CanucksCorner.com Forums

rats19 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:14 am

Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:06 am “Crickets”

That’s why it’s tough to take the helmet crew seriously.

Because no one is around maybe?

DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:59 am

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:45 amBut for purposes of this board, the buck needs to stop somewhere. If you go down the ownership interference rabbit-hole, how do you know that any of the bad moves by Gillis, or the good moves by Benning, were not the result of ownership pressure?
("I heard the Aquabros really had a hard-on for Ballard, so Mike negotiated that one with a gun to his head."
"Yeah, but I heard they insisted on drafting Pettersson, so I guess it evens out.")

This is an excellent point - one that is ignored far too often.

If we say that all the bad or mediocre signings/trades/picks that have occurred in the "Benning era" are due to a meddlesome ownership group, shouldn't that also apply to all the good signings/trades/picks (assuming the ownership group is actually as meddlesome as many claim)?

Seems a bit naive to blame ownership (or a past GM) for everything bad while praising JB for everything good.

ESQ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:53 am Lol Blob, maybe wait more than 7 minutes before declaring crickets!

DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:59 am

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:45 amBut for purposes of this board, the buck needs to stop somewhere. If you go down the ownership interference rabbit-hole, how do you know that any of the bad moves by Gillis, or the good moves by Benning, were not the result of ownership pressure?
("I heard the Aquabros really had a hard-on for Ballard, so Mike negotiated that one with a gun to his head."
"Yeah, but I heard they insisted on drafting Pettersson, so I guess it evens out.")

This is an excellent point - one that is ignored far too often.

If we say that all the bad or mediocre signings/trades/picks that have occurred in the "Benning era" are due to a meddlesome ownership group, shouldn't that also apply to all the good signings/trades/picks (assuming the ownership group is actually as meddlesome as many claim)?

Seems a bit naive to blame ownership (or a past GM) for everything bad while praising JB for everything good.

I'm a fan of Benning, and I actually think that if the Canucks make the playoffs this year, after ONLY 3 years of missing the playoffs, it can't be called anything but a successful rebuild on the fly. Particularly as it is done with zero luck in the draft lottery.

Everything Gillis did has to be viewed through a completely different lens, because he was going all-out for a Cup. He came tantalizingly close, and the only reason we fault him is that he made moves to put us over the edge by mortgaging the future, but the returns on those moves were dreadful and didn't help at all. He moved out picks, and the returns were utter garbage - Ballard, Roy, and Bernier cost us a 1st, 2nd, two 3rds, Grabner and Connauton. All of those picks and prospects would have made the transition smoother, but instead they were burned for players that wound up being totally inconsequential and provided no help to the Sedins' team to get to the holy grail.

Nonetheless, you have to have that context when you complain for 4 years about trading Garrison for Vey, or Bonino for Sutter. I would say the Vey trade is the only one that's panned out as poorly as the Ballard trade or the Roy trade, in that the asset acquired was virtually useless. If you're still complaining about the Gudbranson trade, he's undoubtedly a better player than Ballard and the cost was far less than what was paid for Ballard.

Gillis and Benning have operated under the same owner, in two very different eras. Overall, I don't fault Gillis for handing out NTCs - he was getting good players under contract for a good cap hit, and that was the price to be paid. I do fault him for acquiring terrible players with high draft picks, and for being a terrible drafter.

I fault Benning for acquiring players who have been underwhelming., like Sutter, Vey, and Gudbranson, however the prices paid were minimal so it doesn't really bother me. I fault Benning for signing Eriksson as a UFA, and Schaller. The rest of his signings have been fine. I credit Benning for putting together the best string of drafting in franchise history.

I give Benning zero blame for not acquiring more picks, because he didn't have the assets available to acquire picks. That is just a fact.

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:06 pm

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:53 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:47 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:31 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:15 pm anyone continuing to defend these players and these moves is either a troll or a retard.

it's really not as bad as you make it sound.

Blob is clearly doing some "retarded trolling" here...

Blob’s posts lack clarity when he’s angry posting. It’s similar to Tourette’s

Curious, do you 2 have each other on speed dial or something?

The way you back each other is, hmmmm, interesting to say the least.

Diehard1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:09 pm Grabner and McCann would be similar at the time, 1st rounders that were young and still developing

micky107 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:18 pm Gillis was freaking because trying to sign, what everyone knew was his objective, Hamhuis, was in stall mode.
He got the chance to sign Ballard so he did. Then later, (just a little later, His main target came to fruition.
Ballard did not start out all that bad. That trade receives plenty of sour grapes. I don't understand why.

Diehard1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:09 pm
One thing I disagree with is the Ballard trade (1st, Grabner, Bernier for Ballard and Oreskovich) and Guddy trades (McCann, 2nd, 4th for Guddy and a 5th) being much different in price - Grabner and McCann would be similar at the time, 1st rounders that were young and still developing, while the 1st was 25th overall and the Guddy pick was 33rd (little difference in overall value) and Bernier was probably worth a 4th after 2 pretty bad seasons here in Van. I guess the 5th and Oreskovich are about equal value too so I see the prices as pretty darn close to equivalent.

Diehard1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:09 pm

ESQ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:53 am Lol Blob, maybe wait more than 7 minutes before declaring crickets!

DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:59 am

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:45 amBut for purposes of this board, the buck needs to stop somewhere. If you go down the ownership interference rabbit-hole, how do you know that any of the bad moves by Gillis, or the good moves by Benning, were not the result of ownership pressure?
("I heard the Aquabros really had a hard-on for Ballard, so Mike negotiated that one with a gun to his head."
"Yeah, but I heard they insisted on drafting Pettersson, so I guess it evens out.")

This is an excellent point - one that is ignored far too often.

If we say that all the bad or mediocre signings/trades/picks that have occurred in the "Benning era" are due to a meddlesome ownership group, shouldn't that also apply to all the good signings/trades/picks (assuming the ownership group is actually as meddlesome as many claim)?

Seems a bit naive to blame ownership (or a past GM) for everything bad while praising JB for everything good.

I'm a fan of Benning, and I actually think that if the Canucks make the playoffs this year, after ONLY 3 years of missing the playoffs, it can't be called anything but a successful rebuild on the fly. Particularly as it is done with zero luck in the draft lottery.

Everything Gillis did has to be viewed through a completely different lens, because he was going all-out for a Cup. He came tantalizingly close, and the only reason we fault him is that he made moves to put us over the edge by mortgaging the future, but the returns on those moves were dreadful and didn't help at all. He moved out picks, and the returns were utter garbage - Ballard, Roy, and Bernier cost us a 1st, 2nd, two 3rds, Grabner and Connauton. All of those picks and prospects would have made the transition smoother, but instead they were burned for players that wound up being totally inconsequential and provided no help to the Sedins' team to get to the holy grail.

Nonetheless, you have to have that context when you complain for 4 years about trading Garrison for Vey, or Bonino for Sutter. I would say the Vey trade is the only one that's panned out as poorly as the Ballard trade or the Roy trade, in that the asset acquired was virtually useless. If you're still complaining about the Gudbranson trade, he's undoubtedly a better player than Ballard and the cost was far less than what was paid for Ballard.

Gillis and Benning have operated under the same owner, in two very different eras. Overall, I don't fault Gillis for handing out NTCs - he was getting good players under contract for a good cap hit, and that was the price to be paid. I do fault him for acquiring terrible players with high draft picks, and for being a terrible drafter.

I fault Benning for acquiring players who have been underwhelming., like Sutter, Vey, and Gudbranson, however the prices paid were minimal so it doesn't really bother me. I fault Benning for signing Eriksson as a UFA, and Schaller. The rest of his signings have been fine. I credit Benning for putting together the best string of drafting in franchise history.

I give Benning zero blame for not acquiring more picks, because he didn't have the assets available to acquire picks. That is just a fact.

I agree with much of this - two very different eras that Benning and Gillis operated under so hard to compare results. Gillis had much better teams but was handed a very nice hand, while Benning's teams have been mostly terrible but he was handed a much older team than Gillis was.

One thing I disagree with is the Ballard trade (1st, Grabner, Bernier for Ballard and Oreskovich) and Guddy trades (McCann, 2nd, 4th for Guddy and a 5th) being much different in price - Grabner and McCann would be similar at the time, 1st rounders that were young and still developing, while the 1st was 25th overall and the Guddy pick was 33rd (little difference in overall value) and Bernier was probably worth a 4th after 2 pretty bad seasons here in Van. I guess the 5th and Oreskovich are about equal value too so I see the prices as pretty darn close to equivalent.

Both Ballard and Guddy have been awful for Van, just that Ballard was behind guys like Hamhuis, Edler, Ehrhoff, Salo and Bieksa while Guddy is part of a much, much worse blueline including older Edler, Stecher, Hutton, Pouliot and Tanev. I'd be hard pressed to know who plays ahead of who on that 2010-2011 blueline, Guddy or Ballard.

As for Aquilini, I know him a bit and let's just say I'm not too surprised he's manipulating things behind the scenes. The team would be much better off with Roberto Aqulini running the show, it's too bad he's not the one there.

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:04 pm The 2 year $20 million Gillis offered Matts “old man with bad knees” Sundin was atrocious as well

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:04 pm The 2 year $20 million Gillis offered Matts “old man with bad knees” Sundin was atrocious as well

rats19 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:33 pm

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:04 pm The 2 year $20 million Gillis offered Matts “old man with bad knees” Sundin was atrocious as well

I misremember that period..

ESQ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:24 pm

micky107 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:18 pm Gillis was freaking because trying to sign, what everyone knew was his objective, Hamhuis, was in stall mode.
He got the chance to sign Ballard so he did. Then later, (just a little later, His main target came to fruition.
Ballard did not start out all that bad. That trade receives plenty of sour grapes. I don't understand why.

Its because Ballard, like Guddy, went from an ironman to super injury-prone as soon as he arrived. Couple that with him often being a press box watcher and with him being terrible when he did make it in the lineup. It was super bizarre how much he regressed from a top-4 to riding the pine consistently once he got here

micky107 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:29 pm

ESQ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:24 pm

micky107 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:18 pm Gillis was freaking because trying to sign, what everyone knew was his objective, Hamhuis, was in stall mode.
He got the chance to sign Ballard so he did. Then later, (just a little later, His main target came to fruition.
Ballard did not start out all that bad. That trade receives plenty of sour grapes. I don't understand why.

Its because Ballard, like Guddy, went from an ironman to super injury-prone as soon as he arrived. Couple that with him often being a press box watcher and with him being terrible when he did make it in the lineup. It was super bizarre how much he regressed from a top-4 to riding the pine consistently once he got here

If I recall, Vinny healthy scratched him a few times and no-one knew why.
The Banter around town was he just didn't like him. Oh well.