88

WWYDW: State of the Blog

The hockey world has come to a grinding halt, so we’ll turn our attention to goings-on at CanucksArmy for this week. As most of you are aware, J.D. Burke stepped down as managing editor last week. In his stead steps Ryan Biech, who wrote about the state of the blog in this post yesterday morning.

We’re all very sad to see J.D. go, but every time an editor leaves us it opens the door to new opportunities. Some new contributors will be arriving in short order, but in the meantime, we’re still looking to bring new people into the team. So now seems as good a time to ask the readers who help make CanucksArmy the resource it is today how they feel about the state of the blog. What changes or additional content would you like to see at CanucksArmy?

Last week I asked: Where would you like to see Juolevi start the season, and how would you go about making room for him?

Doodly Doot:

He should be in Utica until it’s clear that his conditioning and play force the issue. It would be fine if he spends the entire year down there. He’ll get his callup(s).

Rodeobill:

I think it is inevitable he starts in Utica. If in preseason, he plays as good, or even better than most our current roster, like Stetcher before, he will go to Utica to start, this doesn’t feel fair, but seems inevitable. Roster players (especially bottom of the roster guys) are hard to move at this time of year with so many FAs having just been acquired, prospects graduating, and buy low FAs still out there to consider at the cost of nothing but $ spent. Point is, everyone wants roster space to be made for him if he earns it (me too), but that is easier said than done. If he waives a player and he gets claimed, everyone will scream bloody murder about asset management, picks they could have gotten in a trade, and so on. Unless he comes into camp and makes them look like fools not to have him in the opening night lineup, he will go down, be and injury call up and buy JB some time to manage assets. I’m ok with that. Maybe Hutton, pouliot, MDZ will really pick it up this season and get us some better trade value, which furthers the rebuild too.

Goon:

It entirely depends on his pre-season performance. If he looks like he belongs on the big club, he should be there. If he looks like last year, where he struggled to keep up with the pace of an NHL game, he should go down to Utica, and brought up once he looks like he’s adjusted to the North American game.

TD:

If he is good enough to make the team then he should be there. If that’s the case, the only way I would send him down is if they are playing the other d to make trades as the season progresses. I would like to see the Canucks trade a lot of players for picks before or at the deadline to make room for more kids moving forward. I can line with a plan to send Juolevi to develop in Utica to allow the Canucks to increase the value and trade other d men.

Sautner and McEneny have to clear waiver this year as well. They should also get spots in camp if they out play any of the signed 8 d men. I like what Biega brings as a part time guy, but with his age, I would rather lose him than Sautner or McEneny.

MajorFawlty:

I can’t see how Juolevi doesn’t beat out at least one of Hutton, Pouliot or Biega to be carried early in the season as an extra D. Scratched for a game or two in Green’s fashion (you’re in the NHL, but you start at the bottom and earn your way up the ranks), and Juolevi will make his debut.

Whether or not there is room on opening night, the 2019-20 D-core will look different with Edler, MDZ, Pouliot and Hutton on expiring contracts, the Canucks will likely need Juolevi in the lineup next season regardless. I think Edler re-signs, and MDZ is gone at the TDL. If Hutton or Pouliot shows poorly at camp and during the pre-season waive him. $2.8 million in the minors is better than an unwatchable product likely costing much much more. If Hutton or Pouliot show good form then unfortunately Biega is the odd man out. Of course injuries will likely render all of this meaningless.

Jim “Dumpster Fire” Benning:

Trade the kid. He’s already a depreciating asset. Although in light of the way Benning continuously waits too long to do anything regarding asset value, I dont forsee the team doing anything other than letting him play it out in the A

DogBreath:

Like the other prospects, its not about 2018-2019. We need OJ to become a top 3 defensemen 20 minute guy, 2-3 years down the road, He CANNOT become a 4-7 as this will set the rebuild back. Play him where he’s going to develop. My view is this is Utica until he’s got all the fundamentals in place and clearly needs to be in the NHL.

truthseeker:

Just like anyone else, camp/preseason/a handful of games should determine that. If he’s good enough he should be in the NHL. Period. I hope he comes in, has a great camp and whoever doesn’t play as well as he does and doesn’t “fit” gets sent down, traded, or simply released if they have no value.

If he doesn’t play well enough then obviously he should go to Utica and try to make it back up.

I think a better question would be how should the canucks try to motivate a guy like Oli to be the best player he can be.

Gampbler:

I’d like to see him start in the NHL if he’s healthy and in shape, otherwise Utica, but he was playing 22 minutes a game in the playoffs in a league that is if not a step up then certainly level with the AHL, so I don’t want to see any young player go sideways at 21 years old. To make room, you’ve got to be prepared to expose Hutton or Biega if you can’t get a trade done for Hutton, Del Zotto or Tanev that brings back the return you want.

  • The biggest thing I’d like to see from CanucksArmy this year compared to last year is consistency and communication. As the season went on, a number of post-game reports were missed, and we all know about the fiasco that the mid-term prospects report became. I understand that it’s a hobby for many of the writers, and that sometimes life gets in the way, but if life does get in the way, a simple “This series has been delayed, here’s the new schedule” post, or “sorry, no post-game report tonight, the scheduled writer is ill” update goes a long way. A lot of people like the post-game reports because it gives them a place to talk in the comments about the game and share and compare their thoughts – if a writer’s going to miss a post-game, putting up a “sorry no full report due to illness, here’s a box score” post still gives people a place to talk about the game.

    • Dahlenfan

      I’d like to say that cory is doing a great job with the comets coverage. Your prospect profiles are very detailed and informative. I Love them. Almost everything others have said I agree with. A lot of people come on here to comment and secondarily read the article. It’s funny how us humans work. We spread what we think and maybe listen to others. I enjoy the comment section. It would be nice if the personal attacks get snuffed out. I don’t care if people are critical of the canucks. But just slander and abusive behavior should not be tolerated from commenters towards other commenters on this site. I agree there needs to be moderation. People should be allowed to bash the canucks. Just not each other in an insulting way. The people that do the most bashing are calling each other out which is hilarious. Kettle calling the pot black. Edit button and bigger window would be nice as well. I would rather a bigger window than edit button if I had to choose between the 2. I also agree that the order of the articles should be from release date. Sometimes I miss an article and then it’s too late to post a comment. Bums me out. I also think it would be nice that if someone can’t write a post game then just post the box score so we can comment on the game. We want to talk about the game. I think the 4 biggest issues people have with this site is the edit button, the personal attacks that have nothing to do with hockey, a bigger window to view our comments and the one sided view taken by JD but hes gone now. I think this site does a good job. Keep up the good work. Thx a lot for all the hard work you all do.

  • As mentioned by many others before: Less is more.

    1) We don’t need multiple stories to push a narrative like how bad Gudbranson is statistically or how Benning overpaid in free agency (again). One story to cover an event as it happens and a second analytical piece with sober second thought a few days after.

    2) Also, does anyone read Babych, Please or Stick Taps? Those articles seem to draw zero comments. I click on those articles infrequently. Most of the time, I’ve read most of the non-CA articles in Stick Taps but that’s because I like to whittle away my time looking. I can see its value for more casual Canucks fans. I almost never click on Babych, Please…I can’t even remember what it’s supposed to be about.

  • Steg

    I expect many people reading the blog are very well versed in the different metrics used in analytics, but I would find it helpful if there were a glossary on the site (somewhere unobtrusive) that gave a 101 on the common metrics used for those of us who’s memory needs jogging from time to time.

    • East Van Dan

      Agree. That could be a one-time piece that is linked from the dropdown menu. Speaking of the dropdown, the roster is quite out of date. I suggest putting a date on the top of it so it’s clear when it was last updated.

  • wjohn1925

    I enjoy coming to CanucksArmy for the blogs and the comments and have been doing so for 5 years or so. In my estimation, this site has some outstanding writers both in the articles and the responses. There are other sites which cover much of the same material, but none offer the in-depth analysis or detailed coverage that CA does. I’m really looking forward to seeing how the site progresses with Ryan Biech at the helm.
    That being said, one thing I would like to see changed is the post-game coverage. I agree with Goon on this one. It’s better to simply have a simple statement like “no post-game coverage today” or better yet have a guest blogger (from some of the regular contributors who faithfully follow the Canucks) do the write-up. Last year, to my great annoyance, the post-game content was at times sub-standard (I think we all know who wrote those ones) and frankly insulting as it became clear that the writer had not only not seen the game, but was trying to cover up that fact by offering bland or cliched generalities. So, why not just get some of the regulars to do that on days when the bloggers are busy with other things.
    My second suggestion to improve the site would be to eliminate some of the trolling that takes place. There are fortunately only a few that offer no opinion only insult, but still, it’s irritating having to scroll through the one line insults by people who have no useful thoughts of their own.
    So…more guest bloggers from people who actually follow the Canucks and more monitoring of the site!

  • Bud Poile

    The readers and participants here have weighed in on/begged for content/format changes for years.
    1. A moderator.
    Bring on board a few trusted,regular posters to oversee content as canucks.com does.
    When there are personal attacks the participants and blog suffers.
    This site has been an unregulated tire fire in the past.
    2. Contributors have begged for years for a format that allows editing.
    Increasing the tiny window we write in will allow a lot less mistakes.
    3. Consistent blog entries following games and Canucks events.The writers and editors might devise a dated format of who will be writing on which dates far ahead of scheduled games and events.
    The appointed blog participants (devoted fans) and writers could devise a schedule amongst themselves and update it as events unfold.
    Lots of missing blogs after games and cardboard misinformation masquerading as pregame blogs were talking points here on CA for the wrong reasons.

    I’m hoping the new editor(s) maintain consistent dialogue with each other and their writers to provide consistent content.

    • By “Cardboard misinformation” are you referring to the cut-and-paste lineups that were *always* wrong? I can’t remember the site they’re from…

      If so, I 100% agree those should be dropped from the pre-game posts. I can’t recall a time when they were right.

    • PQW

      Bring on board a few trusted,regular posters to oversee content as canucks.com does.
      **When there are personal attacks the participants and blog suffers.**

      Yes i fully agree…

      “You’re a knob, PQW. Did I tell you that you are a knob?” Bud Poile

      “You are the big, ugly clown show here” Bud Poile

      “Yeah, you show us you come from ignorant, arrogant dick head school.” Bud Poile
      “So stuff your ignorant comments, Rusted One.” Bud Poile

      “I didn’t write the piece, dick.” Bud Poile

      “Pi$$ off you jerk.” Bud Poile

      So, let’s clean this place up starting with the ONLY poster/troll ever to have been asked to leave CA by a staffer BUD POILE… he even wants himself to be zapped as he says above guys.

      • Bud Poile

        I’d list your personal attacks that created those replies to you (and your alias’).
        JD didn’t seem to care.
        Hopefully,the new editor(s)will deal with your act.

        • PQW

          Lol… jusst look at all the upvotes and down votes to my post all by HIM and his numerous sock accounts in just ONE HOUR guys whilst the posters below hav zero… too easy Dud, outted and humiliated loser———- now Bud, how does it go again

          “Bud has generally served to make the comment section an unwelcoming place not just for the authors but also for a lot of the commenters as well. ” – Jackson McDonald

          ”the least I could do is occasionally remind Bud that CA’s readership is constantly growing and if all he is going to do is be rude to other readers he doesn’t need to come back especially because this isn’t Tim Hortons and I don’t get brownie points for smiling and being polite while someone makes the work area a nuisance to be in for staff + customers. ” – Jackson McDonald

          and you think a new editor is going to back a saddo multi troll like you… dream on little man!

      • North Van Halen

        PQW, dear god man, for the sake of your own sanity find a hobby, kiss a girl ( or a boy, it’s all good now), see a movie. enjoy the sunshine. Anything else cuz this obsession is messed up man. Like see a shrink crazy dude.

        Just sayin.

          • North Van Halen

            You used to be kinda cute, then kinda obnoxious, now you’re just downright creepy dude.
            I post my opinion, you post creepy quotes from years ago. I’ve never seen anything like it. I hope you never find Bud’s identity cuz I would be truly fearful for him. That’s how creepy you are.

  • BJPeters02

    I’ve been a daily visitor for 7 years now, love the site and content. Some have already said this but this is my take on it:

    1) Babych Please i’ve never read, as someone else said, you can see page clicks to determine that one though.
    2) Blackfish is awesome, keep that coming
    3) PreGame write ups are usually good, as others have said, ditch the site you grab the lineup from, its never correct.
    4) PostGame last season was weak. I stopped reading it in November i think, it was just bad.
    5) Since the sites makeover, we’ve still not got an edit function.. please !!
    6) Trolls.. we need to get ontop of that. I miss Nmoo, or whatever his name was.. these latest ones need to be culled.
    7) Prospect updates dont lose that! i know its your Jam so i assume we wont but its CAs bread and butter baby!
    8) With JD gone is there going to still be a Canucks Army on Nation Network Radio or is there plans to start up a PodCast?
    9) Utica updates are awesome, i don’t always read the post games but usually the 3 stars and his recaps to see how they’re doing.

    • I don’t know why the starting line-up image is such a big deal. They may have a few errors but they’re trying to predict a game-time roster well in advance. I’d rather keep it, knowing that there may be some errors.

      • detox

        I hate the wrong starting lineup. If you listen to any radio, you hear who isn’t playing long before you see those lineups and know they are wrong or something has changed. You investigate to find out, nothing has changed and yes of course the starting lineup posted is wrong.
        For a site that prides itself on analytics and deep dives, you’d think accuracy was important.

  • North Van Halen

    I’d like to see more balance. JD, JD II, JM, PB. All haters of Benning, none have written a evenhanded view of anything he’s done, ever.
    It’s almost like not a soul writing on the blogosphere can actually understand what he’s doing (you can debate the minutae of it) and none seem to be capable of acknowledge anything good he’s done.
    I’ll say it again, I’m not even a fan of Benning particularly and I doubt he’ll survive the full 3 years of his contract since they likely won’t make the playoffs this year or next. But the totally one sided narrative pushed by so many has gotten out of hand. Benning’s done some ‘real good’ things to go with his share of bad and the fact is just because he’s doing it different than you or I would, doesn’t make it wrong. For a guy who’s messed up as much as these guys says, thats’ one heck of a prospect pool.

    Anyway, I guess what I’m trying to say is you guys have enough heels, can’t we get a fair guy too?

    • East Van Dan

      I disagree with a lot of the criticisms of “haters” amongst the CA writers and the supposed “one sided narrative”. I see the writers as opinion writers and appreciate a mix of different opinions. Don’t have to agree with them all. In that spirit, I have not trashed North Van Halen’s comment but will simply voice my respectful opinion. I agree that Benning has done a good job at building the prospect pool in the last two years (though I also think the Canucks should be stockpiling extra picks and should have signed only one of Beagle and Roussel, preferably Roussel).

      • North Van Halen

        Here’s the issue, you mention a variety of different opinions., where’s the variety? I’ve certainly heard the I hate Benning side ad nauseum. I have not seen one writer
        attempt to explain what he’s doing let alone support a single thing he’s done.
        Hard to get mix when only one side is told.
        Please point me to the place where the ‘positive side of some of Bennings moves is being put forward and I’ll apologize and take back every word I said : )

        • liqueur des fenetres

          There isn’t an “I hate Benning side”. This was a hockey team that was supposed to be turned around in a hurry that instead has languished in the cellar. They’re not there because of bad luck but poor management. If the former were true there could be glowing narratives that exist alongside the critical ones, but to date management’s good moves have been random (and when they do happen they do seem to be acknowledged here).

          • Bud Poile

            There isn’t an “I hate Benning site”. ldf
            J.D.Burke despised Benning and for years his theme was ‘get rid of Benning’, ‘Sutter and Gudbranson’ stink and so does Benning’.
            That narritive was parroted and championed here.This site under Burke was commonly referred to as a ‘Benning hater’s site’ on other Canucks forums.
            Now that his paying Athletic gig means he has to be professional and rational he’s gone.
            The team is ALL about the draft / prospects and Ryan Biech is the proper man to lead CA.

        • Go look at the draft recaps for the past two seasons and you’ll see plenty of praise of Benning and his team.

          You can look to the 2017 trade deadline recap to see some more praise of Benning’s moves.

          You can reach all the way back to the signing of Radim Vrbata and re-signing of Chris Tanev, or last summer’s signings of players like Sam Gagner and Patrick Wiercioch to see praise from CanucksArmy, as well.

          But no, you’re not going to find serious writers and analysts defending the overall direction of the team or the vision or plan Benning has put forth, because the team is mired in the NHL basement and Benning has failed to articulate any kind of plan or vision. If you want writers to be fair, that means they’re going to be hard on a management group that has consistently failed to deliver results. Fair means giving praise where its due – the last couple of drafts have been very good, the 2017 trade deadline was great, last summer’s free agent signings looked like they fit the direction of the team – but it also means being critical when the moves are bad, which is pretty much everything else Benning has done in his time, other than what’s noted above.

          • North Van Halen

            Fair, but again her’s my problem. I and many of us can see what he’s doing. Building the base while making the kids compete for a spot. I and many other are judging Benning by the progress towards 2020 and in building to that he’s done quite well.
            There may be moments the staff here says positives then quickly circle back to the same negatives. Let’s take trades. Sutter – Gudbranson get marched out ad nauseum. If I read another article telling me how bad these trades are I may vomit, yet of his last 5 deals Goldie, Dahlen, Pouliot, Motte and Leipsic, 4 were clear wins and 1 (Motte) was a meh. Yet we keep being told he’s lousy at trades and he’s about to mortgage the future. Really,? cuz he’s basically won 5 straight and improved our future with each.
            He’s terrible at signing, yet Bo, Sven & Schaller are all pretty good deals. I get people question him but fair and balanced does not exist when it comes to Benning, it doesn’t

          • Dirty30

            Fair enough — but there is something to be said for moving on (take note Bud P!) and perhaps looking at issues in a broader context. How are other teams doing vs. the Canucks and Benning? Is there really anything JB could do about the draft lottery? Has he signed the worst contracts in history? Are they really the end of the world?

            As for ‘the plan’ — what can realistically be done under the circumstances? Include ownership in that set … include the ‘gambled and lost’ moves of MG — easy to say rebuild should have started in 2012 (Torts nailed it!) but would fans have accepted it right then? Would ownership? Would the Sedins?

            Making a critical evaluation of management’s performance is one thing, complaining endlessly is something else. It’s a hard skill to learn and I have seen graduate students fail to master it.

            Mistakes were made — lots and lots of them spanning many, many years — but where to from here is the critical question. What needs to be done and how can it be accomplished under the circumstances?

            I don’t envy JB one bit being caught between ownership, fans, the media, competing GMs and a league commissioner whose greatest joy is crapping on this team.

            Is JB doing a good job? Yes. Is it paying off for this team? History shows it’s not. That leaves this coming season to determine if things will get better. One can only hope.

          • liqueur des fenetres

            NVH, are you talking about the “stealth tank”? Look up Occam’s razor if you’re not already familiar with it’s definition.

            And to Dirty’s comments regarding “the broader context” it’s unrealistic to expect a team blog to follow the entire league to the same depth. But as was pointed out very recently fanboys are in for a shock when they discover that the 20/21 roster is going to be up against teams that have also been adding legitimate pieces.

            It’s fair to evaluate management on the vision they themselves have articulated and whether the decisions they are making support it. History is full of entities that have talked the talk but couldn’t walk it, and that’s what’s been shaping up here right from day one.

          • North Van Halen

            Oh Liq, If they ever hire a writer who doesn’t hate Benning he will explain it to you. I’ve done it so many times. Try this though, ignore the noise, ignore all the negative and ignore what you think of Benning.
            Now just ask what you think of where our prospect pool is and are we well positioned to start to compete for the playoffs in 2020 and a cup in 2022? If no, he’s failed. If yes then isn’t something going right?

          • Dirty30 – I agree, a look at where the Canucks are at in the context of other teams and other rebuilds would be great. I actively follow several other teams and I get the sense that some people who overvalue the Canucks’ prospect pool maybe aren’t aware of what other prospect pools around the NHL look like (which isn’t to say the Canucks’ pool isn’t good, just that it’s not beyond reproach).

            NVH: That isn’t what Benning has done, though, or if it is, he’s doing a very bad job of it. If he’s trying to build up the prospect pool, why has he traded more draft picks during his tenure than he’s acquired? Why does he continue to chase big-name free-agents and sign players in their 30s to big-money contracts? Why has he only been an effective seller at one deadline? 2020 is only a season away, and this team is not on track to be competitive by then. When I say there’s no plan, that’s because every day you don’t know which Benning you’re getting – are you getting the one who makes smart moves to sell depth players for picks and prospects, identifies and re-signs key RFAs to good contracts, and is clearly building toward the future, or are you getting the one who pisses away prospects and draft picks on marginal depth players, overpays bottom-six players in both money and term, etc? There is no coherent plan that has been articulated by management, and there’s no coherent plan that you can divine from looking at the moves this management group has made.

            I’m willing to accept this may not be entirely Benning’s fault – it’s certainly possible he’s been given an impossible edict from ownership – but part of being a good manager is being able to tell ownership that what they’re asking is impossible, and present them with some reasonable alternatives. This team refuses to commit to an actual rebuild, but also can’t identify the players necessary to make a “re-tool” work, and continues to wallow in mediocrity.

            Sutter and Gudbranson are touted by the regime as key players and signed to expensive contracts. The players you listed are all bubble players and with the possible exception of Pouliot, there’s a good chance all will start in the AHL. That isn’t to say those weren’t mostly good moves (I’d argue that Motte was absolutely not, but I’ll give you the other four), but if you’re winning four depth / AHL trades and losing your two marquee trades, you’re going backwards, not forwards.

            Benning has done a respectable job re-signing RFAs and UFAs who are already with the team, that is absolutely true. Tanev, Bo, Sven, Markstrom – all good contracts. All reported on positively by CanucksArmy.

          • North Van Halen

            That’ the thing Goon, I can go back and forth all day but one side is presented, repeatedly, the other is given brief mention at the time then disregarded in all further blogs. The ‘opinion writers’

          • Bud Poile

            “But no, you’re not going to find serious writers and analysts defending the overall direction of the team or the vision or plan Benning has put forth, because the team is mired in the NHL basement and Benning has FAILED to articulate any kind of PLAN or vision. If you want writers to be fair, that means they’re going to be hard on a management group that has consistently FAILED to deliver results.

            Fair means giving praise where its due –it also means being critical when the moves are bad, which is pretty much EVERYTHING else Benning has done in his time…” Goon

            Little harsh,Goon.

            Benning’s Plan unveiled when?
            Benning’s first presser in Vancouver:

            “Listen, this is what I¹m going to do,” Benning said. “I come from a scouting background. We¹re going to give these guys direction. I’m going to communicate to these guys what we want, what we think a Vancouver Canuck player should be, and I’m going to work with them. I’m going to try to make that group better. That’s what the plan is.”

            “I think it’s very important,” Benning said of scouting. “I think maybe that’s why Trevor hired me. The draft is going to be important for us…”

          • North Van Halen

            That’s the thing Goon, I can go back and forth all day but one side is presented, repeatedly, the other is given brief mention at the time then disregarded in all further blogs.
            It’s fair for you and Dirk And Fraud And PQW to have your opinion and it’s well represented here. Why can’t those of us that disagree with you have a voice too?

          • TheRealRusty

            “That’s the thing Goon, I can go back and forth all day but one side is presented, repeatedly, the other is given brief mention at the time then disregarded in all further blogs.
            It’s fair for you and Dirk And Fraud And PQW to have your opinion and it’s well represented here. Why can’t those of us that disagree with you have a voice too?”

            Seems like your intent is give JB credit when credit is due.
            Should all articles start with acknowledging that he has restock the prospect cupboard before they dive into whatever critique they have? Would that make articles more balanced and you feel better? Like others have said, post draft articles are generally glowing. Cannot bandwagon cheerlead if JB really hadnt done anything else of note…

          • NVH, you can’t ask for fair, and then when people point out what is fair, say “no, I want cheerleading”.

            If you just want cheerleading, read the comments. The comment section is full of it. If you want a fair look at the moves the team is making, don’t then complain that the overall tone of the coverage is negative when the results have been so consistently poor.

            I’ve pointed out many instances where CanucksArmy has praised individual moves by Benning. He gets praise when he earns it. But if you want fair – if you want some attempt at objectivity – then you need to accept that a fair, reasonably objective look at this management group is going to have a negative tone, because the on ice product is bad, the team has delivered consistently poor results, management continues to make obvious and glaring errors – and this isn’t just CanucksArmy. Read the Athletic. Read coverage in Vancouver’s newspapers. Read Pass it to Bulis. None of these publications have particularly glowing things to say about Benning’s record in Vancouver.

          • North Van Halen

            goon,
            You have repeatedly told me the reasons you don’t like Benning. I think I have very fairly laid out a completely different argument. You are welcome disagree with it but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In fact, look at my up votes vs yours (not saying who’s right, just saying), clearly, there are more people on this site that agree with my take than yours.
            This isn’t FOX news or CNN. It’s okay to express both sides and debate. Just because you or Rusty or Chris or PQW or Dirk disagree with the other side doesn’t make it any less valid. I agree with many of your takes. I also vehemently disagree with some.
            Are you saying the majority here don’t even have a right to an opinion or are you saying we are all just so dumb and you are so smart that yours is the only one that counts?

          • North Van Halen

            And Pass it to Bulis has become unreadable. It’s like a big circle jerk of Benning haters. If unchecked negativity is what you want, that’s certainly the place.

  • I am Ted

    For starters, not all of us will be missing B. Burke. He can barely form a proper sentence and his piss poor attitude didn’t help either. When he was going by other names and posting snarky comments was one thing but when you become one of the leaders then you really need to act professionally. I think B. Burke definitely needs to mature a bit and perhaps take some English classes to improve his writing.

    As for what I’d like to see? I think consistency is the main thing. If you’re doing a feature (i.e. game analysis) then put it up after each game. Last season was the worst for posting timely post-game articles.

    I’d also like to see better coverage on the Summer Showcase.

    Finally, if any bloggers come on and write articles that have some snark, they better be prepared for the backlash. If they can’t handle it then they might be in the wrong biz.

    Anyway, I’ve been visiting CA for a while now and this last season seemed like a low point. I am sure a lot of that has to do with B. Burke as he offered many excuses for late articles or things that didn’t get covered etc. Here’s a tip for him and any other bloggers: excuses don’t really cut it. Sorry. They just don’t. Once in a blue moon maybe but it happened often under his watch.

    I think CA can be better and it wouldn’t take much. Would I like to see anything else? I don’t know if the site is capable but maybe a forums section where the visitors can post. It could be something like you see on Nucksmisconduct or maybe Canuckscorner. It allows the people to have a voice and to be heard.

  • myshkin

    how about dumbing down some of the analytics? there have many good articles where i’ve given up half way through because the analytics were getting tough to follow. or maybe have a sidebar glossary for the terms and abbreviations.

  • Red Moon Rising

    Hey troops. I’ve been keeping my peace for a while now, but since we’ve been asked directly…..

    -an edit button would be a great convenience
    -an end to the whole ‘are they trolls or Army staff’? thing. If it’s you, just stop, clicks aren’t worth the wallowing. If it is trolls, get serious and arrange some moderation. People have come to expect it in this day and age.
    -it seems you have a golden opportunity rather than an issue if life keeps ‘getting in the way’. I’ve long thought that theRealPB (and a couple other long time posters) would make for a great way to really include yournation in what you do ( Y’know, if you’re in to that sort of thing). Lets face it PB was basically doing the recap for you in the comments section 2 or 3 times a month (and killing it).
    -an edit button would be ghrwy (kam iT!)
    -maybe not wear the analytics badge too proudly. You guys do fantastic (and occasionally brain-melting work) but alot of the content that has been published since the old guard left is empirical analysis (read opinion) and you haven’t reinvented the wheel. Maybe a touch less us and them and a little more we are all on the same side (good god! I almost said ‘we are all canucks’).
    -now that I’ve reread that last point it comes off a little snarky, I’ll just edit that out, no one will know.
    -try one new thing a month. Maybe it works, maybe not but nobody will accuse you of sitting on your hands.
    -that pre-game blog was the very essence of mailing it in (is that ironic?).

    Having said that your site is still amongst the best in the market and I have really been enjoying some of the new contributors (Cory in particular) so, good luck Ryan, et al.

    P.S. I can’t tell if I have touched on this (gee, that is one small box) but an edit button would be the cat’s a…..

  • kermit

    I come to this site to read the comments as much as I read the articles. I look forward to Mondays because the mailbag comment section often becomes something of a forum. The trolls I don’t like. Too many vitriolic posts can spoil the mood for the whole site. When I first joined I told myself I would only cheer, and never trash other people’s comments, but some of them were so full of inappropriate hate that I gave up on that idea. A moderator would be great. Thanks for listening Ryan.

    • Macksonious

      Like reading legitimate view points/perspectives, even when I disagree. That’s what makes this section interesting. Those who aren’t legit can be annoying.

        • KGR

          There is a difference between a well expressed view point and trolling. i have given a number of thumbs up (and acknowledged them) to commenters that I have disagreed with. Personal attacks are the lowest form of argument. Misdirection the second. Neither will influence people..only turn them off. A well reasoned argument will influence people. Isn’t that what this forum is about. There is nothing to be gained by the statement “clearly a guy calling himself kermit is qualified to determine which views and perspectives are legit”. There is some humor in that; but, his perspective is valid and only expresses his opinion. Every bit as yours.

    • KekeMortson#12

      Sometimes I get the feeling I must be odd because I find some of those trolls just hilarious.Does anybody else? I’d love to know more about the collective funny bone, or if it’s just me. That LAKID guy splits me up.

      • LAKID is good at what he does. He toes a line but never crosses it. PQW (and all of the banned aliases he used to post under) contributes nothing of substance and is probably mentally ill.

  • Rodeobill

    This is an excellent WWYDW question.

    As kermit says, the Monday mailbag is the star of the show during the boring summer, why not use some of those questions to source article ideas?
    As Red moon and Kermit said, the comments section is one of the biggest draws for me to come here, If you need to find some new contributors there are some well informed daily commentors that could really do a good job I think, Steampuck, chris the curmudgeon, Real PB, and so many others have well informed, thoughtful, and fact based opinions and never stoop to poo slinging, many others also, the comments section has lots of good people, maybe they would want to guest post an article?

    But my biggest suggestion is more content. It doesn’t have to be long or even well articulated (although that’s nice too), I want to engage in the conversation and comments, and it seems weird to comment about how awesome Quinn Hughes looks in the summer showcase in the “what happened to Linden’s job” comments section, just get a new page out with a blurb press release and let us giv’er in the comments section.

    Also, if its ideas for content that are the problem during the summer, someone in the previous article’s comments mentioned “what if…” I thought that would be a good normal article. not a wwyd but what if … happened (“what if… Benning signed Troy Brower for dirt cheap” for instance). Or to balance the negativity once in a while, have a once a week/month “best case scenario” article (but try not to do it sarcastically)

    I am grateful for this site and all it’s contributors, and that’s what I can think of for now.

  • Cageyvet

    I’m not sure if I’m correct or not, but I think the articles are shown so that the most commented on receive top billing. While that makes some sense, as a regular reader I’d prefer it if the most recent article is posted at the top, which lets me quickly see if there is new content. A minor point, to be sure, but since you asked….

    • Ryan Biech

      The feature article is adjustable by us – generally it’s done by most recent or a piece that someone worked on for awhile

      So if it’s just a quick news hit, we don’t put that on feature, we leave the ‘what can we expect from player X’ etc

      If that makes sense?

      • Cageyvet

        Thanks for clearing that up, I couldn’t identify a definite pattern, so if it’s you folks using your judgement, I’m fine with that. It should mean hot news will stay near the top and recurring segments perhaps slide down the page. That makes sense, and if I visited the site from a laptop not my phone I know many of the irritants like trying to use the 3 line comment box are non-issues. Very glad you’re running the show, I look forward to your approach being reflected across the site.

  • liqueur des fenetres

    Since this is an analytics blog, when hitting “port comment” force users to complete a Captcha that contains a basic math problem. This will go a long way to cleaning up the comments section too.

  • apr

    A lot has already been said, but in case I missed I would also like to see:

    1) Writer bios, twitter feeds, or links to their other work in different outlets (ie the Athletic, Sportsnet, TSN, etc..) on the main page.
    2) Direct links to Canucks stats, NHL stats/standings, doesn’t matter if its Sportsnet, TSN, Espn – it would be great to have a one stop shopping site
    3) A general message board on the side to discuss topics, ask questions, promote social gatherings, etc that is out of the scope of the write-up

    Great contact, especially for a free site. The writing, in general, has been quite good. Controversy is good, but beating dead horses like Corrado, Guddy, and Sutter was getting super old. All in all, this site is my number one source for Canucks content – so keep up the great work.

  • RobG

    I have been an avid reader and active paticipant in the comments section of this site/blog since 2010 and I can say with absolute certainty that I will not miss JD and this site is exponentially better now that he is gone. The quality of content generated on this site today is cannot even be compared to what it was pre-JD. I was so disappointed in the direction that JD took this site I actually stopped following for a long time. Although there have been improvements to content with the addition of Harman Dayal, this site still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of balanced, data/fact-based reporting. There are way too many articles negative in tone, based on personal biases against certain people and players. We know Gudbranson isn’t good at hockey, we know JB overpays free agents to appease ownership, and we know they aren’t a very good team. We don’t need 50+ personal opinion articles to reinforce that. I’ve also been disappointed in the number of posts where conclusions are based on conjecture and are borderline conspiracy theory. We don’t know what is going on behind closed doors, so stick to the facts and the info that has been made public.

    I would like to see this site go back to its roots by analyzing signings, prospects, and players, based on the most cutting edge advanced analytics available and judging the quality of said player or deal based on data and facts and not personal opinion.

    Since this is a blog at it’s roots, allow each contributor one personal opion piece per month to discuss whatever the heck they want (doesn’t need to be Canucks related, could be any sport really) and I would like to see a system put in place where regular commenters and average joes can submit content for posts as well. Give some of us a chance to have our work posted – provided it makes the grade.

    And as many other people here have already stated, there needs to be better moderation of the comments section. This is a place to talk Canucks. The comments section is a great open forum where people shouldn’t have to worry about, or deal with, personal attacks. That stuff needs to go. And we need an edit feature to correct spelling mistakes or accidental posts.

  • Sandpaper

    I would like too see an edit buttonfor the comments section, some guest articles(Real PB?), a way for the mailbag to be more inclusive for some of us who aren’t on social media, a moderator with clearly defined rules would be nice, continuing with the great reports on prospects and draft rankings, more of Comet Cory, elimination of Cat, as I would rather a guest/pinchhitter be brought in from 1 of the regular commentors(again, I suggest RealPB), lastly , I have liked how the bloggers have engaged in the comments section, this is a great way for all to feel more cohesive.

    • liqueur des fenetres

      Guest articles are a nice idea in theory, but unfair to the editor(s) as someone has to weed through the content and then put up with even more whining when a certain piece wasn’t published. They’d take trolling to a whole new level.

    • Sandpaper

      Forgot to add, if we had some way identifying new comments, other than how many hours ago the comment was posted, maybe something similar to nucksmisconduct, where newer/ unread comments are in yellow.

  • TheRealPB

    I won’t rehash too much of what others have already said, and I don’t care that much about an edit button but if it could be easily done I’d love to see it. I’d personally prefer to see the articles posted by the latest first rather than the most recent commented upon, as it’s sometimes hard to follow on the days when a number come out. I also get the frustration when a recap or reflection on an event doesn’t come out as this is one of the ways to either crow about something or (more likely) commiserate. I think the only time I really was looking for something was after an unexpected win over the Leafs sometime over the past couple of years; I will take a lot Canucks’ losing if it means seeing those Leafs get taken down. But I also think it makes perfect sense when something DOESN’T come out; I don’t really get the expectation to the contrary.

    A couple of suggestions: it’d be nice to see the rankings of prospects as we go along counting down the top 20 in our system (sort of as you do with the top 100 draft eligible). I also really like the 5-year-out draft retrospectives. What would be really great would be to put that into comparative perspective. Actually I’d also love to see some more data-driven analysis of a lot of the common narratives we see all around the hockeysphere. Have there been any empirical analyses of tear-down rebuilds versus ‘retools’? What are the conditions that make a Leafs model possible? We hear elements of it (trades, high picks, short-term signings, weaponizing caps) but that’s all just a bunch of jargon unless we can actually quantify it. I’d love to see that. Others I’d like to see would be an analysis of how much more successful the scattershot (i.e. more bullets in the gun) approach to drafts are, an analysis of the probability of high-risk high reward picks working out, stuff like that. In other words in the same way that analytic approaches have helped to explode some of the myths of grit and truculence, it would be great for CA to take a lead in focusing a critical eye on some of what have become orthodoxies in the analytics world.

    • Cageyvet

      Lots of good ideas here, I agree that analytics could use some new looks. While it’s natural to want to refine and rely on existing and models that have built a history to help gauge their effectiveness, there are still gaping holes and you need to start somewhere. Better metrics on defensive play, both D and forwards, and less tossing out the impact of faceoffs because they often have a possession change before a goal.

      I’d argue that it’s odd to ignore the ability to start with the puck when so many of the metrics focus on possession of the puck. With zero facts to back this up, I would suggest that possession changes off a faceoffs, particularly in the offensive zone, may still result in the puck being on the stick of a defenseman who promptly coughs it up and lets the attack resume. There are a lot of nuances to this game that are not handled well by current models, and the league itself is wildly inconsistent with certain measurements such as hits.

      I like the stats, but they are still in their infancy, and it’s often a sore point in the comments section when the writers ignore this.

      How about an article showing the team the CA draft rankings would have given us verus what Benning has delivered? I know the rankings were a concensus, so use that, choose a champion from the ranks who fielded the best team, show each writer’s team, or whatever you deem appropriate. I’m sure that gives us Tkachuk, not Juolevi, but I suspect there’d be no Boeser or Petterson on anyone’s roster. You win some, you lose some, but I’d love to see who had the edge at the end of the day.

  • surreal78

    From someone who has built and managed multiple large community sites in the past… two key things I’d like to see:

    – Comment editing. You guys are on WordPress (and make no effort to hide it), so this shouldn’t be more than a one-click operation to enable. I’m sure you can even find a plugin that will let users see version histories of comments, if that’s what you’re concerned about — which I can understand, but it’s not an insurmountable problem.

    – Troll moderation. This goes without saying… as a (mostly) daily reader I can definitely say that I often avoid the comments on posts simply because of the constant trolling from specific, recurring individuals (two or three come to mind right away.) This really _shouldn’t_ be as big of an issue as it is on a site of this scale. I’m guessing you guys are letting it go just because it creates further controversy/”conversation”, but you may not be considering the fact that it’s alienating/irritating/pissing off a lot of readers who might otherwise comment and participate in a more cordial environment. I don’t know if a community-based moderator is the ideal solution, but maybe some cooperative moderation amongst the blog writers and only showing comments once they’ve been vetted makes sense to me as a first step.

    I would have also added a note about considering some snark reduction, but with J.D. gone and Ryan running things now, I’d like to think that’ll be less of an issue going forward.

    Honestly, though, it did get painful at times… if I wanted snark, I’d just go and see my mother-in-law.

    • surreal78

      Also… a protip for everyone asking about the size of the comment box. Most modern browsers (at least non-mobile) have the option to scale the textarea size. Grab the bottom right corner of the input box… drag down and/or to the right, and go to town.

      You’re welcome.

      • Killer Marmot

        I didn’t know you could resize the box until today, and from the comments, neither did many others.

        That’s a serious failure of communication that has produced considerable frustration. There should be perhaps a small message below the comment box explaining how to resize it.

        • surreal78

          This is a built-in browser thing. If you’re using a desktop browser released sometime in the last 6-7 years, the option should be there. Without getting too technical, it has to be expressly disabled in the styles of the input field to be hidden. Mobile is a different story, mind you.

    • liqueur des fenetres

      The Sedin era is over, hockey in Vancouver once again will become a man’s sport with scrums, big hits and chirping. And you expect cordiality in the comments section? Keep your head up when skating through the neutral zone, and don’t admire that post for too long…

  • SJ

    One thing I’d like to see is a little more attention to detail. The general quality of writing seemed to be suffering a bit the last year or so. The content is still there, but I get distracted by grammatical errors, typos, or just misuse of language. I know it’s a SPORTS site, and so maybe the writers and general readership don’t care as much about the writing being that high in quality. I think it does make you look more professional, though, and I for one am much more likely to keep reading if the writing is better.

    Also, the size of the comment box kind of sucks.