Confirmed with Link: [VAN/VGK] Canucks acquire F Brendan Leipsic for D Philip Holm

[CanaFan]

This was roster in Oct

Baertschi Horvat Boeser
Sedin Sedin Vanek
Eriksson Sutter Grandlund
Gaunce Gagner Virtanen
Dorsett retired
Burmistrov Russia

Edler Tanev.
MDZ Gudbranson
Hutton Stecher
Pouliot Biega

Markstrom
Nilsson

Who should we sell and what we could of got back?

I’d start with Gudbranson for McCann and the 33rd pick and Sutter for Bonino, 2nd, and Forsling.

 

[Canucks1096]

Always this old chestnut. Like the only choice is between saying we want to make playoffs or we want to lose every game. Go look up how Babcock handled his first press conference when he joined the Leafs for a realistic middle

The Leafs rebuild is completely different from the Canucks. There rebuild they had the secondary pieces like Kadri Bozak and JVR in place. Have 2 good young D with Rielly and Gardiner.

With some good drafting and luck.with Nylander Marner and Matthews. There rebuild was finished like that.

 

[CanaFan]

This nhl is all about speed and Grabner is one of fastest player in the nhl. If a team trades a 2nd round pick for him. It doesn't mean our player is worth a second round pick as well.

Tanev is tradeable.

You seem to be better at finding the silver lining in every player who isn’t a Canuck. You sure you actually like this team?

 

[CanaFan]

The Leafs rebuild is completely different from the Canucks. There rebuild they had the secondary pieces like Kadri Bozak and JVR in place. Have 2 good young D with Rielly and Gardiner.

With some good drafting and luck.with Nylander Marner and Matthews. There rebuild was finished like that.

You asked what Benning could have said different. I gave you an example of how a team can treat the fans like adults and not lie to them. Nothing in your post negates that example.

 

[Canucks1096]

You seem to be better at finding the silver lining in every player who isn’t a Canuck. You sure you actually like this team?

Yes I am sure. For me I am a Canucks fans that call things the way I see it. I don't lie to myself.

 

[CanaFan]

Yes I am sure. For me I am a Canucks fans that call things the way I see it. I don't lie to myself.

If we’d had this discussion a week before the TDL I bet you’d have told me Philip Holm was worthless too, right?

 

[Canucks1096]

Literally any player on the roster since 2014 save Sedins, Edler, and Horvat.

How about Higgins in 2014? Hamhuis in 2015? Miller in 2016? Gudbranson this year? Del Zotto? Sutter?

How about looking for draft picks instead of junk like Motte, Pouliot, and Goldobin?

How about not wasting picks and prospects to acquire junk Gudbranson, Clendenning, Vey, Granlund, and Sutter?

I dunno man, there’s any number of options if you actually look. Seems you don’t really want to though.

I think we are having 2 different debates now. Seem like you are debating about what Benning should of did since day 1. And I am debating about we are rebuilding now because the other user said we are not rebuilding now.

Very hard to have debate if we both have a different topic.

 

[CanaFan]

I think we are having 2 different debates now. Seem like you are debating about what Benning should of did since day 1. And I am debating about we are rebuilding now because the other user said we are not rebuilding now.

Very hard to have debate if we both have a different topic.

What have we done to suggest we are rebuilding now?

 

[Canucks1096]

What have we done to suggest we are rebuilding now?

Let me ask you this first. What is your definition of a rebuild? Just give me a few sentences

 

[CanaFan]

Let me ask you this first. What is your definition of a rebuild? Just give me a few sentences

Already done for ya.

No but rebuilding does mean trading away assets for draft picks and prospects. There has been astonishingly few trades that fit that bill in Benning’s time here. Certainly the majority of his focus has been on acquiring low-end but NHL ready assets and signing UFAs.

 

[Canucks1096]

Already done for ya.

With the other user I did say we started the rebuild at the 2017 trade deadline when we traded Burrows and Hansen. This season traded Vanek. Try to get a draft pick but couldn't. Report that Edler doesn't want waive his no trade Clause so Canucks did have intention of moving him but Edler didn't want to waive. Off-season sign no long term contracts and sign all stop gap players. No more than a few year term. Also Benning might not be getting picks but he is not trading them left right and center like Before. He did trade 4th but we got a D prospect. back in Pouliot and not some old veteran. Also the players you talked about MDZ and Sutter should be traded.. cup contender usually trade for ufa and not players with term. You guys complain about the bad contracts so you think it's easy to get rid of these bad contracts for a draft pick?

Like what I said there is not much to sell aside from Tanev. We need to put players on the ice. A rebuild you dont jusy get rid of all your Veteran and play only the young guys.

About the Holm trade. A little but different because is Prospect. Thought we can get another prospects for him.

 

[CanaFan]

With the other user I did say we started the rebuild at the 2017 trade deadline when we traded Burrows and Hansen. This season traded Vanek. Try to get a draft pick but couldn't. Report that Edler doesn't want waive his no trade Clause so Canucks did have intention of moving him but Edler didn't want to waive. Off-season sign no long term contracts and sign all stop gap players. No more than a few year term. Also Benning might not be getting picks but he is not trading them left right and center like Before. He did trade 4th but we got a D prospect. back in Pouliot and not some old veteran. Also the players you talked about MDZ and Sutter should be traded.. cup contender usually trade for ufa and not players with term. You guys complain about the bad contracts so you think it's easy to get rid of these bad contracts for a draft pick?

Like what I said there is not much to sell aside from Tanev. We need to put players on the ice. A rebuild you dont jusy get rid of all your Veteran and play only the young guys.

About the Holm trade. A little but different because is Prospect. Thought we can get another prospects for him.

So we aren’t rebuilding cause Benning has assembled a bunch of players that no other teams could possibly want?

That’s a fair argument I guess. Personally I think if a team is willing to give something for a nothing player like Philip Holm then other players on this roster could get something too, but it’s hard to argue when Benning is either unwilling or unable to do it.

But whether by design or circumstance this team is certainly making the fewest rebuild moves of any bottom 3 team I’ve ever seen.

 

[Canucks1096]

So we aren’t rebuilding cause Benning has assembled a bunch of players that no other teams could possibly want?

That’s a fair argument I guess. Personally I think if a team is willing to give something for a nothing player like Philip Holm then other players on this roster could get something too, but it’s hard to argue when Benning is either unwilling or unable to do it.

But whether by design or circumstance this team is certainly making the fewest rebuild moves of any bottom 3 team I’ve ever seen.

So any rebuild you have to trade all the big contracts away?

So the young core is take over. So Young Core will be replacing the Sedins. So that is not a rebuild to you?

Yeah but Leipsic is a nothing player to Vegas. Leipsic did play some nhl games but didn't produce much. Both just played well in the AHL.

 

[CanaFan]

So any rebuild you have to trade all the big contracts away?

Nope, not all. More than what they’ve done though.

So the young core is take over. So Young Core will be replacing the Sedins. So that is not a rebuild to you?

What young core is that? Horvat was here already. Benning has added Boeser. Pettersson is inevitable. Who is there besides those 2?

Yeah but Leipsic is a nothing player to Vegas. Leipsic did play some nhl games but didn't produce much. Both just played well in the AHL.

Fair enough, Leipsic is a nothing player. Same as Motte. Same as Dowd. Same as Pouliot. Same as Goldobin. Same as Granlund. Same as Gudbranson. Same as Clendenning. Same as Sutter. Same as Pedan. Same as Vey.

What kind of rebuild has the majority of focus being on acquiring nothing players?

 

[Canucks1096]

Nope, not all. More than what they’ve done though.



What young core is that? Horvat was here already. Benning has added Boeser. Pettersson is inevitable. Who is there besides those 2?



Fair enough, Leipsic is a nothing player. Same as Motte. Same as Dowd. Same as Pouliot. Same as Goldobin. Same as Granlund. Same as Gudbranson. Same as Clendenning. Same as Sutter. Same as Pedan. Same as Vey.

What kind of rebuild has the majority of focus being on acquiring nothing players?

1 If we look at all the Vets on this team. Sedins Vanek Eriksson Sutter Gagner Edler MDZ Tanev. Sedins and Edler don't want to waive. Vanek was traded but he didn't have much value. Gagner and MDZ are stop gap players. Cup contender dont trade secodnary players with term. Eriksson has no value with that contract. Sutter he is overpaid but I would just keep him. Let him play the tough mins and let Horvat and Pettersson get the easier matchup.

2 yes Horvat was here already but Benning is building the team around him. If you look at all the contracts that were signed. Nilsson 2yr term because they expect Demko to be ready in 2yrs. MDZ 2yrs they expect Juolevi to be ready like in year or two. Burmistrov was signed for 1yr because they expect Gaudette to be ready in a year. Gagner was 3yrs. I don't think they expected Pettersson to be this good so fast. I think the plan was for him to come to NA in a few years. So many of moves on what there doing since March 2017 deadline is about letting the young players take over when the stop gap contract ends.

3 I did say we are rebuidling but I never said it was good rebuild. You can't expect a hot Returns for most of the players. Good players don't fall on trees. Also like I said before you need a full roster so you need to get players.

Seem like we are going around circles a little bit. Why don' we just say this it is rebuild but it's just not a really good one. Is that fair?

 

[Lindgren]

If an argument can be refuted then clearly it is not a good argument. The problem is when those arguments are refuted and those people ignore it and continue to act like their point of view is the right one.

There’s no hyperbole. Jim Benning is the worst GM in Canucks history, and the worst GM in the nhl.

An argument can be rational, evidence based, and wrong (such as, for example, the famous theory regarding "unique points"). The accusation has been that the pro-Benning crowd produce no such arguments, and that's false (and there's evidence of this not far back in this thread).

The implication that the anti-Benning crowd is strictly rational is also, obviously, false.

If you think you haven't been guilty of hyperbole, well, at that point it becomes laughable that you would accuse anyone of irrationality.

 

[Melvin]

An argument can be rational, evidence based, and wrong (such as, for example, the famous theory regarding "unique points"). The accusation has been that the pro-Benning crowd produce no such arguments, and that's false (and there's evidence of this not far back in this thread).

The implication that the anti-Benning crowd is strictly rational is also, obviously, false.

If you think you haven't been guilty of hyperbole, well, at that point it becomes laughable that you would accuse anyone of irrationality.

If you can point out a sound argument that chefvoyaredee and this buddies have made I will give you a shiny dollar.

 

[Lindgren]

If you can point out a sound argument that chefvoyaredee and this buddies have made I will give you a shiny dollar.

I don't know who his buddies are. Note that I didn't say there was a "sound" pro-Benning argument. I said there were such arguments that had a clear logic and were evidence-based.

You can't have a reasonable debate with someone if your position is that any position that is wrong is irrational or illogical and not evidence-based.

 

[Melvin]

I don't know who his buddies are. Note that I didn't say there was a "sound" pro-Benning argument. I said there were such arguments that had a clear logic and were evidence-based.

You can't have a reasonable debate with someone if your position is that any position that is wrong is irrational or illogical and not evidence-based.

I don't think that anyone has taken that position.

I think that you are taking what is being said about this particular group of people from CC and contorting it into unsupported conclusions.

 

[Lindgren]

I don't think that anyone has taken that position.

I think that position is implicit, and clearly so, in a variety of posts in this thread — from Y2K in particular, but several others as well. I'll try to say no more, because most of these posts of mine are contributing to taking the thread off-topic.

On topic, I sort of like the Leipsic deal, in a very minor way. I think there's more of a chance that Leipsic could be turned into a draft pick at some point than there was with Holm.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't think that anyone has taken that position.

I think I would take that position.

An argument can be rational, evidence based, and wrong (such as, for example, the famous theory regarding "unique points").

I think you may be using the term "rational" improperly. A rationally sound argument with true premises is by definition, true. Also, in what world was Y2KCanucks' "unique points" argument rationally sound? It's famous because everyone thought the logic was ridiculous.

If an attempt to be rational is incorrect, then it wasn't rational, and there was a hole in the logic.

 

[Lindgren]

I think I would take that position.I think you may be using the term "rational" improperly. A rationally sound argument with true premises is by definition, true. Also, in what world was Y2KCanucks' "unique points" argument rationally sound? It's famous because everyone thought the logic was ridiculous.

I didn't say "rationally sound." I said "rational." If you think any argument that can be shown to be wrong is an argument that is irrational, then you are the one who has an idiosyncratic understanding of the word.

 

[Shareefruck]

I didn't say "rationally sound." I said "rational." If you think any argument that can be show to be wrong is an argument that is irrational, then you are the one who has an idiosyncratic understanding of the word.

Being rational requires that someone uses valid arguments. If they're basing their premises on real evidence, then I'm assuming you mean that their premises are factual/true, correct? The combination of those two things would make an argument sound.

The moment you use reasoning that wouldn't always result in a true conclusion 100% of the time, given correct evidence, you're no longer being rational.

What would be the exception to that? Other than possibly mistaking "trying to be rational" with "being rational" (which is what I assumed), I'm not sure what you could mean.

 

[Lindgren]

Being rational requires that someone uses valid arguments. If they're basing their premises on real evidence, then I'm assuming you mean that their premises are factual/true, correct? The combination of those two things would make an argument sound.

The moment you use reasoning that wouldn't always result in a true conclusion 100% of the time, given correct evidence, you're no longer being rational.

What would be the exception to that? Other than possibly mistaking "trying to be rational" with "being rational" (which is what I assumed), I'm not sure what you could mean.

So, being "irrational" is precisely equivalent to being wrong? When you say that an argument with which you disagree is "irrational," you've added no important content, because the fact that you disagree with it means that you think it's wrong, which means that you think it's irrational? I think that's odd.
If you prefer, however, I'll accept that I'm talking about "trying to be rational." Some of those critical of the pro-Benning side make the claim that nobody on that side "tries" to be rational: they don't present evidence or, if they do, they make no serious effort to analyze that evidence in a reasonable way.

 

[Shareefruck]

So, being "irrational" is precisely equivalent to being wrong? When you say that an argument with which you disagree is "irrational," you've added no important content, because the fact that you disagree with it means that you think it's wrong, which means that you think it's irrational? I think that's odd.

No. Being "irrational" is precisely equivalent to "using bad/unreliable reasoning", regardless of whether it turns out to be right or wrong. However, good reasoning combined with good evidence should always result in correct conclusions, otherwise, it's not actually good reasoning. Something rational/reasonable CAN be wrong, but only if the premise was based on wrong information/no evidence. You can't be both rational but also have reasoning that is unreliable-- that doesn't make any sense.

So no, using that logic, you couldn't claim that someone is irrational just because you don't think something is true. You could claim that they're irrational if you could prove that it was untrue, though.

But that was never the claim anyways. I think the original claim made was that someone is irrational because they ignore the flaws pointed out in their arguments. If that's true, then it's fair claim, because it means they can't show that their initial reasoning actually holds up. (Note-- I'm not making this argument myself)