Playoffs

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Locked
olpaddy
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 645
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:15 pm

Re: Playoffs

Post by olpaddy »

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 8:54 pm Willie D was a shitty coach, but it was a shitty roster
the best part of this video :50 in the coaches come back to the bench Willie D still carrying that fucking clipboard... I think he pisses with that clipboard in his hands I think he draws up plays on that clipboard when hes fucking he's old school like that he doesn't need a tablet he is out there putting on a sexual clinic the likes of which have never been seen with the moves that he uses off that fucking clipboard there is no other logical explanation... thats why they call him WILLIE D.. 8-)

nuckster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:35 am
Location: Penticton

Re: Playoffs

Post by nuckster »

vic wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 6:34 pm Sbisa being on the ice with under 5 to play holding on to a 1-goal lead in a game that will send his team to the SCF.

Gallant gave an interview a short while ago and was asked about making players accountable. His response was somewhere along the lines of he doesn't believe in that. He said when you hold players accountable after the make a mistake then every time they hit the ice they are focusing on not making that mistake and getting away from playing hockey.

Willie D set this team so far back. He should have been let go after that debacle against Calgary and then as soon as the team started to falter in his 2nd session behind the bench.
I like Gallant's philosophy, especially when you consider how applicable it is for supporting creative playmakers, like the up-and-coming Petterson. The Canucks version of Gallant's philosophy applies to the vets while the rookies get 'punished' all the time and acquire playing time as a result of injuries/necessity. Green isnt quite as bad as WD, but he sure looked daft when he insisted on holding Boeser out of the line-up for the first two games of the season last year. But people can rationalize-justify just about anything.
Gallant's approach is refreshing. Ya have to believe that a player already knows when they've fucked up, hardly a need to keep them benched afterwards. I would think that a one to one video review after the game would suffice!?
cc oldtimer
Ronning's Ghost
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: New Westminster

Re: Playoffs

Post by Ronning's Ghost »

Strangelove wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:07 pm
Canucks needed a physical #5 dman so they had Sbisa included in the Kesler trade as a throw-in.

Giving up a physical #5 dman in the expansion draft is pretty good considering what other teams gave up.

BTW is a physical #5 dman who can fill-in in the top-4 a "good player" or a "poor player"?? :?

(or somewhere in between)
Redefining Sbisa to avoid the good/bad dichotomy doesn't change the logic of the asset management. Either he was an asset worth having or he wasn't.

If he was worth having, then as Blob said:
Blob Mckenzie wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 6:57 am So if he was so fucking valuable why not expose 44 instead? Trade one of Tanev or Edler if you have to make room for the stalWART. Or protect less forwards and keep that amazing top 4 d together. It doesn’t add up
Furthermore:
Strangelove wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:07 pm Every team lost an "asset" in the expansion draft, come on Cliffy...
A complete red herring. Yes, of course everyone lost an asset in the expansion draft. The point is the value of the asset. If Sbisa was not one of the 3 defensemen worth protecting, he wasn't much of an asset, and the Kesler trade looks even worse in retrospect.
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 19129
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Playoffs

Post by Hockey Widow »

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 11:25 am
Strangelove wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:07 pm
Canucks needed a physical #5 dman so they had Sbisa included in the Kesler trade as a throw-in.

Giving up a physical #5 dman in the expansion draft is pretty good considering what other teams gave up.

BTW is a physical #5 dman who can fill-in in the top-4 a "good player" or a "poor player"?? :?

(or somewhere in between)
Redefining Sbisa to avoid the good/bad dichotomy doesn't change the logic of the asset management. Either he was an asset worth having or he wasn't.

If he was worth having, then as Blob said:
Blob Mckenzie wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 6:57 am So if he was so fucking valuable why not expose 44 instead? Trade one of Tanev or Edler if you have to make room for the stalWART. Or protect less forwards and keep that amazing top 4 d together. It doesn’t add up
Furthermore:
Strangelove wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:07 pm Every team lost an "asset" in the expansion draft, come on Cliffy...
A complete red herring. Yes, of course everyone lost an asset in the expansion draft. The point is the value of the asset. If Sbisa was not one of the 3 defensemen worth protecting, he wasn't much of an asset, and the Kesler trade looks even worse in retrospect.
Kesler trade was horrible. Few argue that. But with his NTC and agreeing to waive to only one team after demanding a trade kinda sucked.

The screw up was unde Gillis at the TDD. He had deals worked out for both Kesler and Edler but water boy had decided he was going to fire Gillis so he pulled the plug on any trade. According to Anaheim their offer for Kesler was much better at the TDD because they would have had Kesler for that year’s playoff run.

Benning knew the trade was bad and had seriously contemplated not trading Kesler to either force Anaheim to increase the offer or force Kesler to expand his list. The situation became untenable as Kesler and his agent were bombarding Benning with several harassing phone calls a day demanding he make the trade, something Anaheim knew about.

In the end, after days of discussing it internally Benning decided the best thing to do was to make the trade.

But a good trade, no. I dont know anyone who thought it was a good trade. I know a lot of people who thought it was a good trade UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Sbisa, can play 3-6 on a lot of teams. He’s no top two, a stretch to be top four on an otherwise strong Dcorps. But on most teams with an average D he can play 3-6, depending. His last season with us was his best. He filled in admirably given all the injuries. Had we not traded for Gudbranson he would have been protected. Benning did try to trade him but wanted at least a 2nd. I was advocating for Benning to take anything, even the 3rd he was allegedly offered, I say allegedly because Benning has denied this, rather than risk losing him for nothing.

But ya, the Kesler trade sucked. Except we did draft McCann and trade for Dorset so there’s that :mrgreen:
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Mickey107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 18820
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: Playoffs

Post by Mickey107 »

Hockey Widow wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 11:48 am
Ronning's Ghost wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 11:25 am
Strangelove wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:07 pm
Canucks needed a physical #5 dman so they had Sbisa included in the Kesler trade as a throw-in.

Giving up a physical #5 dman in the expansion draft is pretty good considering what other teams gave up.

BTW is a physical #5 dman who can fill-in in the top-4 a "good player" or a "poor player"?? :?

(or somewhere in between)
Redefining Sbisa to avoid the good/bad dichotomy doesn't change the logic of the asset management. Either he was an asset worth having or he wasn't.

If he was worth having, then as Blob said:
Blob Mckenzie wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 6:57 am So if he was so fucking valuable why not expose 44 instead? Trade one of Tanev or Edler if you have to make room for the stalWART. Or protect less forwards and keep that amazing top 4 d together. It doesn’t add up
Furthermore:
Strangelove wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:07 pm Every team lost an "asset" in the expansion draft, come on Cliffy...
A complete red herring. Yes, of course everyone lost an asset in the expansion draft. The point is the value of the asset. If Sbisa was not one of the 3 defensemen worth protecting, he wasn't much of an asset, and the Kesler trade looks even worse in retrospect.
Kesler trade was horrible. Few argue that. But with his NTC and agreeing to waive to only one team after demanding a trade kinda sucked.

The screw up was unde Gillis at the TDD. He had deals worked out for both Kesler and Edler but water boy had decided he was going to fire Gillis so he pulled the plug on any trade. According to Anaheim their offer for Kesler was much better at the TDD because they would have had Kesler for that year’s playoff run.

Benning knew the trade was bad and had seriously contemplated not trading Kesler to either force Anaheim to increase the offer or force Kesler to expand his list. The situation became untenable as Kesler and his agent were bombarding Benning with several harassing phone calls a day demanding he make the trade, something Anaheim knew about.

In the end, after days of discussing it internally Benning decided the best thing to do was to make the trade.

But a good trade, no. I dont know anyone who thought it was a good trade. I know a lot of people who thought it was a good trade UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Sbisa, can play 3-6 on a lot of teams. He’s no top two, a stretch to be top four on an otherwise strong Dcorps. But on most teams with an average D he can play 3-6, depending. His last season with us was his best. He filled in admirably given all the injuries. Had we not traded for Gudbranson he would have been protected. Benning did try to trade him but wanted at least a 2nd. I was advocating for Benning to take anything, even the 3rd he was allegedly offered, I say allegedly because Benning has denied this, rather than risk losing him for nothing.

But ya, the Kesler trade sucked. Except we did draft McCann and trade for Dorset so there’s that :mrgreen:
To this very day, I will say, as I did to everyone, not here, at the time,
'LET HIM SIT AND SWEAT'. Cry your eyes out, too bad.
Aquilini was too soft. He fell for it. He didn't read it right.
I understand, that was what Benning wanted to do.
As the months, and summer went by, Kesler would have realized that he was endangering his reputation,(further) and his career.
I swear, he would have come around to a more reasonable position.
Appreciate that our owner is willing to spend to the max but the fact is, he can be a fool and doesn't read the game well.
I do not think he has the most glorious reputation among the realm of owners either.
That puts any GM a tad behind the eight ball here... :evil:
"evolution"
ESQ
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4477
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Playoffs

Post by ESQ »

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 11:25 am
Strangelove wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:07 pm Every team lost an "asset" in the expansion draft, come on Cliffy...
A complete red herring. Yes, of course everyone lost an asset in the expansion draft. The point is the value of the asset. If Sbisa was not one of the 3 defensemen worth protecting, he wasn't much of an asset, and the Kesler trade looks even worse in retrospect.
This is the point you're missing. The rules of the expansion draft dictated, somebody had to go. Sbisa could have been an unquestionably good defenceman, if he was #4 on the depth chart the canucks would either expose him and lose him, or expose others and risk losing them. By Sbisa going unprotected, he gave value to the canucks by enabling them to protect other players that they saw a bigger role in the future plans. Losing a 4-5D, with only 1 year remaining on his contract, was definitely a high price, but somebody had to go to Vegas.
Redefining Sbisa to avoid the good/bad dichotomy doesn't change the logic of the asset management. Either he was an asset worth having or he wasn't.

Again, you're framing it incorrectly. Either he was an asset worth having and losing another player in the draft, or he was a player worth exposing in the draft. You're making it sound like he was bought out or waived.

You also seem to be saying that if he wasn't a top-3, then he wasn't "an asset worth having"?

Besides, one could argue that the fact he was selected in the draft confirms that he was a good player and, in the mind of GM-of-the-year/decade George McPhee, was worth using an expansion pick on. :lol:

But maybe we can all agree how much sweeter it is seeing Sbisa get a crack at the cup before Kesler does! :lol:
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31126
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Playoffs

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

Just because McPhee picked him doesn’t mean he was a good player. I’m sure if they could have declined picking a Canuck and instead could have taken a second player from another team they would have. They were forced to take a Vancouver player
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42955
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Playoffs

Post by Strangelove »

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 11:25 am
Strangelove wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:07 pm
Canucks needed a physical #5 dman so they had Sbisa included in the Kesler trade as a throw-in.

Giving up a physical #5 dman in the expansion draft is pretty good considering what other teams gave up.

BTW is a physical #5 dman who can fill-in in the top-4 a "good player" or a "poor player"?? :?

(or somewhere in between)
Redefining Sbisa to avoid the good/bad dichotomy doesn't change the logic of the asset management. Either he was an asset worth having or he wasn't.

If he was worth having, then as Blob said:
Blob Mckenzie wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 6:57 am So if he was so fucking valuable why not expose 44 instead? Trade one of Tanev or Edler if you have to make room for the stalWART. Or protect less forwards and keep that amazing top 4 d together. It doesn’t add up
Furthermore:
Strangelove wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:07 pm Every team lost an "asset" in the expansion draft, come on Cliffy...
A complete red herring. Yes, of course everyone lost an asset in the expansion draft. The point is the value of the asset. If Sbisa was not one of the 3 defensemen worth protecting, he wasn't much of an asset, and the Kesler trade looks even worse in retrospect.
You're not making any sense Cliff, there is no redefining of Sbisa going on, and there is no red herring.

Try re-reading my post and ESQ's above.

Sbisa was a throw-in depth-defenseman in the Kesler trade, the kind of player teams tend to give up in an expansion draft.

No one ever said he was a top-3...
____
Try to focus on someday.
Ronning's Ghost
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: New Westminster

Re: Playoffs

Post by Ronning's Ghost »

ESQ wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 5:27 pm Either he was an asset worth having and losing another player in the draft, or he was a player worth exposing in the draft.
Strangelove wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 6:31 pm Sbisa was a throw-in depth-defenseman in the Kesler trade, the kind of player teams tend to give up in an expansion draft.
"Worth exposing in draft" and "throw-in depth defenceman" both work out to the same thing: not a very valuable player. OK then we agree: the right player to expose.

But that being the case, clearly that shows that Benning didn't get much value for Kesler in the trade, if one of the pieces was (demonstrably) only a throw-in and worth exposing in the draft.
ESQ wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 5:27 pm You also seem to be saying that if he wasn't a top-3, then he wasn't "an asset worth having"?
I'm only saying that if he wasn't top-3, that he wasn't very much of an asset, considering what went the other way in the trade.
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Legend
Posts: 3724
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Playoffs

Post by Todd Bersnoozi »

I dunno, last I heard Kesler is pretty banged up and there's a big question mark as to how much is left in the tank. I heard he couldn't even practice and cannot play games on back to back nights. I think it's a leg injury, but not sure. I seem to recall one of our guys (Brandon Sutter?) completely blew past him in one of the games late in the season. The ducks knew he was a bit banged up, yet still gave him that fat extension. The team 1040 guys were saying Kes maybe one of the worst contracts in the league right now.

Sure we lost Sbisa, but he gave us a couple good years. He'd be a starting D-man for us if he wasn't claimed. As some1 here said, Pizza is going to be a UFA anyways, JB can get him back if he really wants him. B.Sutter and Guddy are just entering their prime years and have a ton of hockey in the tank. Give this trade a few more years and I think u guys will beg to differ. We'll prob win the trade just on default as the Ducks couldn't win the Cup with Kes and his career will prob be cut short.
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42955
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Playoffs

Post by Strangelove »

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 7:19 pm "Worth exposing in draft" and "throw-in depth defenceman" both work out to the same thing: not a very valuable player. OK then we agree: the right player to expose.

But that being the case, clearly that shows that Benning didn't get much value for Kesler in the trade, if one of the pieces was (demonstrably) only a throw-in and worth exposing in the draft.
You don't judge trades by throw-in pieces Cliff. :roll:
____
Try to focus on someday.
Ronning's Ghost
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: New Westminster

Re: Playoffs

Post by Ronning's Ghost »

Strangelove wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 11:14 am
Ronning's Ghost wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 7:19 pm "Worth exposing in draft" and "throw-in depth defenceman" both work out to the same thing: not a very valuable player. OK then we agree: the right player to expose.

But that being the case, clearly that shows that Benning didn't get much value for Kesler in the trade, if one of the pieces was (demonstrably) only a throw-in and worth exposing in the draft.
You don't judge trades by throw-in pieces Cliff. :roll:
Fair enough. What part was the centrepiece where he got most of the value, then?
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42955
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Playoffs

Post by Strangelove »

Obviously the 1st rounder and Bonino were the main pieces.

But you were focused on Sbisa, what happened? :D
____
Try to focus on someday.
Ronning's Ghost
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: New Westminster

Re: Playoffs

Post by Ronning's Ghost »

Strangelove wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 12:29 pm Obviously the 1st rounder and Bonino were the main pieces.

But you were focused on Sbisa, what happened? :D
I was focused on Sbisa as an indicator of the Canucks' ownership/management group's ability to manage an asset. Your argument seems to be based on the accounting principle of materiality, that is, Sbisa's value was/is too small to merit significant consideration. I can live with that. What you have to live with, then, is that Benning's return on a 29-year old Selke-winning centre was a 3rd line centre, a late first rounder, and a "throw in".

From my perspective, that doesn't look like genius-level hockey management.
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42955
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Playoffs

Post by Strangelove »

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 2:16 pm
Strangelove wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 12:29 pm Obviously the 1st rounder and Bonino were the main pieces.

But you were focused on Sbisa, what happened? :D
I was focused on Sbisa as an indicator of the Canucks' ownership/management group's ability to manage an asset. Your argument seems to be based on the accounting principle of materiality, that is, Sbisa's value was/is too small to merit significant consideration. I can live with that.
Materiality Principle? :roll:

Yeahno, I never said Sbisa was worthless.

A physical #5 dman who can step into the top 4 on occasion when necessary could be considered a significant asset.

However every team had to lose a significant asset in the expansion draft.

Most teams lost a more significant asset than Mr Sbisa

... so good asset management by Jimmy B!

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 2:16 pm What you have to live with, then, is that Benning's return on a 29-year old Selke-winning centre was a 3rd line centre, a late first rounder, and a "throw in".
Correction:

Bonino was a 2nd line centre on the Ducks when he was acquired (16:13 minutes per game)

... and he played 16:55 minutes per game while with your Vancouver Canucks.

Ass an asside, he was then traded for a younger centre who has since provided ~18:00 minutes per game.

... so good asset management by Jimmy B!

Most think Jimmy did well to acquire a 1st, Bonino, and Sbisa considering the Ducks/Kesler had a gun to his head.

Gee Cliffy, you must be the only fan in all of Canuckdom who didn't notice that gun! :mrgreen:

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 2:16 pm From my perspective, that doesn't look like genius-level hockey management.
That's because your perspective is a biased one.
____
Try to focus on someday.
Locked