![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Get with the program Dan, it's "genius-haters" now...
Moderator: Referees
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.Strangelove wrote:Lol "scoffers" is soooo last month!![]()
Get with the program Dan, it's "genius-haters" now...
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.Reefer2 wrote:RD just says the same thing over and over and over again, then 6 months later flips and says the exact opposite.
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.Strangelove wrote: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?)
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.Strangelove wrote: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.
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.Strangelove wrote:Did that eventual course of action change the Vey trade from a good one to a bad one?
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.Strangelove wrote: So on July 4 2014 you posted a looooong rambling ambiguous post, big whoop Todd!![]()
Anyways, I digress, back to point.Bersnooz wrote: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.
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.Strange wrote: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:
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.Bersnooz wrote: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).
If I'm Ned, then you would be Homer J.; instead of chugging the Duff, u slam down the Kool-Aid.Strange wrote:That was your only comment in said thread Ned...
So if today Benning were to trade Sbisa, Dorsett, and a 2nd... for... Sidney CrosbyRonning's Ghost wrote: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.Strangelove wrote: 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?)
Right, Benning should have grilled Vey Senior under the hot lights about any future plans of murder!Ronning's Ghost wrote:I consider an investigation into a player's personal life part of responsible due diligence before making a trade or a draft selection.Strangelove wrote: 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.
Vey had 6 goals and 6 assists in his first 22 games as a Canuck.Ronning's Ghost wrote: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.Strangelove wrote:Did that eventual course of action change the Vey trade from a good one to a bad one?
I am a moderator in the here+now, should I "fire" you for not doing due diligence in this matter?Ronning's Ghost wrote: But why take my word for it ? Surely a CC legend and former moderator knows how to set up a poll.
Nice analogy except for the fact Homey J is the one who pounds the Duff and Ned sips his own koolaid!Todd Bersnoozi wrote: If I'm Ned, then you would be Homer J.; instead of chugging the Duff, u slam down the Kool-Aid.![]()
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.Ronning's Ghost wrote:
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.
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 ?Strangelove wrote: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...
It doesn't say so underneath your avatar any more, but by all means, fire me. Or worse, cut my salary in half.Strangelove wrote:I am a moderator in the here+now, should I "fire" you for not doing due diligence in this matter?Ronning's Ghost wrote: But why take my word for it ? Surely a CC legend and former moderator knows how to set up a poll.
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)"ESQ wrote: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.
There are always various factors involved.Ronning's Ghost wrote: 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.
Some people never get over something like that... some do.Ronning's Ghost wrote: 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 ?
It never did say "Moderator" under my avatar.Ronning's Ghost wrote:It doesn't say so underneath your avatar any more, but by all means, fire me. Or worse, cut my salary in half.Strangelove wrote: I am a moderator in the here+now, should I "fire" you for not doing due diligence in this matter?![]()