Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CAR] Canucks acquire 2015 3rd (66TH OA), 2016 7th for G Eddie Lack

[Wisp]

He's allowed to be positive about the team, you know

there's a double standard going on here.

because he's being blindly optimistic he's allowed to disparage dissenters as 'chicken littles' ?

 

[The Stig]

Ok but you guys are acting like the offseason is over and no more trades are to be had. We could still see a few players shipped off or a couple cheaper guys come back for someone like Bieksa.

 

[Wisp]

one final year of league average-to-above-average goaltending from Eddie is worth more in this third.

not sure this team deserves to be saved, though.

 

[The Stig]

there's a double standard going on here.

because he's being blindly optimistic he's allowed to disparage dissenters as 'chicken littles' ?

But who says it's blind optimism? There are things to be positive about. Just because you dont think there is, doesnt mean it's just blind optimism.

 

[Derp Kassian]

one final year of league average-to-above-average goaltending from Eddie is worth more in this third.

not sure this team deserves to be saved, though.

It's going to be scorched earth with only the Sedins-Tanev and maybe Edler surviving.

 

[RandV]

I now firmly believe that they chose to trade Lack over Markstrom because they thought they couldn't sign Lack next summer for two reasons:
1. Lack believes he deserves a shot at being a #1 and he's not going to get it while Miller is still here.
2. Lack will be asking north of $4M as a UFA (and he'll get it from some team) and the canucks will not pay that when they're paying Miller $6M. They also may not believe Lack is worth >$4M.

I thought this before but today's comments from Linden pretty much confirmed it in my mind.

It all goes back to signing Miller in the first place. I believe Benning himself said something to this matter when talking about the return on Lack today, that teams in the East don't watch the West as much and may undervalue guys that play here, as seen with Talbot vs Lack. And as seen when he took over the team likely didn't pay any attention to what anyone in the organization said about Lack and signed Miller to that horrible contract.

Back to the point, Lack wants to be a starter and has UFA rights next season. The way the new management and coaching treated him last season: remember he was on pace for 19 starts in a pure backup role before Miller got injured, and in the playoffs they rushed Miller back in and stuck with him the moment Lack faltered... why the hell would would Lack resign here? Regardless of how Lack plays they would still start Miller first believing he has this mystical 'veteran presence'. Lack would just be a backup again which doesn't help his negotiating stance as a UFA.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

Ok but you guys are acting like the offseason is over and no more trades are to be had. We could still see a few players shipped off or a couple cheaper guys come back for someone like Bieksa.

Which is even more concerning since Bennings alleged strength is drafting and his trading/signings have been ho hum at best.

 

[RobertKron]

Ok but you guys are acting like the offseason is over and no more trades are to be had. We could still see a few players shipped off or a couple cheaper guys come back for someone like Bieksa.

Sure, that's fine. But you usually don't improve the team when you're dumping cap dollars to be able to field a full roster. You almost definitely don't improve the team as much as the Canucks' direct competitors have improved so far.

 

[tc 23]

Ok but you guys are acting like the offseason is over and no more trades are to be had. We could still see a few players shipped off or a couple cheaper guys come back for someone like Bieksa.

The thing with that though is that since we're backed into a corner, we basically have to shed salary and other teams know that. With so many other teams also backed into a corner, many teams are looking to shed salary as well. Because of this, we'll likely be fleeced in any trade shipping players out without taking salary back. This is another big problem in itself (one that's largely self-inflicted, I might add).

 

[Wisp]

Ok but you guys are acting like the offseason is over and no more trades are to be had. We could still see a few players shipped off or a couple cheaper guys come back for someone like Bieksa.

they would have to dramatically reformat this team to save it from its demise. Benning's trading ability leaves a lot to be desired. allegedly the bieska trade will only return a 2nd round pick. i don't think that's going to cut it.

they are a bad defensive team made the playoffs by grace of unsustainable goaltending. their best bet to repeat that is gone. Miller is an unlikely savior - he was below average last year and coming off surgery. it sucks to say, but... being positive about the canucks situation is not being objective.

 

[RobertKron]

But who says it's blind optimism? There are things to be positive about. Just because you dont think there is, doesnt mean it's just blind optimism.

Okay. That's great. Then don't claim that criticism is "unjustified" and then get upset when people post justifications of their critical point of view.

Telling someone that their point of view is unjustified is pretty much the most direct way of inviting them to lay out the reasons why they believe their point of view to be correct.

 

[The Stig]

they would have to dramatically reformat this team to save it from its demise. Benning's trading ability leaves a lot to be desired. allegedly the bieska trade will only return a 2nd round pick. i don't think that's going to cut it.

they are a bad defensive team made the playoffs by grace of unsustainable goaltending. their best bet to repeat that is gone. Miller is an unlikely savior - he was below average last year and coming off surgery. it sucks to say, but... being positive about the canucks situation is not being objective.

Then we tank and you all get your wish. So whats the problem?

 

[RobertKron]

Then we tank and you all get your wish. So whats the problem?

What? You're the one that initiated this entire discussion. There's no problem. You asked a question, and people have answered it. We are engaging in discussion on a discussion forum.

 

[arttk]

Then we tank and you all get your wish. So whats the problem?

The management don't want to tank, so they might do something even more stupid and trade away picks for short term fixes.

 

[Wisp]

But who says it's blind optimism? There are things to be positive about. Just because you dont think there is, doesnt mean it's just blind optimism.

I'm positive about the strength of the team's prospect pool and underlying youth. it's not optimal, but it's strong.

I'm positive that this declining team will finally be in the position to finally tank for some elite first line talent next year.

I'm not positive about the Canucks chances for making the playoffs this year.

I'm not positive on the managment group. I am positive some people are getting fired soon!

 

[GPNuck]

The management don't want to tank, so they might do something even more stupid and trade away picks for short term fixes.

Or maybe they are pretending they want to win? I truly think we'll be picking top 5 next year

 

[RandV]

Im still holding on to false hope. My thought is maybe benning wants to keep the team competitive, but at the deadline next year if the Canucks are out of it, we would have a great opportunity to get a haul of picks and prospects going into 2016 from bieksa, hamhuis, and vrbata. Then if things continue to go downhill (which im sure they will) they could have the option to flip the sedins for the last year of their contracts somewhere they can compete with 1 @ 50% retained salary (dont say its nuts stranger things have happened). Its not nuts to think a contending team could take on 10 million in cap space, especially if we took a cap dump back. By then, we should be getting close to having top 5 picks for at least a couple years, and some pretty good prospect depth already.

Thats totally what benning is thinking...right?....Right?

It remains to be seen what will happen, if we're close enough to a playoff spot that the team doesn't sell, or if we're completely out of it and then how much Benning does sell off. There's a lot of pieces to sell, so Benning could unintentionally drive us through the tank and set us up well for the future with a lot of drafting the next couple of seasons.

But it's going to need to be someone else that sets the team straight. Regardless of how well Benning does at the draft table, from what we've seen from his other abilities as a GM, namely pro talent evaluation, contract negotiation, and trades, unless he shows a major improvement we're never going to go anywhere with him running the team. Any goof can tank a team and accumulate picks, but those other three aspects of a manager I listed are vital for pulling a team out of the basement and into contention.

 

[Wisp]

Then we tank and you all get your wish. So whats the problem?

there's some uncertainly about who is in charge of the tank. I don't trust this managment group.

 

[D0ctorCool]

Then we tank and you all get your wish. So whats the problem?

Our owners are preying on peoples blind optimism to fill the seats. This rebuild should've happened two years ago and hasn't yet. It may never happen. That's the problem. We damn near gave up futures for one year of Lucic.

 

[The Stig]

What? You're the one that initiated this entire discussion. There's no problem. You asked a question, and people have answered it. We are engaging in discussion on a discussion forum.

See there appears to be a problem though, because people seem to be upset. Most of the people want them to blow it up and tank, but are upset we got rid of the goalie that would help us win more. So chances are we lose more and blow it up at the deadline. Which people want. But are upset about it possibly happening. So I just dont get it.

 

[RobertKron]

See there appears to be a problem though, because people seem to be upset. Most of the people want them to blow it up and tank, but are upset we got rid of the goalie that would help us win more. So chances are we lose more and blow it up at the deadline. Which people want. But are upset about it possibly happening. So I just dont get it.

You don't see a difference between management actively making a decision to rebuild the team, and weather some rough times in the interim, versus management trying to remain competitive and just plain doing a bad job of it? And you don't understand why people who would prefer the team take the first route are upset when it becomes apparent to them that the second situation is the one that is unfolding?

And, as an aside now I guess, since I forgot to ask earlier: could you explain how the team doesn't need to fill six roster spots?

 

[BimJenning]

See there appears to be a problem though, because people seem to be upset. Most of the people want them to blow it up and tank, but are upset we got rid of the goalie that would help us win more. So chances are we lose more and blow it up at the deadline. Which people want. But are upset about it possibly happening. So I just dont get it.

People are upset because we just traded away the better asset than what we kept for scraps. Tank or not, that is absolutely awful asset management, particularly when you inherited the initial, better asset. That and he managed to negotiate against himself by setting an initial lower target for a trade. Literally zero people I know thought Lack would go for less than a 2nd, and I live in Calgary, where they crap on every Canuck asset.

 

[D0ctorCool]

See there appears to be a problem though, because people seem to be upset. Most of the people want them to blow it up and tank, but are upset we got rid of the goalie that would help us win more. So chances are we lose more and blow it up at the deadline. Which people want. But are upset about it possibly happening. So I just dont get it.

Here's the thing... I think Benning's mismanagement has royally upset two divergent groups.

He's somehow managing to simultaneously fail at retooling and tanking. It's quite the achievement actually.

 

[Huggy]

You don't see a difference between management actively making a decision to rebuild the team, and weather some rough times in the interim, versus management trying to remain competitive and just plain doing a bad job of it? And you don't understand why people who would prefer the team take the first route are upset when it becomes apparent to them that the second situation is the one that is unfolding?

And, as an aside now I guess, since I forgot to ask earlier: could you explain how the team doesn't need to fill six roster spots?

The only thing that needs to be questioned is why would anyone buy tickets when they admit they're rebuilding. Once the rebuild is over tickets will cost 150 on avg, people are saving money for the good years.

i will enjoy your response.

 

[denkiteki]

It all goes back to signing Miller in the first place. I believe Benning himself said something to this matter when talking about the return on Lack today, that teams in the East don't watch the West as much and may undervalue guys that play here, as seen with Talbot vs Lack. And as seen when he took over the team likely didn't pay any attention to what anyone in the organization said about Lack and signed Miller to that horrible contract.

Back to the point, Lack wants to be a starter and has UFA rights next season. The way the new management and coaching treated him last season: remember he was on pace for 19 starts in a pure backup role before Miller got injured, and in the playoffs they rushed Miller back in and stuck with him the moment Lack faltered... why the hell would would Lack resign here? Regardless of how Lack plays they would still start Miller first believing he has this mystical 'veteran presence'. Lack would just be a backup again which doesn't help his negotiating stance as a UFA.

You can't believe everything a player says but Lack did say he liked being here and wanted to stay recently. All signs suggest Lack enjoyed his time here and might have resigned if we gave him a legitimate offer. Question is can we afford him given our salary structure. He likely will command more money than we want to spend. The other question is, we had to make a decision now because Markstrom needs to clear waiver and he won't. Markstrom is really a goalie with too much upside to lose right now. He could still be a franchise goalie.

I agree and have said all along the Miller signing was a huge mistake. We had a good thing going in net and we had to waste money on a useless contract. Actually every signing Benning made (except the automatic ELC/sub 1 million contract) have been bad with the exception of RV... who i believe wasn't even his first choice. Iggy picked Avs so RV was his 2nd option. All the other >1 mil contract he has signed have been horrible.

1 year after, i really wish we just stuck with MG. Sure he couldn't make the big trades and is drafting might be iffy (tho this year, it looks like his drafting was turning around, same with the some of the UDFA he signed). But with MG, at least you had hope and you weren't stuck with too many bad contracts. You actually got more good contracts than bad. Right now i can't say any of Bennings contracts have been good (RV was good except its only 2 years and given our roster, we should get whatever asset we can for him at the deadline).