Francesco Aquillini and Jim Benning --Tales of a Rebuild: Misconceptions, Misery, and Money

[conquestofbaguettes]

22 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Haven’t you been telling us for the last 4 pages that Benning drafted all of our superstar core players?  Now all of a sudden they weren’t really superstars until Rutherford took over?  

 

Ah yes because all prospects are stars on day one and require zero development.

 

  What a ridiculous comment. Lmao

 

 

[kilgore]

20 hours ago, The Duke said:

Yes, but the magnitude of Benning’s successes, few and far between as they were are colossal.  Petey, Hughes, Demko, Miller and now it’s looking like Boeser will go down among the best to ever wear the uniform.  
 

Versus his negative legacy: which cap-wise really boils down to OEL, Garland and 2 seasons of Myers.  All 3 having pretty good seasons this year, if very much overpaid. 

I agree he should have had another blue chipper in the prospect pool or two, but beyond that we’re arguing rebuild vs retool and that was an ownership decision.  Allvin isn’t rebuilding either, he’s just doing a much better job retooling.
 

 

 

Allvin did a great job filling out the roster but this team is still led by the core.  Take away Kuzmenko and Mikheyev and Petey is still a 1C.  Take away Petey and those two are middle 6’ers.  Hughes was a 1D before Hronek and had similar stats with Ethan Bear once Tocchet took over.   Miller drives his line and paired with Boeser has been lights out.  I love Suter and Bleuger but Garland drives the 3rd line.  Who’s the next play driver on the team?  It could very well be another Benning holdover in Hoglander - though Lafferty has been great too.
 

We obviously wouldn’t be at our current record without Allvin’s moves - especially Hronek - but come on.  They’re support pieces.  
 

And it’s no coincidence we’re in this position because the core are all healthy and playing at the top of their games.  We’ve never had all our top players playing well at the same time since the Covid year where we took Vegas to 7.  We’re also getting the best coaching we’ve had since Green lost the room during what I’m assuming was sometime in the Canadian division.  Boeser moving on from his dad passing.  Petey and Demko’s health. Miller maturing into a leadership role.  A lot of “core” related reasons for the turnaround beyond the very good support pieces added by Allvin. 

 

CONquest is beyond hope, but you gotta see that being right in picking what is now our core was not because the GM was Jim Benning. Any GM would most likely have made those picks.  The GM's job is way more complex, that's why scouting is reserved mainly for the scouts they hire. Who then recommend their choices. Sometimes a GM will have their own reasons and put their foot down to take the player they want. Such as draft genius JB did with picking Virtanen and Joulevi, by all accounts. 

 

Most times they take in what the scouts report and decide with them.  Such as they did with Boeser and Demko, and also Gaudette, who Judd Brackett was credited pushing for because of his knowledge and expertise in the eastern American hockey leagues. Brackett was a  rising star who would be recommended by Linden for top amateur scout a year later.  Then fired by JB in a fit of control freak childish envy a few years later.  Picking Hughes was not a difficult decision.  Picking Pettersson should not have been difficult but by all accounts JB had to be convinced by just about every person on our scouting staff to NOT pick Cody Glass over Petey. 

 

The point is that its true that Benning happened to be the GM when those pick positions came up, which were "earned" by sinking us to the bottom resulting in so many high picks.  I guess he could be given credit for the high positions because of that, but is that really something to be praised for?  Do we also praise the Black Hawks GM for being a genius because he picked Bedard? Considering the only top ten picks that he was solely insistent upon were abject failures? 

 

As others have pointed out, a GM's job is so much more. And if he's the one making the trade deals, then its actually Pro-Scouting, and negotiating cap hit and terms.  that would be more his focus, not amateur scouting.  And he was abysmal at that.

As you said, Allvin is much better at Retooling. Its about building the whole  team, who will compliment who. And also recognizing quickly when a mistake is made and move on.  Stillman, Dickenson, and lately Studnicka.

 

Benning had two first round picks handed to him from the "shoulders of a giant" Gillis before him to get started. (which he frittered away in less than a year) Plus a roster of ex SCF grizzled players, a commodity valued by other GMs to wheel and deal to start a rebuild and gain even more top picks.

 

JR and Allvin are showing everyone just how to manage and build a competitive NHL team.  The comparison is night and day.

 

 

[Elias Pettersson]

2 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Ah yes because all prospects are stars on day one and require zero development.

 

  What a ridiculous comment. Lmao

 

 

 

Wasn't Demko drafted in 2014, Boeser in 2015, Petey in 2017 and Hughes in 2018?  Miller was already 26 when he was traded to Vancouver.  How many years does a superstar core player need for development?  They were all playing like dogshit until Rutherford arrived.  What a coincidence.  It's a miracle really.  And Benning knew this as well.  Benning predicted that they would all turn into superstars as soon as he left.  Benning is a true team player really.  He took one for the team.  Thanks Jim...

[conquestofbaguettes]

20 hours ago, The Duke said:

Allvin isn’t rebuilding either, he’s just doing a much better job retooling.

Which is even difficult to view in those terms in a way. I think of this club in two phases under Benning:

 

1) retool with hank and Danny

 

2) rebulild after they retired.

 

When the rebuilt they didn't really have any bonafide all star prospects to build around. They acquired them slowly over time ergo (some hit, some didn't ala Virtanen, Juolevi) nevertheless this is the core we have today (with the subtraction of Horvat from Gillis regime and addition of Hronek.)

 

Its hard to judge as doing a better job in those terms as they are at different places in team development, know what I mean?  Or course it's easy to judge on paper looking at contract dollars and the like and the win loss record, but its not even really a fair comparable in that way given the space and place in time that these teams existed, if that makes sense.

 

It's in essence apples and oranges.  And of course this new regime would look so much better given all the heavy lifting done before them, and the prospects acquired finally developed and turned into stars. They didn't have that before in the same way.

 

Having said that of course we all like the majority of acquisitions on Rutherford et al. part.  Few didn't work out either (lazar, studnicka, Stillman, ect)though although luckily the cost wasn't too high which is a nice luxury to have which didn't exist the same way before, regardless of what people claim to the contrary given, yeah. That whole rebuild v. retooling stuff.  Didn't teams at different stages of development.

 

And even the Myers contract is basically low hanging fruit. If the cap was where it was supposed to be right now (around 100 million) his contract would be a non factor. And had the previous administration known a pandemic and flat cap was coming Myers never would have received that 6×6 in the first place. Projections change ergo changes the perimeters of the contract and the negotiation therein. But of course on paper, when we ignore the context to it all, it's easy to blame Benning for how bad it is. But that's not really the case.

 

And you're right. He's playing really well right now anyway. And so is Conor Garland and Oliver Ekman-Larsson down in Florida. I'm not surprised either tbh

 

 

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

17 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Wasn't Demko drafted in 2014, Boeser in 2015, Petey in 2017 and Hughes in 2018?  Miller was already 26 when he was traded to Vancouver.  How many years does a superstar core player need for development? 

Yes. Players take time to develop. Demko took years in the AHL, Petey D+1 in SHL, Brock D+1 at North Dakota, Hughes D+1 in Michigan. Even Miller was up and down to the minors with the Rangers and a 3rd line guy in Tampa.

 

Very few players ever walk directly in and light up the league on day one. Most take years to get there. Some take longer than others.

 

Human development, skills development isn't some a linear path. Nor can you predict with any real certainty who will pan out and who won't.

 

23 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

They were all playing like dogshit until Rutherford arrived.  What a coincidence. What a miracle

 

I guess Rutherford healed Demko of his injury eh. Or waved his wand and healed Brock of his mental trauma and grieving process! Miracle!!

 

They played well under Boudreau after Green got fired. And then they played like shit under Boudreau.   Rutherford was here for all that too.

 

What a garbage take. Lmao

 

25 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Benning predicted that they would all turn into superstars as soon as he left. 

 

Another garbage take.

 

32 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Thanks Jim...

 

Yes, thanks Jim Benning indeed.

 

Benning's core is great. And you remember that! Demko. Hughes. Pettersson. Boeser. Miller. All from your beloved, Jim Benning.

 

 

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

The comparison is night and day.

Yes. Because the teams overall

stage of development is night and day.

 

A rebuilding team with young stars learning the game and an ownership group trying to stay competitive

 

vs.

 

a retooling team with those young stars now entering their prime.

 

Not the same things at all. Yes, the comparison is night and day as it's basically apples and oranges.

 

You say I'm "beyond hope" but you spew non-stop surface level context lacking critiques.

 

Pure gold.

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[filthy animal]

1 hour ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Yes. Players take time to develop. Demko took years in the AHL, Petey D+1 in SHL, Brock D+1 at North Dakota, Hughes D+1 in Michigan. Even Miller was up and down to the minors with the Rangers and a 3rd line guy in Tampa.

 

Very few players ever walk directly in and light up the league on day one. Most take years to get there. Some take longer than others.

 

Human development, skills development isn't some a linear path. Nor can you predict with any real certainty who will pan out and who won't.

 

 

I guess Rutherford healed Demko of his injury eh. Or waved his wand and healed Brock of his mental trauma and grieving process! Miracle!!

 

They played well under Boudreau after Green got fired. And then they played like shit under Boudreau.   Rutherford was here for all that too.

 

What a garbage take. Lmao

 

 

Another garbage take.

 

 

Yes, thanks Jim Benning indeed.

 

Benning's core is great. And you remember that! Demko. Hughes. Pettersson. Boeser. Miller. All from your beloved, Jim Benning.

 

 

 

Beloved jim Benning?. Come on tell us the truth, youve searched Jim Benning before at pornhub

[kilgore]

2 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Yes. Because the teams overall

stage of development is night and day.

 

A rebuilding team with young stars learning the game and an ownership group trying to stay competitive

 

vs.

 

a retooling team with those young stars now entering their prime.

 

Not the same things at all. Yes, the comparison is night and day as it's basically apples and oranges.

 

You say I'm "beyond hope" but you spew non-stop surface level context lacking critiques.

 

Pure gold.

 

 

"A rebuilding team with young stars learning the game and an ownership group trying to stay competitive"

 

Except it wasn't a "rebuilding" team, the word was banned from the organization. And Benning didn't have any "young stars" in his first years, other than Horvat and Tanev.

 

And if the Aquilini's goal was strictly to "stay competitive" on a hope and a prayer that they'll get lucky and have a Cinderella run to the Cup, that is a very risky strategy.  As far as a good business decision, pro sports is completely different than the development and real estate business. There is an acceptable aspect of peaks and valleys in team performance depending on where they are in the process. Apples and oranges. You invest for the future. The investment comes partially from the cost of the loss of ticket sales temporarily.  The goal being that in 3, 4, 5 years time you reap years of sell-outs where you recover the investment of the initial barbs of a rebuild, and more.  That is how pro sports franchises usually operate as a successful business.

 

Even billionaires can make mistakes. You seem to believe that its impossible that Francesco, haphazardly, pushed to speed up the process, leap frog a rebuild, in order to let his dad hold the Stanley Cup.  Ignoring voices like Gillis, Torts and Trevor telling him he was wrong. You think it was instead some imperative business edict from above he couldn't disobey....Stay Competitive!!!! all the time, fuck the future.  Even as teams around them like NJ and NYR were not heeding that same advice from the great business Gods. And lately Chicago.  Do you think their business will survive?  Will the Hawks have to close shop because they are not 'competitive' at this very moment?  Jeez maybe if they go under we can snag Connor at their garage sale.

 

OF COURSE the team is at a different stage.  It is apples and oranges. You are right there.  There's all kinds of grey areas but yes, now is not the time for a total rebuild, a retool is now what the team is managing. And managing well.  You can't fault JR for taking over when he did.  But I contend  that its still a very difficult job to retool a team to greatness, even with a core of good players.  Picking a good player from the top ten is not difficult. Its the work after that.

 

Benning was wrong on so many levels. First even considering the job if it came with an ultimatum to pander to the owners naive sports franchise decision to not do a rebuild when it was prime time for it and humour him (and fans) with false hopes.

Then ignoring all logic and attempting a retool on top of an aging core. Never going to work.

Then completely f'n up his trade deals and FA signings that were going to prop up his misguided retool. So he even f'd up what Francesco told him he had to do. Ironically ending up with the same drop in fan support that he would have with a rebuild.

 

So bad that he got more top picks than he would have had he been successful at his "stay competitive" order.  So of course he landed some gems. That part of the job is the most fun and the easiest. Even though of all of his 6 top ten picks, two are playing here, two were complete busts and not even in the NHL anymore, one traded away, and one still trying to work it out on the farm. Not talking his first round picks over all, but just from the top ten. Not a fantastic record for prospects so high on the board.

 

You may have more sympathy if you didn't move the goalposts so much. LIke you once said in here that Benning probably should have started a proper rebuild when he got here. So it was his fault? But scratch that.. it was all Aquilini's doing. Poor Jim just was doing what he was ordered to do. Including taking the job apparently. He had no choice. But wait....it wasn't even the Aquilini's decision, it was the Invisible Hand of the Market. or some such entity that compelled the Aquilini's to order Jim to 'remain competitive' no matter what. Business simply could never recover if they dared do a proper rebuild.  Maybe other cities and teams could but not this one for some reason only Luigi knows.

 

OMG, you've suckered me into another verbose response.  Please stop. I'm a sucker for an easy kill. Why do you have the need to deify JB anyways?  He's gone. Thankfully. Enjoy the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

Except it wasn't a "rebuilding" team, the word was banned from the organization.

Banned? No.

 

What was shot down was the idealistic notion they had to intentionally tank to do it. But they still rebuilt the team. They just did it in a way that some fail to recognize.

 

The view "a rebuild is like this and only like this" is where the entire problem begins.

 

There are many different ways to rebuild a team and not all follow the same path for the same reasons. Are some ways theoretically better than others? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean what they did wasn't a rebulld. It absolutely was.

 

Let me ask. What's the point of a rebuild?  I mean truly. How are teams comprised in a flat cap world? On most any team you will find a core  of 5, 6, 7 star type players. The point of a rebulld, is out with the old in with the new. Who is the Canucks new core?  If you're saying they didn't rebuild that would mean the old core is still here. Hank, Dank, Burrow, Luo. Etc etc  and we know that's not true.

 

They have a brand new core from what was. Took fucking forever to get there? Yep. But this team has been rebuilt.

 

This is different from a retool. A retool tends to mean keeping the majority of your core, and adding new supplemental and supporting pieces to compete. So which did the Canucks do under Benning?

 

First they retooled around Hank and Danny.   Then when hank and Danny retired they tore it down and replaced the old team slowly introducing the new young core we have today (with the subtraction of Horvat and new addition of Hronek.) People can conjure all sorts of  codified definitions for what a rebuild specifically is and how to "properly" do a rebuild but in the end it's just made up bullshit.

 

The end result is what is really what a rebuild is all about. Again would have been nice to get there faster and potentially for longer taking advantage of ELCs, maximizing all the resources at their finger tips, etc etc. but that's the trade off for ownership: sacrificing a bit of the future for the now and it's a fine balance. Even Rutherford made mention of this in one of his press conferences early on.

 

Bottomline is the rebuild path was a conscious business decision made by ownership and I have no problem understanding why they'd do it. I didn't like the choice, but I can at least understand why they did from a business standpoint even if you can't.

 

Also, I thought you said you were done like 5 pages ago? And yet here you still are. Lol  can't resist eh.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

And Benning didn't have any "young stars" in his first years, other than Horvat and Tanev.

 

Basically, yep. I like Tanev but he doesn't even qualify for that term sadly.

 

They had Horvat and zero other young blue chips in the pipeline to build around largely due to the previous regime.  And the NHL assets they did have did not and would not command 1st round picks needed to do the type of rebuild people typical think as a rebuild. Only one was Ryan Kesler and Kes gave them ONE option as confirmed by Kesler: Anaheim. So the return for him wasn't even great.

 

Rock and a hard place, man.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

And if the Aquilini's goal was strictly to "stay competitive" on a hope and a prayer that they'll get lucky and have a Cinderella run to the Cup,

No no no. That was never the idea.

 

"Competitive" here was always a bit of bullshit term from the org.  Please do not misconstrue what it means when they said play "competive" hockey. That meant not get blown out every night. Competitive means draw more fans than a massively losing product would otherwise. Think in terms of selling most any product in the marketplace.   A half assed trinket will sell more than a total shit product that breaks the first time you use it. It's like that.

 

It was never some playoffs or else or Cinderella run mandate.  While playoffs can be a stated goal, they didn't have any delusions of grandeur. They knew what they had. Chris Gear confirmed it was never like that. "The organization wanted to be competitive. We wanted fans to see "competitive" hockey and not get blown out 6-1 everynight." It's not that hard to understand what that really means when you think about it.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

That is how pro sports franchises usually operate as a successful business.

 

According to who and based on what. It's in essence theoretical gibberish.  Even teams that rebuild "the right way" may never win anything... and they often don't.

 

See points about rebuilds above.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

  Even as teams around them like NJ and NYR were not heeding that same advice from the great business Gods. And lately Chicago.  Do you think their business will survive?  Will the Hawks have to close shop because they are not 'competitive' at this very moment?  Jeez maybe if they go under we can snag Connor at their garage sale.

 

None of those teams are equivalent examples though. Hell you could even tag the Rangers or LA Kings with the retool  definition moreso than the rebuild due to the starting positions and what they kept for the duration. Eg. Kopitar, Doughty, etc. Like I said. There are lots of ways to rebuild a team and not all follow the same path for the same reasons.

 

Some clubs had valuable assets worth keeping and building around. Others had jack shit... like the Canucks. Some are original six teams which have an easier time drawing fans regardless of the product.  Nevertheless, until you understand that circumstance dictates path you'll never really get what's being said or why.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

OF COURSE the team is at a different stage.  It is apples and oranges. You are right there.  There's all kinds of grey areas but yes, now is not the time for a total rebuild, a retool is now what the team is managing. And managing well.  You can't fault JR for taking over when he did.  But I contend  that its still a very difficult job to retool a team to greatness, even with a core of good players.  Picking a good player from the top ten is not difficult. Its the work after that.

 

You think assembling a core of stars is the easy part?  Is that why Allvin said you can't find stars in the market because they cost too much? No. You can find the cheaper, lower risk supporting pieces to plug and play with FAR easier than you can to find  franchise stars worth building around. There are no guarantees at the draft.

 

Picks are basically magic beans and educated guessing. Even landing in the top 3 you can end up with jack shit for a player. We've seen it countless times. Do not mistaken theory for reality.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

Benning was wrong on so many levels. First even considering the job if it came with an ultimatum to pander to the owners naive sports franchise decision to not do a rebuild when it was prime time for it and humour him (and fans) with false hopes.

And if it wasn't him doing ownerships bidding selling that "competitive" product it would have been someone else. And save the childish moral indignation. What do you do for work? Most all of us sell our asses for others to make money on and do the bidding of our bosses. Welcome to the real world.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

Then ignoring all logic and attempting a retool on top of an aging core. Never going to work.

Then completely f'n up his trade deals and FA signings that were going to prop up his misguided retool. So he even f'd up what Francesco told him he had to do. Ironically ending up with the same drop in fan support that he would have with a rebuild.

 

So bad that he got more top picks than he would have had he been successful at his "stay competitive" order.  So of course he landed some gems. That part of the job is the most fun and the easiest. Even though of all of his 6 top ten picks, two are playing here, two were complete busts and not even in the NHL anymore, one traded away, and one still trying to work it out on the farm. Not talking his first round picks over all, but just from the top ten. Not a fantastic record for prospects so high on the board.

 

1) not all magic beans sprout. Damn near every team at every draft misses out on players they wish they would have drafted.  Even I wanted them to pick Tkachuk.   Just like Detroit fans wished they picked Hughes. This kinda shit happens all the time.

 

2) They still hit where they really needed to.  1c, 1d, 1g. Got a 2w, traded for a 2c.... Sure it would have been nice if a few more panned out, but shit happens.

 

3) Benning didn't fuck up nearly as bad as you're saying. And apparently Aqqua didn't think so either.  Ol Jimbo lasted 8 years afterall....  which is 2 years more than Mike Gillis I might add. Which is pretty funny.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

You may have more sympathy if you didn't move the goalposts so much.

 

No. I have been consistent in absolutely everything I've said. Everything harkens back the original post. Cross reference if you like. If you think I'm moving goalposts it's because you haven't really understood what I've been saying the entire time. And sympathy? Lol. What makes you think I give two shits about that. I'm critiquing the common narratives I've seen over the years on the topic.

 

Bottomline is there are simply other more convincing, more rational explanations for what we saw and why they did what they did than "they just dumb" or "just give daddy cup." Maybe you and others believe that but I find it comical tbh.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

. LIke you once said in here that Benning probably should have started a proper rebuild when he got here. So it was his fault? But scratch that.. it was all Aquilini's doing

Well when the business you work for makes a decision, what do you do.  Either quit like a Trevor Linden (who is for example financially secure enoug to do so) or you do the job.  Once again, welcome to reality.

 

I don't even really think in terms of "fault" and "blame" of anyone here as per my original post. Go back and read it.  Not even Aqua really. Business dictates. Even CEOs in multinational corporations can't often do what personally would like to do.

 

And yes. I said even I would have preferred a different path. Doesnt neccesarily make that a realistic idea though. That's what was being said there. That's what has been said in every single post I've made on this point.

 

An intentional tank rebuild was NEVER a realistic option for this organization at that time. We can wish it was different all we want. Means fuck all.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

Maybe other cities and teams could but not this one for some reason

And that's the billion dollar question isn't it. Why choose this fucked up rebuild path staying "competitive" if keeping the money rolling in for all parties wasn't an underlying driver? It makes no sense otherwise.

 

But it does make sense when you add the financial drivers and other  business interests into the conversation. Not about Adam Smith but flesh and blood corporate decision making. If you want to call these billionaires greedy, go for it. I have no love for these ghouls or any other billionaire for that matter. I'm simply providing a different perspective and subsequent narrative than "they just dumb", man. Even if part of that is in fact true.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

OMG, you've suckered me into another verbose response.  Please stop. I'm a sucker for an easy kill. Why do you have the need to deify JB anyways?  He's gone. Thankfully. Enjoy the moment.

There is no defying anyone on my part. These millionaires can all get fucked for all I care. People I will never meet and have no direct affect on our waking lives...unless they do work in the community, donate money, involved in social cause to help the working class etc etc. Other than that they are all rich entertainers in the entertainment business.

 

The only people I ever really see deify anyone here are the Gillis and Brackett nut suckers. Lol. It's pretty funny.

 

And easy kill you say? You brought a butter knife to a gun fight. Lol.

 

 Come butter my baguette

Edited December 19, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes
grammar. words.

[LillStrimma]

1 hour ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

The end result is what is really what a rebuild is all about. Again would have been nice to get there faster and potentially for longer taking advantage of ELCs, maximizing all the resources at their finger tips, etc etc. but that's the trade off for ownership: sacrificing a bit of the future for the now and it's a fine balance.

And this is where Benning failed big time.

We’ve argued over this on a lot of pages and you still defend the crap choices Benning did.

 

If he had done a great job the whole organisation would have been ready to go when Hughes were drafted.

This shows that Benning was caught blindsided by Petey.

He didn’t know what kind of player he drafted still Inge Hammarström tried to tell him that, Petey for Inge was 1OA.

Just as Inge told the Flyers that drafted Foppa Forsberg. He said that Foppa was a better choice than Lindros back then. The reason was the mental bit.

 

 

The supportplayers should have been much cheaper, 10 mill in cap space so Benning could have done what Allvin has done now.

 

Is it three lost seasons? 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

It takes more than 7 years to hire the right head coach for the Canucks.   A clue, the Canucks current state of play hasn't relied on Demko stealing most games 

Edited December 19, 2023 by NewbieCanuckFan

[chaoticmonkey]

14 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Banned? No.

 

What was shot down was the idealistic notion they had to intentionally tank to do it. But they still rebuilt the team. They just did it in a way that some fail to recognize.

 

The view "a rebuild is like this and only like this" is where the entire problem begins.

 

There are many different ways to rebuild a team and not all follow the same path for the same reasons. Are some ways theoretically better than others? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean what they did wasn't a rebulld. It absolutely was.

 

Let me ask. What's the point of a rebuild?  I mean truly. How are teams comprised in a flat cap world? On most any team you will find a core  of 5, 6, 7 star type players. The point of a rebulld, is out with the old in with the new. Who is the Canucks new core?  If you're saying they didn't rebuild that would mean the old core is still here. Hank, Dank, Burrow, Luo. Etc etc  and we know that's not true.

 

They have a brand new core from what was. Took fucking forever to get there? Yep. But this team has been rebuilt.

 

This is different from a retool. A retool tends to mean keeping the majority of your core, and adding new supplemental and supporting pieces to compete. So which did the Canucks do under Benning?

 

First they retooled around Hank and Danny.   Then when hank and Danny retired they tore it down and replaced the old team slowly introducing the new young core we have today (with the subtraction of Horvat and new addition of Hronek.) People can conjure all sorts of  codified definitions for what a rebuild specifically is and how to "properly" do a rebuild but in the end it's just made up bullshit.

 

The end result is what is really what a rebuild is all about. Again would have been nice to get there faster and potentially for longer taking advantage of ELCs, maximizing all the resources at their finger tips, etc etc. but that's the trade off for ownership: sacrificing a bit of the future for the now and it's a fine balance. Even Rutherford made mention of this in one of his press conferences early on.

 

Bottomline is the rebuild path was a conscious business decision made by ownership and I have no problem understanding why they'd do it. I didn't like the choice, but I can at least understand why they did from a business standpoint even if you can't.

 

Also, I thought you said you were done like 5 pages ago? And yet here you still are. Lol  can't resist eh.

 

 

Basically, yep. I like Tanev but he doesn't even qualify for that term sadly.

 

They had Horvat and zero other young blue chips in the pipeline to build around largely due to the previous regime.  And the NHL assets they did have did not and would not command 1st round picks needed to do the type of rebuild people typical think as a rebuild. Only one was Ryan Kesler and Kes gave them ONE option as confirmed by Kesler: Anaheim. So the return for him wasn't even great.

 

Rock and a hard place, man.

 

No no no. That was never the idea.

 

"Competitive" here was always a bit of bullshit term from the org.  Please do not misconstrue what it means when they said play "competive" hockey. That meant not get blown out every night. Competitive means draw more fans than a massively losing product would otherwise. Think in terms of selling most any product in the marketplace.   A half assed trinket will sell more than a total shit product that breaks the first time you use it. It's like that.

 

It was never some playoffs or else or Cinderella run mandate.  While playoffs can be a stated goal, they didn't have any delusions of grandeur. They knew what they had. Chris Gear confirmed it was never like that. "The organization wanted to be competitive. We wanted fans to see "competitive" hockey and not get blown out 6-1 everynight." It's not that hard to understand what that really means when you think about it.

 

 

According to who and based on what. It's in essence theoretical gibberish.  Even teams that rebuild "the right way" may never win anything... and they often don't.

 

See points about rebuilds above.

 

 

None of those teams are equivalent examples though. Hell you could even tag the Rangers or LA Kings with the retool  definition moreso than the rebuild due to the starting positions and what they kept for the duration. Eg. Kopitar, Doughty, etc. Like I said. There are lots of ways to rebuild a team and not all follow the same path for the same reasons.

 

Some clubs had valuable assets worth keeping and building around. Others had jack shit... like the Canucks. Some are original six teams which have an easier time drawing fans regardless of the product.  Nevertheless, until you understand that circumstance dictates path you'll never really get what's being said or why.

 

 

You think assembling a core of stars is the easy part?  Is that why Allvin said you can't find stars in the market because they cost too much? No. You can find the cheaper, lower risk supporting pieces to plug and play with FAR easier than you can to find  franchise stars worth building around. There are no guarantees at the draft.

 

Picks are basically magic beans and educated guessing. Even landing in the top 3 you can end up with jack shit for a player. We've seen it countless times. Do not mistaken theory for reality.

 

And if it wasn't him doing ownerships bidding selling that "competitive" product it would have been someone else. And save the childish moral indignation. What do you do for work? Most all of us sell our asses for others to make money on and do the bidding of our bosses. Welcome to the real world.

 

 

1) not all magic beans sprout. Damn near every team at every draft misses out on players they wish they would have drafted.  Even I wanted them to pick Tkachuk.   Just like Detroit fans wished they picked Hughes. This kinda shit happens all the time.

 

2) They still hit where they really needed to.  1c, 1d, 1g. Got a 2w, traded for a 2c.... Sure it would have been nice if a few more panned out, but shit happens.

 

3) Benning didn't fuck up nearly as bad as you're saying. And apparently Aqqua didn't think so either.  Ol Jimbo lasted 8 years afterall....  which is 2 years more than Mike Gillis I might add. Which is pretty funny.

 

 

No. I have been consistent in absolutely everything I've said. Everything harkens back the original post. Cross reference if you like. If you think I'm moving goalposts it's because you haven't really understood what I've been saying the entire time. And sympathy? Lol. What makes you think I give two shits about that. I'm critiquing the common narratives I've seen over the years on the topic.

 

Bottomline is there are simply other more convincing, more rational explanations for what we saw and why they did what they did than "they just dumb" or "just give daddy cup." Maybe you and others believe that but I find it comical tbh.

 

Well when the business you work for makes a decision, what do you do.  Either quit like a Trevor Linden (who is for example financially secure enoug to do so) or you do the job.  Once again, welcome to reality.

 

I don't even really think in terms of "fault" and "blame" of anyone here as per my original post. Go back and read it.  Not even Aqua really. Business dictates. Even CEOs in multinational corporations can't often do what personally would like to do.

 

And yes. I said even I would have preferred a different path. Doesnt neccesarily make that a realistic idea though. That's what was being said there. That's what has been said in every single post I've made on this point.

 

An intentional tank rebuild was NEVER a realistic option for this organization at that time. We can wish it was different all we want. Means fuck all.

 

And that's the billion dollar question isn't it. Why choose this fucked up rebuild path staying "competitive" if keeping the money rolling in for all parties wasn't an underlying driver? It makes no sense otherwise.

 

But it does make sense when you add the financial drivers and other  business interests into the conversation. Not about Adam Smith but flesh and blood corporate decision making. If you want to call these billionaires greedy, go for it. I have no love for these ghouls or any other billionaire for that matter. I'm simply providing a different perspective and subsequent narrative than "they just dumb", man. Even if part of that is in fact true.

 

There is no defying anyone on my part. These millionaires can all get fucked for all I care. People I will never meet and have no direct affect on our waking lives...unless they do work in the community, donate money, involved in social cause to help the working class etc etc. Other than that they are all rich entertainers in the entertainment business.

 

The only people I ever really see deify anyone here are the Gillis and Brackett nut suckers. Lol. It's pretty funny.

 

And easy kill you say? You brought a butter knife to a gun fight. Lol.

 

 Come butter my baguette

Absolute 

[conquestofbaguettes]

12 hours ago, LillStrimma said:

And this is where Benning failed big time.

We’ve argued over this on a lot of pages and you still defend the crap choices Benning did.

 

The problem is you have the premise wrong. And until you understand the underlying ownership mandate in place at that time you'll never get what's being said.

 

Of course a majority of those trades and signings look like or were dogshit!... especially for a rebuilding team, and moves which run counter to what people view as a "proper" rebuild. This was never in contention!

 

But it's the initial premise for the majority of those decisions which is in contention here.

 

The only "defense" I have for the previous regime is based on things which were largely out of their hands. Nothing more. And when you understand the cause of affect of the underlying mandate to stay competitive, the picture becomes much more clear.

13 hours ago, LillStrimma said:

The support players should have been much cheaper, 10 mill in cap space so Benning could have done what Allvin has done now.

Which is a statement lacking any kind of context. Team development, stage of team building, are at different places then to now. ie. You pay more, more term, etc. to convince guys to come to a losing rebuilder.... especially one with a mandate to stay competitive while doing it.

 

You're comparing apples to oranges.

[conquestofbaguettes]

2 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

It takes more than 7 years to hire the right head coach for the Canucks.   A clue, the Canucks current state of play hasn't relied on Demko stealing most games 

Some parts coaching for sure... but mostly a product of player and team development. If you don't have the horses, or the horses aren't yet ready to race, not much you can do but wait.

 

Ie. If Tocchet coached the old squads during the dark times he'd probably have the same win loss record as Travis Green at that time.

[The Duke]

On 12/18/2023 at 4:58 PM, kilgore said:

 

CONquest is beyond hope, but you gotta see that being right in picking what is now our core was not because the GM was Jim Benning. Any GM would most likely have made those picks.  The GM's job is way more complex, that's why scouting is reserved mainly for the scouts they hire. Who then recommend their choices. Sometimes a GM will have their own reasons and put their foot down to take the player they want. Such as draft genius JB did with picking Virtanen and Joulevi, by all accounts. 

 

Most times they take in what the scouts report and decide with them.  Such as they did with Boeser and Demko, and also Gaudette, who Judd Brackett was credited pushing for because of his knowledge and expertise in the eastern American hockey leagues. Brackett was a  rising star who would be recommended by Linden for top amateur scout a year later.  Then fired by JB in a fit of control freak childish envy a few years later.  Picking Hughes was not a difficult decision.  Picking Pettersson should not have been difficult but by all accounts JB had to be convinced by just about every person on our scouting staff to NOT pick Cody Glass over Petey. 

 

The point is that its true that Benning happened to be the GM when those pick positions came up, which were "earned" by sinking us to the bottom resulting in so many high picks.  I guess he could be given credit for the high positions because of that, but is that really something to be praised for?  Do we also praise the Black Hawks GM for being a genius because he picked Bedard? Considering the only top ten picks that he was solely insistent upon were abject failures? 

 

As others have pointed out, a GM's job is so much more. And if he's the one making the trade deals, then its actually Pro-Scouting, and negotiating cap hit and terms.  that would be more his focus, not amateur scouting.  And he was abysmal at that.

As you said, Allvin is much better at Retooling. Its about building the whole  team, who will compliment who. And also recognizing quickly when a mistake is made and move on.  Stillman, Dickenson, and lately Studnicka.

 

Benning had two first round picks handed to him from the "shoulders of a giant" Gillis before him to get started. (which he frittered away in less than a year) Plus a roster of ex SCF grizzled players, a commodity valued by other GMs to wheel and deal to start a rebuild and gain even more top picks.

 

JR and Allvin are showing everyone just how to manage and build a competitive NHL team.  The comparison is night and day.

 

 

 

On 12/18/2023 at 11:23 AM, filthy animal said:

 

 

Yeah Petey is a 1C, but is he upper echelon top 5 - top 10 in the league without Mikeyev or Kuzmenko last year? No he was not. If you recall, EP40 was a below 70pt before those guys came here. Hughes was a top 10 dman prior to Hronek being here, now hes pushing Makar off the cliff on top of the mountain. To minimize the current regimes work is ridiculous as this main Benning core has crashed and failed for numerous years. To say its just strictly to them being just older and healthy is a pretty lame excuse, thats just assuming players just get better over time but fail to realize that not only do the support players play in their development but the environment as well. Brock Boeser has been trending downwards the last few years, management gave him new off season regiment, ditch Da beauty league, guess what? He's on pace for 50 goals ish. To maximize the pieces that were left behind by the previous regime by addition or substraction, thats in the GM job description

 

 

 

I get that people need to go on and on about how bad the Benning years were but you don’t turn it around this quickly - with a coaching change and cheap affordable pieces - if the heavy lifting wasn’t already done.  
 

It’s less a commentary about Benning and a positive one about how JR and Allvin correctly assessed what they inherited and went about addressing the needs.  I’m fairly positive about the team, but I didn’t see Allvin coming in and having this much success so quickly. He's walked a tightrope and found multiple gems in the bargain bin to fill out the roster.  I would have guessed wild card if they got it together, but leading the league is fantastic.
 

With that said, aside from the home run swings with Hronek (and I’d still say Kuzmenko as found money) he’s building from the bottom 6, bottom pairings and a backup goalie.  All important but the heart of this team was still inherited - as was the capital (Horvat signed to a nice cap hit, no NTC) to add Hronek, deft as the trade was.

 

I always said Benning would likely need to be replaced with a finesse guy as his moves were mostly ham fisted.  But Petey, Miller, Hughes, Demko and Boeser are proving themselves a fabulous group to inherit - and we’ve seen them all play at this level (or close to) for stretches in the past - just never sustained and all at once.  There absolutely is an element of maturity from this group that has led to the current success.  
 

It’s also not a surprise to me that depth holdover guys like Myers, Garland and Hoglander are also playing great - a lot of the “Benning’s team sucks” was a result of poor structure and morale for a litany of seasons.  His last few seasons definitely had wild card talent (demonstrated in the bubble) but for various reasons they played well below their ability.  
 

Again, that’s just a fair appraisal of the big picture job he did.  Acquired elite players in key positions, weak prospect pool (but not barren),  young core, and actually didn’t have that bad of a cap situation when fired, with regards to flexibility and players might be overpaid but they’re at least still serviceable.  He wasn’t a good GM by any stretch but the “ruined the team for 10 years” nonsense that gets thrown around is just false.

[iceman1964]

On 12/14/2023 at 9:27 AM, AnthonyG said:

Lmao you aint movin on without Miller, Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, Demko now Hoglander, soon to be Podkolzin hopefully, Karlsson is looking good, Tolipolo, Silovs… buddy be fuckin thankful for JB. The fact he was able to build an entire core AND toss a couple things in the cupboards in under 8 years is fucking massive. He came in and did his job, your insane if you think he was brought in to win a cup. He went through more adversity than any other GM in the history of the god damn sport.

- Inheritted a cap recapture

- almost zero prospects

- aged out washed up core with little to no value to help accelerate a rebuild

- 2 expansion drafts

- a flattened cap

- COVID putting our season on pause for a month and having a serious impact on the health of our team, THE ONLY team to suffer this set back.

 

 

You guys think this team all of the sudden learned to start winning now with what PA and JR have done??? Lmfao buddy right after JB and Green were let go, Vancouver, with no roster changes shot up in the standings and missed playoffs by 3 wins, THREE WINS and thats with Pettersson playing like absolute dog shit the first 40 games where he was held pointless 24 fucking times. Maybe if he had his shit together and showed up to camp early and ready to go like last year, we woulda been a playoff team. 
PA made changes to the team and we got shittier last year. Whats up with that? PAs big UFA signing has 5 fuckin goals and it cost us an additional 4.75mil to sign the guy. Fuck sakes man Hoglander has as many goals as Mikheyev and nearly as many points too and he had to earn ice time, Mikheyev was gifted it, same as Kuzmenko who has lost his ice time.

 

Right now its pretty much alllll JB guys driving this bus.

Why didnt PA move Garland 2 seasons ago when he had value?

Why did JR openly state if we missed playoffs last year it would be a disaster, an utter failure??

Why did PA keep the team together and add to it last year???

BECAUSE THE TEAM IN PLACE WHEN HE TOOK OVER WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO COMPETE. Health just held us back and shit goaltending last year.

Jim Rutherford firmly believed in this team at the end of 2021-22. If he believed in it, does that make him a fucking idiot because he believed in Jim Bennings work?

 

Good job AG, it's great to see some actually using their heads here instead of simply parroting what our worse than our joke of a useless media spews out constantly. 

[iceman1964]

23 minutes ago, The Duke said:

 

I get that people need to go on and on about how bad the Benning years were but you don’t turn it around this quickly - with a coaching change and cheap affordable pieces - if the heavy lifting wasn’t already done.  
 

It’s less a commentary about Benning and a positive one about how JR and Allvin correctly assessed what they inherited and went about addressing the needs.  I’m fairly positive about the team, but I didn’t see Allvin coming in and having this much success so quickly. He's walked a tightrope and found multiple gems in the bargain bin to fill out the roster.  I would have guessed wild card if they got it together, but leading the league is fantastic.
 

With that said, aside from the home run swings with Hronek (and I’d still say Kuzmenko as found money) he’s building from the bottom 6, bottom pairings and a backup goalie.  All important but the heart of this team was still inherited - as was the capital (Horvat signed to a nice cap hit, no NTC) to add Hronek, deft as the trade was.

 

I always said Benning would likely need to be replaced with a finesse guy as his moves were mostly ham fisted.  But Petey, Miller, Hughes, Demko and Boeser are proving themselves a fabulous group to inherit - and we’ve seen them all play at this level (or close to) for stretches in the past - just never sustained and all at once.  There absolutely is an element of maturity from this group that has led to the current success.  
 

It’s also not a surprise to me that depth holdover guys like Myers, Garland and Hoglander are also playing great - a lot of the “Benning’s team sucks” was a result of poor structure and morale for a litany of seasons.  His last few seasons definitely had wild card talent (demonstrated in the bubble) but for various reasons they played well below their ability.  
 

Again, that’s just a fair appraisal of the big picture job he did.  Acquired elite players in key positions, weak prospect pool (but not barren),  young core, and actually didn’t have that bad of a cap situation when fired, with regards to flexibility and players might be overpaid but they’re at least still serviceable.  He wasn’t a good GM by any stretch but the “ruined the team for 10 years” nonsense that gets thrown around is just false.

Some good points there and I'll add a point that stupid people tend to forget or not acknowledge at all, that Canada is not a big market, obviously the big market is south, and a lot of players need to be overpaid to be lured to play here unless their Canadians and even then, lots head south as well.

 Can't really blame them..  and then there's the side of the coin that a lot of Vancouver fans are complete idiots who couldn't think for themselves if they wanted to because their too used to the media to do it for them. 

  Classic example is JT Miller, and now Kuzmenko. 

 And I understand that, if I was a elite player, I wouldn't even play for Vancouver no matter how much I was paid, I'd play for less for a better place to play instead. 

 Heck I'll go one step further when Petey had a glitch second season in and was quickly labeled a bust..  fackin genius...

[filthy animal]

4 hours ago, iceman1964 said:

Good job AG, it's great to see some actually using their heads here instead of simply parroting what our worse than our joke of a useless media spews out constantly. 

You know whats a joke? A 60 year old trying to act tough in a forum. Must be really bored in your little nursing home

[Silent Man]

1 hour ago, filthy animal said:

You know whats a joke? A 60 year old trying to act tough in a forum. Must be really bored in your little nursing home

Easy now. I am 60 years old as well. Guess what- we are the foundational pieces of society. We have experience and still have lots of power to get the job done.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, filthy animal said:

You know whats a joke? A 60 year old trying to act tough in a forum. Must be really bored in your little nursing home

Grow up dough head. I’m 73, ride a scooter and wear Depends. Don’t be abusive to old folks. Doing that is both disrespectful and stupid. You do realize we could best you over the head with our crutches, right? 

Seriously, don’t be mean EVER to old people. It’s kind of bad form. 

[filthy animal]

5 minutes ago, Silent Man said:

Easy now. I am 60 years old as well. Guess what- we are the foundational pieces of society. We have experience and still have lots of power to get the job done.

 

I have no doubt about that. Ill admit, not all seniors are the same. 

[Hogs and Podz]

6 hours ago, iceman1964 said:

Good job AG, it's great to see some actually using their heads here instead of simply parroting what our worse than our joke of a useless media spews out constantly. 

Sorry.... Not sorry.  AG does have some points... But is all black or white about it. 

 

JB indeed drafted the core and made the JT trade... He deserves a lot of credit for that. 

 

But to turn around and spit vitriol and warped truths about PA and JR's work, bending truth to try and prove a point, in my view, discredits his whole stance.  

 

I feel the same for posts that paint Benning as 'a useless never did anything well... Picks fell into his lap yada, yada... Worst GM in canucks franchise history'....

 

That not even close to being true.  He defiantly made some bone head moves... We all know what they were but he drafted our whole core... And it's a great one.

 

You've been around for long enough to know that most things/issues/situations in life are not black and white... There's almost always some grey. 

 

This topic is no different.  Both can be true.  AG chooses to beat the same drum, the same way every chance he gets.... Very similar to the poster that goes on about firing Tocc.  It get tiresome and pointless to argue. 

 

Seems to me your encouraging his poor behavior.  But if that's your thing then... Oh well.

[kilgore]

7 hours ago, The Duke said:

 

I get that people need to go on and on about how bad the Benning years were but you don’t turn it around this quickly - with a coaching change and cheap affordable pieces - if the heavy lifting wasn’t already done.  
 

It’s less a commentary about Benning and a positive one about how JR and Allvin correctly assessed what they inherited and went about addressing the needs.  I’m fairly positive about the team, but I didn’t see Allvin coming in and having this much success so quickly. He's walked a tightrope and found multiple gems in the bargain bin to fill out the roster.  I would have guessed wild card if they got it together, but leading the league is fantastic.
 

With that said, aside from the home run swings with Hronek (and I’d still say Kuzmenko as found money) he’s building from the bottom 6, bottom pairings and a backup goalie.  All important but the heart of this team was still inherited - as was the capital (Horvat signed to a nice cap hit, no NTC) to add Hronek, deft as the trade was.

 

I always said Benning would likely need to be replaced with a finesse guy as his moves were mostly ham fisted.  But Petey, Miller, Hughes, Demko and Boeser are proving themselves a fabulous group to inherit - and we’ve seen them all play at this level (or close to) for stretches in the past - just never sustained and all at once.  There absolutely is an element of maturity from this group that has led to the current success.  
 

It’s also not a surprise to me that depth holdover guys like Myers, Garland and Hoglander are also playing great - a lot of the “Benning’s team sucks” was a result of poor structure and morale for a litany of seasons.  His last few seasons definitely had wild card talent (demonstrated in the bubble) but for various reasons they played well below their ability.  
 

Again, that’s just a fair appraisal of the big picture job he did.  Acquired elite players in key positions, weak prospect pool (but not barren),  young core, and actually didn’t have that bad of a cap situation when fired, with regards to flexibility and players might be overpaid but they’re at least still serviceable.  He wasn’t a good GM by any stretch but the “ruined the team for 10 years” nonsense that gets thrown around is just false.

 

Fair enough.

Benning wasn't completely useless.  Structure, under Tocchet is a huge reason for our success. But then you could also question JB's coaching hire decisions.

He was a weak leader in not standing up to ownership about the need for a proper rebuild while we had the assets to actually start something.

He demolished our farm team with his trades and giving up too early on prospects. And never did find a way to move the farm team closer.

He took on contracts, and signed new ones, on the generous side, that either the player was not scouted well at all, or it was just horrible luck that his play happened to drop off just when he arrived in Vancouver. Either way he took value and future value out of the team every year. Sure, the few draft successes that worked out counter balanced a lot of his failures.

 

He was GM when Hughes came up on the draft board. I just contend that any GM would have made that pick. And most would have also picked Pettersson, although Benning had to be convinced to not pick Glass and Brackett was mainly responsible for pushing for Demko and Boeser.  But credit to JB for the correct final say.  But a GMs job is so much more than that. A lot is knowing how to deal with the other old boys in the club from other teams. If it wasn't this core it could have been Nylander/McAvoy/Tkachuk Larkin, Andersson, plus a bunch of other failed picks that will never make it in the NHL.  so many variables. Not that I'm not stoked for the core we have now.

 

But he was the GM. He should get credit for those picks. Its just kind of funny that the Plan was never to be in a position to pick that high. Maybe it worked out better this way, albeit having to wait almost a decade. He could have started a rebuild, and stripped the team and we'd have had a shot at Mathews, or even McDavid if he'd started right away.  We could have had a completely different core, and most  likely been competitive a lot sooner. 

 

But we are here now. And its true that,  even if by unintentional consequences, JB found himself in a position to get us our core players we have today. Plus the Miller acquisition, where giving up a first actually paid off.  So good for him. Benning didn't ruin the team for ten years, but he did stall the team, and gave the new management a lot of headaches to deal with. Which is still not over with OEL's penalties coming.

 

It was just damn frustrating to watch him bumble and fumble around with the team that many of us had grown up with and were dying to see succeed.

 

I give him credit for drafting the core we have today, but at the same time understand how bad he was at everything else. I can do both. But really I just want to move on. Like a bad car crash. You recover, buy an different vehicle, which is probably better, newer, faster, and be thankful for where you are.  I don't start these retrogressive threads. I don't want to talk about it really, but I'll respond if someone else starts one that is trying to rewrite club history.

[iceman1964]

4 hours ago, filthy animal said:

You know whats a joke? A 60 year old trying to act tough in a forum. Must be really bored in your little nursing home

First and last time I'll address your opinion, first, tough?  Where the F did you get that from?  From forming my assessment by not following along with the rest of the crowd who refuse to think rationally for themselves and actually question things? 

If that's your idea of tough then that's on you and your problem not mine. 

Second, as a lot of people have seen my posts over the years, nowhere have I ever said JB never made mistakes because he surely did but he did his share of good things too and I'm not going to slam him and say everything he did sucked because that's hardly the truth. 

 However you can say whatever you like and normally I don't stoop to responding to twits but you can try to insult as much as you like BUT you might want to open your math app on your phone, I'm 59

 And p.s. if JB was as bad as you say, we wouldn't have a team that now sits second overall, we'd be last or close to it.

PA himself mentioned we were close to being a really good team but needed tweaks and I've been saying that for a long time now and so have a lot of people on here, but hey you seem to think you know better... but yeah you are entitled to your opinion. 

 Say hi to iggy for me k? 

 

[filthy animal]

On 12/20/2023 at 9:19 PM, iceman1964 said:

First and last time I'll address your opinion, first, tough?  Where the F did you get that from?  From forming my assessment by not following along with the rest of the crowd who refuse to think rationally for themselves and actually question things? 

If that's your idea of tough then that's on you and your problem not mine. 

Second, as a lot of people have seen my posts over the years, nowhere have I ever said JB never made mistakes because he surely did but he did his share of good things too and I'm not going to slam him and say everything he did sucked because that's hardly the truth. 

 However you can say whatever you like and normally I don't stoop to responding to twits but you can try to insult as much as you like BUT you might want to open your math app on your phone, I'm 59

 And p.s. if JB was as bad as you say, we wouldn't have a team that now sits second overall, we'd be last or close to it.

PA himself mentioned we were close to being a really good team but needed tweaks and I've been saying that for a long time now and so have a lot of people on here, but hey you seem to think you know better... but yeah you are entitled to your opinion. 

 Say hi to iggy for me k? 

 

 

Thats some high horse shit right there, what makes you so special compared to the rest of us in the crowd? People can form their opinions with whatever info they get, and yet you seem to have a problem with that. So if people listen to mainstream media,  in your opinion we aren't thinking rationally am i right? Better stick to your pills gramps

 

Have you not seen JBs previous teams? Guess what we were close to last in a majority of his tenure here so you basically lit yourself at the stake right there, im sure you've seen that since you're probably old enough to see a few witches burned or two at the stake

 

Whos Iggy? Is that your nurse?

 

Keep your comments going though, you're always a source of laughter even in CDC. Calling people idiots, telling them to grow a brain, ultimate depth blah blah blah same song and dance