relation to our current team

I don’t think Schmidt and Miller are core pieces for the following reasons:

millers attitude this past while has shown he won’t be around if we have another bad season next year and I full expect us to do so. He either walks as a ufa or ends up demanding a trade before then.

schmidt will be “on the wrong side of 30” by the time we have room to add any players to help us compete.

Horvat is interesting - I think he stays but will he want to if next year is a write off like this one and the year after is us struggling to make the playoffs/playoff bubble

once again this is all based on the fact that cause of the benning screwups next season is another lost year due to cap restrictions.

It doesn't apply to me, so we have no disagreement there. Perhaps I should have said "most of the core" and that the younger players that were left (that you could consider calling core-level) weren't star-level talent. Regardless of the semantics, I'd like to think it's pretty obvious that the current key group of core players is much better than the group back in 2014. I suppose this may sound to some like support for Benning, at least to the 420Canucks of the world, but it doesn't have to be if you just pretend any semblance of draft success can be solely attributed to Judd Brackett (this trick allows you to admit that the Canucks actually do have a few good players).

Yes, I'm disappointed with Miller too. But he's still a PPG player who can be a dominant winger in the right situation. His leadership skills might now be in question, after what looked like a career turnaround, but he's still a valuable enough asset to either be considered a core player or net you a strong asset in return. I also think he'll rebound, as the talent is there.

A player can be a core asset over 30; I didn't say otherwise. But a 30 year old asset on a team primed for a rebuild and boasting barely any young talent is different than a 30+ year old asset on a team lead by 35 year olds. The Twins, Burrows, Kesler, etc. were all on the downswing, while Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat, and Hughes are on the upswing. With that, I still think Schmidt can be a core asset, as long as he's not pretending to be a #1D.

My point is that it's not as bleak as some would like to claim and that this team can be turned around quickly in the right hands. You might not believe so and that's fine.

Interesting irony between sewing circle and an agenda driven response.

Horvat was a 9th overall pick. It’s agenda to diminish what he was.

It’s agenda to excuse Benning’s execution and work because of his inheritance. Yet you continue it right here.

Podkolzin is a top 10 pick. Is he core too? What about Hoglander? Generally, you don't anoint a player as a core asset unless they're a top 3-5 pick or you actually know what you're going to get out of them. When he was drafted, Horvat was seen as a potential 2nd line center and it took him a few years to show that he could be more than that. With that, I'd have hesitated in calling him a core piece until around 2016.

And it's adorable how I literally said I wasn't excusing Benning's mistakes, as he navigated his circumstances poorly, and yet you still try to pass it off as a pro-Benning agenda. If anything it's a shot at Gillis. He did a poor job of setting the team up for the future (and you can point the finger at ownership here too, if you like) and Benning fumbled (and continues to fumble) the baton. If that's your idea of a ringing endorsement for Jim Benning, that's on you.

I just can't imagine being so myopically concerned with my own narrative that anything but tireless vitriol is chastised.

Heh, wasn’t Edler about the same as core player Schmidt is now when Benning came aboard? So add in a then 24 year old Tanev and a 31 year old Hamhuis; that’s three quarters of a top four in year one of Jethro Bodine. All of those guys knew how to play without the puck in their own zone.

Well, when you put it like that, I'm starting to wonder if we even needed to rebuild...

 

[jd22]

Gotta admit, I'm probably old like @Zippgunn , I did not know calling someone Audette was sexist.

I actually had forgotten about Donald Audette, I just thought it was zippy's autocorrect. I am so tired of autocorrect's shirt.

It is not, and I have apologized. It came across that way multiple times.

I was also unaware of a player called Audette. :p However it seems to me that it is not difficult to spell players names correctly hence why I took it as a slag.

 

[vanuck]

One of the purposes of media should be to keep GMs, politicians, businesses etc. accountable. This just doesn't happen anymore, which causes shilling for the team, party, company etc just to continue to get a press pass. The state of sports media in Vancouver is almost as bad as news in the States at this. Just no accountability anywhere.

I also think the majority of the local media here just aren't all that knowledgeable about hockey in general - like most of the established guys like Kuzma or IMac for instance. Like sure they've been watching the game for a while but never really go beyond surface-level analysis in the stuff they write. They don't ask about the details. The nitty gritty. The specifics.