Verviticus
Registered User
- Jul 23, 2010
- 12,664
- 592
How did you arrive at this stupid conclusion?
he's good, and dorsett is bad
How did you arrive at this stupid conclusion?
It will be very interesting to see what happens in the summer with the goaltending if Lack keeps up his current performance level and carries it into the playoffs. I can't see Miller being satisfied as a back-up and it will be very difficult to get Lack on an extension as a pending free agent next year if he is the back-up.
JB has been very vocal about being willing to ask players to waive their NTCs. But that was for players he didn't sign. Will he be equally as willing to ask Miller to waive? If things continue the way they are with Lack, trading Miller is the most prudent thing to do, if not the most likely.
Benning doesn't have to ask Miller to waive. It's up to Miller to decide what he wants to do if the team chooses Lack as the starter. While this was something of a disaster with Luongo the contracts are vastly different.
However, I think it more likely that Lack gets traded and Markstrom gets a chance to develop into an NHL goalie.
Santorelli - unlike Vey - isn't useless if he's not putting up points (eg., the former can play a far more effective role in the bottom six than a guy that needs to be spoon fed minutes/have sheltered minutes). Vey can't even match up well against J. Schroeder right now.
None of those guys are centers. The reason why Vey has been played so much this season (not as a result of any coaching bias but rather because Willie had no better alternative to use because of injuries).The canucks have several guys like him (Higgins, Burrows, Hansen...though they all have a better fancy stats I believe). A decent NHL player but likely an NHL player that again might have trouble finding a multi-year deal if he continues to put up goose eggs down the stretch and in the playoffs.
I've always maintained that I agreed with this acquisition back when the trade was made.I think Benning makes the deal for Vey.
Never had a problem with this trade either - though you hope Benning would avoid acquiring anymore waiver eligible players in the short-term (can only gaurantee so many roster spots with this team).Sometimes I'm sure you can hit gold (hopefully Baertschi) but it's going to be an outlier.
It is interesting to compare Benning's approach to that of Gillis when it comes to these 22-26 year old players. Benning acquires players he has scouted and liked and doesn't want to risk having some other team snap them up. Gillis likes to look for deals and acquires players with more NHL experience. Either he looks for guys to bounce back or he would trade for guys like Bernier and Dalpe and scoured the waiver wire for guys like Stanton and Wellwood. Except for Bernier, Gillis acquires players who he believes will fill a role but hopefully develop into something more. Benning pays more to acquire guys who haven't been able to crack the NHL and places the expectation of development on them immediately.
I think if Gillis was still the GM, he wouldn't have traded for a 2nd for Vey. He would have waited to see what the Kings do with him after training camp and give up less for him and then say that Vey is a guy they have targeted for some time. He might have traded a 2nd for Baertschi and then put him in the NHL immediately.
I think Benning's approach is definitely higher risk higher reward. He is getting players who may be on the brink of making the NHL and when they do and look to realize their potential these guys cannot be acquired.
By the most arbitrary definition (top 180 forwards in ES point production), sure they are. No idea how you say ZK isn't one when he's produced like one over his last 2 seasons. The coach benching him for dumb reasons doesn't erase that.
Vey isn't very good for the ice time he gets spoonfed, to put it simply. Right now that 2nd round pick looks like it's gone to waste.
There are cheap 2nd/3rd liners available in free agency every year. Not saying you should build a team around them but then again you wouldn't want to build a team around the likes of Vey either...
The team made a strategic decision to get younger, presumably a decision led by Benning and supported by Linden. Absolutely Santorelli would be more effective than Vey. But, in three years when the Sedins are gone (or at least lower minute PP specialists) the team would be hooped.
It's not an isolated decision on this player is better than that player. It's a strategy to be competitive now and better in three years. One can agree with the overall strategy or not but to disagree with an individual component of the strategy isn't fair IMO.
part of it is background ie Benning probably scouted a lot of these guys when he was with Boston, so he's relying on non-GM knowledge that he brought with him from his last job. It will be interesting to see how this progresses over the next 3 or 4 years as Benning will have more time eaten by GM stuff.
Great managers know when to admit mistakes and cut losses, even if it means taking criticism and wearing the mistake.
Which is why I'm VERY curious to see how Benning handles Vey this offseason. That move has been a failure and he doesn't look remotely like a player of value moving forward other than the fact that his junior coach loves him. Makes no sense to be trying to develop both Vey and Baertschi (and Virtanen and Horvat and Kenins) next year.
I haven't been the biggest Benning supporter, but if he has the balls to wear his mistake and get rid of Vey after a year, my opinion of him will go up considerably.
What we saw with Gillis was that he was able to be decisive coming in and making changes to someone else's roster, but not nearly so much with his own acquisitions. Hopefully that pattern doesn't repeat.
Vey is a replacement level player… playing replacement minutes… for replacement money. Comparing his situation to Ballard is… absurd.
Vey is a replacement level player… playing replacement minutes… for replacement money. Comparing his situation to Ballard is… absurd.
I agree. Vey should be extremely, EXTREMELY, easy to cut ties with. Cost a 2nd round pick, isn't signed long term, has no NHL pedigree. If Benning doesn't move on from him, it's a very bad sign.
Ballard was a horrible trade by Gillis, and I thought so at the time too. But I can see why someone might be tricked by Ballard. Had a decent pedigree and decent NHL success. I can understand why Gillis gave him some time to get his **** together, but he didn't mesh with AV. Overall, he definitely should have cut ties earlier.
Bennings Ballard situation is Miller. The Miller signing was horrible at the time and given the implications (having to lose Lack), may end up worse than the Ballard blunder. Let's see if Benning can realize a massive mistake he made and try to get out of the jam he created.
Ballard was also acquired before we knew we were getting Hamhuis. In retrospect it looks like a god awful trade but at the time we needed another LHD to play top 4.
True. But even without using hindsight I thought it was an overpayment. Who knows what Ballard would have amounted to if he was given a bigger role to start, but personally I didn't like it at the time either.
Kind of reminds me of the Keith Carney trade but in reverse. We get a defensive defenseman when we had a coach like Crawford he tried to use him as an offensive defenseman (the type of D we actually needed as well).Then we get him and a combination of AV and injuries just kills him. I recall more 'eye-test' savvy posters talking about how Ballard like to play a specific puck rushing which AV simply wouldn't allow, forcing him to play a game he wasn't suited for and wasn't effective at instead.
Vey is a replacement level player… playing replacement minutes… for replacement money. Comparing his situation to Ballard is… absurd.
He's a player that we invested significant assets in and (unlike Ballard) the coach loves him.
The player might not be exactly the same, but the circumstances are - a move is clearly a mistake a year after making it, and the GM can either show some balls, make the tough decision and wear the mistake ... or keep hoping things turn around, to the detriment of the team.
Miller is another comparable situation, but with the NTC in place there I think he'll be nearly impossible to move whether Benning wants to make the tough decision or not.
He won't be developing much sitting on the bench next season with baertschi being given those minutes (can't see Willie giving both of them top six minutes with regularity). Vey is a top six guy or bust.Vey is a young developing asset
He's a player that we invested significant assets in and (unlike Ballard) the coach loves him.
The player might not be exactly the same, but the circumstances are - a move is clearly a mistake a year after making it, and the GM can either show some balls, make the tough decision and wear the mistake ... or keep hoping things turn around, to the detriment of the team.
Miller is another comparable situation, but with the NTC in place there I think he'll be nearly impossible to move whether Benning wants to make the tough decision or not.
He won't be developing much sitting on the bench next season with baertschi being given those minutes (can't see Willie giving both of them top six minutes with regularity). Vey is a top six guy or bust.
He's been the 13th forward all season and played a ton.
Aren't those two statements contradictory?