Confirmed with Link: Shinkaruk to CGY for Granlund

Status
Not open for further replies.

thecupismine

Registered User
Apr 1, 2007
2,247
868
Absolutely hideous deal. Benning has an obsession with getting a penny on the dollar with deals, and this one is no exception.

Soon to be waiver eligible forward? Check.
Bad enough to not be claimed on waivers? Highly probable.
Terrible NHL production? Check.
Former promising young player not meeting expectations? Check.
Player is between 22-26 and fills the "age-gap"? Check.
Give up a draft pick or a player drafted by Gillis who's performing well? Check.

This franchise is going to ****, and its only taken a year and a half of mismanagement to get there. I thought that Benning would at least help us tank this year by being terrible, now he's shipping out former first round picks who are at least performing decently for absolutely nothing in return. Even if we get a first for Hamhuis at the deadline, we're only (approximately) breaking even as we just gave up a player who was a late first round pick who's performing at the average expectation of a first round pick. Yes, I get the issue of his performance perhaps not translating at the NHL level, but that's a load of crap when you're trading for a player who's game HASN'T TRANSLATED despite being given way more opportunities to do so.

There's a reason I haven't bought tickets this year, and deals like this just make me less and less inclined to do so. At least if we were tanking we'd be giving up the present for the future; right now we're giving up the future for....nothing.
 

NuxFan09

Registered User
Jun 8, 2008
21,649
2,631
Merritt, BC
The reaction is pretty funny. Shinkaruk is not that good.

It's not even about Shinkaruk. It's about the thought process - or lack thereof - behind this move.

I don't even know if Shinkaruk is a sure bet to be a regular NHL'er. It doesn't mean that he, as a former 1st round draft pick who is currently one of the best 21 and under performers in the AHL, doesn't have much more value than this.

More gross mismanaging of assets. That's the issue here. If Shinkaruk was included in a bigger trade for a really good young player, nobody would be complaining. Again, it's not even really about Shinkaruk.
 

clunk

Registered User
Dec 10, 2015
11,343
5,418
I'm gonna..
We could have just kept Richardson and we wouldn't have had the need to trade a steadily improving goal scoring prospect with top 6 potential for a 4th line center if we're lucky.

Bleeding assets again and again.
 

Addison Rae

Registered User
Jun 2, 2009
58,532
10,753
Vancouver
The reaction is pretty funny. Shinkaruk is not that good.

Based on what? Do you watch him play? Do you even understand how statistics work? I love these "everyone else is out to lunch" posts that don't involve any substance to actually support your argument. Even if Shinkaruk is "not that good" it's still ridiculous to trade a top 5 scorer at the AHL level in his draft + 3 year for a waiver eligible tweener.
 

NucksRuleYep

Registered User
Feb 19, 2013
1,654
150
If i were a centre right now id be worried. No one other than Henrik and Sutter is safe at this point.

It worries me every day that Horvat isnt a GMJB guy. He didnt draft him. To JB horvat is a step child. Just like shink was.
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,056
6,628
Canucks Army had a chart up a while back, of NHL Draft success in the 2000's. From 2000-2012, not only were the Canucks the worst drafting team in the NHL, they were the worst by a STAGGERING margin. They were on an island of terrible, all on their own, miles from anyone.

There are people who believe that the difference between a competitive Canucks squad and a terrible one is Luca Sbisa's overpayment, Linden Vey's ice team, the loss of Zack Kassian, and the departure of Eddie Lack. I'm going to be frank when I say I think those people are [MOD]. There's a long list of unpopular deck chair shuffling being undertaken by Benning, and absolutely none of it has any meaningful impact on the team. We've got 3-5 years of suck ahead, and we were always going to have that suck, and the only relevant factor in how we come through it is going to be how well we draft.


The last phrase is simply not true. If anything, what is happening in TOR directly refutes the notion. It's not just how well the team drafts, it's about everything a GM does. From very small deals to very big moves. Everything matters. To get picks as the Leafs have recently received, matters. That feeds into drafting well (frequency) _and_ making better trades (more assets). Their recent UFA signings, will be flipped, and that also matters. Truly, a GM has to be 'triple threat' to make any team good long-term. It's not just about drafting well.

Look at what you say above: From 2000-2012 the Canucks were the worst drafting team by a "STAGGERING margin". How then were they able to sustain a playoff team during that time period? They didn't draft well remember? Yet, they only missed 4 times in a span of 15 years (2015)... That's a pretty good 'hit rate' for poor drafting team no? What could that be due to?

The reality is that these moves either don't need to be made, or they are received as poor ones in the here and now. This does not bode well. Hence, the reaction. Completely valid. It's not about eventually seeing said players "lift cups". It's about having all current information and seeing incongruous events transpire . Many people feel that Benning continually makes the wrong decision, time and again. Do you have anything to refute this other than a "wait and see"? Or is it because people don't wait and see, is it enough to dismiss a strong reaction to these moves in the here and now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad