There's an outstanding warrant out for a Benning... Jim

[oldnews]

There's a new standard for Benning and the Canucks.

 

If he winds up dealing Jake Virtanen for an asset that cleared waivers and a 4th, then it will have been a good move because he got more than nothing for him.

 

And, we won't question the organization's development record.

 

If that player goes on to almost immediately produce far better outcomes....we won't question that either.  It was better than nothing.

 

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

45 minutes ago, oldnews said:

You simply post an additional assumption / a counter-assumption.

 

I never said I was 100% right in fact I clearly stated no one knows what would have happened. Only Rutherford does. You call someone out with an assumption and then follow it up with your own assumption as if it had more merit. I was pointing out that people that are close with the teams and make a living off reporting on them was also under the assumption he was getting waived. 

 

Quote

The assumption of a THN writer (your source of opinion isn't really relevent) - not only in hindsight - but sets a zero result as it's baselin / the criteria to 'improve' upon -  vs lost on waivers for nothing.

 

do you need clarification on the point of the discussion. “Trading a player for a return is better than losing for zero”. Zero result being the baseline is 100% being relevant.  More is better than zero. 

 

 

Quote

Assumption - that the only alternative was to get nothing and lose a player on waivers - or that that is the value that deal should be weighed against in Pittsburgh.  Two options - the market, or retaining the player. 

Assumption - that you think there were teams out there offering more.  You don’t know. Pits only had two options and it was quite clear. Waive him and take a chance of losing him for zero. Or trade him for a return. 

 

Its funny, I quoted and article written prior to the trade predicting the exact scenerio that happened simply by reading the situation and yet your trying to say it wasn’t pits being handcuff, JB is just that good.

 

Quote

Additional option - retain said player, have some patience, develop the player.  if you don't then surely a GM is going to be questioned if that player almost immediately shows as good of outcomes as Pouliot has.

 

Thats not an option as describe by the first article quoted. Penguins didn’t have roster space to hold a player without having the confidence to play him. That doesn’t help him progress and it doesn’t help the team out. Should canucks have held pedan in the nhl last year instead of risking him to waivers?  

 

Quote

 Forsberg loves to look back and judge GMs after the fact, in hindsight -

 

Nope I call out most moves prior to them happening and then stand by my opinion 

 

Quote

 

and yet here we are in the relative present, and we're supposed to apologize for the deal with a zero result as the expected outcome to weigh this against.  Hmmm.  I don't see Benning judged on those kind of grounds around here   There were greater expectations on returns for injured veterans with NTCs at the deadline.

 

You dont have a clue what your arguing about here. Pits has there hands tied. Pouliots play wasn’t justified to stay in the nhl and hold up a roster spot. They had two options. Bad and badder. They chose bad

 

Quote

Ah, doesn't seem to cross certain minds.  Waive a less valuable asset (sorry, but using Pedan as a comparable.... is as bad as this deal was for Pittsburgh)

 

So Rutherford did well there - because he got more than nothing.  Gotcha.  Good standard.

Where did I say good for Rutherford. Man this board is so unbelievably sensitive.

Assumption - because I said pits had there hands tied it somehow means bad JB good JR.  Derp. 

 

This isn’t a positive for Rutherford and no one is claiming that. this is a poor outcome by bad player development and a fail on pits org. They put themselves in that situation and tried to get as much out of it as possible. At the same time this isn’t a JB pulled the wool over there eyes. It’s just a gm taking advantage of a team in a desperate situation, a smart move on JB’s part. Kind of like Dallas tried to do to us two years ago at TD and JB choose the zero return option.  

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

There's a new standard for Benning and the Canucks.

 

If he winds up dealing Jake Virtanen for an asset that cleared waivers and a 4th, then it will have been a good move because he got more than nothing for him.

 

And, we won't question the organization's development record.

 

If that player goes on to almost immediately produce far better outcomes....we won't question that either.  It was better than nothing.

 

This posts shows how overly sensitive you are.  There was zero negative criticism on JB and there were zero positive talk about Rutherford, but somehow what you took out of it was me saying Rutherford did good and Benning did bad.

 

 Here is a bit of advice, just because a post doesn’t involve JB worship doesn’t mean it should be labeled JB hate. 

 

I’ll try to explain it one more time for you.  Maybe before you read this, take an hour off, grab a beer and then try to read it with an open mind (not under the assumption of this being JB hate). 

 

Pits screwed up, they had a talented player and didn’t develop him properly, they put themselves between a rock and a hard place and tried to salvage anything out of it that they could because anything tends to be better than nothing.  Stating that doesn’t mean Rutherford did good, he put himself in that spot so it’s a fail on his part.  JB recognized this and took advantage of a desperate team.  It was a good move by JB.

 

It’s no different than the flames with Baertschi, again poor player development with a highly talented player.  It was at the point that Sven himself said he wouldn’t resign with the team,  Flames were also put between a rock and a hard place, again by their OWN doing.  They chose to take the option that provided more than zero and offered him up on the trade market.  That doesn’t mean flames made a good move because they didn’t another failure they caused themselves. Canucks took advantage and won the bidding.  Another good move by JB

 

Both scenarios, JB was smart by staying informed with teams current situations, he was able to pounce on them and get these players at a relatively low cost.  Did Calgary know Baertschi had a chance of breaking out, yep, and that’s why Treliving make a point in the media to inform people that they didn’t want to send him to Vancouver but no other teams were offering anything worth value.  Same thing with Pittsburg, teams rarely put a unproven player ahead of the team.  If a player doesn’t belong on the roster, they aren’t going to keep him over more deserving guys simply based on past potential.  We saw the Canucks do this when we waived Etem and Pedan last year, in favor of older depth players. 

 

Canucks have also been in a desperate situation recently as well, two years ago Dallas tried to take advantage of us by only offering up a 3rd round pick for Hamhuis (a pending UFA, we knew would likely not be resigning with the club).  JB had two options and he chose the zero return option, likely due to pride and reputation (which is fair as it might have resulted in us getting a bigger return the following year). 

 

Teams do tend to get into desperate situations (for a number of reasons, often due to poor asset management) and when that happens other GM’s smell blood and try to take advantage.  JB has been good at being a shark and picking off teams in bad circumstances.  Stating that’s what JB did with Pouliot doesn’t create a new standard for him? it’s not claiming Rutherford did good?  it’s just stating the obvious and if anything a complement towards JB.

[oldnews]

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

 

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

.

sorry, not going to take the time to read let alone engage with those walls of text.

 

one post was all I'm spending on it FTG -  you'll have to find someone else to time vampire.

[Gaudette Celly]

6 hours ago, oldnews said:

This is on Rutherford.  It is a horrible, impatient and costly move on his part.

Flames were nearing a similar point with Baertschi, as were the Hawks with Clendenning wherein both were nearing waivers eligibility and in Baertschi's case, like Pouliot he had not developed as expected.  Undoubtedly they were shopped, as Treliving said the Canucks' was the best offer, so perhaps it was also the case with Pouliot.  In any case, Canucks had and were willing to offer what Rutherford wanted and the deal got done.

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Flames were nearing a similar point with Baertschi, as were the Hawks with Clendenning wherein both were nearing waivers eligibility and in Baertschi's case, like Pouliot he had not developed as expected.  Undoubtedly they were shopped, as Treliving said the Canucks' was the best offer, so perhaps it was also the case with Pouliot.  In any case, Canucks had and were willing to offer what Rutherford wanted and the deal got done.

yes, good for Benning with the timing and offer he managed to get this done with.

Perhaps Pittsburgh shot themselves in the foot publicly devaluing their prospect/asset creating a bear market in which they got next to nothing offered, or Benning et al kept their finger closely on the pulse and swooped at the most opportune time, beating others to the punch.

whatever explains it, it was a horrible return for Pittsburgh and an absolute no brainer for Vancouver.

[blackpluto96]

23 hours ago, darkpoet said:

Not see the rebuild through? Not only will he, in all likelihood he'll be the first General Manager in franchise history to lift a Stanley Cup. The guy has singlehandedly done more in that position, in just 3 years (entering 4th), than any other GM has accomplished in the teams entire history.
 

Pat Quinn drafting Bure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GMJB x 10000000000 

I'm kidding...Bure is my fav of all time.

Awesome post! Garrison for a 2nd wasn't bad either considering the caps we shedded for the next 3 years and where he is now. 

 

39 minutes ago, oldnews said:

yes, good for Benning with the timing and offer he managed to get this done with.

Perhaps Pittsburgh shot themselves in the foot publicly devaluing their prospect/asset creating a bear market in which they got next to nothing offered, or Benning et al kept their finger closely on the pulse and swooped at the most opportune time, beating others to the punch.

whatever explains it, it was a horrible return for Pittsburgh and an absolute no brainer for Vancouver.

I guess the thing is Benning never tried to fleece anyone and always offered up fair value. Somehow most of them turned out to be great moves for our franchise. His candor and honesty in making deals actually pays off long term vs. someone who is always trying to win every trade. I love this approach.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

 

sorry, not going to take the time to read let alone engage with those walls of text.

 

one post was all I'm spending on it FTG -  you'll have to find someone else to time vampire.

Aka, I read it and know you're right (since you just agreed with hutton, who took an exact point from my post), but are too stubborn to admit it so i'll pretend like I didn't."

[RecklessReilly]

18 hours ago, darkpoet said:

I mentioned Forsling in my post as a draft pick but didn't give him mention because people so over-react to that trade thinking we somehow got robbed.

Clandening 
25 years old
24 points in 86 NHL games total = .21 PPG

Forsling
21 years old
13 points in 63 NHL games total = .28 PPG

The thing about Forsling, is that he is putting up the same amount of points per season whether he's in the minors or the NHL. Difference being, his +/- is barely above water in the NHL (+6 in 53 games with the Hawks over parts of 2 seasons), but -13 in 30 games with Rockford last year, 2016/2017.

Clandening meanwhile, has only been a - player twice in his entire pro career going back to 2012 (Also with Rockford, interesting connection)
He was a -4 in Rockford in 2015 and a -1 for the Coyotes last year. But overall is a + 38 in his pro career.

If you think about it, Clandening is the better player of the two. So who really lost there?

Time will tell I suppose, but looking at the stats and performance, neither one of these guys is outshining the other. I think sometimes people just jump on the media train and assume everything some asswipe with a website says, is gospel.





 

Ahhh but +/- though? Tough stat to base an individual on, technically he is one 6th of that's stats merit. Forslings ice hogs went 25-39-9-3...that's brutal. Clendenings Rockford team was 40-22-10-4...which is great, so you could say his +/- should be above 0. 

 

I agree with you that they are pretty similar in value, maybe forsling has an edge due to his clapper on the pp, and age. None the less the trade isn't a big robbery by any means. Pretty minor transaction with neither player really showing much promise

 

Not looking to argue but +/- isn't a great metric of player value. People use it to paint a picture that really isn't accurate at all.

 

cheers

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, blackpluto96 said:

I guess the thing is Benning never tried to fleece anyone and always offered up fair value. Somehow most of them turned out to be great moves for our franchise. His candor and honesty in making deals actually pays off long term vs. someone who is always trying to win every trade. I love this approach.

interview with Benning about Pouliot / the deal (won't embed but here's the link...

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canucks-gamble-pouliot-nhl-favouring-skating-defencemen/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Smashian Kassian]

Jim Benning's Gudbranson trade mistake is no more evident than right now. Maybe if they had Jarred McCann this not having Horvat situation wouldn't look so bad and they wouldn't need to trade for a guy like Dowd.

 

Meanwhile Gudbranson is being questioned as to whether he should even come back into the lineup when healthy with the way the other guys have played.

 

For a team in this situation where they are rebuilding, led by young players, and need every guy to win in order to have a shot at playoffs. It would certainly be better to have McCann right now. I know having the beauty of hindsight is great but it does seem like a crippling mistake. 

[NHL97OneTimer]

56 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Jim Benning's Gudbranson trade mistake is no more evident than right now. Maybe if they had Jarred McCann this not having Horvat situation wouldn't look so bad and they wouldn't need to trade for a guy like Dowd.

 

Meanwhile Gudbranson is being questioned as to whether he should even come back into the lineup when healthy with the way the other guys have played.

 

For a team in this situation where they are rebuilding, led by young players, and need every guy to win in order to have a shot at playoffs. It would certainly be better to have McCann right now. I know having the beauty of hindsight is great but it does seem like a crippling mistake. 

I've read rumours that McCann was an instant cancer / snotty kid in the locker room and this was part of the issue.  If it's true, I could see Linden and JB (both character guys) being happy to cut bait and move on with whatever they could get.  They're focused on building a solid team culture.  This type of pattern may have also been seen with them passing over Tkachuk who is evidently tallying up the suspensions already early in his career.

[oldnews]

15 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Jim Benning's Gudbranson trade mistake is no more evident than right now. Maybe if they had Jarred McCann this not having Horvat situation wouldn't look so bad and they wouldn't need to trade for a guy like Dowd.

 

Meanwhile Gudbranson is being questioned as to whether he should even come back into the lineup when healthy with the way the other guys have played.

 

For a team in this situation where they are rebuilding, led by young players, and need every guy to win in order to have a shot at playoffs. It would certainly be better to have McCann right now. I know having the beauty of hindsight is great but it does seem like a crippling mistake. 

sounds like you've been reading too much B-otchford.

 

 

[CanadianRugby]

14 hours ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

I've read rumours that McCann was an instant cancer / snotty kid in the locker room and this was part of the issue.  If it's true, I could see Linden and JB (both character guys) being happy to cut bait and move on with whatever they could get.  They're focused on building a solid team culture.  This type of pattern may have also been seen with them passing over Tkachuk who is evidently tallying up the suspensions already early in his career.

That would make sense if Vancouver didn't draft Virtanen, Tryamkin and try to bring in Lucic. 

[Smashian Kassian]

20 hours ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

I've read rumours that McCann was an instant cancer / snotty kid in the locker room and this was part of the issue.  If it's true, I could see Linden and JB (both character guys) being happy to cut bait and move on with whatever they could get.  They're focused on building a solid team culture.  This type of pattern may have also been seen with them passing over Tkachuk who is evidently tallying up the suspensions already early in his career.

Benning said after the trade they liked McCann. He was really the key piece we ended up getting back for Kesler, I don't think its the type of asset you should be just looking to cut bait with at any opportunity. He was only, what, 20 when the trade was made? I don't think at that point he would have really been any worse than Virtanen but that's just my opinion.

 

If they felt that way they should have tried to acquire another long-term type asset (Ala Hodgson/Kassian). But I guess in fairness to JB, Gudbranson when he's on is a valuable piece & they were probably hoping he would fit well with the team and be here long term. 

 

6 hours ago, oldnews said:

sounds like you've been reading too much B-otchford.

 

 

1

 

I don't agree that he should sit out but its fair to question who should come out when he's healthy. (I would say one of Hutt/Stech myself). Plus they need to move him this year and re-coup the assets gave up anyways. He's got qualities alot of teams would want but it hasn't worked out here and he doesn't seem to have a future here beyond this season. Hindsight is 20/20 but in the grand scheme of things this move doesn't look great given what they gave up to him.

 

I think if they were a contending team looking for a missing piece, it would have made more sense to pay that premium to get him, but we aren't and now we have younger guys ready to establish themselves. 

 

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

I don't agree that he should sit out but its fair to question who should come out when he's healthy. (I would say one of Hutt/Stech myself). Plus they need to move him this year and re-coup the assets gave up anyways. He's got qualities alot of teams would want but it hasn't worked out here and he doesn't seem to have a future here beyond this season. Hindsight is 20/20 but in the grand scheme of things this move doesn't look great given what they gave up to him.

 

I think if they were a contending team looking for a missing piece, it would have made more sense to pay that premium to get him, but we aren't and now we have younger guys ready to establish themselves. 

 

You're making some odd claims with no basi

First, that it "hasn't worked out here is a downright bizarre claim, injuries aside, and I highly doubt management or the coaching staff agrees with you there or are ready to deal him on a strange basis like the one you narrate.

You also offer nothing to qualify the claim that he doesn't look worth what they dealt to acquire him - B-otch and the odd Yost might agree with you, if you think their perspectives are worth the paper they're scribbled on.

If Gudbranson weren't just emerging and entering his prime, you might have a point - but your take on a missing piece for a contending team should be saved for 30+ year olds like Edler.

None of that really stands up where Gudbranson is concerned.- it sounds like you're trying too hard to talk yourself into something without any real grounding to it.

[guntrix]

On December 7, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Hutton Wink said:

Forsling is a bottom-pairing dman, in allegedly the same category as those who claim are "easily available for free in free agency, like Sutter, Gudbranson, Gaunce, and Sbisa."

I'd love to hear you back this up. He's 21 year old puck-moving defenceman averaging over 20 minutes per game for Chicago with 11 points in 26 games played. As of November, his ice time has actually increased just behind, you guess it, Duncan Keith.

 

Scored a pretty good goal today in overtime (and got points in all three of the Hawks' goals).

 

 

But sure, let's downplay his success.

[Salacious Crumb]

Who wouldn’t trumpet his success? It’s your only successful argument against JB. Forsling far eclipses Corrado. Bravo frog, bravo.

[guntrix]

2 minutes ago, Salacious Crumb said:

Who wouldn’t trumpet his success? It’s your only successful argument against JB. Forsling far eclipses Corrado. Bravo frog, bravo.

You mean Clendening? lmao

[samurai]

On 12/6/2017 at 3:40 PM, *Buzzsaw* said:

Cops are looking for Jim Benning... charges are multiple counts of theft... absolute steals.

 

First it was Baertschi, then Granlund... now Pouliot and Goldobin...  And the Cops don't even know about Jonathan Dahlen. 

 

I'm starting to get worried...  None of the rest of the GM's in the NHL are ever gonna let him anywhere near their player pools. 

This is Benning cheese.