CanucksCorner.com Forums

Hockey Widow wrote:

Topper wrote:

Hockey Widow wrote:Here's the thing. Benning has communicated the plan from day one.

That is what is lost to the navel gazing urine crew. Benning and Linden have been consistent from day one with a clear vision.

They take the long term view and don't give a damn what comes out of HF or the local vocal hacks who are hung up on the last night's scoreboard and can't see the next line change let alone a lineup three years hence.

The part I find so hypocritical is no one yet has the balls to criticize the guy who helps little old ladies cross the street, he is still beyond reproach though Benning's plan is firmly backed by him.

I don't understand this part.

I think he's referring to Linden.

I think Benning has been incredibly clear in his message,and has followed it to a T. He is building a team. He has an idea of what he needs and then he goes after players that he thinks will fit model. He pays what he thinks that player is worth. Whether we agree or not, only time will tell if he is right. I think expectations of deals that we think can be made are unrealistic. We over value our own players and under value other teams players in proposed trades.If you look at what Benning has given up, no one has really turned into a player anywhere else. Baertchi is looking like a steal. Etem and Vey may yet pan out, they are better of late. I have read lots of good things about Larsen, but we will have to wait and see when he gets here. For the most part, most over value draft picks. We get all excited about the future prospects but most don't pan out. I think what Benning is doing is very smart, picking up young players further along in their development, gives a better sense of what kind of player they are going to be. It is not sexy but it is effective when you are trying to build a team and are looking for specific pieces of that team. The star players are developed from draft picks, or possibly picked up through free agency (ie Stamkos). The stars are usually high draft picks with the odd exceptions. The draft is a crap shoot, so swapping a a draft pick for a potential every day player makes a lot of sense to me if you want to build a winner. If you want to live on the dreams of what may be then stick with draft picks. But the majority of lottery tickets are losers, just like the majority of draft picks never play in the NHL.

Hockey Widow wrote:Not sure then what it is you expect him to say. The elements, as you call them, of the plan, are the plan. That is how he is going to get to the promised land.

Clear out those that don't fit. Draft well. Develop well. Create a winning culture. Support youth with experienced vets.

I guess I agree with Island Nucklehead when he says:

Island Nucklehead wrote:...with such a broad strategy it's easy to justify pretty much any move. Saying that he wants to get "younger, faster, more skilled" is pretty much the management equivalent of the intermission interview "need to work hard out there, stay out of the box, get pucks deep and everything at the net".

Hockey Widow wrote:Not trying to be difficult but I'm unclear what it is you would specifically like to hear from him. Perhaps you could be clearer in what it is you find missing in his explanations.

What I want to know is how what he is planning to do is different from what every other GM in the league is trying to do, or why he will be able to execute better than they do. Is there, for example, a particular style of play he thinks will be successful, or type of player, or pipeline of players, he think is currently under-utilized but will bring him success ?

I wanted to avoid comparisons with the previous regime in a thread where I wrote that such comparisons weren't helpful, but I think it will provide an instructive example. Gillis said he wanted to play 'moneypuck', in an era when others did not. He wanted to pursue a style of play that emulated successful Detroit teams. As we know, his plan didn't ultimately succeed (and if others want to re-hash how or why, I will abstain -- I bring it up for illustrative purposes only), but it was a reason to believe he had a chance to succeed where others may not. Why does Benning think he will succeed ? Is it because he is the the keenest, most incisive judge of untapped hockey talent in the NHL, but he's just too modest to say it ? If so, I don't mind if you and/or his ardent supporters say it instead, but I want to know what Benning is doing that will make the Canucks better than all their rivals.

Hockey Widow wrote:A GM isn't going to spell out the full blue print. No one does that.

If he doesn't want to tell us, that's his business (and the Little Eagles'), and might be a sensible strategy, but if you don't know the plan either, then I don't see how you can argue that it's a good plan. "Trust in Benning" just doesn't capture my imagination. Again, not to say that he won't succeed, just that beyond "win the Stanley Cup", I don't know what he's trying to do.

Hockey Widow wrote:He has said he will target college UFAs, he has a list, and as the their teams are eliminated he will try to sign a few players. He sure isn't going to tell us who. He is looking at KHL FA with the same goal

These are additional elements of the plan that are news to me, as well as examples of what I was looking for. Thank you.

Hockey Widow wrote:As for the Prust inconsistency, well it isn't. He wanted to bring in experienced vets and in Prust's case he wanted to create a safe working environment for the kids. It didn't work out and Prust was waived.

It still makes it look like he's not sure what, or who, he needs. Spun the other way, "I'm not afraid to experiment with different options, and cut my losses when things don't work out," would actually be an example of what I'm looking for in terms of why Benning believes his hockey strategy will win out.

Young, skilled, fast do those words mean anything?

with a degree of toughness......he said as much with the decision to keep Virtanan and the trades for placeholders Prust and Dorsett.

Those who can't hear what Benning's and Linden's plan is need hearing aids.

bckev wrote:I think Benning has been incredibly clear in his message,and has followed it to a T. He is building a team. He has an idea of what he needs and then he goes after players that he thinks will fit model. He pays what he thinks that player is worth. Whether we agree or not, only time will tell if he is right. I think expectations of deals that we think can be made are unrealistic. We over value our own players and under value other teams players in proposed trades.If you look at what Benning has given up, no one has really turned into a player anywhere else. Baertchi is looking like a steal. Etem and Vey may yet pan out, they are better of late. I have read lots of good things about Larsen, but we will have to wait and see when he gets here. For the most part, most over value draft picks. We get all excited about the future prospects but most don't pan out. I think what Benning is doing is very smart, picking up young players further along in their development, gives a better sense of what kind of player they are going to be. It is not sexy but it is effective when you are trying to build a team and are looking for specific pieces of that team. The star players are developed from draft picks, or possibly picked up through free agency (ie Stamkos). The stars are usually high draft picks with the odd exceptions. The draft is a crap shoot, so swapping a a draft pick for a potential every day player makes a lot of sense to me if you want to build a winner. If you want to live on the dreams of what may be then stick with draft picks. But the majority of lottery tickets are losers, just like the majority of draft picks never play in the NHL.

Nice post (but watch out for Dave).

Topper wrote: Those who can't hear what Benning's and Linden's plan is need hearing aids.

Or hearing surgery.

And no IN/RG... not every team has "younger faster" as the prime directive.

Island Nucklehead wrote:letting an asset like Hamhuis walk away for nothing is piss-poor asset management

Firstly, how's about waiting until a thing actually happens before urinating mmmmkay?

Secondly, pretty tough to trade an old vet who will only waive for 2 teams.

Thirdly, "assets" often make it to UFAgency (or are you criticizing every GM in sports?)

Fouthly, aren't you one of the guys who doesn't want Mr Hometown Discount back?

(if so, how much of an "asset" is he really in your eyes)

bckev wrote:I think Benning has been incredibly clear in his message,and has followed it to a T. He is building a team. He has an idea of what he needs and then he goes after players that he thinks will fit model.

Great. What model ?

I'm not saying he hasn't been clear; I'm saying I don't get it. That's why I come this forum, so I can read the insights of more informed hockey fans.

bckev wrote: It is not sexy but it is effective when you are trying to build a team and are looking for specific pieces of that team. The star players are developed from draft picks, or possibly picked up through free agency (ie Stamkos). The stars are usually high draft picks with the odd exceptions. The draft is a crap shoot, so swapping a a draft pick for a potential every day player makes a lot of sense to me if you want to build a winner. If you want to live on the dreams of what may be then stick with draft picks. But the majority of lottery tickets are losers, just like the majority of draft picks never play in the NHL.

My fear is that what you have described is a good way to build a competent team, a competitive team, but not necessarily a championship team. We have seen competitive teams, and -- after many years of basement dwelling -- it was a fun and welcome change, but now we've done that. Now, only a championship is interesting.

Are you advocating the "just make the playoffs, and anything can happen" model ? That gets a fair number of competent teams to the finals, but has produced the minority of championship teams.

Strangelove wrote:Secondly, pretty tough to trade an old vet who will only waive for 2 teams 1 team.

fixed

Cap space is a very good asset in return for letting players walk.

Island Nucklehead wrote: I do think Benning is a good amateur scout and drafter, so when I see missed opportunities like this years trade deadline, or dumping 2nds for guys like Vey, 5ths for Prust, turning 2nds into 3rds as sweeteners, it's frustrating. I don't buy the theory that Benning can do in 5 picks what others do in 10, I'd rather Benning have 10 picks.

Just for a little perspective on how many picks Benning tends to end up with...

http://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/vie ... 71#p253571

Topper wrote:Young, skilled, fast do those words mean anything?

with a degree of toughness.....

I do appreciate you using small words to help me along.

Does this mean that Benning does not expect to win the Cup until after the Sedins, who are not young and fast, and possess only a more esoteric kind of toughness, have retired ?

Again, I would understand if Benning did not want to say this, but I'd appreciate it if others would be willing to spell out what they see between the lines.

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Does this mean that Benning does not expect to win the Cup until after the Sedins, who are not young and fast, and possess only a more esoteric kind of toughness, have retired ?

Really Cliff?

Is it impossible to keep the aging Sedins and yet get "younger faster" overall?

Strangelove wrote:Is it impossible to keep the aging Sedins and yet get "younger faster" overall?

Perhaps then the words, while sufficiently small, were insufficiently precise. Yes, the Canucks can get younger and faster, overall, than they were when Benning took over, while retaining the Sedins, but this was presented as the vision of why the Canucks were going to be better than other teams, and so implied that they were going to be "younger, faster, and more skilled (with a degree of toughness)" to a greater degree than their competitors. In this model, the Sedins are not an asset.

Either I misunderstood Topper's/Benning's original meaning, or you are equivocating on that meaning.

Strangelove wrote:

Island Nucklehead wrote:letting an asset like Hamhuis walk away for nothing is piss-poor asset management

Firstly, how's about waiting until a thing actually happens before urinating mmmmkay?

Secondly, pretty tough to trade an old vet who will only waive for 2 teams.

Thirdly, "assets" often make it to UFAgency (or are you criticizing every GM in sports?)

Fouthly, aren't you one of the guys who doesn't want Mr Hometown Discount back?

(if so, how much of an "asset" is he really in your eyes)

Eric Staal was having a terrible season, waived to only 1 team, and got a couple second-rounders in return. And sure guys make it to free agency all the time, smart managers try to maximize their value by getting cap space AND assets in return. Just because I don't want a guy to re-sign doesn't mean he doesn't have value to other teams. Give your head a shake.

Anyways, this is the kind of blind, absurdly pro-Benning nonsense that people are referring to, Doc. If you can't even entertain the notion that Vancouver had a disappointing trade deadline we're really so far apart it's not worth discussing much with you.

Ronning's Ghost wrote:In this model, the Sedins are not an asset.

I'd say in any model, the Sedins are an asset.

As an aside, I've been saying from Day One (lo these many years) that with the Sedins

... Canucks need to focus on surrounding them with speed + toughness.