VanJack
Registered User
- Jul 11, 2014
- 21,251
- 14,424
Following this whole 'trade Boeser' debate makes wonder about something I've always suspected about Benning and the Canucks. They tend to dramatically over-rate their own players. A lot of NHL GM's are guilty of this, but Vancouver might be the worst.
Nothing against Boeser, but he's coming off a very disappointing offensive season imo. Then there's the injuries....a serious back injury and chronic wrist problems, which might explain why his shot has lost some its zip. As far as these playoffs I'd rate him as 'OK'....solid in the first series against the Wild, less impactful against the Blues and MIA against Vegas.
Certainly he's a piece that the Canucks could trade, based on what they have in the pipeline. But somehow people recoil in horror.
It's the same reason why Benning traded for Sutter and Gudbranson because they were 'foundational players', supposedly a legit top two center and a top four d-man (sic). Then he doubled down by signing them to expensive extensions against all logic.
Then there's the saga of Chris Tanev....Should have been traded three years ago when his value was at the top of the market. It's not like the Canucks were a contender at the time. In fact they were in involuntary 'tank mode' as one of the worst teams in the NHL. Now they risk losing him for nothing.
In the words of 'the Gambler, the good GM's know when to 'hold-em' and know when to 'throw-em'. Sometimes you have just have to roll the dice. Posters were universally down on the Miller trade and weren't thrilled with the Motte deal either. But look at how they worked out.
.
Nothing against Boeser, but he's coming off a very disappointing offensive season imo. Then there's the injuries....a serious back injury and chronic wrist problems, which might explain why his shot has lost some its zip. As far as these playoffs I'd rate him as 'OK'....solid in the first series against the Wild, less impactful against the Blues and MIA against Vegas.
Certainly he's a piece that the Canucks could trade, based on what they have in the pipeline. But somehow people recoil in horror.
It's the same reason why Benning traded for Sutter and Gudbranson because they were 'foundational players', supposedly a legit top two center and a top four d-man (sic). Then he doubled down by signing them to expensive extensions against all logic.
Then there's the saga of Chris Tanev....Should have been traded three years ago when his value was at the top of the market. It's not like the Canucks were a contender at the time. In fact they were in involuntary 'tank mode' as one of the worst teams in the NHL. Now they risk losing him for nothing.
In the words of 'the Gambler, the good GM's know when to 'hold-em' and know when to 'throw-em'. Sometimes you have just have to roll the dice. Posters were universally down on the Miller trade and weren't thrilled with the Motte deal either. But look at how they worked out.
.