When can we extend Jim Bennings contract?

[CanadianRugby]

20 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

He inherited one of the oldest lineups in the NHL with almost no legitimate NHL prospects.   Then arguably his best player demands a trade to a list of two teams with one of them having no CAP space.    I don't think you can judge a GM fully for at least 5 years into their tenure but those low point total years were pretty much inevitable with him or without him - it is what he has done to the team through the down part of the Canuck cycle that should he should be judged upon, not the short-term on-ice product.   Now into this year, the judging can start to happen with on-ice product as well and IF he gets another contract, by 2019/20 if the Canucks have not climbed up the other side from their down part of the cycle, he deserves blame but if they are "back" to where they were at/near top of the league then he deserves credit.

 

Agree?

Agree with what I highlighted in red.  This team was doomed to suck when he took over.  

 

We see things differently from there on though.  Benning acted as if this team wasn't doomed to suck, the trades and signings he did were to improve the team in the short term for the most part.  He wanted another run with the Sedins.  So yes, he should be judged what happens now moving forward.  Though he should also be judged for his first few years where he let players walk for nothing and let other assets age instead of trading them and try to rebuild.  His plan to compete fell on it's face so we got high picks despite his best efforts.  Trying to build a good team but doing a bad job and getting high picks, not sure how much credit for that.  

 

That said.  I don't care how we get to the top, and if Benning turns this squad into a legit contender of course he will deserve all the credit.  If Benning turns this squad into a middle of the pack team then that's worse than being a bottom dweller as it will have to be another whole rebuild cycle to try to get to the top.  For that he'd deserve all the blame.  Agree?  

[ForsbergTheGreat]

12 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Agree with what I highlighted in red.  This team was doomed to suck when he took over.  

 

We see things differently from there on though.  Benning acted as if this team wasn't doomed to suck, the trades and signings he did were to improve the team in the short term for the most part.  He wanted another run with the Sedins.  So yes, he should be judged what happens now moving forward.  Though he should also be judged for his first few years where he let players walk for nothing and let other assets age instead of trading them and try to rebuild.  His plan to compete fell on it's face so we got high picks despite his best efforts.  Trying to build a good team but doing a bad job and getting high picks, not sure how much credit for that.  

 

That said.  I don't care how we get to the top, and if Benning turns this squad into a legit contender of course he will deserve all the credit.  If Benning turns this squad into a middle of the pack team then that's worse than being a bottom dweller as it will have to be another whole rebuild cycle to try to get to the top.  For that he'd deserve all the blame.  Agree?  

I've said this in another thread but I think the summer of 2013 was the perfect opportunity for us to rebuild.  A lot of our aged assets still had value,  Sedins were up for a new contract,  We just got swept easily in the first round by the sharks, the new CBA was just kicking in and our prospect pool was atrocious, Instead we band aided the situation fired the coach, put some lipstick on the pig and remained in that state until we finally looked in the mirror. 

 

We can blame Benning for that, but at the same time he is taking orders from above and they likely played a heavy influence on the direction of the team.

 

2013 - Swept by sharks in first round - canucks say they need a small reset and fire the coach.

2014 - terrible season -  canucks say they need slightly bigger reset, fire their coach and GM.

Trade deadline 2017 - Canucks finally admit, we need more than a reset, we need an actual rebuild focus.  Fire coach, focus on getting quality prospects

2018 - If canucks let JB walk and we hire a new GM with who says the intentions are to make a playoff push, we'll know for sure who's running the show. 

[The Lock]

39 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Agree with what I highlighted in red.  This team was doomed to suck when he took over.  

 

We see things differently from there on though.  Benning acted as if this team wasn't doomed to suck, the trades and signings he did were to improve the team in the short term for the most part.  He wanted another run with the Sedins.  So yes, he should be judged what happens now moving forward.  Though he should also be judged for his first few years where he let players walk for nothing and let other assets age instead of trading them and try to rebuild.  His plan to compete fell on it's face so we got high picks despite his best efforts.  Trying to build a good team but doing a bad job and getting high picks, not sure how much credit for that.  

 

That said.  I don't care how we get to the top, and if Benning turns this squad into a legit contender of course he will deserve all the credit.  If Benning turns this squad into a middle of the pack team then that's worse than being a bottom dweller as it will have to be another whole rebuild cycle to try to get to the top.  For that he'd deserve all the blame.  Agree?  

The way I see it, no matter what GM we would have picked, there will ALWAYS be critics of every little detail. That is CDC. Plain and simple.

 

However, one thing we haven't seen is a GM stick around long term. I want to see a GM stick around and see through his plan. Instead, the past 10 or 20 years we've seen knee jerk reactions that have no allowed GM's to fully see through to their creation. Nonis fed on what Burke did. Gillis fed on what Nonis did. If Benning was not given an aging has been team, then I'm sure Benning could have fed off of what Gillis did.

 

Could Benning have gone straight into rebuild mode? Sure. However, I honestly couldn't really care less about that. I want to see a long term success and I don't care how we get there. Sometimes the wisest thing someone can do is just ignore and let someone do what they planned out. Nitpicking gets us no where. Long term plans however tend to work out better.

 

Look at Lombardi. The Kings sucks for 5 to 10 years with him as GM before LA was even a good team. They only got Doughty once in that whole time and Lombardi kept bringing in vets like Palffy and Handzus to make the team better, just like what Benning's done. LA didn't try to tank much like we haven't (if it weren't for the lottery we probably would have had 2nd overall pick if we were in the same draft circumstances as LA with Doughty). Think about that. What we're going thiough has been done before and, last time I checked, LA kind of one a cup or 2....

 

In the end, rebuilds do very little (at least by the way I define a rebuild by being a bottom feeder) It can assist of course, but if rebuilds were the end all, we wouldn't see perpetually rebuilding teams like Florida in this league. I realise some people here want us to be the next Toronto, but Toronto got lucky. They won the lottery in the right draft year to win the lottery against all odds. However, Toronto's been building with other players as well, ones that haven't come from being a bottom feeder.

[CanadianRugby]

8 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Look at Lombardi. The Kings sucks for 5 to 10 years with him as GM before LA was even a good team. They only got Doughty once in that whole time and Lombardi kept bringing in vets like Palffy and Handzus to make the team better, just like what Benning's done. LA didn't try to tank much like we haven't (if it weren't for the lottery we probably would have had 2nd overall pick if we were in the same draft circumstances as LA with Doughty). Think about that. What we're going thiough has been done before and, last time I checked, LA kind of one a cup or 2....

 

In the end, rebuilds do very little (at least by the way I define a rebuild by being a bottom feeder) It can assist of course, but if rebuilds were the end all, we wouldn't see perpetually rebuilding teams like Florida in this league. 

"In the end, rebuilds do very little (at least by the way I define a rebuild by being a bottom feeder)"

 

Since 2009

Doughty 2nd overall - 2 cups

Kane & Toews 1st & 3rd overall - 3 cups

Crosby, Malkin, Fleury 1st, 1st & 1st overall - 3 cups

Rest of NHL - 1 cup

 

In order for rebuilds to work for everyone, there would need to be multiple cups won every year.  So that's a stupid argument.  Also not all management groups or draft years are equal.  If non-rebuilds work so well, why don't those teams ever win?  

[The Lock]

1 hour ago, CanadianRugby said:

"In the end, rebuilds do very little (at least by the way I define a rebuild by being a bottom feeder)"

 

Since 2009

Doughty 2nd overall - 2 cups

Kane & Toews 1st & 3rd overall - 3 cups

Crosby, Malkin, Fleury 1st, 1st & 1st overall - 3 cups

Rest of NHL - 1 cup

 

In order for rebuilds to work for everyone, there would need to be multiple cups won every year.  So that's a stupid argument.  Also not all management groups or draft years are equal.  If non-rebuilds work so well, why don't those teams ever win?  

There are multiple playoff spots every year, yet you have teams who have constantly had top 5 picks and still have issues making the playoffs. Just because something is not what you want to hear doesn't make it a stupid argument. What you've said even validates what I've said. Not all management is equal; therefore, it's less about the rebuild and more about the management.

 

This is EXACTLY what I'm saying. This is EXACTLY why I want to see long term management here. Every GM and his dog have made mistakes in this league. Every business in this world will make good and bad decisions. If you focus on the short term mistakes you lose sight of the long term achievement.  If you just focus on the short term gains and losses you lose out on the big picture: the long term goal. That's what separates the successful people from the people who skid tires in the dirt focusing on their mistakes.

 

Will it mean success in the end? That's up to the GM, but every GM is going to have problems now and then. If you keep firing a GM you have less a chance of success than if you let a GM do their thing.

[Rush17]

What kind of term do you guys think we will see for Jimbo?  Typically these run between what like 3-5 years on average?  I think he deserves a 4-6 year deal :D might regret 6 though so 4-5 is probably ideal. 4 is the sweet spot.  that way if the players he drafts cant be crafted into the right mix. u pluck the gm and get a new one in to modify the lineup >:D

[missioncanucksfan]

Might depend on if Ken Holland becomes available this summer....

 

....jusss sayin

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, missioncanucksfan said:

Might depend on if Ken Holland becomes available this summer....

 

....jusss sayin

Considering Aqualini’s history of hiring rookies in management, I seriously doubt he would hire someone with the experience of Holland.  Heck, maybe experienced guys will not even work for Aqualini?  

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, missioncanucksfan said:

Might depend on if Ken Holland becomes available this summer....

 

....jusss sayin

Ken Hollands arguably been one of the worst GMs in the league over the past 5 years. He's pretty much been doing the stupid things Benning did for his first two seasons here. He'll also demand a giant contract based on his name value. I assume Aquaman stays away.

[kanucks25]

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

They only got Doughty once in that whole time and Lombardi kept bringing in vets like Palffy and Handzus to make the team better, just like what Benning's done. LA didn't try to tank much like we haven't

Sorry, wrong.

 

From the start of the 2005 season to the end of the 2008 season (the bulk of their rebuilding phase), the Kings had a draft pick trade differential of +11 including 2 additional first-rounders. 11 additional picks over 3 drafts (06, 07, 08) before they started trading picks and prospects in 2009 to get ready to compete.

 

Accumulating a surplus of draft picks is pretty much the backbone of a successful rebuild. Benning did pretty much the opposite until this past trade deadline.

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Sorry, wrong.

 

From the start of the 2005 season to the end of the 2008 season (the bulk of their rebuilding phase), the Kings had a draft pick trade differential of +11 including 2 additional first-rounders. 11 additional picks over 3 drafts (06, 07, 08) before they started trading picks and prospects in 2009 to get ready to compete.

 

Accumulating a surplus of draft picks is pretty much the backbone of a successful rebuild. Benning did pretty much the opposite until this past trade deadline.

And JB’s finally moving out vets for picks at the 2017 TDL further supports the belief that’s when the Canucks committed to a proper rebuild.  

[Gollumpus]

On 11/8/2017 at 5:42 PM, Green Building said:

They're running low on valid arguments these days.

When has validity ever been a concern for what some folks write?

 

                                   regards,  G.

[Green Building]

11 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

When has validity ever been a concern for what some folks write?

 

                                   regards,  G.

  

[ilduce39]

4 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Sorry, wrong.

 

From the start of the 2005 season to the end of the 2008 season (the bulk of their rebuilding phase), the Kings had a draft pick trade differential of +11 including 2 additional first-rounders. 11 additional picks over 3 drafts (06, 07, 08) before they started trading picks and prospects in 2009 to get ready to compete.

 

Accumulating a surplus of draft picks is pretty much the backbone of a successful rebuild. Benning did pretty much the opposite until this past trade deadline.

Not sure you’d call those extra picks the “backbone” of their successful rebuild.  They drafted a few decent pieces like Martinez or Simmonds - traded as a part of the deal for Richards -

 

plus some other depth guys...

 

But Kopitar/Doughty/Brown/Mitchell/Carter are what I’d call the backbone of their championship run.

 

5 hours ago, Alflives said:

And JB’s finally moving out vets for picks at the 2017 TDL further supports the belief that’s when the Canucks committed to a proper rebuild.  

Alf, he’s been moving vets like Kesler and Garrison for picks since he arrived.  

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, ilduce39 said:

Not sure you’d call those extra picks the “backbone” of their successful rebuild.  They drafted a few decent pieces like Martinez or Simmonds - traded as a part of the deal for Richards -

 

plus some other depth guys...

 

But Kopitar/Doughty/Brown/Mitchell/Carter are what I’d call the backbone of their championship run.

 

Alf, he’s been moving vets like Kesler and Garrison for picks since he arrived.  

The backbone of a rebuild, not of their team.

 

Good rebuilds usually involve a surplus of draft picks because really it's the only way to accumulate good, young, cheap players. These types of players aren't found in free agency (because free-agents are neither young nor cheap) and usually not found through trade because, well, what team lets go of good, young, cheap players?

[CanadianRugby]

20 hours ago, The Lock said:

There are multiple playoff spots every year, yet you have teams who have constantly had top 5 picks and still have issues making the playoffs. 

No kidding, some management groups are bad at their jobs.  That doesn't mean rebuilding didn't get multiple Stanley Cups for other management groups.

20 hours ago, The Lock said:

Not all management is equal; therefore, it's less about the rebuild and more about the management.

Cool.  Name some management groups that won multiple cups without rebuilding and having top 3 picks in the cap era.  I'll save you the time, there aren't any.  If it was more about management than rebuild than nobody would ever tank and 50% of cup winners wouldn't have top picks on their teams.  

[JM_]

23 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

"In the end, rebuilds do very little (at least by the way I define a rebuild by being a bottom feeder)"

 

Since 2009

Doughty 2nd overall - 2 cups

Kane & Toews 1st & 3rd overall - 3 cups

Crosby, Malkin, Fleury 1st, 1st & 1st overall - 3 cups

Rest of NHL - 1 cup

 

In order for rebuilds to work for everyone, there would need to be multiple cups won every year.  So that's a stupid argument.  Also not all management groups or draft years are equal.  If non-rebuilds work so well, why don't those teams ever win?  

none of those teams got the #1 or 2 in the lotto era. So please explain your method for guaranteeing those spots. Oh right you can't. Your argument isn't valid anymore. 

[CanadianRugby]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

none of those teams got the #1 or 2 in the lotto era. So please explain your method for guaranteeing those spots. Oh right you can't. Your argument isn't valid anymore. 

Stop trolling, I've argued with you before.  I know you're not this stupid.  I never guaranteed anything, it's called a lottery for a reason.  There are no guarantees in sports, it's part of what makes sports great.  I will predict something though.  As long as there's a salary cap, the vast majority of Stanley Cup winners will be built around superstars that they drafted in the top 3.  

 

 

[ilduce39]

13 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

The backbone of a rebuild, not of their team.

 

Good rebuilds usually involve a surplus of draft picks because really it's the only way to accumulate good, young, cheap players. These types of players aren't found in free agency (because free-agents are neither young nor cheap) and usually not found through trade because, well, what team lets go of good, young, cheap players?

The Calgary Flames? 

[5nothincanucksohno]

On 11/8/2017 at 4:42 PM, FijianCanuck said:

Heard on sn650 his contract is up soon. I can't imagine letting jb walk after all the positive work he's done. 

I agree, I will be frustrated if they don't let JB finish the job.