Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CBJ] Canucks acquire F Tyler Motte, Jussi Jokinen for F Thomas Vanek

[vcanuck]

Yea, why would we care about trading Raphael Diaz for a lowly 5th round pick, guy is a depth D on an expiring contract looks to be retiring soon. What, like we are going to draft somebody useful with a 5th like Gaudette? Its going to take YEARS for him to develop anyways, not worth it. Much rather have a 23 years old AHL'er. Amirite?

but but i thought Benning was bad at drafting?

If there is someone that Benning likes in the later rounds he will trade for it.

 

[Jyrki21]

Can't understand all the 'haters' on this thread....if by some miracle Jimbo had extracted a draft pick for Vanek, it wouldn't have been much more than a fourth or fifth rounder....can anyone contemplate how long it takes for a kid selected that late in the draft to actually show up in the NHL, if at all?....3-4 years of development time, and likely at least a couple of years in the AHL.

As has been endlessly spelled out, you can sign all the Mottes you want for free. Vanek was an asset – the idea that he is magically the only NHL scorer on an expiring deal not worth a draft pick in the history of the NHL is so ridiculous as to be dismissed instantly. ("Not having a pick offered" because you made no effort to get one certainly doesn't count.) You get draft picks for the upside potential, not because you're hoping they turn into 4th line grinders. You don't simply weigh the present value of a draft pick every time you consider acquiring one, otherwise you will always lean toward the 4th-rounder. This is an incredibly bad strategy, although somehow one currently being employed by the management of the Vancouver Canucks, an ice hockey team in the highest league in the world worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Why am I not surprised that, in the age of intellectual laziness, the vocal extremists won't even except a neutral, more-measured outlook? Everything must be fire and brimstone because... well, we said so!

The golden mean fallacy is far lazier than actually observing evidence and arguing whether something is good or bad. The truth isn't always in the middle.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

but but i thought Benning was bad at drafting?

If there is someone that Benning likes in the later rounds he will trade for it.

Care to give an example?
And to your first point, I didn't say he is bad at drafting. But if he is indeed bad at it, at least he can mitigate that negative by acquiring more picks. Its a numbers game, more picks = higher chances of getting quality. Its not rocket science here.

 

[Hit the post]

If there is someone that Benning likes in the later rounds he will trade for it.

You mean make a trade to acquire a draft pick? How many times has Benning actually done this? Remember this is a rebuilding team not one that is trying to make some noise in the post-season right?

Anyhow back to the thread....good to get lots of depth in the bottom six and/or depth D. Now to the easy part of the job....

 

[Verviticus]

To be honest, anyone arguing too hard in any one direction, pro or anti-Benning, is just grasping. The guy has been at the helm for only four years. In his defense, he inherited a team full of aging veterans with NTCs, lead by two career-Canucks who were absolutely unmovable. In the 6 years prior to him joining the Canucks, Vancouver boasted one of the worst drafting records in all of professional sports. But anti-Benning zealots expected him to rebuild Rome in a day, even though he was the equivalent of a back-up goalie coming in at 5 to 0. On the other hand, pro-Benning posters ignore the mistakes he's made on his pro-scouting and trades, along with a horrible Loui Eriksson contract.

Like most things Canucks-related, those who subscribe to either end of the extremes are wrong. He's somewhere in the middle... He's missed on some draft picks and hit homeruns on others, building up one of the best prospect pools in the NHL. He's fleeced a few teams, on the trade front, and has also been on the losing side a few times. He's brought in some great signings and a few albatroses, as well.

At the end of the day, Benning has been a competent general manager. Nothing to really right home about. But as his draft picks start to make the NHL, we'll see if his vision is really going to work. At this point, it's still too soon to judge. I defend Benning's drafting record because it's one of the feathers in his cap and it peeves me to see the anti-Benning crew ignoring that and proclaiming that "every team has prospects as good as the Canucks". Just swallow your damn pride and admit that he has done a few things right.

But being level-headed and patient is not something most Canucks fans can wrap their head around.


It's obviously sarcasm. The Canucks made the playoffs the year they drafted Boeser and Pettersson was a tremendous pick, even at #5 (it could have been Glass, Rasmussen, Tippett, etc.)

why would you waste so much time writing so much nonsense?

 

[nowhereman]

why would you waste so much time writing so much nonsense?

I thought I was talking to adults. Turns out I wandered into a sandbox full of children...

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I thought I was talking to adults. Turns out I wandered into a sandbox full of children...

Tell us again how he "fleeced" people on the trade front...

 

[Soups On]

So..... what do we have in Motte?

Not a whole Motte tbh.

 

[Hit the post]

Tell us again how he "fleeced" people on the trade front...

Ryan Miller's parents won't let him talk to strangers.

 

[CanaFan]

I thought I was talking to adults. Turns out I wandered into a sandbox full of children...

The inflammatory tone of your posts really suggests otherwise. Some advice, spend more time simply making your case and less time casting aspersions at the people who you see as being on the other side. After calling everyone else an "anti Benning zealot" for the 10th time in one of your posts it sort of loses the moral high ground that you like to think you have.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

This thread has run its course.

Closed.