Management Thread

[MS]

Given the trend of recent signings to defensemen, it’s quite common place to offer 2nd pairing dmen around 6 million dollars. Given where the Canucks were at as a team and as an organization (ie a team on the cusp of leaving the bottom 4th of the league), slightly overpaying a UFA in an effort to lure him is expected. I know it’s not ideal or what armchair GM’s at home want to hear, but it’s the truth.

What other 2nd pairing defenders (at the time of signing) have been offered $6 million?

Johnny Boychuk is the only one I see, and it's also a terrible contract. This isn't the truth at all.

 

[Pip]

What other 2nd pairing defenders (at the time of signing) have been offered $6 million?

Johnny Boychuk is the only one I see, and it's also a terrible contract. This isn't the truth at all.

NHL Rankings

here’s a list for reference. Hard to argue that $6 million is the new standard for players of his caliber

 

[Horse McHindu]

What other 2nd pairing defenders (at the time of signing) have been offered $6 million?

Johnny Boychuk is the only one I see, and it's also a terrible contract. This isn't the truth at all.

Fair enough and I jumped the gun a little. However, I do think that this will be the going market rate for 2nd pairing dmen (although a lot of it will depend on the cap and the effects of Covid obviously).

Anton Stralman got over 5 million on a contending tax-advantaged Tampa team.

It’s also the nature of the business. Teams like Vancouver, given where they are at in their stage of development (amongst other factors such as geography, tax, etc) will have to (slightly) overpay for UFA’s if they want to be competitive.

If you aren’t willing to pay for UFA’s, then a GM is left with the undesirable alternative of rushing kids/prospects into positions that they aren’t ready for. For the life of me, I don’t understand why many posters on here don’t understand this.

 

[MS]

Except the people and/or media posting this “evidence” are people with biased agendas that want to see Benning fail. Why? Because - Benning’s interpretation of rebuilding is different from what many others believe.



#Rebuild

The *only* year in the Benning era where the Canucks weren’t in rebuild mode, was their first year when management decided to give that old core one last kick at the can. After the Canucks lost to the Flames, significant moves were made........the idea being that the young players within our system would be protected by certain vets, while said kids could play in roles that would allow them to grow without being overexerted (ie forced into roles that were too much for their games).

You keep repeating this nonsense when it could not be more blatantly obvious it isn't true.

In the years past 2015, Jim Benning:

- tried to trade our 2015 #1 pick and other futures (Markstrom rumoured) for Milan Lucic.
- tried again to give Lucic a monster contract the following year.
- traded for Sutter and Prust to 'make the team better in the playoffs'.
- signed a 30 y/o Eriksson to a $36 million contract.
- tried to trade our 2016 #1 pick + Bo Horvat for PK Subban
- tried chasing Steven Stamkos.
- traded a huge futures package for Erik Gudbranson.

You are actually going to claim he was rebuilding during that time? Seriously?

The two-year period between March 2015 and March 2017 is probably the most incompetent period for any NHL GM in the last 50 years of the sport.

 

[MS]

NHL Rankings

here’s a list for reference. Hard to argue that $6 million is the new standard for players of his caliber

Other than Boychuk, what $6 million defenders were 2nd pairing guys at the time of their signing? I mean, maybe Yandle but he's an elite 50-60 point PP QB as well, so you're paying for that.

 

[Pip]

There are always a top of cheap stopgap options available in free agency that can bridge the gap to your upcoming prospects

 

[Horse McHindu]

- tried to trade our 2015 #1 pick and other futures (Markstrom rumoured) for Milan Lucic.

The Markstrom thing is only a “rumor” because Markstrom ended up becoming a good goaltender and so The Athletic, as usual, are trying to fabricate stuff. The Canucks were in on Lucic at the 2016 trade deadline because they were a borderline playoff team at the deadline and so they had EARNED management’s respect. Would that have been a wise move in retrospect? Of course not. However - when a team is playing well enough and is within playoff contention, why wouldn’t a GM reward his players with help and give them a vote of confidence?

tried again to give Lucic a monster contract the following year.

What young players in our system were ready to assume 2nd line roles? Burrows was washed up, and Virtanen was too green. Now granted - signing Lucic (and what was ultimately Eriksson) was a big mistake, since both players are/were clearly passed their primes, but that was arguably lesser of the two evils.........the other evil being, we would have played Jake Virtanen in that spot where he would have struggled and lost confidence to the point of no return.

- traded for Sutter and Prust to 'make the team better in the playoffs'.

Prust was brought in because the Canucks needed toughness and also didn’t believe that Gaunce was NHL ready (which proved to be true). Again, it was about insulating a prospect and making sure that he was developing in a role that was compatible with his abilities.

I will agree with you that the Sutter deal was a bad one, but it wasn’t because the Canucks mistakingly thought that they were “cup contenders” or sure thing playoff competitors. Sutter was brought in, because the Canucks didn’t feel that Horvat was quite ready to assume the duties of a 2nd line center..........in retrospect however, this wasn’t quite true because Horvat really wasn’t that far off and Bonino would have been a decent enough short term filler in that 2nd line role (although at the time, the Canucks felt that Bonino, while a great 3rd line center, wasn’t good enough to be a 2nd line C).

- signed a 30 y/o Eriksson to a $36 million contract.

I already covered this. If not Eriksson, then you’re either putting in a washed up Burrows (which sends a bad message to the team that management isn’t serious about fielding a competitive team), or, you’re putting in a green Virtanen and risk ruining him forever.

- tried to trade our 2016 #1 pick + Bo Horvat for PK Subban

The Canucks did try and trade for Subbann (our Right side D had absolutely NOTHING other than Tanev, and also had NOTHING in the pipeline. #ButGillis). However, Horvat being a part of the package is once again a complete fabrication by the Athletic. And again - the Canucks weren’t trying to bring in Subbann because they saw themselves as cup contenders. They tried to bring in Subbann because the Canucks were trying to solidify their right side D for both the short term and the long term.

- tried chasing Steven Stamkos.

At the time, the Canucks didn’t have a 1st line center in their pipeline that was capable of taking over once Henrik faded into the sunset.

- traded a huge futures package for Erik Gudbranson.

Gudbranson himself was a young asset that was supposed to help the Canucks both short term and long term. You’re acting as if Gudbranson was a 33 year old and the Canucks were in “all now” mode but this wasn’t the case. Guds was supposed to be both a short term AND long term asset for us. Unfortunately however, just as was the case with Sutter, Gudbranson sucked. It was a bad trade, but the trade wasn’t made because the Canucks were “going for it.” Just as was the case with Sutter, the Canucks were making a move that they felt addressed BOTH the short term and long term.

You are actually going to claim he was rebuilding during that time? Seriously?

Yes.

Canucks gave up assets for guys like Sutter and Gudbranson, but those guys were supposed to be pieces that.....

1) helped us both short term and long term.
2) help insulate younger core pieces on the team by allowing said younger pieces to play in roles that were more suitable to their games (as opposed to being bum rushed into spots that they were too green for).

I will concede however that the players that management targeted were terrible.

The two-year period between March 2015 and March 2017 is probably the most incompetent period for any NHL GM in the last 50 years of the sport.

Maybe, but I don’t think you truly realize as to just how difficult of a spot Benning was in. The Canucks has very little in the pipeline when Benning took over, and Benning had to make a tough choice (ie rush whatever kids that were in the system into roles that they were too green for, or make some trades that could help us both short term and long term, while creating a culture here). People can laugh all they want that the Canucks “culture” here was a losers culture, but the fact of the matter is that our vets did set the tone in the lockerroom and our kids competed extremely hard almost each and every night during those basement dwelling days.

People scoff at what Benning has done here, but guys like Markstrom, Virtanen, Gaudette, etc., all greatly benefited from insulation.[/quote]

 

[Sneezy]

The underlying numbers and all discernible eye tests say Benning is a bad GM. Even lying about his draft succes won't make him a good GM so go on.

what underlying numbers?

 

[MS]

The Markstrom thing is only a “rumor” because Markstrom ended up becoming a good goaltender and so The Athletic, as usual, are trying to fabricate stuff. The Canucks were in on Lucic at the 2016 trade deadline because they were a borderline playoff team at the deadline and so they had EARNED management’s respect. Would that have been a wise move in retrospect? Of course not. However - when a team is playing well enough and is within playoff contention, why wouldn’t a GM reward his players with help and give them a vote of confidence?



What young players in our system were ready to assume 2nd line roles? Burrows was washed up, and Virtanen was too green. Now granted - signing Lucic (and what was ultimately Eriksson) was a big mistake, since both players are/were clearly passed their primes, but that was arguably lesser of the two evils.........the other evil being, we would have played Jake Virtanen in that spot where he would have struggled and lost confidence to the point of no return.



Prust was brought in because the Canucks needed toughness and also didn’t believe that Gaunce was NHL ready (which proved to be true). Again, it was about insulating a prospect and making sure that he was developing in a role that was compatible with his abilities.

I will agree with you that the Sutter deal was a bad one, but it wasn’t because the Canucks mistakingly thought that they were “cup contenders” or sure thing playoff competitors. Sutter was brought in, because the Canucks didn’t feel that Horvat was quite ready to assume the duties of a 2nd line center..........in retrospect however, this wasn’t quite true because Horvat really wasn’t that far off and Bonino would have been a decent enough short term filler in that 2nd line role (although at the time, the Canucks felt that Bonino, while a great 3rd line center, wasn’t good enough to be a 2nd line C).



I already covered this. If not Eriksson, then you’re either putting in a washed up Burrows (which sends a bad message to the team that management isn’t serious about fielding a competitive team), or, you’re putting in a green Virtanen and risk ruining him forever.



The Canucks did try and trade for Subbann (our Right side D had absolutely NOTHING other than Tanev, and also had NOTHING in the pipeline. #ButGillis). However, Horvat being a part of the package is once again a complete fabrication by the Athletic. And again - the Canucks weren’t trying to bring in Subbann because they saw themselves as cup contenders. They tried to bring in Subbann because the Canucks were trying to solidify their right side D for both the short term and the long term.



At the time, the Canucks didn’t have a 1st line center in their pipeline that was capable of taking over once Henrik faded into the sunset.



Gudbranson himself was a young asset that was supposed to help the Canucks both short term and long term. You’re acting as if Gudbranson was a 33 year old and the Canucks were in “all now” mode but this wasn’t the case. Guds was supposed to be both a short term AND long term asset for us. Unfortunately however, just as was the case with Sutter, Gudbranson sucked. It was a bad trade, but the trade wasn’t made because the Canucks were “going for it.” Just as was the case with Sutter, the Canucks were making a move that they felt addressed BOTH the short term and long term.



Yes.

Canucks gave up assets for guys like Sutter and Gudbranson, but those guys were supposed to be pieces that.....

1) helped us both short term and long term.
2) help insulate younger core pieces on the team by allowing said younger pieces to play in roles that were more suitable to their games (as opposed to being bum rushed into spots that they were too green for).

I will concede however that the players that management targeted were terrible.



Maybe, but I don’t think you truly realize as to just how difficult of a spot Benning was in. The Canucks has very little in the pipeline when Benning took over, and Benning had to make a tough choice (ie rush whatever kids that were in the system into roles that they were too green for, or make some trades that could help us both short term and long term, while creating a culture here). People can laugh all they want that the Canucks “culture” here was a losers culture, but the fact of the matter is that our vets did set the tone in the lockerroom and our kids competed extremely hard almost each and every night during those basement dwelling days.

People scoff at what Benning has done here, but guys like Markstrom, Virtanen, Gaudette, etc., all greatly benefited from insulation.

Good god.

Claiming that Benning was trying to rebuild while repeatedly chasing big-ticket UFAs and trying to trade prospects and #1 picks for established players and superstars is like trying to claim that Hitler was protecting the Jews when he was sending them to Auschwitz. It's literally THE EXACT OPPOSITE THING.

And apologies for invoking Godwin's Law, but this is just such a ridiculous argument.

Benning was trying to compete. He stated repeatedly that he was trying to compete. Every move he was making was to try and compete.

Like, twice in 3 years he tried trading his #1 pick for an established star in his late 20s. How on earth are you trying to argue that this was some sort of rebuild through that period?

 

[carrotshirt]

What young players in our system were ready to assume 2nd line roles? Burrows was washed up, and Virtanen was too green. Now granted - signing Lucic (and what was ultimately Eriksson) was a big mistake, since both players are/were clearly passed their primes, but that was arguably lesser of the two evils.........the other evil being, we would have played Jake Virtanen in that spot where he would have struggled and lost confidence to the point of no return.



Prust was brought in because the Canucks needed toughness and also didn’t believe that Gaunce was NHL ready (which proved to be true). Again, it was about insulating a prospect and making sure that he was developing in a role that was compatible with his abilities.

I will agree with you that the Sutter deal was a bad one, but it wasn’t because the Canucks mistakingly thought that they were “cup contenders” or sure thing playoff competitors. Sutter was brought in, because the Canucks didn’t feel that Horvat was quite ready to assume the duties of a 2nd line center..........in retrospect however, this wasn’t quite true because Horvat really wasn’t that far off and Bonino would have been a decent enough short term filler in that 2nd line role (although at the time, the Canucks felt that Bonino, while a great 3rd line center, wasn’t good enough to be a 2nd line C).


I already covered this. If not Eriksson, then you’re either putting in a washed up Burrows (which sends a bad message to the team that management isn’t serious about fielding a competitive team), or, you’re putting in a green Virtanen and risk ruining him forever.


At the time, the Canucks didn’t have a 1st line center in their pipeline that was capable of taking over once Henrik faded into the sunset.



Gudbranson himself was a young asset that was supposed to help the Canucks both short term and long term. You’re acting as if Gudbranson was a 33 year old and the Canucks were in “all now” mode but this wasn’t the case. Guds was supposed to be both a short term AND long term asset for us. Unfortunately however, just as was the case with Sutter, Gudbranson sucked. It was a bad trade, but the trade wasn’t made because the Canucks were “going for it.” Just as was the case with Sutter, the Canucks were making a move that they felt addressed BOTH the short term and long term.



Yes.

Canucks gave up assets for guys like Sutter and Gudbranson, but those guys were supposed to be pieces that.....

1) helped us both short term and long term.
2) help insulate younger core pieces on the team by allowing said younger pieces to play in roles that were more suitable to their games (as opposed to being bum rushed into spots that they were too green for.

People scoff at what Benning has done here, but guys like Markstrom, Virtanen, Gaudette, etc., all greatly benefited from insulation.

[/QUOTE]

You seem to think the options are either:

1) Throw unprepared kids to the wolves.

Or

2) Trade valuable assets for players that can slot into the lineup... but not make the team any better.

Kids can be insulated in the AHL, or in juniors. Sign some free agent plugs to short term deals to ice a full team and focus on OBTAINING draft picks instead of throwing them away and tell the team and fans you ARE rebuilding.

It’s quite obvious that if Benning were doing more of this, the team would be in much better shape, both now and for the future.

They were not rebuilding.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Good god.

Claiming that Benning was trying to rebuild while repeatedly chasing big-ticket UFAs and trying to trade prospects and #1 picks for established players and superstars is like trying to claim that Hitler was protecting the Jews when he was sending them to Auschwitz. It's literally THE EXACT OPPOSITE THING.

Guys like Sutter and Gudbranson were in their mid 20’s when Benning traded for these guys. MID 20’s!!! Guys in their mid 20’s, if good, can help an organization for BOTH the short term AND long term. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept to understand. The Canucks had absolutely ZERO depth on their right side D for both the short term and long term. The Canucks absolutely needed to take drastic measures of sorts to address that.

Unfortunately for the Canucks, Gudbranson was not a good player in the newer and evolving NHL.

You’re making it sound like Gudbranson and Sutter were 30+ year olds with one year left on their contracts and were short term rentals of some kind, but this was not the case.

Benning was trying to compete. He stated repeatedly that he was trying to compete. Every move he was making was to try and compete.

And there lies the problem. You misinterpreted what Benning meant when he said, “we are trying to compete.” (By the way, you aren’t the only one. Many people on here and in the local media misinterpreted what Benning meant).

All Benning meant by his comment, was that his team was going to try and compete for a playoff spot. Period. His teams were going to compete hard night in night out, and would be fighting for a playoff spot all year long.

To misconstrue Benning comments as, “oh my god, Benning thinks these guys are contenders,” is ridiculous.

Now - was Benning able to achieve his goal here? No. As guys like JD Burke and anyone at the athletic will happily narrate to you, the Canucks missed the playoffs each year and had the lowest winning percentage of any team during those 4 years.

What they won’t tell you is this: Between 2016 and 2019, the Canucks hovered around a playoff spot in ALL of those seasons (with the exception of one season if recall correctly?), until about February/trade deadline where they always seemed to unravel due to key injuries.

Not once were the Canucks ever “down and out” by November or December like many other bottom feeding teams were.

Despite having the worst winning percentage during that 4 year span, the Canucks, for the most part, were usually at or near the playoff bar around February. Furthermore, even after being all but mathematically eliminated, the Canucks always competed hard night in night out for the most part, and THAT is a direct result of the culture that Benning created. You can hate on the Canucks all you want, but absolutely no one can deny their compete level and showing up on most nights (contrast this to some of the horror stories that we heard out of Edmonton and Buffalo). This is what Benning meant by COMPETING.

Linden and Benning have always been realistic as to where this team was as an organization when they took over.

Like, twice in 3 years he tried trading his #1 pick for an established star in his late 20s. How on earth are you trying to argue that this was some sort of rebuild through that period?

Re: Lucic: The Canucks had qualified for the playoffs the year before and were within playoff contention at the 2016 playoff deadline. The team had earned (key word being earned) management’s trust and so management tried to reward them.

Re: PK Subbann. This has already been explained to you, but the drastic times called for drastic measures here. The Canucks had absolutely NOTHING on their right side. NOTHING!!!!! Chris Tanev. That’s it! They had no one good on their right side for the short term, and they had no one on their right side D in terms of prospects. Subbann was in his late 20’s, but management felt that he could still be a great long term asset for the next 5-6 years.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Kids can be insulated in the AHL, or in juniors. Sign some free agent plugs to short term deals to ice a full team and focus on OBTAINING draft picks instead of throwing them away and tell the team and fans you ARE rebuilding.

I completely agree with you about insulating kids and prospects into the AHL and juniors. By the way, that’s what we did with Jacob Markstrom. Many people on here and in the media were LIVID when we signed Ryan Miller which forced Markstrom to go to the AHL, but this was the perfect move.

Linden and Benning/Weisbrod had a falling out due to the Canucks signing Beagle, Roussel, and Schaller (which kept guys like Gaudette and MacEwan in the AHL), but look at how those guys developed.

As far as signing UFA’s go, here is another misconception that many fans have.

Many fans believe that signing UFA’s is akin to shooting fish in a barrel (ie any non big name UFA can be had at a great short term deal and great cap hit). This is false thinking for the following reasons:

1) Teams that are rebuilding or are near the bottom of the league, will always have more difficulty in attracting UFA’s, unless that UFA is a local hometown boy and simply wants to be there.

2) UFA’s won’t just sign for money. There has to be a correct “fit.” In other words, you can’t just bury your prospects on the farm and sign some sacrificial lamb UFA’s to be lead to the slaughter. These UFA’s are also playing to prove themselves and be successful in their roles so that they can hit pay day on their next contracts and/or prolong their NHL careers. Ditto for PTO’s. That’s also one of the reasons why these guys would be more likely to sign with better teams.......so that the superior depth of these teams can allow for said UFA’s to play lower on the depth chart in roles that are more appropriate fits for their games.

3) Metropolitan and Atlantic divisions = much easier travel schedule.

4) Many places in America = far less tax.

5) Better weather. Places such as California will always be more attractive to UFA’s due to the weather, etc.

6) Canadian market pressure and fishbowl effect. Not all players like the pressure that comes with playing in a Canadian market.

For all of these reasons, signing UFA’s and PTO’s to a “good” cap hit and term is a LOT easier said than done. People on here seem to think that Jim Benning “became a genius” all of a sudden when he signed Thomas Vanek that one year (and then dealt him at the deadline for a young asset in Tyler Motte), without considering the fact that.....

1) Vanek coming to Vancouver at the time was a great fit for BOTH the player and the team.

2) The Canucks were able to move Vanek at the deadline because there was actual interest, along with the appropriate value coming back (ie criteria that was NOT there when the Canucks attempted to move Hamhuis, Vrbata, etc.).

 

[carrotshirt]

I completely agree with you about insulating kids and prospects into the AHL and juniors. By the way, that’s what we did with Jacob Markstrom. Many people on here and in the media were LIVID when we signed Ryan Miller which forced Markstrom to go to the AHL, but this was the perfect move.

Linden and Benning/Weisbrod had a falling out due to the Canucks signing Beagle, Roussel, and Schaller (which kept guys like Gaudette and MacEwan in the AHL), but look at how those guys developed.

As far as signing UFA’s go, here is another misconception that many fans have.

Many fans believe that signing UFA’s is akin to shooting fish in a barrel (ie any non big name UFA can be had at a great short term deal and great cap hit). This is false thinking for the following reasons:

1) Teams that are rebuilding or are near the bottom of the league, will always have more difficulty in attracting UFA’s, unless that UFA is a local hometown boy and simply wants to be there.

2) UFA’s won’t just sign for money. There has to be a correct “fit.” In other words, you can’t just bury your prospects on the farm and sign some sacrificial lamb UFA’s to be lead to the slaughter. These UFA’s are also playing to prove themselves and be successful in their roles so that they can hit pay day on their next contracts and/or prolong their NHL careers. Ditto for PTO’s. That’s also one of the reasons why these guys would be more likely to sign with better teams.......so that the superior depth of these teams can allow for said UFA’s to play lower on the depth chart in roles that are more appropriate fits for their games.

3) Metropolitan and Atlantic divisions = much easier travel schedule.

4) Many places in America = far less tax.

5) Better weather. Places such as California will always be more attractive to UFA’s due to the weather, etc.

6) Canadian market pressure and fishbowl effect. Not all players like the pressure that comes with playing in a Canadian market.

For all of these reasons, signing UFA’s and PTO’s to a “good” cap hit and term is a LOT easier said than done. People on here seem to think that Jim Benning “became a genius” all of a sudden when he signed Thomas Vanek that one year (and then dealt him at the deadline for a young asset in Tyler Motte), without considering the fact that.....

1) Vanek coming to Vancouver at the time was a great fit for BOTH the player and the team.

2) The Canucks were able to move Vanek at the deadline because there was actual interest, along with the appropriate value coming back (ie criteria that was NOT there when the Canucks attempted to move Hamhuis, Vrbata, etc.).

I would agree that signing GOOD players to good deals in UFA is not easy.

However, I said nothing about the players being good. We just needed a couple guys to fill holes for a year or two. Paying Beagle too much money for too long is not a good rebuild move. Ericksson even worse.

They should have focused on actually rebuilding instead of retooling, which they crowed about for years because they were NOT rebuilding. If their retool plans actually worked, we would not have been in a position to draft Pettersson or Hughes, two players that the team would be circling the drain without.

Should have rebuilt, we’d probably be a legit contender without a total mess of a cap situation and a bunch of losers making five times what they’re worth.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I would agree that signing GOOD players to good deals in UFA is not easy.

However, I said nothing about the players being good. We just needed a couple guys to fill holes for a year or two. Paying Beagle too much money for too long is not a good rebuild move. Ericksson even worse.

They should have focused on actually rebuilding instead of retooling, which they crowed about for years because they were NOT rebuilding. If their retool plans actually worked, we would not have been in a position to draft Pettersson or Hughes, two players that the team would be circling the drain without.

Should have rebuilt, we’d probably be a legit contender without a total mess of a cap situation and a bunch of losers making five times what they’re worth.

That is yet another misconception.

“Teams can be rebuilt from scratch to contender in 3-4 years like clockwork.”

While there are a few successful examples (ie Pitsburgh), most teams by and large take between 5-7 years to truly rebuild and re-emerge.....sometimes longer.

Ron Hextall was on Team 1040 the other day and even he talked about how a true revamping and rebuilding of an organization usually takes 5-7 years. Hextall talked about his experiences in a management role with the LA Kings. It’s a good piece and I highly recommend posters to listen to it.

 

[MS]

Guys like Sutter and Gudbranson were in their mid 20’s when Benning traded for these guys. MID 20’s!!! Guys in their mid 20’s, if good, can help an organization for BOTH the short term AND long term. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept to understand. The Canucks had absolutely ZERO depth on their right side D for both the short term and long term. The Canucks absolutely needed to take drastic measures of sorts to address that.

Unfortunately for the Canucks, Gudbranson was not a good player in the newer and evolving NHL.

You’re making it sound like Gudbranson and Sutter were 30+ year olds with one year left on their contracts and were short term rentals of some kind, but this was not the case.

Sutter was 1 year away from UFA. Gudbranson was the only 'young-ish' major target they had, but again it was a major futures package for an established player.

Subban, Lucic, Eriksson were all in their late 20s or early 30s.

They were repeatedly trying to sign high-profile UFAs, tried trading their #1 pick twice in 3 years for older star players, and did trade a teenaged recent #1 pick and multiple #2 picks for 'now' fixes. THIS IS NOT A REBUILD.

And there lies the problem. You misinterpreted what Benning meant when he said, “we are trying to compete.” (By the way, you aren’t the only one. Many people on here and in the local media misinterpreted what Benning meant).

All Benning meant by his comment, was that his team was going to try and compete for a playoff spot. Period. His teams were going to compete hard night in night out, and would be fighting for a playoff spot all year long.

To misconstrue Benning comments as, “oh my god, Benning thinks these guys are contenders,” is ridiculous.

Benning literally said he thought the 15-16 Canucks would be a 100+ point team.

Now - was Benning able to achieve his goal here? No. As guys like JD Burke and anyone at the athletic will happily narrate to you, the Canucks missed the playoffs each year and had the lowest winning percentage of any team during those 4 years.

What they won’t tell you is this: Between 2016 and 2019, the Canucks hovered around a playoff spot in ALL of those seasons (with the exception of one season if recall correctly?), until about February/trade deadline where they always seemed to unravel due to key injuries.

Not once were the Canucks ever “down and out” by November or December like many other bottom feeding teams were.

Despite having the worst winning percentage during that 4 year span, the Canucks, for the most part, were usually at or near the playoff bar around February. Furthermore, even after being all but mathematically eliminated, the Canucks always competed hard night in night out for the most part, and THAT is a direct result of the culture that Benning created. You can hate on the Canucks all you want, but absolutely no one can deny their compete level and showing up on most nights (contrast this to some of the horror stories that we heard out of Edmonton and Buffalo). This is what Benning meant by COMPETING.

Linden and Benning have always been realistic as to where this team was as an organization when they took over.

Loser points and parity mean that 25 or so of 30 teams are 'in contact' with a playoff position ever year in early February. They were a godawful bottom-3 team every year through that stretch and the worst team in the NHL over that period.

It is absolutely hilarious that you are trying to frame being the worst team in the NHL over a 4-year period as being competitive.

Re: Lucic: The Canucks had qualified for the playoffs the year before and were within playoff contention at the 2016 playoff deadline. The team had earned (key word being earned) management’s trust and so management tried to reward them.

What are you talking about here?

They weren't trying to trade for Lucic at the 2016 trade deadline. They tried trading for him at the 2015 draft, WHEN THEY WEREN'T REBUILDING. Then they tried signing in the summer of 2016, WHEN THEY WEREN'T REBUILDING.

And if you are surprisingly in the playoff hunt as a rebuilding team, you don't abandon the plan and try squandering futures who are part of that rebuild on a push to squeak into the playoffs! Also they were 6 points out of the playoffs with a 24-37 record at the time of the 2016 trade deadline. They weren't close.

Re: PK Subbann. This has already been explained to you, but the drastic times called for drastic measures here. The Canucks had absolutely NOTHING on their right side. NOTHING!!!!! Chris Tanev. That’s it! They had no one good on their right side for the short term, and they had no one on their right side D in terms of prospects. Subbann was in his late 20’s, but management felt that he could still be a great long term asset for the next 5-6 years.

If you're rebuilding, who cares if you have a weak right side? You sign some scrub UFA and finish in 27th place and collect your high draft pick. Was Toronto trying to trade the Auston Matthews pick for Shea Weber in the middle of their rebuild because their blueline sucked? Hell f***ing no. What a ridiculous notion.

When you're in a rebuild, you don't offer your best young C (recently taken #8 overall) and the #5 overall draft pick in the upcoming draft for a 29 y/o star defender. I don't get how you don't see that this isn't a thing.

If Jim Benning was actually rebuilding in 2016 and was trying to trade Horvat and a #1 pick for Subban as part of a rebuild strategy, he's even stupider than I think he is. And I think he's really, really, really stupid.

 

[F A N]

That is yet another misconception.

“Teams can be rebuilt from scratch to contender in 3-4 years like clockwork.”

While there are a few successful examples (ie Pitsburgh), most teams by and large take between 5-7 years to truly rebuild and re-emerge.....sometimes longer.

Ron Hextall was on Team 1040 the other day and even he talked about how a true revamping and rebuilding of an organization usually takes 5-7 years. Hextall talked about his experiences in a management role with the LA Kings. It’s a good piece and I highly recommend posters to listen to it.

Yep. It really depends on the situation though. There are teams that "rebuild" with the benefit of having some former core players to trade and or young players to build around. In Hextall's case he took over as GM with Giroux, Vorachek, Simmonds, Couturier all under 26. There are teams with GMs coming in saying they need to "rebuild" but really that rebuild started years ago. Drafting franchise players also help speed up any rebuild.

The Canucks actually have a top 10 pick in 6 out of the last 7 years. While a couple of those top 10 picks haven't met expectations the Canucks did draft Boeser in the 1 year out of the past 7 they didn't draft in the top 10. That's why when Benning haters argue the Miller trade was a bad trade due to timing the Canucks protected the pick meaning another playoff miss would result in a lottery pick in 7 out of the past 8 years. At some point it's reasonable to think that the team could afford to trade a future 1st round pick for some immediate help.

 

[Bad Goalie]

I'm not entirely comfortable giving Tanev a long-term deal either.

But in the situation we're in with a team that's a defensive trainwreck who relies on the goalie to bail them out on a nightly basis, where we're painfully thin on the right side, and where we have literally no other defensive defenders on the roster ... I don't really see what choice we have other than to sign him if we don't want to take a step backward in the short term. The notion that Tryamkin could replace what he brings is ... comical.

Also I suspect Tanev's AAV will be substantially smaller than Toffoli's despite being a better player.

Sadly, your description of the Vancouver D and their reliance upon their goalie to work miracles is the exact same description I have posted on several occasions in regards to the Utica Comets defense-corps during every season since the 2015 playoff team. NO Comet has graduated into a top 6 Canuck in that time period.

Then I see so many recent posts in various threads, including this one, inserting as many as 3 current Comets on next season's Vancouver roster (Rafferty, Juolevi, Brisebois/Sautner/Chatfield). Some even include Woo who is yet to even appear in a pro game and is not considered a blue chipper to begin with. I don't believe there is a single hockey expert who projects Woo as top 7 Canuck for next season.

Now we see 4th rounder Rathbone moved into the picture. His NCAA play has been top shelf, but only the top blue chippers (#7 Hughes) make an NHL impact in their first pro season.

Man Hughes/Rathbone/Juolevi/Rafferty/Myers/Edler with Tanev and Stecher traded or let walk would really cause the Canucks to stockpile some more goalies as this group will be shell shocked and the goalie each night will be under bombardment.

This roster is not be my idea, but various samples have been posted with some altering the list by moving Tanev or Stecher back into the top 6. Saving money this way for the increased salaries that is needed won't likely fare well in the standings.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Abbott: Naive to think the Canucks haven't taken a step back in losing Judd Brackett; front office clearly valued him

I thought this was a pertinent interview from Abbott. He says (paraphrased):

Benning and Weisbrod know that the state of their own job is so fragile now that anyone not fully on board will be cut loose.

Why would the state of their employment be fragile if they're doing a good, or even average job? Hmmm.

 

[Ernie]

Abbott: Naive to think the Canucks haven't taken a step back in losing Judd Brackett; front office clearly valued him

I thought this was a pertinent interview from Abbott. He says (paraphrased):

Benning and Weisbrod know that the state of their own job is so fragile now that anyone not fully on board will be cut loose.

Why would the state of their employment be fragile if they're doing a good, or even average job? Hmmm.

Not really any real info there. Just the same speculation that fills up 99% of sports talk radio. Of course they had to do some golf bro talk first. Don't know how people have the patience to listen to this stuff.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Not really any real info there. Just the same speculation that fills up 99% of sports talk radio. Of course they had to do some golf bro talk first. Don't know how people have the patience to listen to this stuff.

I was not aware that Benning and Weisbrod felt fragile in their work situation? And that this was common knowledge?

We do know that they get rid of dissenters.

 

[timw33]

We're back to arguing about the rebuild that clearly never happened. Time is a flat circle.

 

[Ernie]

I was not aware that Benning and Weisbrod felt fragile in their work situation? And that this was common knowledge?

We do know that they get rid of dissenters.

He didn't actually have a source for any of that, was merely speculating. Nobody knows how secure Benning's job is except Aquilini, and there is no indication that Aquilini is displeased at all. He just signed Benning to a 3 year extension less than a year ago, and he's expressed support for Benning throughout the past season.

Also the fact that Brackett was close to Linden probably doesn't help his position with Aquilini.

 

[Bleach Clean]

He didn't actually have a source for any of that, was merely speculating. Nobody knows how secure Benning's job is except Aquilini, and there is no indication that Aquilini is displeased at all. He just signed Benning to a 3 year extension less than a year ago, and he's expressed support for Benning throughout the past season.

Abbot’s speculation must have been sourced from somewhere. It’s quite the leap to make without any backing.

I wouldn’t be surprised either way. Aqua fully supporting Benning based upon merit makes sense for that relationship. As in, it makes no sense. And Benning hanging on by a thread makes sense based upon Aqua’s past tendencies.

 

[Kryten]

Yep. It really depends on the situation though. There are teams that "rebuild" with the benefit of having some former core players to trade and or young players to build around. In Hextall's case he took over as GM with Giroux, Vorachek, Simmonds, Couturier all under 26. There are teams with GMs coming in saying they need to "rebuild" but really that rebuild started years ago. Drafting franchise players also help speed up any rebuild.

The Canucks actually have a top 10 pick in 6 out of the last 7 years. While a couple of those top 10 picks haven't met expectations the Canucks did draft Boeser in the 1 year out of the past 7 they didn't draft in the top 10. That's why when Benning haters argue the Miller trade was a bad trade due to timing the Canucks protected the pick meaning another playoff miss would result in a lottery pick in 7 out of the past 8 years. At some point it's reasonable to think that the team could afford to trade a future 1st round pick for some immediate help.

I’ll start by saying the Miller trade worked out, and I think everyone is happy with Miller as a person as a player. But it was a bad trade. TBL were up shit creek with cap problems and Benning threw THEM a 1st rounder to paddle their way to safety with over 5m less weight.
TBL literally had nothing to lose thanks to Benning, it was a win win trade for them. They shed a good player that was just depth to them in order to be able to afford their RFAs they desperately needed to re-sign. They got a 1st rounder from the worst team in the league over the last 4 years to boot. If we miss the playoffs this year then next year they get the 1st which OTT just proved is a dumb move.
It sounds like a deal that Tampa proposed as the Canucks took all the risks. If Miller didn’t gel here or only produces 40 points then it’s yet another bloated contract to deal with. If we continue the playoff drought we risk giving up a lottery pick, if we lose to MIN then we better make the playoffs next year. Could you imagine giving f***ing Tampa a lottery pick? We have lost that young cost controlled mystery box 1st rounder further helping a stacked TBL team.
Benning held all the cards and still came out as the only one taking risks. Now that we are up shit creek with cap problems hopefully there’s another GM out there to help us out...

 

[Ernie]

Abbot’s speculation must have been sourced from somewhere. It’s quite the leap to make without any backing.

I wouldn’t be surprised either way. Aqua fully supporting Benning based upon merit makes sense for that relationship. As in, it makes no sense. And Benning hanging on by a thread makes sense based upon Aqua’s past tendencies.

He regurgitated what he read from the real sports journalists who reported on this, and the number of times he hedged was mind numbing.

And now you're just speculating as well.