The Rebuild...

[Strangelove]

Lol "scoffers" is soooo last month!

Get with the program Dan, it's "genius-haters" now...

[Cousin Strawberry]

Lol "scoffers" is soooo last month!

Get with the program Dan, it's "genius-haters" now...

It feels like you think we're those european skeptics who were conviced the world was flat sitting on the backs of turtles while you and your 3 ships are gonna sail off the end of the world to prove us wrong... or die trying.

[Cousin Strawberry]

Ok I'm trippin balls. Thats fucken wacked lol

Ill change with the month...

[Ronning's Ghost]

RD just says the same thing over and over and over again, then 6 months later flips and says the exact opposite.

I've probably repeated myself, but I thought I had been fairly consistent. I am neither a Benning apologist nor a Benning detractor; I am a Benning skeptic. I haven't been excited by his approach to managing the Canucks, but I am prepared to be dazzled by the fruits of his genius if/when the great turnaround happens and said genius is finally laid bare for all to marvel at. I am also prepared for the Canucks to still not be very good in 2019-2020, and insist to Doc that we'd given his candidate the fair chance he asked for, and now it's time for another approach.

I am prepared to change my mind in the face of new evidence; perhaps that is the source of the 'flip' you cite. I'd be interested in an example of what you mean.

[Strangelove]

Listen Ghoster, Vey was considered a top prospect at the time of the trade.

No one here... no hockey experts anywhere... considered it a bad trade at the time.

Twas logical when put in perspective indeed!

Now, if say Vey had suffered a major concussion the next day

... would that have turned the trade from a good one to a "mistake in retrospect"?

(do you now see why that parenthetical qualifier had to be included?)

Well it just so happens Mr Vey did indeed suffer a head injury!

The kind that fucks you over when Daddy loves Auntie and they team up to try to murder Mommy.

Did that eventual course of action change the Vey trade from a good one to a bad one?

Danny, give Ghoster a toke, he needs it...

[Ronning's Ghost]

Listen Ghoster, Vey was considered a top prospect at the time of the trade.

No one here... no hockey experts anywhere... considered it a bad trade at the time.

Twas logical when put in perspective indeed!

Now, if say Vey had suffered a major concussion the next day

... would that have turned the trade from a good one to a "mistake in retrospect"?

(do you now see why that parenthetical qualifier had to be included?)

A carefully reasoned plan that didn't work was still, ultimately, a bad plan, and the kind of thing executives get fired over all the time.

I would argue it wasn't even that carefully reasoned a plan. In the Baertschi trade, which looks superficially similar, the Canucks traded a 53rd overall pick for a former 13th overall pick, moving up. That one worked well. In the Vey trade, the Canucks surrendered a 50th overall pick for a former 96th overall pick. That one didn't work so well.

You cite Vey's AHL numbers, but to most of us, it looks like the GM was throwing his new head coach a bone and letting him play his hunch. That was probably a mistake as well.

Now, if say Vey had suffered a major concussion the next day

... would that have turned the trade from a good one to a "mistake in retrospect"?

Well it just so happens Mr Vey did indeed suffer a head injury!

The kind that fucks you over when Daddy loves Auntie and they team up to try to murder Mommy.

I consider an investigation into a player's personal life part of responsible due diligence before making a trade or a draft selection. Like whether the big, mobile Russian defenceman you're interested in has a Russian fiance who doesn't speak English, and how she feels about coming to Canada, or whether that defenceman keen to pattern his play after one of the game's great assholes.

Resistance or susceptibility to injury (if it had been an actual, physical concussion) is also part of a player's overall talent package and desirability profile. The Canucks have been lamenting their games lost due to injury as a kind of bad luck. Maybe they need to consider whether they have fragile players, or a sufficiently skilled training staff.

Did that eventual course of action change the Vey trade from a good one to a bad one?

It was never a good one. It was, at best, one for which you can make up semi-plausible reasons, but at no point did it look successful.

But why take my word for it ? Surely a CC legend and former moderator knows how to set up a poll.

[Todd Bersnoozi]

So on July 4 2014 you posted a looooong rambling ambiguous post, big whoop Todd!

Man, I thought that was a gem of a post I made after evaluationg JB's first month on the job. I totally forgot about it until you brought up Vey. That post is pretty relevant today as I was basically advocating a rebuild 3 years ago, while JB was going with the stay competitive and retool on the fly. JB and Trev probably wouldn't admit it, but their retool on the fly failed. They basically wasted 3 years, as they could have began this process much earlier. It wasn't really until this past season that they went into full rebuild mode. That being said, I can see that ownership possibly wanted JB+Trev to try for one more run back then to see what the team could do, so they accomodated. It wasn't until this past season that ownership OKed a full rebuild.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10393&p=209636&hilit=vey#p209636

I love what I wrote about Verby after we signed him, almost prophetic.

I'm not a big fan of the Vrbata signing though. He reminds of the Rucinsky/Hlavac/Bulis types. Soft euros with good skill, will help with some scoring in the regular season, but tend to disappear in the ruff tuff playoff games.

Anyways, I digress, back to point.

Todd on July 4th, 2014: "I'd rather use the pick to get (a) prospect who has greater potential"

I don't think, with 50th o/a you're going to get a prospect with greater potential than Vey at the time.

Anyway, as I said, I was referring to the Vey signing thread:

A criticism of the Vey trade is a criticism of the Vey trade. Does it have to be in the Vey thread? It's not my fault you didn't look in another thread.

Man, again, my concerns about Vey was almost spot on.

Used some 2nd/3rd round picks to grab Vey (unproven player) and Dorsett (elite 4th liner). Again, I'd rather use the picks to get some prospects who have greater potential. I think those type of players u can generally grab in the UFA market or waivers or swap of prospects, don't have to give up a decent pick (2nd/3rd rounder).

on the other hand, maybe they simply are what they are presently projected as... fringe NHLers (a Lonny Bohonos and Mike Brown).

Vey turned out to be exactly as I feared, a fringe NHLer, (Lonny Bohonos type). In fairness, I did think Vey had a nice skill set and soft hands, but he was too small, a defensive liability and not fast enough (basically a Kyle Wellwood type as others compared him to). Nothing wrong with giving this type of player a shot to see what he can do, but not worth a 2nd round pick. I would say that he was not a top prospect. More of a middle tier guy along the lines of Nick Jensen, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Emerson Etem. A guy who might make it, but probably not. I do think that the main reason JB got Vey was for his new coach, Uncle Willies though.

As far as there was nothing good around 50th OA, I'd disagree. There are some good young players starting to make a name for themselves all taken after 50th (ie: Christian Dvorak, Brayden Point, Viktor Arvidsson). Hell, JB found Tryamkin 66OA that draft. JB didn't have a pick until the 5th round after he drafted Tryamkin in the 3rd, so you never know, he may have picked one of those guys. Even the biggest JB critics likes his scouting ability and I think he did quite well in his first draft. If he had more picks that year, he may have came out even BETTER. Also, most of those guys in the 2014 (Virtanen) draft just finished their 1st year pro, I expect more of them to start stepping into the NHL the next 1-2 years, after that, they'll start trending into the bust category.

That was your only comment in said thread Ned...

If I'm Ned, then you would be Homer J.; instead of chugging the Duff, u slam down the Kool-Aid.

[Mickey107]

Gillis was a lawyer and a player agent. Both those facts contributed greatly in getting us one win away from a cup.
A place we had been only one time before.
As a lawyer, he found a way to beat the cap.
As an agent, he made Vancouver an attractive place to play.
It almost worked and isn't the cup the goal?
The only reasons we didn't win were beat up bodies but even more than that, one bad decision by Rome and a couple of bad games from Luongo.

As a lawyer, consequences were, pissing Bettman off for life.
As an agent, consequences were, over rewarding contracts.

Benning is so totally different, I don't know how a comparison is possible. The title, "General Manager" isn't and doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then. There is that Linden guy. The Pres.
Now it was Linden that hired Benning and that's fine, however, to this very day, I have absolutely no idea what Benning can do on his own and what he can't. For that reason, it is difficult for me to rate Benning.

Why the hell does Vey still get so much attention? Who cares. He was a little squirt that skated fast. Problem was, his head was always down admiring his speedy feet. W/E....

Just under three weeks now and the real world, (relevant hockey matters), start.

[Strangelove]

Listen Ghoster, Vey was considered a top prospect at the time of the trade.

No one here... no hockey experts anywhere... considered it a bad trade at the time.

Twas logical when put in perspective indeed!

Now, if say Vey had suffered a major concussion the next day

... would that have turned the trade from a good one to a "mistake in retrospect"?

(do you now see why that parenthetical qualifier had to be included?)

A carefully reasoned plan that didn't work was still, ultimately, a bad plan, and the kind of thing executives get fired over all the time.

So if today Benning were to trade Sbisa, Dorsett, and a 2nd... for... Sidney Crosby

... and Sidney Crosby got ran over by a bus and crippled for life tomorrow

... Benning should get fired??

The Vey trade was considered a fair trade by the hockey world at the time.

And by no means does any GM ever get "fired" over a common+fair trade such as that.

(no matter how things turn out in the long run)

No offense but you're starting to sound a tad nutty with this "firing" business...

Now, if say Vey had suffered a major concussion the next day

... would that have turned the trade from a good one to a "mistake in retrospect"?

Well it just so happens Mr Vey did indeed suffer a head injury!

The kind that fucks you over when Daddy loves Auntie and they team up to try to murder Mommy.

I consider an investigation into a player's personal life part of responsible due diligence before making a trade or a draft selection.

Right, Benning should have grilled Vey Senior under the hot lights about any future plans of murder!

Did that eventual course of action change the Vey trade from a good one to a bad one?

It was never a good one. It was, at best, one for which you can make up semi-plausible reasons, but at no point did it look successful.

Vey had 6 goals and 6 assists in his first 22 games as a Canuck.

Canuck fans were very pleased with the kid at the time.

They were still pleased at the halfway point of that first season (19 points in 40 games).

Is thereabouts when Daddy decided to turn to the dark side?

I think so...

But why take my word for it ? Surely a CC legend and former moderator knows how to set up a poll.

I am a moderator in the here+now, should I "fire" you for not doing due diligence in this matter?

[Strangelove]

If I'm Ned, then you would be Homer J.; instead of chugging the Duff, u slam down the Kool-Aid.

Nice analogy except for the fact Homey J is the one who pounds the Duff and Ned sips his own koolaid!

BTW I don't think anyone else is going to drink your koolaid Ned, yeahno you're not clairvoyant bro...

[ESQ]

I would argue it wasn't even that carefully reasoned a plan. In the Baertschi trade, which looks superficially similar, the Canucks traded a 53rd overall pick for a former 13th overall pick, moving up. That one worked well. In the Vey trade, the Canucks surrendered a 50th overall pick for a former 96th overall pick. That one didn't work so well.

You cite Vey's AHL numbers, but to most of us, it looks like the GM was throwing his new head coach a bone and letting him play his hunch. That was probably a mistake as well.

Its more similar to the Granlund trade - a former 1st-rounder (Shinkaruk) for a 2nd rounder. So moving down in the draft, but getting an older player who's a bit more established.

Every trade is a gamble, much like every draft pick is a gamble. A pick in the late-2nd round is very unlikely to pan out, in this case a small price was paid for a player who also didn't pan out. Big woop.

[Cornuck]

When we got Vey, I checked with a friend who's a big Kings fan. "Vey? Decent AHLer, but can't score in the bigs" - I never expected much, and wasn't disappointed.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Vey had 6 goals and 6 assists in his first 22 games as a Canuck.

Canuck fans were very pleased with the kid at the time.

They were still pleased at the halfway point of that first season (19 points in 40 games).

Is thereabouts is when Daddy decided to go over to the dark side?

I think so...

So your other, other justification of the Vey trade is that Vey actually would have turned out to be a serviceable player, if only he hadn't had to deal with emotional problems from his father's criminal behaviour. That works fairly well, because we'll never know. However, wouldn't such a theory of hockey impairment from outside forces (analogous to serious injury) predict that Vey should be able to get over it and become an NHL-level hockey player again at some point in the future ?

But why take my word for it ? Surely a CC legend and former moderator knows how to set up a poll.

I am a moderator in the here+now, should I "fire" you for not doing due diligence in this matter?

It doesn't say so underneath your avatar any more, but by all means, fire me. Or worse, cut my salary in half.

In that case, though, even easier for you to set up a poll, but you haven't.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Every trade is a gamble, much like every draft pick is a gamble. A pick in the late-2nd round is very unlikely to pan out, in this case a small price was paid for a player who also didn't pan out. Big woop.

Agreed, and I would not have bothered mentioning it, save for the BOLD ASSERTION (yes, plus parenthetical weasel-wording) that "EVERY SINGLE MOVE Jimmy has made since He got here seems brilliant in retrospect (or at least logical when put in perspective)"

[Strangelove]

So your other, other justification of the Vey trade is that Vey actually would have turned out to be a serviceable player, if only he hadn't had to deal with emotional problems from his father's criminal behaviour.

There are always various factors involved.

I've been talking about logic and perspective from the get-go in this conversation.

This trade was a crapshoot pick (50th overall) for a crapshoot prospect (top young AHLer).

But you genius-haters are always trying to make mountains out of molehills...

That works fairly well, because we'll never know. However, wouldn't such a theory of hockey impairment from outside forces (analogous to serious injury) predict that Vey should be able to get over it and become an NHL-level hockey player again at some point in the future ?

Some people never get over something like that... some do.

Perhaps you should get our buddy Todd to read the tea-leaves.

I am a moderator in the here+now, should I "fire" you for not doing due diligence in this matter?

It doesn't say so underneath your avatar any more, but by all means, fire me. Or worse, cut my salary in half.

It never did say "Moderator" under my avatar.

And if you knew anything about me you'd know I hate polls.

Did you want to run with all the potential Vey polls we've discussed thus far?

1). Was the Vey Trade a Reasonable Trade to Make at the Time?

2). Considering How Things Turned Out, Should We Go Back in Time and Stop the Vey Trade?

3). Should Anyone Really Give a Flying Fuck about the Vey Trade?

4). Should We Offer-Sheet RFA Linden Vey This Summer?

5). Is it Bad Form to Completely Ignore Parenthetical Qualifiers in a Debate?

Did I forget any?