The Rebuild...

[Ronning's Ghost]

Further, you still have not attempted to rebut my "logical perspective" on the Vey trade

Is this your "logical perspective on the Vey trade ?

But we got 116 NHL games out of Vey (more than the average 50th overall gets you).

If it is, I refute it thusly:

It ignores the fact that most hockey observers, including -- perhaps especially -- most posters here, consider those games undeserved, and the product of a strange, and ultimately unjustified, hunch on the part of a failed NHL head coach.

Secondly, and perhaps more tellingly, it reckons without what most consider Benning's best pretense to genius, an ability to draft better than an average GM, and get a better player than most with a 50th overall pick.

... which means you clearly have thrown in the towel, lost the "debate"...

I have no ambition, or hope, of persuading you, for you are a true fan, in the sense of 'fanatic'. If you want to run a poll on this board with a question of whether or not trading a second for Vey seems like a mistake in retrospect, and use this argument thread as an antecedent, I will accept the outcome.

Dafock dude, those are two posts you made in the last year or so

... but we were clearly talking about "at the time" 3 years ago!

W D F is wrong with you boy!

I wasn't a very active poster 3 years ago. I didn't have strong opinions about the merits of individual trades. Really, I still don't. I accept that it's a bit of a statistical process, and some trades, even by the best GMs, won't work out. That is to say, some of them will be mistakes.

What I opposed, and still oppose, is the "re-tool while remaining competitive" philosophy. Benning seems to have resiled from that position somewhat recently, but those of us who consider it folly have to hope that you are correct that when Benning expresses reluctance to exchange valuable pieces (Tanev, Edler) for assets with greater potential future value, he is just trying to drive up the market. Honestly, he doesn't seem like that kind of guy, but I guess a real genius wouldn't.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Who gives a good fuck if they got 116 games out of Vey? That's about 90 more than he would hVe gotten if Desjardins wasn't the coach and he was a useless soft piece of shit for the majority of his time here. Second round picks are currency for actual useful assets/players. Spending assets on Vey is like spending money on flooring and paint when the house leaks like a sieve.

[Strangelove]

Is this your "logical perspective on the Vey trade ?

Funny how you only seem capable of partially quoting people... HERE:

Vey was worth 50th overall at the time, someone linked to the Vey trade thread the other day

... and I noted NO ONE here was opposed to the trade at the time.

In fact, folks were excited about inserting a youngster with such a high ceiling into the lineup!

Vey was a great gamble given his stellar AHL numbers.

Too bad daddy eventually screwed up his head...

But we got 116 NHL games out of Vey (more than the average 50th overall gets you).

Well at least you managed to find the last sentence in that quote FROM 2 DAYS AGO...

Anything else I can help you with?

... which means you clearly have thrown in the towel, lost the "debate"...

I have no ambition, or hope, of persuading you, for you are a true fan, in the sense of 'fanatic'. If you want to run a poll on this board with a question of whether or not trading a second for Vey seems like a mistake in retrospect

How about we ask whether or not trading a second for Vey was logical when put in perspective.

This guy never fucking learns or is he purposely obtuse...

Dafock dude, those are two posts you made in the last year or so

... but we were clearly talking about "at the time" 3 years ago!

W D F is wrong with you boy!

I wasn't a very active poster 3 years ago.

Right, so there was no point whatsoever in you quoting yourself (twice) from last year.

Another point missed and no sense of humour to boot...

What I opposed, and still oppose, is the "re-tool while remaining competitive" philosophy.

IMO that philosophy ended two years ago

(right around the time yours truly started saying "focus on 3-4 years from now")

Ass an asside, asses don't come any tighter, what say we change your handle to Ronningster's Ghoster?

[Blob Mckenzie]

I'm thinking Ronnings Gangsta

He's skullfucked Lumpy in this thread

[Strangelove]

I'm thinking Ronnings Gangsta

He's skullfucked Lumpy in this thread

Your lame-ass attempts at getting under my skin only serve to drag down the quality of discussion.

But then I suppose you genius-haters much prefer the sewer amirite?

[2Fingers]

Doc doesn't argue, he just wears you down.

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

Blob has taken it upon himself to take both on for the better of the board.

[Strangelove]

Reef ole buddy, did I ever apologize for gutting you like a fish in Creeper's Bar & Grill?

Anyhoo, good to know that... 3 weeks after your meltdown... you've forgiven the 3 of us for going off topic!

[SKYO]

You ignored his strengths:
Strengths

Playmaking skills are excellent
Defensively responsible
Hard, accurate shot
Above average speed

It sounds a lot like he needs refinement. He's not going to step into the NHL right away, give him another year at least.

He sounds like bones mcgee Brandon Sutter with some passing ability, appreciate the effort but no thanks, Canucks if they are not getting superstars, they need to compensate for their players to target guys to have some size and skill like how the Ducks beat the Oilers who have some goons now.

Vilardi or Mittelstadt or the Canucks should just fold the franchise JK!

[Cousin Strawberry]

you genius-haters

Lol! Scoffers gotta scoff...

[Ronning's Ghost]

Is this your "logical perspective" on the Vey trade ?

Funny how you only seem capable of partially quoting people...

Vey was worth 50th overall at the time, someone linked to the Vey trade thread the other day

... and I noted NO ONE here was opposed to the trade at the time.

In fact, folks were excited about inserting a youngster with such a high ceiling into the lineup!

Vey was a great gamble given his stellar AHL numbers.

Too bad daddy eventually screwed up his head...

But we got 116 NHL games out of Vey (more than the average 50th overall gets you).

Anything else I can help you with?

Since you ask...
How does the fact no one here voiced opposition to the trade, or the fact that Vey's dad messed with his head, help justify the logic of the trade ? It sounds like you're accusing me of cherry picking, but I was just quoting the part I thought was relevant. I concede that someone -- though not a genius at evaluating NHL talent -- could have been intrigued by his NHL numbers.

... which means you clearly have thrown in the towel, lost the "debate"...

I have no ambition, or hope, of persuading you, for you are a true fan, in the sense of 'fanatic'. If you want to run a poll on this board with a question of whether or not trading a second for Vey seems like a mistake in retrospect

How about we ask whether or not trading a second for Vey was logical when put in perspective.

Sure, run that poll instead. Just as soon as we're clear on the logic and perspective you are citing. Is it:
a) Linden Vey had great AHL numbers
and
b) He actually did play 116 NHL games
or is there something more ?

What I opposed, and still oppose, is the "re-tool while remaining competitive" philosophy.

IMO that philosophy ended two years ago

I hope you're right. I'd like to see more evidence to support that belief in future moves by the ownership/management group.

Ass an asside, asses don't come any tighter, what say we change your handle to Ronningster's Ghoster?

I guess that's another joke that I missed.

[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...