Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

When can we extend Jim Bennings contract?


FijianCanuck

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Solinar said:

  I have to agree with you, and many here should, because Benning is crucified for some of his trades, and yet Chiarelli has made trades that make ours looks like home runs.  I mean, if I was the owner, I'd never let him call the Islanders again.

The Islanders are to the Oilers what the Panthers are to the Nucks :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Apparently (I cannot believe the reports) but they're considering turfing McLellan.  The rumours are with the hiring of coffey as skills coach that McLellan may be let go with the full hire of Coffey in the off season for the head coaching position.

 

I don't get it, how is Charelli not the one getting turfed.  With rumours of RNH now on the block as well, that's a guy who in 6 years could possibly have traded or released one 2nd overall pick and three 1st overall picks and the pick representing this years potential calder winner as a GM if it happens....

 

For...Reinhardt, Strome and Larsson....

heh, I'm sure your (and mine) heart bleeds for them....they're just getting a SMALL taste of what Canuckfans have had to endure alot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnTavares said:

I'm not angry at all, I'm just confused as to why people can't see the big picture?

 

As an owner, Jim Benning has come in and wasted your $ and failed to retool on the fly.  Not only this, but he is on the verge of THREE consecutive bottom five finishes while... spending the maximum money you could possibly spend as a General Manager.  On a Macro level, that is a failure beyond epic proportions. There is no justification or dispute on these "facts".  He tried this half-ass "retool on the fly" and targeted players 22-27 to "accelerate" the process.  It was a poor choice of strategy and even worse execution.  Why is he still being heralded by Canucks fans?  He is a bottom 10 GM at best, on a good sunny day.

 

I think JB is good at evaluating amateur talent, and that's about it.  A General Manager needs to be able to do way more than that. He hasn't proven he has NHL GM capabilities outside of his amateur scouting.  He does not have the cap management skills, asset management skills and the pedigree.  The Subban comments were an example of Jim just not being the right person for this job.

 

He's not a buffoon but he's been horrendous by all measures except for the draft.  Why would you draft a player like Forsling/McCann and then trade them shortly after?  There's just way too many inconsistencies and unexplained actions.

 

Big picture?  Your comments are all about the short term, small picture.  

 

Those of us who actually do look at the big picture know that no GM is perfect and is going to make mistakes.  The big picture is more in line with what the prospect pool is looking like and understanding that most players are going to take 5 years before they become productive NHL players (if they make it).  Virtanen is in his draft +3 year and is only 21 years old.  We know that Jake is Benning's first pick as the Canuck's GM.

 

This year has been very frustrating because we saw improvement early on before injuries burst the bubble.  The Canucks don't yet have the depth to survive losing their 2 top centres by ice time and their best defenseman at the same time.  It takes a good and mature team to play consistently well.  Doug MacLean was talking about this today.  He said that 75% of teams suffer from let downs after emotional wins like the Canucks had against LA.  I would argue that that was the most satisfying win of the season to date.

 

Patience brother, the future looks good.  It's just further off than people want it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

That makes sense...but man what an absolute waste of potential 

 

Imagine that line up with McDavid, Hall, eberle, barzal, RNH...possibly Yakupov with Kassian Lucic and Maroon still.

 

As a hockey fan I cringe at organizations like the Oilers, Sabres, Yotes etc.  it's frightening to know what could have been but ownership/management seem dead set against success

That's exactly why the possibility of the Oilers getting a top pick in the next draft, or God help us, another 1 OA, makes my blood boil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Big picture?  Your comments are all about the short term, small picture.  

 

Those of us who actually do look at the big picture know that no GM is perfect and is going to make mistakes.  The big picture is more in line with what the prospect pool is looking like and understanding that most players are going to take 5 years before they become productive NHL players (if they make it).  Virtanen is in his draft +3 year and is only 21 years old.  We know that Jake is Benning's first pick as the Canuck's GM.

 

This year has been very frustrating because we saw improvement early on before injuries burst the bubble.  The Canucks don't yet have the depth to survive losing their 2 top centres by ice time and their best defenseman at the same time.  It takes a good and mature team to play consistently well.  Doug MacLean was talking about this today.  He said that 75% of teams suffer from let downs after emotional wins like the Canucks had against LA.  I would argue that that was the most satisfying win of the season to date.

 

Patience brother, the future looks good.  It's just further off than people want it to be.

Short term? What is 4 years? The window for the cup for most teams is less than that.

 

While no one can expect a GM to be perfect on every deal, trading to fill roster spots is not really doing anything except....filling roster spots. But by comparing what other teams have accomplished in the drafts, like number of players actually in the NHL, people can see if there is any parody.

 

Now you mention the prospect pool, that's okay but in the case of the Nucks their prospect pool reflects either bad drafting, poor players or not really rebuilding. A comparison will show the Canucks have more prospects in the system than any other NHL team also some of the oldest prospects over the last 5 years and fewer playing in the NHL or at least on this team. If shear numbers of prospects means good management then any GM just has to draft for 3 years and not have any graduated to the NHL team, presto, good GM.

 

Just read some inserts in Botchford's column, one about goalies and when they were at their best and the one's playing in the NHL now and their age. It does seem that there are a few Vezina candidates' around 22 yrs old. The piece shows the vest years of some of the best goalies of the last 20 years, it seems between 23 and 26. 

 

Before injuries we saw a team that came out of the chute with the pedal to the metal playing teams that are playoff bound now that didn't work as hard or put their bodies in danger of being hurt early in the season. Look over the last 15 years or so in the league standings, the not so good team start off fairly to really well, first 20 games or so and then slide, just like the Canucks have for the last 3 years.

 

The future looks good, again, the team is very near the bottom of the well and it is going to get worse before it gets better, the team just isn't setup to have rookies learn the game and now there will too many rookies to play. So yes the future looks good, it is hard to believe it could get worse. Doug MacLean was describing what we will have to endure once these prospects actually play in the NHL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Short term? What is 4 years? The window for the cup for most teams is less than that.

 

While no one can expect a GM to be perfect on every deal, trading to fill roster spots is not really doing anything except....filling roster spots. But by comparing what other teams have accomplished in the drafts, like number of players actually in the NHL, people can see if there is any parody.

 

Now you mention the prospect pool, that's okay but in the case of the Nucks their prospect pool reflects either bad drafting, poor players or not really rebuilding. A comparison will show the Canucks have more prospects in the system than any other NHL team also some of the oldest prospects over the last 5 years and fewer playing in the NHL or at least on this team. If shear numbers of prospects means good management then any GM just has to draft for 3 years and not have any graduated to the NHL team, presto, good GM.

 

Just read some inserts in Botchford's column, one about goalies and when they were at their best and the one's playing in the NHL now and their age. It does seem that there are a few Vezina candidates' around 22 yrs old. The piece shows the vest years of some of the best goalies of the last 20 years, it seems between 23 and 26. 

 

Before injuries we saw a team that came out of the chute with the pedal to the metal playing teams that are playoff bound now that didn't work as hard or put their bodies in danger of being hurt early in the season. Look over the last 15 years or so in the league standings, the not so good team start off fairly to really well, first 20 games or so and then slide, just like the Canucks have for the last 3 years.

 

The future looks good, again, the team is very near the bottom of the well and it is going to get worse before it gets better, the team just isn't setup to have rookies learn the game and now there will too many rookies to play. So yes the future looks good, it is hard to believe it could get worse. Doug MacLean was describing what we will have to endure once these prospects actually play in the NHL. 

Ummm....

 

 

Official

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-top-100-prospects-ranking-2017/

https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-best-farm-systems-2017-ranking/

 

Last year

http://www.dobberprospects.com/2017-organizational-prospects-rankings/

 

Unofficial

http://www.beerleagueheroes.com/reddit-nhl-prospect-pools-ranked/

 

And again, we've only been rebuilding for 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Solinar said:

And then I hear a foul rumour of going all in for Evander Kane and Robin Lehner in exchange for Tanev, Pettersson, 2018 first and a 2019 2nd....  After I finished vomiting, and argued against a friend that was for this...  

Blasphemy! Yuck. Argh. Puke

 

Is your friend a Buffalo fan?  And then watch Kane miss Eichel and sign with them in the off season

 Ughh a little throw up in my mouth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Short term? What is 4 years? The window for the cup for most teams is less than that.

 

While no one can expect a GM to be perfect on every deal, trading to fill roster spots is not really doing anything except....filling roster spots. But by comparing what other teams have accomplished in the drafts, like number of players actually in the NHL, people can see if there is any parody.

 

Now you mention the prospect pool, that's okay but in the case of the Nucks their prospect pool reflects either bad drafting, poor players or not really rebuilding. A comparison will show the Canucks have more prospects in the system than any other NHL team also some of the oldest prospects over the last 5 years and fewer playing in the NHL or at least on this team. If shear numbers of prospects means good management then any GM just has to draft for 3 years and not have any graduated to the NHL team, presto, good GM.

 

Just read some inserts in Botchford's column, one about goalies and when they were at their best and the one's playing in the NHL now and their age. It does seem that there are a few Vezina candidates' around 22 yrs old. The piece shows the vest years of some of the best goalies of the last 20 years, it seems between 23 and 26. 

 

Before injuries we saw a team that came out of the chute with the pedal to the metal playing teams that are playoff bound now that didn't work as hard or put their bodies in danger of being hurt early in the season. Look over the last 15 years or so in the league standings, the not so good team start off fairly to really well, first 20 games or so and then slide, just like the Canucks have for the last 3 years.

 

The future looks good, again, the team is very near the bottom of the well and it is going to get worse before it gets better, the team just isn't setup to have rookies learn the game and now there will too many rookies to play. So yes the future looks good, it is hard to believe it could get worse. Doug MacLean was describing what we will have to endure once these prospects actually play in the NHL. 

A prospect pool isn't ranked by sheer number of prospects, but by the quality and quantity of them expected to make the NHL.  Our pool no longer had Boeser and Virtanen, but and still is ranked in the top ten.  A year ago before the draft we were ranked around 14 by THN, right around this time.   So last year's pool WITH Boeser and Virtanen, was worse than our current one.

 

I'd recommend getting a subscription, they have three prospect based mags a year, I've been collecting them for close to two decades now, and it gives you a very good idea of whos around and what other teams have and how they compare.  BTW the Canucks were dead last when Benning took over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Darius71 said:

Speaking of big pictures...

 

 Im not sure when you started watching this team, but Ive been following them religiously since 1982.  I know enough and seen enough to know that when JB took over this team it was absolutely barren when it comes to prospects. I could count the number of impact players on the team, that were under 25 years old on HALF of one hand. The previous regimes had spent latter round picks to the max in order to bolster the core of the day in preparation for playoff runs.   I also know that he was hindered with multiple no trade clauses given to key core players by the previous regime.  

 

Under these circumstances, and after having watched this team for decades go through various cycles -along with other teams-- i knew it would take 5 or more years to get this team to be competitive again.  In essence I dont think anyone could have turned that team ,and that organizational depth, around in  3.5 years.  I did not expect quick results.  The teams people point to as having quick turn arounds usually have the benefit of having prospect pools built up through the previous decade.  That simply was not the case here.

 

I think seeing this fact from different viewpoints is what separates most reasonable pro/anti Benning people. 

 

Everyone knows that this team couldn't be saved when Benning was hired.  

 

So pro Benning crowd says you can't expect quick results.  He's built a good prospect pool and you have to be patient to see it.

 

Anti Benning crowd says, how didn't Benning see that this team couldn't be saved.  Hurt rebuild by trying to compete instead of dumping players for picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Big picture?  Your comments are all about the short term, small picture.  

 

Those of us who actually do look at the big picture know that no GM is perfect and is going to make mistakes.  The big picture is more in line with what the prospect pool is looking like and understanding that most players are going to take 5 years before they become productive NHL players (if they make it).  Virtanen is in his draft +3 year and is only 21 years old.  We know that Jake is Benning's first pick as the Canuck's GM.

 

This year has been very frustrating because we saw improvement early on before injuries burst the bubble.  The Canucks don't yet have the depth to survive losing their 2 top centres by ice time and their best defenseman at the same time.  It takes a good and mature team to play consistently well.  Doug MacLean was talking about this today.  He said that 75% of teams suffer from let downs after emotional wins like the Canucks had against LA.  I would argue that that was the most satisfying win of the season to date.

 

Patience brother, the future looks good.  It's just further off than people want it to be.

Couple things.

First off, I think you're in a generous mood when suggesting MOST players take 5 years to make the show. Most of the young studs, and I'm grossly generalizing here, seem to be good early. Nylander, Paastrnak, Boeser, Marner, Barzal, Ehlers, Tkatchuk, Macavoy, Hamilton etc. etc. etc. barely spend any time if any at all in the minors. Then you have your deep draft picks that pan out (Anders Lee, Marchand, Theodore, Parayko, Ritchie, Wilson, Toffoli...) that take a while but show pro level smarts and crack the line up in 2-3 years at the most. Most teams don't have time to keep a prospect in the line up for 4 to 5 seasons waiting for them to figure it out.  Players down on the farm almost never make if they haven't spent good, long stretches on the big club over 4 years. They become what they are by that time... professional minor leaguers.

 

Secondly, not sure if I'm reading this properly but are you suggesting that JV is right on schedule and that seeing as he was Benning's first pick suggests that it should be judged as a positive and successful pick? I've been biting my tongue for so long on that pick. I'm tired of it and I feel that most people on here that have played the game at a reasonably high level and really know the ins and outs of what goes on on the ice would say that JV simply lacks in hockey IQ. This really concerns me from a fan perspective. That kid just does not seem to get it and we are left hoping  that he can at least be as good as a Kassian-type player. Unless something simply clicks and he learns vision and anticipation (two qualities some would argue are natural and difficult to teach), he will have to learn to do what it takes to stick (Ritchie, Wilson, Kassian). Right now the guy doesn't know who he is and Benning's pick could end up being viewed as a massive failure as Nylander and Ehlers were unanimously  considered futur NHL stars heading into the draft. Everybody in hockey knew this but Jimbo went of the grid.

 

A couple weeks ago I was unconditionally a JB fan. Since reading over some of the amazingly written and thought out posts by so many people on these boards who really know their $&!#, I'm on the fence. We have been patient brother. I'll support Jim Benning if he gets an extension but he has his warts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest mistake Benning made was the Virtanen pick. He made the statement today that his father always taught him to look at hockey sense in a player.

I came away from listening to that very confused. It is the one pick that leaves me questioning everything that has happened. I would like to think that this pick was not Jim's choice. It would make me more confident in him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, appleboy said:

The biggest mistake Benning made was the Virtanen pick. He made the statement today that his father always taught him to look at hockey sense in a player.

I came away from listening to that very confused. It is the one pick that leaves me questioning everything that has happened. I would like to think that this pick was not Jim's choice. It would make me more confident in him.

There have been other posts about the Jake pick being pushed became he was a local boy, and selling tickets was part of it all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, IBatch said:

A prospect pool isn't ranked by sheer number of prospects, but by the quality and quantity of them expected to make the NHL.  Our pool no longer had Boeser and Virtanen, but and still is ranked in the top ten.  A year ago before the draft we were ranked around 14 by THN, right around this time.   So last year's pool WITH Boeser and Virtanen, was worse than our current one.

 

I'd recommend getting a subscription, they have three prospect based mags a year, I've been collecting them for close to two decades now, and it gives you a very good idea of whos around and what other teams have and how they compare.  BTW the Canucks were dead last when Benning took over.

Hey Ibatch, are you referring to a ranking for the 2017/2018 season?  Just want to make sure before I go hunting for it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, the_impersonator13 said:

Yes from those I know "in the know"....this was very much the case that some external pressures had their hand in drafting Virtanan. 

And then Jake makes the team really young (clearly too soon) and there are Canuck’s cameras documenting his travels and stuff.  I remember one specifically about Jake’s first time in the “Big Apple”.  His pick certainly could have been a part of a larger marketing campaign.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bad alice french said:

Secondly, not sure if I'm reading this properly but are you suggesting that JV is right on schedule and that seeing as he was Benning's first pick suggests that it should be judged as a positive and successful pick?. I'm tired of it and I feel that most people on here that have played the game at a reasonably high level and really know the ins and outs of what goes on on the ice would say that JV simply lacks in hockey IQ. 

When drafted TSN said he's fast, physical and has a hard shot but has low hockey IQ.  

 

I don't know much about prospects when they're drafted so I can't judge most picks, but I hated this one from the start.  It's (or, you hope it is) a rare chance to draft at the top where you have a high probability to get ELITE SKILL.  Yet we drafted physicality, which you can get in any round.  

 

8 minutes ago, appleboy said:

The biggest mistake Benning made was the Virtanen pick. 

I disagree.  I think his biggest mistake was trying to compete and rebuild on the fly.  This group has been drafting well in the late 1st and later rounds, imagine what our prospect pool would look like if we had an extra 2 or 3 picks each year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

When drafted TSN said he's fast, physical and has a hard shot but has low hockey IQ.  

 

I don't know much about prospects when they're drafted so I can't judge most picks, but I hated this one from the start.  It's (or, you hope it is) a rare chance to draft at the top where you have a high probability to get ELITE SKILL.  Yet we drafted physicality, which you can get in any round.  

 

I disagree.  I think his biggest mistake was trying to compete and rebuild on the fly.  This group has been drafting well in the late 1st and later rounds, imagine what our prospect pool would look like if we had an extra 2 or 3 picks each year.  

Here is where my dilemma is CanadianRugby: was this Benning's doing - trying to compete and rebuild on the Fly, or was he influenced/directed by ownership to take this position?  Owners prefer playoff gate, want basically no down time where seat sales suck, and as a result might have pushed for remaining competitive (the fact that it hasnt worked out that way is another story).  Benning came out and told us his plan to remain competitive, but was this really his plan?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...