Akito Hirose | #41 | LD

[Kootenay Gold]

1 hour ago, AK-19 said:

I mean he's only played 13 games in the AHL, not a single point, and relatively small size (he's lighter than Quinn Hughes). I'll take my chances that isn't going to happen. Wolanin and Irwin should be more likely to be called up.

I think Woo or McWard are more likely to be called up over Wolanin or Irwin.

[kettlevalley]

2 hours ago, AK-19 said:

I mean he's only played 13 games in the AHL, not a single point, and relatively small size (he's lighter than Quinn Hughes). I'll take my chances that isn't going to happen. Wolanin and Irwin should be more likely to be called up.

Chatfield is not much different in stature.  Spent three year in our system and made it in Carolinas system in less then a year.  And a RHD that we have been short of forever.  

 

The one thing I don't see different so far between the Benning era and now is we keep signing/trading for other guys instead of promoting from within.  I hope that changes next season.   

[robr1can2]

But Hirose must be injured though. Only 13 games played?

[PureQuickness]

3 hours ago, kettlevalley said:

Chatfield is not much different in stature.  Spent three year in our system and made it in Carolinas system in less then a year.  And a RHD that we have been short of forever.  

 

The one thing I don't see different so far between the Benning era and now is we keep signing/trading for other guys instead of promoting from within.  I hope that changes next season.   

 

Benning's core is in this team. Anyone who criticizes the Benning regime must also admit that the foundation has already been set by him. This makes Allvin's job slightly easier in having to find the right players. Benning rarely ever found the right free agents, but Allvin has found Joshua, Blueger, and Suter, for starters. Had Benning been able to find these kinds of players, he probably would've had a similar level of success as Allvin.

 

Benning overpaid for his free agents unfortunately and they didn't work out, if ever.

[Diamonds]

On 1/25/2024 at 9:41 AM, kettlevalley said:

Chatfield is not much different in stature.  Spent three year in our system and made it in Carolinas system in less then a year.  And a RHD that we have been short of forever.  

 

The one thing I don't see different so far between the Benning era and now is we keep signing/trading for other guys instead of promoting from within.  I hope that changes next season.   

Chatfield is the 6/7 guy on Carolina. Good for him for being able to stick in the NHL but it's not like he's some kind of difference maker for them. He's averaging 14min/game and occasionally gets scratched in favor of DeAngelo.

23 hours ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Benning's core is in this team. Anyone who criticizes the Benning regime must also admit that the foundation has already been set by him. This makes Allvin's job slightly easier in having to find the right players. Benning rarely ever found the right free agents, but Allvin has found Joshua, Blueger, and Suter, for starters. Had Benning been able to find these kinds of players, he probably would've had a similar level of success as Allvin.

 

Benning overpaid for his free agents unfortunately and they didn't work out, if ever.

Yes, most of the current core was drafted or acquired by Benning. But Benning was also terrible at building a team. Way too many square pegs in round holes with zero cohesion. I think what Allvin and JR have shown is that the supporting cast is a lot more important than people gave credit for.

[PureQuickness]

On 1/26/2024 at 12:49 PM, Diamonds said:

Chatfield is the 6/7 guy on Carolina. Good for him for being able to stick in the NHL but it's not like he's some kind of difference maker for them. He's averaging 14min/game and occasionally gets scratched in favor of DeAngelo.

Yes, most of the current core was drafted or acquired by Benning. But Benning was also terrible at building a team. Way too many square pegs in round holes with zero cohesion. I think what Allvin and JR have shown is that the supporting cast is a lot more important than people gave credit for.

 

Yes, and I'm not disputing that. This is very similar to how Gillis constructed his team. Good key acquisitions. And I credit this, even though I am also critical of Gillis' other parts as a GM>

[Echo Park]

On 1/25/2024 at 12:58 PM, robr1can2 said:

But Hirose must be injured though. Only 13 games played?

Does anyone have some insight on this?

[Wiggums]

0 points in 21 games?  Ouch.  This kid was running our powerplay smoothly in the NHL last year.

 

 

[thesauce]

5 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

0 points in 21 games?  Ouch.  This kid was running our powerplay smoothly in the NHL last year.

 

 

Yes I really don't understand. He looked better in the show than in the minors for whatever reason.  

[canucks curse]

injured ?

[mozzeye]

55 minutes ago, thesauce said:

Yes I really don't understand. He looked better in the show than in the minors for whatever reason.  

With his style of game its likely easier to play with NHL players and thinkers rather than the AHL.

[N4ZZY]

On 1/27/2024 at 11:45 PM, PureQuickness said:

 

Yes, and I'm not disputing that. This is very similar to how Gillis constructed his team. Good key acquisitions. And I credit this, even though I am also critical of Gillis' other parts as a GM>

Gillis inherited the roster from Nonis/Burke, didn't he? Most of the core was already established by Nonis before Gillis arrived. Mike's most notable draft pick, was, well, Horvat. And he's no longer here. 

 

I give Benning credit for the core. He's drafted Demko, Hughes, Petey, and traded for Miller. The core four. Not sure if he drafted Podkolzin, either - someone correct me on this? I feel like it was Benning since he's been the Canucks GM for close to 10 years when he was here. 

 

But anyways, yes, Benning for all the credit he deserves for drafting the Canucks' current core, was also really bad at constructing a roster, and supplementing the core with good supplemental players. Allvin and Rutherford has done exactly for that this team. What's changed really from Benning to Allvin? The core is essentially the same. Allvin's had to clean up a lot of the cap issues (and still hasn't to some degree, but slowly getting out from under it), and he's brought in some really solid players. 

 

I don't think anyone knew who Dakota Joshua was prior to this season. 

 

Blueger? Lafferty? Suter? 

 

The only good thing when those players were signed was that Allvin didn't seem them to 4M dollar deals over 4 years. Short term deals, prove to management that they're a good fit, if not, then they're gone the following year. They weren't bound or tied to these contracts for bottom six players that were near impossible to move without attaching more draft capital to them, so that they could move them. 

 

Allvin for all that he's been through, because of Benning's blunders (cap wise, and roster construction wise) has done remarkably well. If Tocchet deserves coach of the year, then Allvin should deserve GM of the year. 

 

[N4ZZY]

6 hours ago, mozzeye said:

With his style of game its likely easier to play with NHL players and thinkers rather than the AHL.

Wonder when he'll get his chance to show he can play in the NHL. 

 

[PureQuickness]

6 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

Gillis inherited the roster from Nonis/Burke, didn't he? Most of the core was already established by Nonis before Gillis arrived. Mike's most notable draft pick, was, well, Horvat. And he's no longer here. 

 

I give Benning credit for the core. He's drafted Demko, Hughes, Petey, and traded for Miller. The core four. Not sure if he drafted Podkolzin, either - someone correct me on this? I feel like it was Benning since he's been the Canucks GM for close to 10 years when he was here. 

 

But anyways, yes, Benning for all the credit he deserves for drafting the Canucks' current core, was also really bad at constructing a roster, and supplementing the core with good supplemental players. Allvin and Rutherford has done exactly for that this team. What's changed really from Benning to Allvin? The core is essentially the same. Allvin's had to clean up a lot of the cap issues (and still hasn't to some degree, but slowly getting out from under it), and he's brought in some really solid players. 

 

I don't think anyone knew who Dakota Joshua was prior to this season. 

 

Blueger? Lafferty? Suter? 

 

The only good thing when those players were signed was that Allvin didn't seem them to 4M dollar deals over 4 years. Short term deals, prove to management that they're a good fit, if not, then they're gone the following year. They weren't bound or tied to these contracts for bottom six players that were near impossible to move without attaching more draft capital to them, so that they could move them. 

 

Allvin for all that he's been through, because of Benning's blunders (cap wise, and roster construction wise) has done remarkably well. If Tocchet deserves coach of the year, then Allvin should deserve GM of the year. 

 

 

My point with Gillis is that after he inherited the core from Nonis/Burke, he left almost nothing behind that was salvageable - declined Twins, disgruntled Kesler, and Edler (yes, from Nonis/Burke days). Gillis did well with the core he was handed, but he wasn't able to make his own. Even before Benning came around, the Canucks were in terrible shape. (Special note: He did scout Tanev and made the trade for Markstrom). That being said, he kept Luongo (who thought he was going to be traded) and sold on Schneider, which ended up being a good trade in hindsight.

 

So with that backstory, Benning floundered a lot, but his drafting ultimately was the reason why we even have something good to say about him. Gillis was TERRIBLE at drafting/rebuilding/retooling. Everyone remembers Gillis because of the successes, NOT his failures. Whereas people downplay Benning's successes because his failures were the most obvious.

 

Gillis and Benning are two very imperfect GMs. One could not draft to save his life, sans high first round picks: Hodgson and Horvat. The other two first rounders: Gaunce and Jensen were busts. Add to the fact that Gillis never succeeded in a single 2nd round pick, you have a GM who was bound to fail in his retool years than succeed. He mortgaged the future heavily and didn't have any ability to recoup the cupboards at all.

 

Allvin inherited a much better core than what Benning was given. But unlike Benning, Allvin mostly swung homeruns with his pro-scouting and trades. The successes were very similar to the early Gillis years (that we should remember Gillis for).

 

I feel people unfairly romanticize Gillis for his successes while shying away from the things that matter - the future of the Canucks. There's no excuse for why he couldn't draft properly.

Edited March 12 by PureQuickness

[filthy animal]

4 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

My point with Gillis is that after he inherited the core from Nonis/Burke, he left almost nothing behind that was salvageable - declined Twins, disgruntled Kesler, and Edler (yes, from Nonis/Burke days). Gillis did well with the core he was handed, but he wasn't able to make his own. Even before Benning came around, the Canucks were in terrible shape. (Special note: He did scout Tanev and made the trade for Markstrom). That being said, he kept Luongo (who thought he was going to be traded) and sold on Schneider, which ended up being a good trade in hindsight.

 

So with that backstory, Benning floundered a lot, but his drafting ultimately was the reason why we even have something good to say about him. Gillis was TERRIBLE at drafting/rebuilding/retooling. Everyone remembers Gillis because of the successes, NOT his failures. Whereas people downplay Benning's successes because his failures were the most obvious.

 

Gillis and Benning are two very imperfect GMs. One could not draft to save his life, sans high first round picks: Hodgson and Horvat. The other two first rounders: Gaunce and Jensen were busts. Add to the fact that Gillis never succeeded in a single 2nd round pick, you have a GM who was bound to fail in his retool years than succeed. He mortgaged the future heavily and didn't have any ability to recoup the cupboards at all.

 

Allvin inherited a much better core than what Benning was given. But unlike Benning, Allvin mostly swung homeruns with his pro-scouting and trades. The successes were very similar to the early Gillis years (that we should remember Gillis for).

 

I feel people unfairly romanticize Gillis for his successes while shying away from the things that matter - the future of the Canucks. There's no excuse for why he couldn't draft properly.

 

Yeah real terrible shape, and yet Benning did very little with the team he inherited which was still a Gillis team and proceeded to have his only 100 pt team. Don't blame the other guy when as the team became more Jim Benning, the worse they became.

 

Everyone knows Gillis was a terrible drafter, but guess what? he succeeded everywhere else in comparison to Benning. Had the results to back it up. You sound like fool on how you act so unbiased and try to go every single detail on Gillis shortcomings but provide very little on Bennings LOL. Gillis mortgaging the future? Was he the one that traded OEL? lol

 

You're just Pure Comedy with your takes, trying to act all indifferent when you're just another Benning Bro, only difference is you pose yourself as being unbiased.  So much so that you claimed that the Ballard trade was the worst trade this franchise has ever done LOL.

 

Why you don't you put up a poll, Ballard trade vs OEL trade and watch how you embarrass yourself, yet again

[filthy animal]

6 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

Gillis inherited the roster from Nonis/Burke, didn't he? Most of the core was already established by Nonis before Gillis arrived. Mike's most notable draft pick, was, well, Horvat. And he's no longer here. 

 

I give Benning credit for the core. He's drafted Demko, Hughes, Petey, and traded for Miller. The core four. Not sure if he drafted Podkolzin, either - someone correct me on this? I feel like it was Benning since he's been the Canucks GM for close to 10 years when he was here. 

 

But anyways, yes, Benning for all the credit he deserves for drafting the Canucks' current core, was also really bad at constructing a roster, and supplementing the core with good supplemental players. Allvin and Rutherford has done exactly for that this team. What's changed really from Benning to Allvin? The core is essentially the same. Allvin's had to clean up a lot of the cap issues (and still hasn't to some degree, but slowly getting out from under it), and he's brought in some really solid players. 

 

I don't think anyone knew who Dakota Joshua was prior to this season. 

 

Blueger? Lafferty? Suter? 

 

The only good thing when those players were signed was that Allvin didn't seem them to 4M dollar deals over 4 years. Short term deals, prove to management that they're a good fit, if not, then they're gone the following year. They weren't bound or tied to these contracts for bottom six players that were near impossible to move without attaching more draft capital to them, so that they could move them. 

 

Allvin for all that he's been through, because of Benning's blunders (cap wise, and roster construction wise) has done remarkably well. If Tocchet deserves coach of the year, then Allvin should deserve GM of the year. 

 

 

 

I hardly give credit for Benning for this teams success. A broken clock is right twice a day, especially one that lasts 8 seasons. The Benning core hasn't made it to the playoffs without Rutherfords additions, and ironically enough, Gillis' players

 

A pure Benning team, is just pure garbage

 

[PureQuickness]

8 hours ago, filthy animal said:

 

Yeah real terrible shape, and yet Benning did very little with the team he inherited which was still a Gillis team and proceeded to have his only 100 pt team. Don't blame the other guy when as the team became more Jim Benning, the worse they became.

 

Everyone knows Gillis was a terrible drafter, but guess what? he succeeded everywhere else in comparison to Benning. Had the results to back it up. You sound like fool on how you act so unbiased and try to go every single detail on Gillis shortcomings but provide very little on Bennings LOL. Gillis mortgaging the future? Was he the one that traded OEL? lol

 

You're just Pure Comedy with your takes, trying to act all indifferent when you're just another Benning Bro, only difference is you pose yourself as being unbiased.  So much so that you claimed that the Ballard trade was the worst trade this franchise has ever done LOL.

 

Why you don't you put up a poll, Ballard trade vs OEL trade and watch how you embarrass yourself, yet again

 

Are you serious? The Ballard trade is pretty bad though in its right. Gillis trades Grabner and a 1st round pick for Ballard that Gillis himself later bought out. I'm not saying the OEL trade was better. They're both shitty acquisitions. At least we got Garland as a good piece. The pieces we got back from that trade were shitty for everyone involved. Florida included. LOL.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to defend Gillis, but he's not as good of a GM as you think he is.

 

I contend that Benning had a mix of good and bad things. People will remember the bad more than the good, whereas for Gillis, people remember the good more than the bad. They're both severely lacking in their jobs as a long-term GM. You seem to forget that Gillis sucked royally after his inherited pieces became older. He didn't have any succession plan after Edler. He did have Tanev and Markstrom, but that's about it for the team.

 

Gillis cost the franchise dearly with his poor drafting. That's the bottom line. No sugar coating that. It's the reality. If he had drafted better, he'd still have a job somewhere else.

Edited March 12 by PureQuickness