Management Thread...less Jack Burton.

[bbud]

Or Jared McCann who actually was traded for a bag of pucks.

Well someone was going to be traded for a bag of pucks

 

[VanillaCoke]

This team is going to be bad until management and/or ownership changes.

 

[I am toxic]

This team is going to be bad until management and/or ownership changes.

Lost Tiree, lost Dutch . . .

 

[MadaCanuckle]

Hmm, one more piece of information for some people to ignore...

 

[xtra]

This team is going to be bad until management and/or ownership changes.

I could understand letting tanev and stetcher go with the dmen on the market

pietrangelo
Krug
Vatanen
Greene
Hamhonic
Barrie

if you believe you can get them but to me markstrom is the guy you absolutely need based on watching this team

 

[xtra]

Hmm, one more piece of information for some people to ignore...

Basically this team is all luck/markstrom and really that’s what the eye test shows. I can’t believe how many times I’ve walked out of rogers arena being like “that team sucks and we were lucky markstrom stoke that”

 

[Melvin]

I'm leaning towards thinking the Toffoli trade being the worst trade of the Benning era. I realize the gudbranson trade was bad, but there was some forward thought to it if gudbranson was actually good. That was more of a scouting fail than a management fail.

The sheer myopia of this trade, I think it's worse. What do you think? I have tried to give it a few days to digest, but it just keeps getting worse in my brain.

 

[RussianRacket]

I'm leaning towards thinking the Toffoli trade being the worst trade of the Benning era. I realize the gudbranson trade was bad, but there was some forward thought to it if gudbranson was actually good. That was more of a scouting fail than a management fail.

The sheer myopia of this trade, I think it's worse. What do you think? I have tried to give it a few days to digest, but it just keeps getting worse in my brain.

You cannot be serious, is what I think. We gave away a nothing player, a prospect that might be an ok NHLer one day, and a draft pick for a really good player.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I'm leaning towards thinking the Toffoli trade being the worst trade of the Benning era. I realize the gudbranson trade was bad, but there was some forward thought to it if gudbranson was actually good. That was more of a scouting fail than a management fail.

The sheer myopia of this trade, I think it's worse. What do you think? I have tried to give it a few days to digest, but it just keeps getting worse in my brain.

Yeah, the Toffoli trade is definitely the result of a culmination of mistakes. Mainly the mismanagement of cap space as it’s pretty asinine to give up valuable assets for a rental we might not be able to afford to re-sign in the off-season. Young, bubble teams should not be making these types of moves, but our GM is a moron after all.

 

[Sneezy]

I could understand letting tanev and stetcher go with the dmen on the market

pietrangelo
Krug
Vatanen
Greene
Hamhonic
Barrie

if you believe you can get them but to me markstrom is the guy you absolutely need based on watching this team

And you are basing this on some no name with a twitter feed?

 

[Sneezy]

Yeah, the Toffoli trade is definitely the result of a culmination of mistakes. Mainly the mismanagement of cap space as it’s pretty asinine to give up valuable assets for a rental we might not be able to afford to re-sign in the off-season. Young, bubble teams should not be making these types of moves, but our GM is a moron after all.

Actually you are wrong, JB is making a calculated move because he knows long term giving the young guys a taste of playing important games and playoff games will help in their development.

 

[Tryforthekingdom]

I'm leaning towards thinking the Toffoli trade being the worst trade of the Benning era. I realize the gudbranson trade was bad, but there was some forward thought to it if gudbranson was actually good. That was more of a scouting fail than a management fail.

The sheer myopia of this trade, I think it's worse. What do you think? I have tried to give it a few days to digest, but it just keeps getting worse in my brain.

Sutter trade still takes it for me. There's others where we lost more value, but the multiple miscalculations involved seem to reflect more egregiously on the decision makers involved.

 

[xtra]

And you are basing this on some no name with a twitter feed?

Basing what on a no name twitter feed? That if they let the dmen go it’s understandable if they think they can sign the other guys?

or my opinion that markstrom is instrumental to this team and I think we need to sign him - cause that is not based on anyone’s twitter feed cause I can form my own option I don’t get mine fed to me by the canucks organization like you do

 

[Melvin]

Sutter trade still takes it for me. There's others where we lost more value, but the multiple miscalculations involved seem to reflect more egregiously on the decision makers involved.

. Hmmm yeah that's a fair point.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'm leaning towards thinking the Toffoli trade being the worst trade of the Benning era. I realize the gudbranson trade was bad, but there was some forward thought to it if gudbranson was actually good. That was more of a scouting fail than a management fail.

The sheer myopia of this trade, I think it's worse. What do you think? I have tried to give it a few days to digest, but it just keeps getting worse in my brain.

I don't think it's the worst trade of his tenure because the player is good/decent. The compensation given up plus a pro scouting failure would have been horrible. By contrast, the Gudbranson trade was an embarrassment. They gave away a projected top6 forward++ for a trash can, all amidst a rebuild? Terrible trade. They nearly misjudged all aspects of that deal.

And depending upon how much weight you put towards the logic of trades as they happen, the JT Miller trade is still egregious IMO. If they finish 10th~ and he slows down, I wonder what people will say about it then? That's how much the current context drives the perception of this deal.

 

[RandV]

I could understand letting tanev and stetcher go with the dmen on the market

pietrangelo
Krug
Vatanen
Greene
Hamhonic
Barrie

if you believe you can get them but to me markstrom is the guy you absolutely need based on watching this team

Not all those guys are the same value, but we're likely much better off going with Markstorm first and Tanev second. For all the talk about many people not wanting to give a 30 year old Markstrom too many years, it's pretty much going to be the same thing with any of those guys except what we're hearing from negotiatings Markstrom's being pretty reasonable. Basically what's better for the team, 6x5 on Markstrom or 8x7 on Krug or Barrie? And rather than chasing Greene or Hamonic we're better trying to get a home discount on Tanev.

Only guy you should really think about it on is Pietrangelo, if you could even get him to come here.

 

[RandV]

I don't think it's the worst trade of his tenure because the player is good/decent. The compensation given up plus a pro scouting failure would have been horrible. By contrast, the Gudbranson was an embarrassment. They gave away a projected top6 forward++ for a trash can, all amidst a rebuild? Terrible trade. They nearly misjudged all aspects of that deal.

Also if you want to make it even worse adding Gudbranson's contract meant we had no room to sign Hamhuis, who really wanted to resign here but after failing to trade him at the deadline ended up walking for nothing in favour of Gudbranson. Hamhuis is 37 now and only a bottom pairing dman but there hasn't been a season he wasn't better than Gudbranson.

 

[F A N]

Also if you want to make it even worse adding Gudbranson's contract meant we had no room to sign Hamhuis, who really wanted to resign here but after failing to trade him at the deadline ended up walking for nothing in favour of Gudbranson. Hamhuis is 37 now and only a bottom pairing dman but there hasn't been a season he wasn't better than Gudbranson.

Sure but Hamhuis wouldn't have moved the needle at all. He would have been very solid here if he managed to stay healthy like he did in Dallas.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Also if you want to make it even worse adding Gudbranson's contract meant we had no room to sign Hamhuis, who really wanted to resign here but after failing to trade him at the deadline ended up walking for nothing in favour of Gudbranson. Hamhuis is 37 now and only a bottom pairing dman but there hasn't been a season he wasn't better than Gudbranson.

Yes, very true. I forgot about what that trade meant for that roster’s immediate construction. Gudbranson was so bad that even retaining a constant like Hamhuis would have made a clear difference.

To think on it, they spent good future assets to get much worse on defense, letting a better player walk for nothing. An embarrassing error in pro-scouting and asset management.

 

[RandV]

Sure but Hamhuis wouldn't have moved the needle at all. He would have been very solid here if he managed to stay healthy like he did in Dallas.

It's so much that Hamhuis would have moved the needle, but rather that Gudbranson certainly did not either so you have to look at the balance between Hamhuis + McCann + that high 2nd (Alex Debrinct?) vs Erik Gudbranson.

 

[F A N]

It's so much that Hamhuis would have moved the needle, but rather that Gudbranson certainly did not either so you have to look at the balance between Hamhuis + McCann + that high 2nd (Alex Debrinct?) vs Erik Gudbranson.

But that's not the thought process. Hamhuis was a soon to be 34 years old. He should not be in the team's long term plans.

Gudbranson was 24 years old at the time. The Canucks traded for him with the expectation that he would be a good long term fit. He wasn't. But a 34 year old Dman should never get in the way of trading for a 24 year old Dman.

 

[Javaman]

But that's not the thought process. Hamhuis was a soon to be 34 years old. He should not be in the team's long term plans.

Gudbranson was 24 years old at the time. The Canucks traded for him with the expectation that he would be a good long term fit. He wasn't. But a 34 year old Dman should never get in the way of trading for a 24 year old Dman.

That thought process was wrong. It's just more evidence Benning is a poor GM, even if you think hindsight matters.

A good GM recognizes that age is not the sole criterion to consider when making a transaction. Defining the transactions by age makes it too easy to ignore that the Canucks would have been far better off with Hamhuis, McCann, & DeBrincat than Gudbranson/ Pearson.

I mean really, are you suggesting you'd prefer a 24 year old Gudbranson over a 34 year old Lidstrom? Of course you're not.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Sure but Hamhuis wouldn't have moved the needle at all. He would have been very solid here if he managed to stay healthy like he did in Dallas.

If you replace Gudbransons posession killing play with Hamhuis positive play, it absolutely moves the needle.

Not to mention the other point of moving him for futures.

 

[4Twenty]

Not all those guys are the same value, but we're likely much better off going with Markstorm first and Tanev second. For all the talk about many people not wanting to give a 30 year old Markstrom too many years, it's pretty much going to be the same thing with any of those guys except what we're hearing from negotiatings Markstrom's being pretty reasonable. Basically what's better for the team, 6x5 on Markstrom or 8x7 on Krug or Barrie? And rather than chasing Greene or Hamonic we're better trying to get a home discount on Tanev.

Only guy you should really think about it on is Pietrangelo, if you could even get him to come here.

Pietro is going to be after Karlsson/Doughty money. Canucks couldn’t afford him.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Enough with the potshots at each other, everyone.

If you think someone is trolling, report them.

If you can't express your point of view without flaming or trolling someone, keep it to yourself.