OffThePost.org

(Generation III)
It is currently Wed May 23, 2018 4:53 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 3104
Graphics Comments does a great job of dissecting Nucks management.

http://canucksarmy.com/2016/4/19/graphic-comments-nobody-saw-it-coming

Almost every decision they make turns out wrong. I don't mind being bad, I do mind that I have no hope for this management group. Linden and Benning before we'll begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:16 pm 
Offline
Old Man of the Post
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:53 pm
Posts: 6180
Location: Inside your computer
Letting Laurence Gilman should have been a major red flag. I thought he managed the cap quietly and expertly, especially during this team's tenure at the top of the Western conference. Since he was canned, it seems Vancouver has either paid too much, given too much term, or both and to the wrong players.

I still hold on to the hope the Benning can draft better than he does of negotiating contracts. I see they re-upped Granlund for two more years today... My initial reaction, oh crap - too much term, maybe?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 3104
guess I can't blame Benning for falling to the 5 slot..........but I sure want to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 11:47 am 
Offline
The Bird is the Word, yet the Word ≥ the Bird

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 1866
The Canucks most likely odds were to pick between 4-6 under the new format so wasn't at all surprised they landed 5. It would have been nice to keep the 3 slot but that's how they weight the game now. It's just pure odds and luck. Not much anyone can do about that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 3104
Could have, should have traded Vrbata, Hansen and Hamhuis, and taken a run at last place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 12:23 am 
Offline
The Bird is the Word, yet the Word ≥ the Bird

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 1866
Fogghorn wrote:
Could have, should have traded Vrbata, Hansen and Hamhuis, and taken a run at last place.
Easier said than done. Still no guarantees at 30th place.

Vrbata made it virtually impossible to for the Canucks to trade him at the deadline. Bowman throws Quennville a bone to call the shots at the Hawks' deadline. Q wanted Ladd over Hamhuis (likely an error in retrospect if you look at the minutes of the top 4 on D and Ladd's minutes in round one as the series progressed). Arguing that a Hansen trade would have helped the rebuild long term is a debatable point at best.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 3104
Logical Progression wrote:
Fogghorn wrote:
Could have, should have traded Vrbata, Hansen and Hamhuis, and taken a run at last place.
Easier said than done. Still no guarantees at 30th place.

Vrbata made it virtually impossible to for the Canucks to trade him at the deadline. Bowman throws Quennville a bone to call the shots at the Hawks' deadline. Q wanted Ladd over Hamhuis (likely an error in retrospect if you look at the minutes of the top 4 on D and Ladd's minutes in round one as the series progressed). Arguing that a Hansen trade would have helped the rebuild long term is a debatable point at best.


From what I read Chicago wanted Hamhuis but Nucks management took a week to dilly, dally around before asking him, then then asked and that took a couple days. And while Dan with thinking it over Chicago when with Ladd instead. Stars also had an offer and the Nucks blew that. They should have realized two - three weeks before the trade deadline they were not going to make it and approached Hamhuis then about a possible trade and had everything lined up in advance. And Hansen is 30, at peak trade value and to old to help this team by the next time they reach the playoffs.

And of course their is no guarantee they would have slid even further down the line, but all you can do is minimize risk and maximize opportunity. That's something the Nucks management have not done well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 3:24 pm 
Offline
Un-Tenured Professor of Hockey
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:37 am
Posts: 19374
I think the worse this gets, the more apparent it's ownership behind the bumbling moreso than management, though they're hardly free from blame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 4:08 pm 
Offline
The Bird is the Word, yet the Word ≥ the Bird

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 1866
We'll see how management fares at the draft, a place where Benning supposedly excels and the question of ownership tampering is moot.

Regarding Hansen, he is on a good contract thanks to Gilman and you wouldn't get volume back on a player like him for the draft. Vrbata was out for the final 3rd of season so trading him wouldn't have made an ostensible difference to their rank for the draft.

I heard that Bowman wanted Hamhuis and Q wanted Ladd, so they did that deal first for coach Q and then the assets went down in the Hamhuis offer once Ladd was dealt.

To be fair, the Canucks were closer to a playoff spot in February and were injury riddled all this season. They wanted to see what they had with a full complement of players and then Sutter and Edler went down at the same time, which put them behind on making moves. You could argue that management was waffling anyways which is no good. Granted, Linden still seems to be learning the business as he goes along and Benning is out of his depth when it comes to negotiating trades.

I also heard they were kicking the tires on George McPhee to slot in as a senior advisor position to upper management (among others).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 3104
Hansen has great trade value for any team, can play anywhere from 1st to 4th effectively and his game is perfect for playoffs. Sell when a player has their greatest value.

Vrbata, should have been on the 1st line all season to pad his value for trading.

Don't about whether Ladd or Hamhuis was more desired, but the news source were pretty clear about the timing, Nucks were had to think it over before even asking Hamhuis. He should have been asked a couple weeks in advance, not that they would have had to trade them if they thought they were making the playoffs, simply that they could have if needed. They weren't prepared and that is managements fault. And they still messed it up with Dallas.

Ehlers and Nylander were far better options than Virtanan. I could go back and dig up all my old posts but too lazy. Benning doesn't believe in advanced stats though and has fallen out of touch. Maybe historically he was great but I have no faith in him being the draft guru he is proclaimed to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 11:23 am 
Offline
The Bird is the Word, yet the Word ≥ the Bird

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 1866
Fogghorn wrote:
Benning doesn't believe in advanced stats though and has fallen out of touch. Maybe historically he was great but I have no faith in him being the draft guru he is proclaimed to be.
So what would you do with 5 at the upcoming draft?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 11:43 am 
Offline
King of the One-Liner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:40 pm
Posts: 4783
Location: Too deep in crease.
Will throw my two cents in and say guess is the Nucks end up with one of Dubois and Tkachuk, if the choice falls to them I like Tkachuk but figure it is near a toss up either way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 11:52 am 
Offline
The Bird is the Word, yet the Word ≥ the Bird

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 1866
Hounsy wrote:
Will throw my two cents in and say guess is the Nucks end up with one of Dubois and Tkachuk, if the choice falls to them I like Tkachuk but figure it is near a toss up either way.
Agree. Don't think there is a top pairing Defenseman available in the top 10 which is a huge hole in their depth charts, need but c'est la vie.

The Button loves that Logan Brown kid whose stock has risen of late - 6'6 Centre great vision etc. and size is what the Canucks really need but they would be crucified for not going with the conventional wisdom.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 3104
Tkachuk I think is the better choice but I think they will go with Dubois and get a centre.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2016 4:02 pm 
Offline
The Bird is the Word, yet the Word ≥ the Bird

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 1866
Fogghorn wrote:
Hansen has great trade value for any team, can play anywhere from 1st to 4th effectively and his game is perfect for playoffs. Sell when a player has their greatest value.

Vrbata, should have been on the 1st line all season to pad his value for trading.

Don't about whether Ladd or Hamhuis was more desired, but the news source were pretty clear about the timing, Nucks were had to think it over before even asking Hamhuis. He should have been asked a couple weeks in advance, not that they would have had to trade them if they thought they were making the playoffs, simply that they could have if needed. They weren't prepared and that is managements fault. And they still messed it up with Dallas.

Yes but even at his highest trade value (which he had last season), you're still not going to get more than a 2nd or 3rd round pick for Hansen which doesn't replace his value in the mid-term (2-3 years) and then you also create a problem with the Twins. The youth clearly need to learn what it takes to play at this level from culture carriers like Hansen. I disagree with the notion of gifting them roster spots and automatic minutes.

You can't up play both Hansen and Vrbata on the top line concurrently with any degree of success. I think putting Hansen with the twins was a good move. Vrbata already had value and made his own bed by providing poor leadership.

Regards to not dealing Hamhuis, clearly a mistake for both the Hawks and Stars for not going harder after him. Kris Russell is being beaten like a rented mule on a regular basis this series and the Hawks are toast and were too thin on the blue line in round 1.

Hamhuis will re-sign with the Canucks this off season at a reduced freight which is a good move for both club and player. They simply need serviceable defensemen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2016 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 3104
Quote:
Benning - “I’ll be perfectly honest with you,” he says. “We won a Stanley Cup in Boston and we didn’t use analytics.”

Yeah, so did the 1914-15 Vancouver Millionaires. Neither did they use forward pass. Who needs it?

Is there a quote that more succinctly sums up the phrase "living in the past"?
harrison Mooney

http://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/are-the-canucks-a-bunch-of-suckers-1.2264718

and everyone watching the Nucks and has a basic grasp of analytics understand they are mathematically challenged. Just didn't know Benning would ever so obviously confirm it.

so 2-3 more years of present management to flounder about before getting fired. Then a new management team that is hopefully current in their understanding of where hockey is at, to do a proper rebuild...........wow, we really are the new Avalanche and Oilers but won't have the benefit of the old draft system and will be competing with expansion franchises for best lotto odds..... :laughcry:

this thread is going to last far too long.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 11:14 am 
Offline
The Bird is the Word, yet the Word ≥ the Bird

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 1866
Analytics aside, I don't think it's any secret that the Canucks this management regime are making decisions to maximize their short term position in light of the Sedins, which runs in direct conflict with a long term rebuild project like the Leafs are doing now. One could argue the Sedins have earned that right.

The Canucks are going to make moves that give them the best chance to win now, which breeds systemic mediocracy over the short term. Scrap for a playoff spot, and if they get in anything can happen. This is what management is trying to sell to win back an eroding fanbase. Make no mistake - support (meaning paid support i.e. butts in seats) has fallen off a cliff. Vancouver has always been fair weather market - fans who need to see victories to lay down money for the product.

Last year was bad. The building was half empty some nights and season ticket base has been cut in half. They do not have stomach for a full throttle rebuild - and neither does ownership. Hence the club's current position.

But you are correct Foggy, this current approach puts off a rebuild another 2-3 years with potentially a new management regime. It's also no secret to anyone that you build a contender via the draft and years of pain but this will happen when the Sedins are gone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 3104
Logical Progression wrote:
Scrap for a playoff spot, and if they get in anything can happen.


No, not anything can happen, early exit is what happens and the fans know it even management doesn't. You don't win cups with "meat and potatoes" you with them with elite talent, and even if you were to still consider the twins as elite it takes more than two. You find elite talent by drafting in the top three, or just basically a crap shoot, but the more shots you take the better the chances are.

In Boston they traded Seguin, and none of Bennings decisions in Vancouver have been about finding the elite talent. They didn't move out Hansen, Hamhuis, Vrbata at the trade dealine for picks and to improve their tank odds. They traded away Gustav Forsling who went on to be named Sweden's top junior player. Passing on Erhlers and Nylander for Virtanen, trading McCann and Shinkaruk. If a player shows promise to be anything more than meat and potatoes guy they're passed on or shipped out. I don't think this is about winning now, I think there are certain types of players Benning likes, and those he doesn't, and he gets rid of those players despite their greater potential.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:00 pm 
Offline
The Bird is the Word, yet the Word ≥ the Bird

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 1866
Well, I don't know any other way to explain it. They certainly are not tearing it down to the nub, trading away assets, stockpiling picks and developing players via the draft.

I still think they are trying to cut corners because they believe they can win something now to win back the fans, or at least they feel they owe it to the Sedins to give it another kick at the can (which is, in itself a foolish notion). It's about the only logical way to explain their approach. Either they are scared shitless that the fanbase won't endure a proper rebuild (which they won't) or they are just plain old ignorant - a rookie management team who don't know jack shit about hockey.

Maybe it the latter. Just my two cents.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 3104
I think the problem is that you're looking for a rationale explanation, where as I think they are dumb people doing dumb things.

I'll give Benning credit for being able to identify and draft talent circa 2006, and even today he seems to have an eye, Forsling, Tryamkin, McCann, Boeser, Demeko etc............but his asset management is horrible, his contracts terrible, and his ability to recognize and adapt to how the game is changing (analystics and knowing how to make use of it) People can be smart in one way and still dumb in others. "Peter Principal" and he has has been promoted beyond his abilities.

As to whether the fans won't support the team. You're probably right but give them a young group that has hope for a brighter future and perhaps they'll show and support that team. As for the business side, not sure if 10 years of mediocrity vs. five years of suck, will have a better return in the long run.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group