Rumor: Bob McKenzie on Canucks interest in Ryan O'Reilly.

Discussion in 'Vancouver Canucks' started by F A N, Jun 6, 2018.

View Users: View Users
  1. Canucks1096

    Canucks1096 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,812
    Likes Received:
    617
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Well If you don't buy that concept of ROR will help the Canucks develope faster. You can think of Vets as part of rebuild as well. Look at some of successful rebuilds and not so successful rebuild

    Successful rebuilds

    Jets. Stacked of good young players but they have some good quality Vets in Wheeler and Buf.

    Leafs. Stacked of good young players but they have good quality Vets as well in JVR, Bozak, Kadri

    Not so success rebuilds so far

    Oilers, Ari, Buf. They all have good quality young players but not enough Vets to support them. If you dont have quality vets to start your rebuild. You need to try to trade for it.

    To turn this rebuild into cup contender. You need to have 5 or 6 high quality forward up fronts. 3 or 4 D on the backend. So around 10 pieces. Free agency is to hard to ge those pieces. Not possible in getting 10 quality pieces at the draft unless you want rebuild for almost 10 years. However then the earlier 1st round picks are going to leaving their prime soon and window for the cup will not be that long..

    Canucks have three main pieces upfront already with Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser. You want to window to be cup contender as long as possible. Horvat is already 23. Let's say Canucks only depend on the draft to get the quality players. Maybe it takes 4 or 5 years. So at that point Horvat is going to leave his Prime in a few years.

    Look at Hawks. Hawks had a 10 year stretch of being a cup contender with minor retool in between. Reason for that Hawks are competitive team when Kane and Toews were 20 years old.
     
  2. krutovsdonut

    krutovsdonut holy makarov!

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2016
    Messages:
    5,347
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Trophy Points:
    94
    i don't know if it was based on anchor theory or what, because you didn't say so, but the notion you must always name your price in a negotiation is wrong, and in this particular case there is an obvious element of assymmetric information. mcphee knows the player he wants and can thus decide what he will pay if he is available. benning has no idea what player being available will trigger the desire of mcphee to trade up. he can only wait until the preceeding pick is made to see if mcphee's offer stands and then evaluate and/or negotiate the offer.

    the simplest scenario is mcphee was hoping one of either makar or heskainan would be available and was willing to trade up to get them if that was the case.
     
    Bonose likes this.
  3. krutovsdonut

    krutovsdonut holy makarov!

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2016
    Messages:
    5,347
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Trophy Points:
    94
    i am cool with ror provided he does not cost us a 1st rounder or a key young player. i think it's unlikely.
     
  4. CanaFan

    CanaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    18,628
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BC

    This is a very spurious analysis. Leafs were terrible with all the vets you named. They improved when they added elite talent like Matthews, Marner, and Nylander. That’s what I’m arguing for. Acquiring some actual elite talent rather than trading it away for short window veterans.

    Similary the Jets missed the playoffs for years with “vets” like Wheeler and Buff. They broke out right after they added Laine and solved their goaltending.

    Your analysis is so superficial and merely looks at a few good teams and then says “oh and they have some older good players too”. Well no ****, that’s what helps any team be good. But they didn’t trade the moon to acquire any of those vets, they picked them up in deals where the price was cheap and it worked out. On the other hand you list Arizona as an example of a bad rebuild even though they traded their 7th OA pick for Derek Stepan. Buffalo, another team you list as a failed rebuild, has Ryan O’Reilly RIGHT NOW.

    So really you’re all over the place trying to cherry pick examples.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2018
    geebaan and Krnuckfan like this.
  5. CanaFan

    CanaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    18,628
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BC
    Absolutely. For the right price I have no problem with acquiring a guy like ROR. I just doubt it will end up being for the right price.
     
    geebaan likes this.
  6. Canucks1096

    Canucks1096 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,812
    Likes Received:
    617
    Trophy Points:
    94
    If Leafs didn't have JVR, Bozak, Kadri and They had three Gagner type of players instead. Would the Leafs still be cup contenders? Yes or No

    If Jets didn't have Wheeler and Buff and had a Gagner type of player and MDZ type of D. Would Jets still be cup contender? Yes or No.

    I an pretty sure your answer is going to be No. You take 30 goal scorers, 90 point player and Number 1 D and the results are not going to be the same. If you think the answer is No doesn't that mean you do agree with my theory that you need to some quality Vets?

    If you disagree tell me a team that had successful rebuild that didn't have any Vets? I can't think of any

    Correction I said Buff and Ari don't enough quality Vet. Previous post argument was about Buf and Ari believe you need quality Vets for a rebuild and that's why they traded for them.

    How is it cherry picking when I am pretty named most of the recent legit rebuild the 5 years. Ari Edm But Win Van. The only other rebuild team recently that I didn't include was probably Col. You can through the teams in the last 5 years to which U am missing.

    Pretend I am cherry picking. If I can come up with a few examples that the rebuild teams need it vet. That just my theory does make sense and it can work.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2018
  7. CanaFan

    CanaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    18,628
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BC
    Try this instead. Add JVR, Bozak, and Kadri to Vancouver. Do they become cup contenders?

    Yes or No?

    Obviously adding good players helps a team be better. But we aren’t adding these players for free, so the question is what is the cost and is it worth it to pay?

    Same as above. Do you not see the flaws in your line of thinking? Would Winnipeg also be worse if you took away Laine, Connor, and Ehlers?

    Vancouver needs quality PLAYERS. Vets or young, it doesn’t matter.

    Why do you think Vancouver doesn’t have any Vets? We have Tanev, Edler, Sutter, Eriksson, Gagner, Del Zotto.

    Why are you under the impression we only have rookies on our team?

    Then why is Buffalo trading O’Reilly away? Shouldn’t they be keeping him and adding more?

    Because you’re cherry picking the reasons the good ones are good and the bad ones are bad. Your analysis is not only terribly shallow but also inconsistent. You attribute Toronto’s success to vets who were there when the team was bad and ignore that they got good when they added 3 rookies, not more vets.

    Your theory is that adding vets is required to make a rebuilding team better but all you’ve shown is that adding good players makes bad teams better. It’s axiomatic. You haven’t shown that teams benefit from trading away high draft picks for 27 year olds 2Cs. That’s what is relevant here, not a bunch of poorly framed “examples”.
     
  8. I in the Eye

    I in the Eye Drop a ball it falls

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    184
    The context: The deal didn't happen. In that video, we are not analyzing a successful negotiation. Yes, McPhee had a big part in that (being a partner in the negotiation)... but we are not looking at a situation here that was a Benning success. Keep this in mind. You are arguing that Benning did nothing wrong in a deal that he did not close. Keep in mind he did not get the value he was after (whatever that was). He got no value at all. So, when saying that Benning did nothing wrong, you are also arguing that Benning was an out-of-control victim of circumstance... You are arguing that Benning was not in control of the situation, and not in a position to sway things in his (the Canucks) favour. You are arguing that Benning did everything right, so what can he do? Trading is difficult, and McPhee didn't want to do the trade. I say, bull****.

    Like Benning has Sbisa watch videos to improve (and it's deemed a worthwhile endevour by him), I'd say it would be in Benning's best interest to watch this video, with the purpose of improvement. Benning could have controlled his reality better. Sure, maybe McPhee was hoping one or either Makar or Heskainan would be available and was willing to trade up to get them if that was the case. I don't know if Benning did all the right things, if the deal would have still happened... he can't force someone to trade with him. The only thing that video shows is that Benning's meek and weak negotiating style didn't result in the deal happening.

    Given that Benning is so poor in asset valuation, I will concede that it may be in Benning's (and the Canuck's) best interest to not name his initial price in a negotiation (when he is the seller offering something of value). The price would likely be under value. By letting McPhee dictate the price here, there's a pretty decent chance, IMO, that the price McPhee told Benning is higher than the price Benning thought his pick was worth.

    Yes, McPhee knows the player he wants and can thus decide what he will pay if he is available (the reason McPhee would trade up one spot is because there is a risk that the Canucks would take the player Vegas targeted). McPhee told Benning what the pick was worth to him before the trigger. Prior to McPhee going to his people to discuss what the pick was worth to them, Benning should have absolutely told McPhee how much value he places on assuming more risk... McPhee had no understanding of the expected value placed on the pick... and therefore, he took the bull by the horns and told Benning what it was worth. Typically, as the buyer, he would want to pay less... and typically as the seller, Benning would want the buyer to pay more. But, nope, McPhee told Benning what the price was... and Benning negotiated this price upwards by saying, ..."Okay". About as meek and weak as a negotiator could get. Let's the other guy dictate the price... and when given an opportunity to negotiate from a place of lower to higher, just accepts the lower price. I disagree with you, Benning did not do this right. Benning was going to accept anything... he was not concerned with value maximization... didn't even try to get more... he was happy with whatever McPhee told him he was going to get. In that regard, this isn't even a negotiation. This is putting $.25 in a machine, and seeing what toy you get in a plastic egg.

    And then, when McPhee later says not going to do the deal... Benning salvages the deal that McPhee basically negotiated on his own and with himself, by saying... "okay", and walks away. There is no information on what changed... nor an attempt to appease or fix it. A simple, "What changed?" could have solved it... since it could have identified the problem... and you can only solve a problem that you understand. You don't know the problem... I don't know the problem... Benning doesn't know the problem... Maybe you are right that he was looking for Makar or Heskainan... But I'm not going to assume that, just because in that case Benning couldn't do much more. It is inexcusable that Benning walks away there without not knowing the reason. It's been reported somewhere that McPhee got wind of who the Canucks were wanting to pick, so they knew their player would be there. If Benning asked, "what changed?"... and McPhee replies, "we are confident our player is going to be there". The reply could be..., "okay [like his previous reply] we are making our final decision right now between two players we are both really high on... we might end up flipping a coin we love them both so much".

    You cannot say, IMO, that Benning did everything he could... when he left there without trying to bring the value up (after handing the initial value calculation over to McPhee to decide), and without understanding why McPhee didn't pull the trigger. It was a meek and weak display of negotiation. If this is the norm, there is no wonder why the Canucks bleed value in trades.

    If Benning negotiated an O'Reilly deal the way shown in the video... the Canucks will get smoked.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2018
  9. Canucks1096

    Canucks1096 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,812
    Likes Received:
    617
    Trophy Points:
    94
    I don't see the flaws in my thinking about the Leafs and Jets situation because I never once said that you don't need young players for the rebuild. Yes Jets and Leafs would be worst if those young players were not there. How does that prove me wrong by me saying you need young players and some quality Vets. You even indirectly agree that Leafs and Jets would be worst. You do need a bunch of young players and a few quality Vets. You need Both to be successful. The Leafs and Jets prove this.

    Sorry that is not cherry picking. I look at all the rebuilding teams. Leafs had 3 quality Vets that produce like top 6 forwards. 2 of them have 30 goal season. Jets had number 1 Wingers and Number 1 D. If you think I am cherry picking. Why don't you look at other rebuilding teams like Oilers, Ari, Buf and tell me which team had better contribution from the Vets than Jets and Leafs. If you can't, that proves I am not cherry picking.

    Also friendly reminder when this debate started I even said ROR has similiar value to Turris. Turris got two secondary young players and a 2nd round pick. This type of deal make. sense. This type deal is not going to hurt the Canucks. This type of deal is like Virtanen or Gaudette and Baertschi and a 2nd round pick. All players that not even projected to be top 6 will not hurt the Canucks.

    If the cost is not too high. All I need to do is showing some examples of teams that had quality Vet and combination of young players that had successful rebuild which I did. That proves my theory make sense.

    Buf Wanting to trade a player like ROR it doesn't mean they don't think he is important. It could be because he is not good in the locker room? Contract? I highly doubt buf is thinking this Vet 60 points is not important to us.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2018
  10. Pastor Of Muppetz

    Pastor Of Muppetz Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,687
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Gender:
    Male
    Nothing wrong with having quality vets on the team,however...when you don't really have an established/or enough of a young core..you don't want to start adding exorbitant high end 27 year olds...It seems out of step to me.

    The Jets and Leaf cores are built around young cores..worry about obtaining that first,and cultivate young players like Virtanen and Gaudette..

    Now is not the time for a ROR on this team...Seems to me that quality veteran players pop up on the market every year.
     
  11. VanJack

    VanJack Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2014
    Messages:
    9,671
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    94
    An earlier poster questioned why the Sabres would be even interested in trading O'Reilly in the first place...might have something to do with his season-ending comments that they'd basically 'accepted losing in Buffalo' and that he'd lost his passion for the game....not sure how you come back from that.
     
  12. Peter10

    Peter10 Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    1,099
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany

    Since it is so rare, I just want to point out that I pretty much agree with you on this.
     
    vancityluongo likes this.
  13. F A N

    F A N Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    6,506
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Elite players who go onto help lead the team that drafted them to a Stanley Cup win rarely start their NHL careers spending years finishing near the bottom of the standings. Unfortunately, we have had no luck winning the draft lottery and drafting #1 overall. But if any of the players we have are elite level players who would go on to lead the Canucks to the Cup, they aren't going to spend years on a team finishing bottom 5 in the standings.

    It's not the time to trade a 1st round pick for ROR that's for sure. It's certainly important to acquire that young core first. But I can't say it's not the time to acquire ROR at the right price. I think it's important to have good vets capable of playing key minutes to guide young players. I think the difference between teams who successfully rebuild and win the Cup and those that don't comes down to when you make moves to push for the playoffs and beyond.
     
    Bonose and PuckMunchkin like this.
  14. CanaFan

    CanaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    18,628
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BC
    You initially argued that we needed ROR so that Pettersson could play with a good player and develop better. Now you’ve changed your argument to “good teams have good players, some of whom are veterans”.

    Teams need quality players. Period. Obviously adding or removing quality players makes a team better or worse. Your team examples don’t show anything other than that.

    ROR is a quality player, but has a short window (5-7 years) before he stops being quality.

    Our 7th OA could become a quality player, but with a 10-15 year window before it stops being quality.

    Adding ROR today at the cost of something high when we don’t have enough TALENT to begin with is a mistake. THAT is the argument, not this silly new argument you’ve jumped over to about good teams having good (vet) players. We all know that. But adding ROR to a bad team (i.e. our team) doesn’t get you 2017-18 Toronto or Winnipeg, it likely gets you 2017-18 Buffalo.
     
  15. krutovsdonut

    krutovsdonut holy makarov!

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2016
    Messages:
    5,347
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Trophy Points:
    94
    that's quite a rant. i'm glad you got it all out. i particularly liked the gratuitous reference to sbisa. i am sure it feels good to be able to crap all over sbisa again, but i digress.

    you have no clue what happened between benning and mcphee off camera other than stuff happened between benning and mcphee off camera. you don't even know if what we saw was staged.

    what you did see presents a multitude of possibilities.

    yet you confidently claim benning messed up, and in doing to pronounce laughable certainties that are in fact negative inferences you are drawing against benning.

    essentially here is the formula

    facts + eye in eye's anti-benning bias = way more facts than are known based on negative inferences drawn by eye in the eye against benning

    next time you wonder why people claim there is a benning bias here, look no further than this terrible useless wall of text.
     
  16. I in the Eye

    I in the Eye Drop a ball it falls

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    184
    I didn't crap on sbisa. I don't wonder why people claim there is a Benning bias here.

    You don't seem to actually read posts... it's like certain keywords just trigger tangents and ad hominem attacks.

    I do not claim that I am above bias... and I don't doubt that my bias shows in my words. I've accurately predicted the Canucks level of success the past 4 years based on this bias as a foundation. I predict the Canucks will have a 65-70 point season next year, based on my bias. You'll perhaps bookmark this, cause you are looking for things to get back with posters with! Haha, you said this! Caught ya! You can set your watch by how ****ty this regime is, and by how typical a krutovdonut response will be.

    I assume you think that you are above bias? You're not a buddha type yourself... you're the other side of the same coin, *******. You may or may not be biased towards Benning... but you are clearly biased against those against Benning. It affects what you write and how you write it. This bias seems to be the only reason you're here. Most of your posts are about what other people post... and how they are posting it.

    It's flaky.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2018
  17. krutovsdonut

    krutovsdonut holy makarov!

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2016
    Messages:
    5,347
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Trophy Points:
    94
    i am sure i am biased generally. i am strongly biased against conclusions drawn based on poor reasoning. i am also biased against people building myths and lies to support their biases and bets, but i think you misunderstand me if you assume from that i am a benning fan or a sbisa fan, even though i will challenge attacks to either.

    for example, i believe this is benning's last year to show something, and i think that, but for pettersson, last year would have reasonably been his last year. maybe it would not bemy call, but i would have been very close to pulling the trigger.

    but i still think your argument he doesn't know how to negotiate based on 5 seconds of staged video for public consumption was really dumb.

    and i'm on here to enjoy the rebuilding ride. i'm here to see who among the players and staff makes it. all the gnashing of teeth and lamenting is annoying so i do challenge it. sorry if that bothers you.

    and yes i will definitely go back to historic posts looking for inconsistencies in approach and analysis especially when i think a poster is being disingenuous and suspect they have said something different in the past.

    but i don't bookmark that ****. i mean, come on man.
     
    Bonose likes this.
  18. I in the Eye

    I in the Eye Drop a ball it falls

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    184
    The video was more than 5 seconds.

    Just found an article from someone about what the story was in Chicago:

    LOSER: Jim Benning, Poker Player

    Please note that the Vancouver Canucks had a really strong draft overall, including a potential goalie of the future in Mike DiPietro in the third round. But as the story goes here in Chicago: Vegas wanted Cody Glass. They were prepared to trade up from No. 6 to get him. The top four picks were all standing pat. Benning and the Canucks were at No. 5. Golden Knights GM George McPhee said he was going to flip a second round pick for that flip-flop of firsts, but discovered he didn’t need to when he was literally told who Vancouver was drafting at No. 5. (One assumes by Vancouver.) So he knew Glass would be there at six, and kept his second-rounder. The art of negotiation, folks.

    Winners and Losers of NHL Draft 2017

    I stand by (and warmly embrace) my bias, and experience... I am comfortable with my conclusion. That draft was a poor display of negotiation by Benning. IMO, from beginning to end. But, at the very least, they should keep whom they are going to draft a secret. No good can come from this.

    Next, perhaps you'll say have to take the article with a grain of salt given the source... and a grain of salt from what I say, given my bias... and a grain of salt from what the results say, given it could have entirely been McPhee's fault that there was no deal... But if you have anything that discredits that this was a poor display of negotiating, I'd like to see and consider it. I only have (so far)... a video, an article, and experience. But go ahead, change my mind. Show where the article is wrong... You already explained where I am wrong, by not being a fly on the wall, and seeing a highly edited video that could be missing key information (actually, I think you wouldn't accept my word even if I was the fly (I've been marked as 'biased... discredit'... You would need to be the fly with the god's eye view... seeing that you see yourself as above Benning bias, positive or negative... the 'clear non-biased observer' guy). You're right, the video doesn't show everything that happened (only key parts, such as the beginning... value discussion... and ending), and the video is highly edited. Perhaps the marketing department edited out the part where Benning tells McPhee who the Canucks were going to draft with the 5th? Regardless, if those clips were the good ones of Benning negotiating (which I assume the Canucks marketing department would choose?), it would be great to see the clips that were edited out... Maybe Deep Throat who cost the Canucks the additional 2nd round pick could be identified, tarred, and feathered. Tape is perhaps destroyed, or put in the "Damning Evidence: Do Not Look" folder Benning keeps on his desk.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2018
    vancityluongo likes this.
  19. krutovsdonut

    krutovsdonut holy makarov!

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2016
    Messages:
    5,347
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Trophy Points:
    94
    so a completely different theory on how benning allegedly messed up that negotiation somehow validates your theory?

    that's weird logic even for this place.

    we've previously done the canucks told mcphee they didn't want glass theory to death.
     
  20. PuckMunchkin

    PuckMunchkin Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,706
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Lapland
    upload_2018-6-12_1-14-38.png

    Well this did make my heart sink when I saw them talk about the deal then twice point out Elias from the crowd.

    Maybe it didn't show our hand, but it's definitely in the realm of possibility that it did.
     
  21. settinguptheplay

    settinguptheplay Classless Canuck Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    101
    There does not appear to be any real evidence here. The article itself says "(One assumes by Vancouver.)". I dunno about your world but in mine an assumption is not something to base a fact on. What if the Rangers had called previous asking about pick 5. Benning asks who they want and they say Pettersson. Benning says no thank you as that is whom they want. The Rangers, being ********, call Vegas and "inform" them about the Vancouver selection. Vegas calls Vancouver and says that they are not going to do the deal. How would my assumption be any different? Or any less probable?
     
    Bonose likes this.
  22. I in the Eye

    I in the Eye Drop a ball it falls

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    184
    ? With the other negotiation mistakes shown, I don't think it's a leap in logic that there were also probably mistakes not shown. This is, after all, a canucks produced video... presumably done to paint the Canucks in a good light.

    Let me guess... in these discussions about that article you discredited the source.
     
  23. settinguptheplay

    settinguptheplay Classless Canuck Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    101
    I am a bit disturbed by this as well. But I had to ask myself. Was Elias the only prospect in that direction? Could they have been pointing to Glass? Anderson? A common friend? Who knows. Again, speculation is not sound evidence to draw any conclusions from in this case.
     
  24. I in the Eye

    I in the Eye Drop a ball it falls

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    184
    Someone apparently told them... even if it wasn't directly... not keeping it under tight seal cost them apparently a 2nd. Decide for yourself if that was a mistake or an unfortunate circumstance.
     
  25. NoShowWilly

    NoShowWilly Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,273
    Likes Received:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    North Delta
    Teams needs veterans around their young players but neither the Jets nor the leafs went and paid high picks to get those players.

    When the leafs did, it was a disaster.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"