Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:09 pm
Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:37 pm
Yeah, you set unrealistic thresholds because you didn't want your
faith in Jimmy's incompetence shaken.
Your prediction was that the Canucks would make the playoffs on 2019, and "look good once they got there". You could not be persuaded to define "looking good", so I offered "win six games" as an outcome that I thought would meet that criterion.
If that's unrealistic, then if anything, I had too much faith in your ability to plot the Canucks progress through a successful rebuild.
In any case, it was an observable, measurable test, and I said I would change my view according to the outcome if the test results warranted, so it is not a matter of faith.
Let me be clear on another point: I don't think Benning is "incompetent". I'm sure he has forgotten more about hockey than I am likely ever to know. I think he was in over his head as a rookie GM, as most rookies would be. I think he had a very difficult starting position -- yes Dude, partially due to the state in which the Evil Incarnate That Is Gillis left the franchise -- but more, if I can believe what i read on this board (and what possible source of Canucks information could be better?), because ownership had a fixed, and badly flawed, plan in place for the next few seasons when he got here. Talking them out of that plan would have been very difficult, but that's what I think a genius would have done.
Now, for all the mockery that the Oilers' eternal rebuild takes on this board, the Canucks now have essentially the same team structure as the Oilers:
a thin (and in the Canucks' case, in two senses of the word) layer of top-end talent on a team that's mostly playing farther up the roster than they would be on a playoff team. I submit (and no, I can't prove it; we only get to run the test once -- there is no "treatment" Canucks and "control" Canucks) that a few more draft picks early in the re-build (as opposed to placeholders who do not bode likely to be part of the Stanley Cup Dynasty edition of the Canucks) would have yielded more depth of supporting talent by now. So on that basis, I think Benning has made important mistakes in the rebuild.
You seem to be arguing, on the one hand, that we have too many young players playing up in the line up so we cant be a playoff team. Ergo, we need more vets.
On the other hand you are saying we've wasted time adding vets and throwing away picks when a few more draft picks would have helped the rebuild along better, faster?
You are also relying upon false logic about how he could/should have acquired those picks. Without evidence, without proof, you have made assumptions that he could/should have gotten better returns than he did, simply because you think he could/should have?
Based upon a few faulty assumptions you've decided the rebuild has failed? Yet admit that no matter who the GM was we would basically be in the same position.
For me there is only one draft pick I'd like a do over on, that's Juolevi. Taychook is exactly the type of top six forward we need. But we have Juolevi so I hope he can become that top four for us. Sure, if Benning had another 5-8 picks over the last five drafts we would have more prospects in the system. Can't argue that. That doesn't necessarily translate into being further along in our development.
The value of having vets like Hamhuis, Bieksa, the Twins, Edler, Tanev, Sutter, Beagle,Rousell even Burrows, for the few extra years we had some of them and the remaining years on others, is invaluable to the development of all those draft picks. The Gaudette's of the world need the Sutters and Beagles to help them learn how to play centre in the NHL. The Stetchers, Hutton's, Hughes, Tryamkins, Juolevi, need the Edlers, Tanevs, Hamhuis, Schenns of the world to help them learn the NHL game. Just like Markstrom needed the Miller.
Each year Benning has purged some vets, added rookies. Yes, each year he has added different vets too. But each year he has signed college FAs, those ridiculous undrafted waste of contract players that somehow don't count.
And why do you arbitrarily suggest success is winning 6 playoff games. Benning has been successful. The results are there. The kids are developing. Yes, Benning has made mistakes. But I suggest his mistakes are overblown and his achievements dismissed.
