Management Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,997
6,571
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.


So it was sourced. Who is this reporter?

I wasn't aware of the report that had Benning and Weisbrod on shaky ground, so it's new to me. I'm not really sure where else you're going with this?
 

Ernie

Registered User
Aug 3, 2004
12,759
2,157
So it was sourced. Who is this reporter?

I wasn't aware of the report that had Benning and Weisbrod on shaky ground, so it's new to me. I'm not really sure where else you're going with this?

Except there's no evidence that Benning and Weisbrod are on shaky ground, if you listen to the segment this "reporter" was obviously just speculating, and you're simply digging in.
 

sandwichbird2023

Registered User
Aug 4, 2004
3,835
1,898
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.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to have conceded to MS a lot of Benning's past decisions were not good. And yet you seem to constantly and consistently defend him at every turn. Why!? Should a good, or even average, GM be excused so many times? When is it enough?
Also the Canucks were not close to making the playoff at the 2016 trade deadline. They were 6 points out with 3 teams to jump at one point, most had games in hand on us IIRC. Thats like saying the Hawks has a good chance of making the playoff this year over the Nucks. In reality they were "lucky" to have a play-in tournament this year otherwise they were universally considered to be a lotto team.
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,997
6,571
Except there's no evidence that Benning and Weisbrod are on shaky ground, if you listen to the segment this "reporter" was obviously just speculating, and you're simply digging in.

What in the following two statements has me fully buying into what Abbott is saying:

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.

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.

Do my question marks indicate that this is evidence that Benning and Weisbrod are on shaky ground? Or, am I questioning what is being said. You know, entertaining an idea without accepting or rejecting it?

I think you've jumped the gun here.
 
Last edited:

Pastor Of Muppetz

Registered User
Oct 1, 2017
25,986
15,854
  • Like
Reactions: Sneezy and Numba9

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,425
Vancouver, BC
JD Burke..what a chump....


J.D. Burke@JDylanBurke

I've since found out that the conditional pick in the J.T. Miller trade is of the first-round variety.

Embarrassing trade for the #Canucks. Can't say this enough. This one is going to hurt.

296
10:51 AM - Jun 22, 2019
..............................................................


" A good signing for the Canucks"
Vancouver Canucks Sign Loui Eriksson


... and more attacking the messenger.

As I’ve explained to you multiple times, hockey opinion takes from reporters and reports of information from reporters are two entirely different things.

The fact that JD Burke has bad hockey opinions has absolutely nothing to do with the credibility of his reporting.
 

Horse McHindu

They call me Horse.....
Jun 21, 2014
9,668
2,650
Beijing
JD Burke..what a chump....


J.D. Burke@JDylanBurke

I've since found out that the conditional pick in the J.T. Miller trade is of the first-round variety.

Embarrassing trade for the #Canucks. Can't say this enough. This one is going to hurt.

296
10:51 AM - Jun 22, 2019
..............................................................


" A good signing for the Canucks"
Vancouver Canucks Sign Loui Eriksson


He honestly shouldn’t even be allowed on Team 1040 or any Canucks related media outlet. The guy is a menace and completely toxic to Canucks hockey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sneezy

ProstheticConscience

Check dein Limit
Apr 30, 2010
18,459
10,107
Canuck Nation
:laugh:

From January 23. Hey...wasn't that before the usual post-ASG swoon that saw the Canucks tumble down the standings after Markstrom got hurt?

C'mon, man. You're making this too easy.
 

Sneezy

Registered User
Oct 25, 2019
533
340
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...

Miller was brought in to help the team make the playoffs and provide leadership, last time I checked both are accurate. If you think Miller is not worth a 1st then I do not know what to say.

If this deal was 5 years ago then I am on your side which is why I did not like the LE signing when it was made.
 

Jyrki21

2021-12-05
Sponsor
Where’s that meaningful games in March banner when we need it?
EbdueSe.png
 

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,920
Miller was brought in to help the team make the playoffs and provide leadership, last time I checked both are accurate. If you think Miller is not worth a 1st then I do not know what to say.

If this deal was 5 years ago then I am on your side which is why I did not like the LE signing when it was made.
Miller was worth the trade value, but the timing of the trade was too soon, considering the development of our two stars. When Petey and Hughes are mature, and ready to truly compete for a Cup (likely 3 seasons from now) where will Miller be? He will be gone. Where would another top ten pick be? Very likely helping Petey and Hughes on the ice and for years after.
As Brett Heart put it, “Benning is the worst there is; the worst there was; and the worst there ever will be.”
 

nowhereman

Registered User
Jan 24, 2010
9,230
7,564
Los Angeles
Miller was worth the trade value, but the timing of the trade was too soon, considering the development of our two stars. When Petey and Hughes are mature, and ready to truly compete for a Cup (likely 3 seasons from now) where will Miller be? He will be gone. Where would another top ten pick be? Very likely helping Petey and Hughes on the ice and for years after.
As Brett Heart put it, “Benning is the worst there is; the worst there was; and the worst there ever will be.”
At some point, a team needs to stop rebuilding. When you already have a 20 year old #1C, a 19 year old future #1D, a young #2C, a young 1st line winger and one of the better goalie prospects in the sport, the pieces are there to start adding to that core group. The Canucks are seen throughout the hockey world as having one of the best young cores in the NHL and they felt it was time to add to that core. I don't think they were wrong to do so.

The problem was that management had made so many mistakes prior and has a bunch of old bums that are essentially holding back this young core. Chicago added Hossa pretty early on into Toews/Kane's career but, since their roster was so well built, no one questioned the timing.
 
Last edited:

wreckless

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
1,662
581
vancouver
Miller was worth the trade value, but the timing of the trade was too soon, considering the development of our two stars. When Petey and Hughes are mature, and ready to truly compete for a Cup (likely 3 seasons from now) where will Miller be? He will be gone. Where would another top ten pick be? Very likely helping Petey and Hughes on the ice and for years after.
As Brett Heart put it, “Benning is the worst there is; the worst there was; and the worst there ever will be.”

lol at the Heart reference... so true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luckylarry
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->