Management Thread - The Beat Goes On

[vancityluongo]

Ah, but POM we all know you won't so here you go:

18/19 MGMT Thread XI. We're totally rebuilding! LalalaIcan'thearyoulalala...! (that looks like you trying to credit Benning for Pettersson!)
18/19 MGMT thread VIIII (ah, a post that only you liked, stating there was a 80% chance Pettersson isn't a Canuck going into the draft and that Benning deserves full credit for the pick)

Let's quickly venture outside HF where we get things like this:

https://www.overtimeheroics.net/ind...-benning-5-best-moves-made-by-the-canucks-gm/

Jim Benning was able to find a few steals when he selected Adam Gaudette and Brock Boeser, but nothing compares to his 2017 selection. Elias Pettersson’s draft selection at 5th overall was more than just a steal, it was absolute robbery. At the time, reactions were fairly mixed with no one seeming overly excited or disappointed by the selection – that would change VERY soon…

"Diamond in the Rough"





https://twitter.com/CanucksJays/status/1266482336452861952?s=20 (POM don't you regularly make this argument?)

https://twitter.com/Canuck_Faithful/status/1258186897345536000?s=20 (he pointed at him!!!)

https://twitter.com/Pooleys_Point/status/1233160308929134592?s=20

Want me to keep going?

Interesting as well how you ignored the rest of my post where I say Benning shouldn't be shit on for not taking Pastrnak. You might have changed my mind though...

 

[timw33]

Of course.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Lol

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

lmao classic

prove that no one has said that

You!re the one that manufactured the stupid claim..I think the onus is all on you to prove it..

 

[Diamonddog01]

Of course.

Basically Nashville gets a pass when Weber retires. While I was one of the few who didn't think the cap recapture we got saddled with unfair this is horseshit.

 

[timw33]

Basically Nashville gets a pass when Weber retires. While I was one of the few who didn't think the cap recapture we got saddled with unfair this is horseshit.

Minnesota gets a bit of a break with this too. Everyone with these kinds of deals benefits except for Vancouver, it's a joke.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Minnesota gets a bit of a break with this too. Everyone with these kinds of deals benefits except for Vancouver, it's a joke.

I don’t mind it to be honest. It’s simply $3M less that Benning has available where he would have likely wasted it on another bad contract.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I don’t mind it to be honest. It’s simply $3M less that Benning has available where he would have likely wasted it on another bad contract.

You should mind it. This isn't a level playing field, Benning or no Benning.

 

[vanuck]

Yikes some recent news from the Twitter verse suggests the teams scouts wanted Pastarnak in 2014 but Benning liked Bleckley and settled for McCann when he was taken.

We already knew about Benning wanting Bleackley in 2014, but the scouts actually wanted Pastrnak too and thus had to settle for McCann? Yikes.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You should mind it. This isn't a level playing field, Benning or no Benning.

Oh I agree, the Canucks got screwed. But looking at the bright side: it’s saving the Canucks from their own idiot GM.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Really?

I'm sorry but facts are not a "coin flip". These are two "sourced" reports, from two reputable media members, that are in direct conflict with one another. Someone here is clearly, undeniable wrong. Hell, maybe neither of these reports are accurate. But you don't just pick the one that fits your narrative and "go with it", the same way you don't just accept uncontested reports as fact. This is clear evidence that EVERY "sourced report" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

The whole agenda-driven Benning/Brackett war is mired by hurt feelings and power struggles. I don't think you can trust much of anything that comes out of this type of situation, since the "truth" is usually relative to whose side you're talking to.

I don't know who you are referencing with your last paragraph, the media members themselves?

On the conflicting report: It means one has to dig deeper. For instance, Cybulski cites William Bridges, who's source is unknown. Johnston makes a statement on what he assumes is common knowledge. On the surface, William Bridges is a relative unknown by comparison. That's the first place to dig.

That said, neither report can be dismissed. Not at this point. You don't have to accept either one, but you cannot dismiss them both because they conflict.

An uncontested sourced report from a legitimate reporter is the closest to team insight we will have. There are very few irrefutable facts that are known because the sources don't reveal themselves. We cannot wait on that to occur.

I think you need to discern between facts and sourced reports. If you don't accept any report as fact, that's fair. Don't accept anything and don't cite anything. Once you leave it to your own subjectivity, even sourced information by legitimate reporters, then the discussion becomes about who to believe rather than about the information being put forth. It's a road that leads nowhere.

 

[The Vasili Jerry]

 

[Bleach Clean]

Oh I agree, the Canucks got screwed. But looking at the bright side: it’s saving the Canucks from their own idiot GM.

There is no bright side to this. The league needs to be called out here. Forget Benning.

 

[Tim Calhoun]

A lot of teams blew this one. In fairness to all of them, Pasta's numbers were pretty underwhelming in the SEL.

He led his team in scoring as a 17 year old. He and Nylander had super impressive numbers that year playing against men.

 

[y2kcanucks]

There is no bright side to this. The league needs to be called out here. Forget Benning.

Except there is a bright side. Our idiot GM can’t lock up some other useless veteran for that amount longterm because of this. That’s a positive. It’s sad we have reached this point, but Aquilini is happy with incompetence so it is what it is.

 

[Peen]

I think we should be moving on from Tanev. The health concerns scare me. Also, objectively speaking it wasn't a great season for him.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I think we should be moving on from Tanev. The health concerns scare me. Also, objectively speaking it wasn't a great season for him.

I would move on from both Tanev and Markstrom. Toffoli is the one I would consider re-signing, but even at that I wouldn’t go longterm.

 

[53or8]

Must not have liked him very much as blekely went back and was repicked at 144 in the 2016 draft after going unsigned by colorado.

Yikes some recent news from the Twitter verse suggests the teams scouts wanted Pastarnak in 2014 but Benning liked Bleckley and settled for McCann when he was taken.

 

[53or8]

Must not have liked him very much as blekely went back and was repicked at 144 in the 2016 draft after going unsigned by colorado.

Yikes some recent news from the Twitter verse suggests the teams scouts wanted Pastarnak in 2014 but Benning liked Bleckley and settled for McCann when he was taken.

 

[53or8]

does anyone see pastrnak being as good on the canucks as the bruins if we drafted him?

 

[datboichoi]

does anyone see pastrnak being as good on the canucks as the bruins if we drafted him?

I don’t think he would have much problem playing with checks notes Elias Pettersson.

 

[timw33]

does anyone see pastrnak being as good on the canucks as the bruins if we drafted him?

Yes.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

To be fair about it, I don't remember a single person ever say Pastrnak's name during the 2014. Not one single person on this board ever. When we're talking about the 2016 draft on the other hand...

 

[Jyrki21]

On the conflicting report: It means one has to dig deeper. For instance, Cybulski cites William Bridges, who's source is unknown. Johnston makes a statement on what he assumes is common knowledge. On the surface, William Bridges is a relative unknown by comparison. That's the first place to dig.

That said, neither report can be dismissed. Not at this point. You don't have to accept either one, but you cannot dismiss them both because they conflict.

I would not be at all surprised if both were true – that (1) the scouts wanted Pastrnak there, but Benning wanted McCann and (2) that he later chewed the scouts out for it. Especially because that would have been after Weisbrod came on board, and that’s 100% a believable thing he’d advise Benning to do (or do himself).

Also remember the trading of McCann wasn’t for hockey-related reasons... it doesn’t mean he wasn’t Benning’s guy.

 

[vanuck]

does anyone see pastrnak being as good on the canucks as the bruins if we drafted him?

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Is it a good thing we missed out on a star winger because our team hasn't been in the playoffs?