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

[LillStrimma]

4 minutes ago, BPA said:

So in a nutshell…ownership is the problem. 

Not exactly, a weak GM that wanted more power for himself. One of the reason I saw Benning as a bad GM. A GM that knows what he’s doing can handle an owner with good arguments.

Bennings only argument seemed to be ”get rid of Linden”, ”get rid of Brackett” and so on…

PA/JR seems able to handle ownership well. 

[SV.]

8 minutes ago, BPA said:

So in a nutshell…ownership is the problem. 

Ownership is responsible for the lack of leadership and accountability to do things in a sustainable and healthy way.  That is, to have engaged in a proper rebuild and not mandated quick-fixes and get-rich schemes.

But the execution of those plans falls on the people they've hired.  Benning failed drastically, Rutherford and Allvin seem to be doing alright (for now).

Ownership shares its portion of the blame for overseeing and mandating a plan that resulted in this mess, but make no mistake, the mess itself was facilitated by Benning.

[conquestofbaguettes]

10 minutes ago, LillStrimma said:

Exactly, you’re just have a circle discussion with yourself because me, SV and others seems to know what we talk about. 

 

Seem to is definitely the key word there. And it's funny you say "circle discussion" as basically any and all posts around Benning and Gillis tend to be like circlejerk echochambers for Benning hate and Gillis simping. So, who's having a circle discussion here exactly.

 

The bottomline is, "they just dumb" is and always will be just the lazy answer.

[conquestofbaguettes]

15 minutes ago, BPA said:

So in a nutshell…ownership is the problem. 

Yes, but no. But also yes.

 

Private ownership of a hockey club existing in a market capitalist economy is the underlying problem. Even owners are beholden to the conditions and demands of the marketplace, the inherent obligations that a business must endure to be successful and/or survive. That's the dark unspoken underbelly of the whole situation during that time period. (This always exists mind you, but not nearly as prominently as it does when the product your trying to sell is much less inticing to consumers.)

 

And as I stated in my original post, "Am I defending the billionaires at the helm? Not so much. But criticizing their chosen path with some ideal in mind is sure easy for us to say... especially considering we have zero financial stake in the business. And if we did I wonder if we'd feel the same way about how things played out. Perspective is everything.

TL;DR: Ownership throwing hundreds of millions of potential dollars in the garbage to take the ideal tank path-- maximizing every asset/opportunity to get to a destination potentially faster for longer was never a realistic expectation. (See points above.)

[conquestofbaguettes]

17 minutes ago, SV. said:

Ownership is responsible for the lack of leadership and accountability to do things in a sustainable and healthy way.  That is, to have engaged in a proper rebuild and not mandated quick-fixes and get-rich schemes.

But the execution of those plans falls on the people they've hired.  Benning failed drastically, Rutherford and Allvin seem to be doing alright (for now).

Ownership shares its portion of the blame for overseeing and mandating a plan that resulted in this mess, but make no mistake, the mess itself was facilitated by Benning.

 

And if a pylon was the GM at that time, you'd be blaming the pylon.

 

Facilitated?

 

Let me ask, when was the last time you said no to something your boss told you to do? How long you think you'd have a job?

 

If Benning didn't do the job someone else would have... and become your scapegoat just the same. Even Linden couldn't stop it all from happening. What makes you think Benning could. To even say "facilitated" is to ignore the inherent power structure that exists.

 

And as far as "failing" plans go, check out what Pittsburgh is doing right now. What are the odds that group sees another cup? Think they should be acquiring Karlsson? Or...tearing it all down.

We've seen this movie before haven't we.

 

Obviously the best course of action for the future of that team is tearing down. But Sid, Geno, Letang aren't going anywhere. So what do you do.

 

This is no different than what Benning walked into. Hell, what does Pittsburgh prospect pool look like? Tons of parallels here.

 

Either way the idea of blowing up the Pens core is just as unrealistic as it was for this club when Hank and Danny were here. But somehow the belief is that this was possible when it  really wasn't.

 

Ownership shares its portion of "blame" for being a privately owned company trying to run a successful profitable business, you bet. And almost the entire "rebuild plan" stems from that dirty little fact of life. But  somehow the expectation, the belief is they should or even have to lose potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for the duration all just to take the theoretical best path? Ignore everything in the present, maximize every asset, all for some future goal?

 

Can't imagine why ownership wouldn't rally behind that idea... as few ownership groups ever tend to do.

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 hour ago, LillStrimma said:

Not exactly, a weak GM that wanted more power for himself. One of the reason I saw Benning as a bad GM. A GM that knows what he’s doing can handle an owner with good arguments.

Bennings only argument seemed to be ”get rid of Linden”, ”get rid of Brackett” and so on…

PA/JR seems able to handle ownership well. 

 

Cool fanfic bro.

[LillStrimma]

57 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Seem to is definitely the key word there. And it's funny you say "circle discussion" as basically any and all posts around Benning and Gillis tend to be like circlejerk echochambers for Benning hate and Gillis simping. So, who's having a circle discussion here exactly.

 

The bottomline is, "they just dumb" is and always will be just the lazy answer.

So saying Benning was a bad GM is hate according to you? 

Saying that he was a bad leader because he didn’t have the moral and ethics as a GM should show in public is hate according to you? 
 

That means no one can say anything about anybody because that is ”hate” irrelevant of the proof that says it was dumb or bad leadership qualities.

 

Stupidity comes in many shapes it seems.

No wonder accountability has been a word lately.

 

 

 

 

 

[SV.]

7 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

And if a pylon was the GM at that time, you'd be blaming the pylon.

 

Facilitated?

 

Let me ask, when was the last time you said no to something your boss told you to do? How long you think you'd have a job?

 

If Benning didn't do the job someone else would have... and become your scapegoat just the same. Even Linden couldn't stop it all from happening. What makes you think Benning could. To even say "facilitated" is to ignore the inherent power structure that exists.

 

And as far as "failing" plans go, check out what Pittsburgh is doing right now. What are the odds that group sees another cup? Think they should be acquiring Karlsson? Or...tearing it all down.

We've seen this movie before haven't we.

 

Obviously the best course of action for the future of that team is tearing down. But Sid, Geno, Letang aren't going anywhere. So what do you do.

 

This is no different than what Benning walked into. Hell, what does Pittsburgh prospect pool look like? Tons of parallels here.

 

Either way the idea of blowing up the Pens core is just as unrealistic as it was for this club when Hank and Danny were here. But somehow the belief is that this was possible when it  really wasn't.

 

Ownership shares its portion of "blame" for being a privately owned company trying to run a successful profitable business, you bet. And almost the entire "rebuild plan" stems from that dirty little fact of life. But  somehow the expectation, the belief is they should or even have to lose potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for the duration all just to take the theoretical best path? Ignore everything in the present, maximize every asset, all for some future goal?

 

Can't imagine why ownership wouldn't rally behind that idea... as few ownership groups ever tend to do.

Your question is rhetorical, but I'd wager if I was vehemently uncomfortable doing something, I'd speak up (and I don't believe I'm alone there).  Part of being a competent worker is thinking critically.  Evidently, Trevor Linden parted ways when it was clear he wasn't comfortable overseeing a sinking ship with misguided mandates from above.  Benning was fine to keep going, so there is a level there that implies he was onboard with the instructions from up top.  Sure, maybe there's a possibility that he wanted to do things a bit differently if it were up to him, but he was ultimately aligned with what ownership told him to do.  Only problem was that he was very horrible at executing their plan, which is what almost all of us have been saying as to why he deserves the blame.  Ownership may have told him to win a race by trying to salvage the old car at his disposal (a bad mandate), but he's the one who ultimately decided a paint job and paying premiums for spare parts was the way to do it, as opposed to proactively searching the market for newer parts and pieces that could get the job done.  "Outsmarting" the market, if you would.

Perhaps what's most bizarre in all of this is that you have power of the present to look back and actually put into perspective how bad Benning was at remaining competitive.  You've just seen this team, under the same ownership with the same demands and mandates, sign veteran players to 1 and 2 year terms, all at affordable cap-hits, and without crippling consequences for the future.  Compare that to Benning, who somehow found a way to overpay on almost all of his deals and then make up a ton of reasons as to why it was necessary.  Yes, bad instructions from ownership, but terrible execution on his part.  

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 hour ago, SV. said:

Your question is rhetorical, but I'd wager if I was vehemently uncomfortable doing something, I'd speak up (and I don't believe I'm alone there).  Part of being a competent worker is thinking critically

 

It's not rhetorical. It's a fact of life in any top down power hierarchy. Of course you can voice concern and opposition... to a point. But if it's not well received, and you keep at it, welcome to the unemployment line. That's how it works.

 

1 hour ago, SV. said:

Evidently, Trevor Linden parted ways when it was clear he wasn't comfortable overseeing a sinking ship with misguided mandates from above. 

 

Wasn't comfortable being a PR mouthpiece with no power to enact his idealistic plan you mean. "Misguided" depending on the lens from which one  views the situation. For example, for us as fans it was the worst fucking plan in the history of plans. But for the ownership group and the organization writ large, it was the most logical plan. For if they didn't see it that way, they wouldn't have done it.  The question is ultimately how they came to that conclusion. Those are the things my original post and countless replies in this thread have been trying to discuss and unpack.

 

1 hour ago, SV. said:

Benning was fine to keep going, so there is a level there that implies he was onboard with the instructions from up top.  Sure, maybe there's a possibility that he wanted to do things a bit differently if it were up to him, but he was ultimately aligned with what ownership told him to do. 

 

Indeed. Because that's the job. And if he said no they'd find someone else to do their bidding.

 

And as I stated in my original posted, forget what Benning may have really wanted, "I bet if you asked Francesco directly, even he personally would've preferred to take a different approach!"

 

These aren't dumb people here. They know what the best course of action  for a future product is here. But that doesn't mean we can just hand wave reality for some ideal. Still have to deal with the here and now and the hand you've been dealt.

 

1 hour ago, SV. said:

Ownership may have told him to win a race by trying to salvage the old car at his disposal (a bad mandate)

 

Yes, and everything that follows is a product of that initial decision. Like fruit from the poisonous tree.

 

1 hour ago, SV. said:

...but he's the one who ultimately decided a paint job and paying premiums for spare parts was the way to do it, as opposed to proactively searching the market for newer parts and pieces that could get the job done.  "Outsmarting" the market, if you would.

 

 

 

But that is all conjecture though. 

 

We don't know what was actually available, what any of the decision making was or even the incentives or demands from players were to come to a losing rebuilder let alone the potential back room fuckery with an apparent meddling owner than liked to play with his toy?  It's pretty damn hard to judge much of anything here what they should have or could have done or not.

 

And like I said before, in the end most that stuff didn't matter anyway. The club knew they weren't winning anything anytime soon. So what's the difference if they gave a bit extra to guy like Jay Beagle.

 

The club had two goals, afterall.

 

Stay competitive in the now and also build for the future (which are obviously contradictory to a certain degree.) Staying competitive means sacrificing a bit of the future. And that is inescapable.  The question is was it too much?   For some that argue from an idealistic perspective say, "yes of course it was! Any pick or prospect or trade that isn't directly related to the future team being sought is too much!" But the idea itself isn't rooted in real life.

 

Even if I concede there were some picks, prospects, trades even I didn't like we still can't paint them all with same brush anyway.  Some trades were necessities for the now, some were reclamation projects hoping to get lucky, some were made with the future in mind ala potential core pieces eg. JT Miller (great), OEL (less great.)

 

Either way this debate of "how much sacrifice was too much" will rage on forever. And the blame game of who did what doesn't even strike me as worthy of discussion given that underlying mandate forcing them down this path to begin with.

 

But that's the rub. Even Rutherford mentioned that in a press conference balancing the needs of the now with the needs of the future.

 

I happen to think the Benning regime ultimately hit where they needed to for a rebuild 1c, 1d, 1g even a 2c, 2w (Brock) and some others. As Rutherford stated with a smile when asked about blowing the team up, "we got a lot of good players here."

 

Could have been better? Sure.

 

Could have been worse? Sure.

 

But that's all mostly conjecture and hindsight type stuff.

Especially so if we actively ignore that underlying plan which forced their hands in that particular direction in the first place.

 

You say bad execution? I say most of it doesn't even matter given where they were at that time in terms of team development.  There was good and  there was bad. But... they still hit where they needed to the most. And sure some work to do yet for JR and PA. Supporting cast to fill out, couple more d, depth, prospect pool and of course we wish we could have been there sooner but... shit happens.  Sometimes you get an ownership group that refuses to get to the goal faster and more efficiently (team development wise) and sometimes you get hit with a pandemic and a flat cap stifling your ability to change the way you want. And yes, sometimes a GM makes moves that can even hurt the future of a club. Benning, Gillis or anyone else in the role.

 

But the question is how much did X act actually harm the future product being sought?  Did something like paying that extra million or extra year to Jay Beagle really matter THAT much in the long run? I reckon not nearly as much as we'd lead ourselves to believe.

 

But sure, staring at all these context lacking trades and signings on paper, Benning looks like the worst GM in the history of GMs.  Doesnt make it an accurate account of the actual facts though.

 

(Fun fact: even Mike Milbury gets a bad rap for his trade history. We could discuss the Islanders over arching financial situation especially pre salary cap era to explain a great deal of his moves during his tenure.)

 

Alas, context matters.

Edited November 21, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 hour ago, LillStrimma said:

he was a bad leader because he didn’t have the moral and ethics

Lol. Where are you getting this stuff.

 

 

[SV.]

8 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

It's not rhetorical. It's a fact of life in any top down power hierarchy. Of course you can voice concern and opposition... to a point. But if it's not well received, and you keep at it, welcome to the unemployment line. That's how it works.

 

 

Wasn't comfortable being a PR mouthpiece with no power to enact his idealistic plan you mean. "Misguided" depending on the lens from which one  views the situation. For example, for us as fans it was the worst fucking plan in the history of plans. But for the ownership group and the organization writ large, it was the most logical plan. For if they didn't see it that way, they wouldn't have done it.  The question is ultimately how they came to that conclusion. Those are the things my original post and countless others in this thread have been trying to discuss and unpack.

 

 

Indeed. Because that's the job. And if he said no they'd find someone else to do their bidding.

 

And as I stated in my original posted, forget what Benning may have really wanted, "I bet if you asked Francesco directly, even he personally would've preferred to take a different approach!"

 

These aren't dumb people here. They know what the best course of action  for a future product is here. But that doesn't mean we can just hand wave reality for some ideal. Still have to deal with the here and now and the hand you've been dealt.

 

 

Yes, and everything that follows is a product of that initial decision. Like fruit from the poisonous tree.

 

 

 

 

But that is all conjecture though. 

 

We don't know what was actually available, what any of the decision making was or even the incentives or demands from players were to come to a losing rebuilder let alone the potential back room fuckery with an apparent meddling owner than liked to play with his toy?  It's pretty damn hard to judge much of anything here what they should have or could have done or not.

 

And like I said before, in the end most that stuff didn't matter anyway. The club knew they weren't winning anything anytime soon. So what's the difference if they gave a bit extra to guy like Jay Beagle.

 

The club had two goals, afterall.

 

Stay competitive in the now and also build for the future (which are obviously contradictory to a certain degree.) Staying competitive means sacrificing a bit of the future. And that is inescapable.  The question is was it too much?   For some that argue from an idealistic perspective say, "yes of course it was! Any pick or prospect or trade that isn't directly related to the future team being sought is too much!" But the idea itself isn't rooted in real life.

 

Even if I concede there were some picks, prospects, trades even I didn't like we still can't paint them all with same brush anyway.  Some trades were necessities for the now, some were reclamation projects hoping to get lucky, some were made with the future in mind ala potential core pieces eg. JT Miller (great), OEL (less great.)

 

Either way this debate of "how much sacrifice was too much" will rage on forever. And the blame game of who did what doesn't even strike me as worthy of discussion given that underlying mandate forcing them down this path to begin with.

 

But that's the rub. Even Rutherford mentioned that in a press conference balancing the needs of the now with the needs of the future.

 

I happen to think the Benning regime ultimately hit where they needed to for a rebuild 1c, 1d, 1g even a 2c, 2w (Brock) and some others. As Rutherford stated with a smile when asked about blowing the team up, "we got a lot of good players here."

 

Could have been better? Sure.

 

Could have been worse? Sure.

 

But that's all mostly conjecture and hindsight type stuff.

Especially so if we actively ignore that underlying plan which forced their hands in that particular direction in the first place.

 

You say bad execution? I say most of it doesn't even matter given where they were at that time in terms of team development.  There was good and  there was bad. But... they still hit where they needed to the most. And sure some work to do yet for JR and PA. Supporting cast to fill out, couple more d, depth, prospect pool and of course we wish we could have been there sooner but... shit happens.  Sometimes you get an ownership group that refuses to get to the goal faster and more efficiently (team development wise) and sometimes you get hit with a pandemic and a flat cap stifling your ability to change the way you want. And yes, sometimes a GM makes moves that can even hurt the future of a club. Benning, Gillis or anyone else in the role.

 

But the question is how much did X act actually harm the future product being sought?  Did something like paying that extra million or extra year to Jay Beagle really matter THAT much in the long run? I reckon not nearly as much as we'd lead ourselves to believe.

 

But sure, staring at all these context lacking trades and signings on paper, Benning looks like the worst GM in the history of GMs.  Doesnt make it an accurate account of the actual facts though.

 

(Fun fact: even Mike Milbury gets a bad rap for his trade history. We could discuss the Islanders over arching financial situation especially pre salary cap era to explain a great deal of his moves during his tenure.)

 

Alas, context matters.

So, what is the point of this thread then?  You keep oscillating between these positions where Benning deserves credit for doing the best he could in the circumstances he was given but also holding that he can't be blamed for screwing up under ownership's mandates.  Then, you're saying that ownership know best and aren't dumb people, but would have just hired yes-men, anyway.  People already know that ownership sucks.  Them sucking doesn't mean that Benning somehow sucks less.

And yes, of course it's conjecture.  This whole thread has been dealing in conjecture as the process in how you've tried to interpret this period of failure on the parts of ownership and previous management is predicated on subjective caveats, mental gymnastics, and goalpost shifting alike. 

At the end of the day, your original post would have saved a ton of time if you had just come out and said "I'm a recovering Benning bro and here's why I think we wrongfully fired him" than to present your opinions as some sort of beacon of truth regarding the reality of rebuilding and business decision-making.  Many of us here don't live in a box that only focuses on Vancouver.  We have, and continue to see, evidence of other markets, bigger and smaller than Vancouver, that have sanctioned proper rebuilds.  And no, not ones where you lose every game and draft high to fix the issues, but ones where you remain competitive while still prioritizing cap-space, asset management, and remaining patient with the process of getting from A to B.  Again, Benning was horrible at doing this, while his successors, under the same constraints, seem to be managing it alright so far.

[LillStrimma]

47 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Lol. Where are you getting this stuff.

 

 

Dahlen… What do you think Petey thought of Benning after Benning threw Dahlen to the wolves? 
What kind of leader throw young prospects to the wolves? 
Benning was a rotten apple so good riddance and this isn’t hate.

It’s a logic analysis how a modern leader handle different situations.

 

So, please, don’t say a word about hate because hate is something completely different driven by feelings.
 

[canuck73_3]

19 minutes ago, LillStrimma said:

Dahlen… What do you think Petey thought of Benning after Benning threw Dahlen to the wolves? 
What kind of leader throw young prospects to the wolves? 
Benning was a rotten apple so good riddance and this isn’t hate.

It’s a logic analysis how a modern leader handle different situations.

 

So, please, don’t say a word about hate because hate is something completely different driven by feelings.
 

Dahlen is a plug get over it. 

[steviewonder20]

There are probably objective metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of a GM rather than arguing about emotional responses to Benning. Certainly, based on how often the Canucks made the playoffs (once), the team’s standings in the NHL (one of the worst winning records in the NHL), number of top 6 draft busts (Oj and Virtanen) and number of nominations for GM of the year (0), none of these metrics support the argument that Benning was effective, good or successful. Maybe there are other measures of his 8 years as GM that appear more positive, so perhaps fans of Benning’s could list them. 

[canuck73_3]

7 hours ago, SV. said:

In a thread that's been full of excuses and cop-outs since the original post, somebody has to fact-check and provide the truth.

So, here's another instance of that.

It's a myth that Gillis left nothing behind.  We can say with the power of hindsight that the quality of prospects was poor and underwhelming, but the quantity of assets in the system was very healthy at the time, and almost uncharacteristic of a team that was contending.  Unless you yourself were calling out Shinkaruk, Cassels, Jensen, Schroeder, Subban, etc. as busts in 2013, nobody who supported the Canucks thought the prospect pool was poor.  We came to know this after the fact.  Vastly different from Benning's tenure where people could see disaster happening real-time, unfortunately.

Factually speaking, he actually had more prospects and picks in his system than from what he inherited from Nonis.  For as much "good work" that Nonis did with the team, people forget, or choose to gloss over, the fact that he spent a lot of assets at the 2006 and 2007 trade deadlines.

Now, I've been speaking purely in terms of quantity, but even quality can be argued.

Nonis left behind Schenider, Grabner, Raymond, Hansen, and Edler as young prospects/players that would become NHL players (although, Edler and Raymond had already graduated by 2007/08).  Is it really much different to Gillis leaving Horvat, Markstrom, Lack, and Hutton behind, not counting that Tanev and Kassian were already on the roster?  If I was really shameless, I'd even stretch it to B. Gaunce, who played over 100 games for the Canucks.  Whichever series of prospects you'd choose is a subjective decision, but the quality of prospects is about even.

The main thing is that it comes down to asset management.  Where Gillis could turn undesirable asset like Patrick White into Christian Ehrhoff that could improve the team, Benning could only manage (or chose to) turn players like Hunter Shinkaruk into Markus Granlund.

As myself and others have been saying, the execution of Benning's moves were his downfall.  No amount of ownership meddling or previous management constraints get to excuse him or provide "retrospective analysis" like you've been attempting to do.  Benning was a terrible GM.  Worse than Nonis, worse than Burke, and a hell of a lot worse than Gillis.  Fan accounts will you tell you this, history books will corroborate this.  It's simply the truth.

No amount of turd polishing can improve the prospect pool Gillis left behind. Hindsight makes it worse. Gillis had strengths however drafting was not one of them. 

[LillStrimma]

1 hour ago, canuck73_3 said:

Dahlen is a plug get over it. 

Whoops, here comes the bed bug…

 

Benning was a prick, get over him.

[SV.]

34 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

No amount of turd polishing can improve the prospect pool Gillis left behind. Hindsight makes it worse. Gillis had strengths however drafting was not one of them. 

Do you actually have evidence from 2009 to 2012 where you yourself were looking at the prospect pool and were unsatisfied with what you were seeing?  If so, props to you for seeing the bad drafting in real time, but nobody else, at least not so in the mainstream level, had these criticisms of Gillis during those years.  Maybe the collective fanbase had rose-coloured glasses on because of the on-ice product in those days, but criticisms of that regime's drafting were very rare in those times.  Fans absolutely loved the picks to get Schroeder, Jensen, Cassels, Subban, etc.  They were wrong to be excited, but we only came to knew that with hindsight, which is why I stated as much.

[Coconuts]

Schroeder, Hodgson, and Jensen gonna be our modern day WCE

[canuck73_3]

8 minutes ago, SV. said:

Do you actually have evidence from 2009 to 2012 where you yourself were looking at the prospect pool and were unsatisfied with what you were seeing?  If so, props to you for seeing the bad drafting in real time, but nobody else, at least not so in the mainstream level, had these criticisms of Gillis during those years.  Maybe the collective fanbase had rose-coloured glasses on because of the on-ice product in those days, but criticisms of that regime's drafting were very rare in those times.  Fans absolutely loved the picks to get Schroeder, Jensen, Cassels, Subban, etc.  They were wrong to be excited, but we only came to knew that with hindsight, which is why I stated as much.

I liked Cassels the rest were projects or long shots at best and said as much then. I didn’t care for Schroeder either I wanted Caron, Palmieri or Ferraro at that pick. I thought Schroeder was a boom or bust pick and at his size at that spot I was leaning bust. 

[canuck73_3]

44 minutes ago, LillStrimma said:

Whoops, here comes the bed bug…

 

Benning was a prick, get over him.

I got over Benning over a year ago. You still whine about him. 

[SV.]

Just now, canuck73_3 said:

I liked Cassels the rest were projects or long shots at best and said as much then. I didn’t care for Schroeder either I wanted Caron, Palmieri or Ferraro at that pick. I thought Schroeder was a boom or bust pick and at his size at that spot I was leaning bust. 

Fair enough.  Good on you for seeing through the poor drafting as it was happening.

[canuck73_3]

1 minute ago, SV. said:

Fair enough.  Good on you for seeing through the poor drafting as it was happening.

I was surprised Cassels didn’t at least become a solid pk 4th liner at the NHL level though. 

[Dr. Crossbar]

This thread reads like every post on the old CDC.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

This thread reads like every post on the old CDC.

 

How DARE you slag the arbiter of reason and the sole guardian of truth of the Benning era, the one and only AGM Chris Gear!  

 

[Coconuts]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

This thread reads like every post on the old CDC.

 

PK Subban thinks Jordan Subban is going to be the best Subban brother, he's gonna be our answer on D