The TDL Benning Complaint Thread Department

[Toews]

6 minutes ago, GreyHatnDart said:

This game of using hindsight to say so and so was successful and so and so. Had Gagner improved our power play and put up another 50 point season, that would be a successful signing would it not? And again, there’s a possibility that Benning kicked the tires on Boyle and he wasn’t interested. Meanwhile, where is the second 

 

Benning was hired when this team was aging and was given the objective to get back into the playoffs and remain competitive. He tried to trade picks for players in that age range where we had zero of.. early twenties guys that were going to hopefully form the next core of players once the Sedins, Edler, Burrows et al moved on. He also tried to make moves in the meantime with players who of any worth had NTC’s or NMC’s attached to their contracts (Higgins, Burrows, Hansen, Garrison, Bieksa to name a few). Some he was able to move, some he wasn’t but I think it’s fair to say if another team is looking at 2 similar players on different teams, they’re going to take one they have the ability to move if need be. In other words, NTC’s lower player’s value. Secondly, he was also given the task of rebuilding an absolutely atrocious, basement dwelling, nonexistent prospect pool. You can thank Gillis for both of those hamstrings. Yes I understand why those moves were made, to supplement and push that core over the edge. But is the point you’re trying to make is that you want a new GM to come in and do exactly the same thing Gillis did and therefore leave us in exactly the same place as we were in 2013-14? Cuz I sure as hell don’t. 

Are you not playing the same game by critiquing Gillis' moves? Gillis traded picks and prospects when we were in our window of being a contender. We came one win away from winning the Cup, does this by your logic not absolve any move he made in the interest of facilitating that goal?

 

I don't see the point of saying that we cannot look at things in hindsight when hindsight is all we have. A GM is supposed to have foresight in his moves but his accomplishments can only be judged in hindsight. You are creating a scenario where no GM can be questioned for their moves because by definition doing that is itself hindsight. I don't see it that way. I think we can judge both Gillis' and Benning's successes and failures without giving them such deference.

 

Fair point that Benning was given a mandate to get the team back into the playoffs. I don't think "filling in the age gap" was a sound strategy though. We wasted picks imo on marginal talents who never turned into the kind of players we envisioned.I envision a new GM would be hired to do a similar job to Gillis. For Gillis this involved trading for Ehrhoff from a cap crunched Sharks team and signing Sundin who served as a good mentor to our emerging core. Both those moves came at a fairly negligible cost in terms of assets. I see something similar moving forward with this team, we have the core emerging and we need to find a way to supplement them with shrewd trades and signings. When we become legit contenders we can trade futures to add some rentals to push us over the top. And yes inevitably as the cycle goes, we will likely be bad at some point but with hopefully a Cup this time. 

6 minutes ago, GreyHatnDart said:

Just about every team? And how many of those teams that purposely tanked and traded for picks have won Stanley Cups? For every Pittsburgh, there’s an Edmonton. Furthermore, exactly 1 team has placed dead last and won first overall since the lottery changes were made. 1. I particularly don’t like those odds, and in the meantime am expected to cheer in a team hellbent on being as bad as possible? I don’t think so. 

I don't view winning the Cup as the ultimate barometer of success. It would be nice to win a Cup and I would like to eventually see this team win one but realistically all you can do is put yourself in the position to win one. Only one team can win a Cup, that does not mean that 30 other teams were failures. I consider the time this team spent at the top of this league as unquestionably a huge success even if it didn't lead to a Cup. It left us with memories that we will never forget, contrast that to what the Oilers fans have had to endure and you will see a problem with an approach that is based on 'Cup or bust'. Just look at Tampa, I consider them the best run team in the league the past few years and it hasn't led them to a Cup. They are the most dominant team in the league we have seen in quite some time and it still comes with zero guarantees as we saw in 2011. The Canucks were dominant on PP, PK, even strength, 4v4, you name it but Tim Thomas playing like a god and injuries put an end to that dream.

6 minutes ago, GreyHatnDart said:

Fair points, I appreciate the admittance you aren’t as qualified an armchair GM as some are around here. I’m not either, and won’t go out on a limb making NHL 19 caliber trades and signings and then piss and moan when Benning is unable to make them. I also won’t use hindsight as judgement over Benning’s tenure. I understand why most moves were made when he made them, and while I certainly didn’t/don’t agree with all of them, I understand the reasoning behind them. 

I don't really consider intent when I judge moves. Anything can be justified after the fact. We traded for Gudbranson when Tanev was our only NHL caliber RHD, but it was still a poor move looking back upon it. A move is a successful one to me if we were able to extract enough value out of it commensurate to the cost. Thanks for the civil discussion.

[canuck73_3]

29 minutes ago, D-Money said:

You see reasons, I see excuses.

 

Anyone can make excuses. The GM's job is to make things happen, even when there are obstacles. 

 

Not excuses NTC are what the are, players have a right to utilize them to their advantage. They're realities not excuses. 

[GreyHatnDart]

2 minutes ago, Toews said:

Are you not playing the same game by critiquing Gillis' moves? Gillis traded picks and prospects when we were in our window of being a contender. We came one win away from winning the Cup, does this by your logic not absolve any move he made in the interest of facilitating that goal?

 

I don't see the point of saying that we cannot look at things in hindsight when hindsight is all we have. A GM is supposed to have foresight in his moves but his accomplishments can only be judged in hindsight. You are creating a scenario where no GM can be questioned for their moves because by definition doing that is itself hindsight. I don't see it that way. I think we can judge both Gillis' and Benning's successes and failures without giving them such deference.

 

Fair point that Benning was given a mandate to get the team back into the playoffs. I don't think "filling in the age gap" was a sound strategy though. We wasted picks imo on marginal talents who never turned into the kind of players we envisioned.I envision a new GM would be hired to do a similar job to Gillis. For Gillis this involved trading for Ehrhoff from a cap crunched Sharks team and signing Sundin who served as a good mentor to our emerging core. Both those moves came at a fairly negligible cost in terms of assets. I see something similar moving forward with this team, we have the core emerging and we need to find a way to supplement them with shrewd trades and signings. When we become legit contenders we can trade futures to add some rentals to push us over the top. And yes inevitably as the cycle goes, we will likely be bad at some point but with hopefully a Cup this time. 

I don't view winning the Cup as the ultimate barometer of success. It would be nice to win a Cup and I would like to eventually see this team win one but realistically all you can do is put yourself in the position to win one. Only one team can win a Cup, that does not mean that 30 other teams were failures. I consider the time this team spent at the top of this league as unquestionably a huge success even if it didn't lead to a Cup. It left us with memories that we will never forget, contrast that to what the Oilers fans have had to endure and you will see a problem with an approach that is based on 'Cup or bust'. Just look at Tampa, I consider them the best run team in the league the past few years and it hasn't led them to a Cup. They are the most dominant team in the league we have seen in quite some time and it still comes with zero guarantees as we saw in 2011. The Canucks were dominant on PP, PK, even strength, 4v4, you name it but Tim Thomas playing like a god and injuries put an end to that dream.

I don't really consider intent when I judge moves. Anything can be justified after the fact. We traded for Gudbranson when Tanev was our only NHL caliber RHD, but it was still a poor move looking back upon it. A move is a successful one to me if we were able to extract enough value out of it commensurate to the cost. Thanks for the civil discussion.

No, it doesn’t. You should never forget about the long game for short term gains. It’s an investment, and the long term should never be forgotten which is exactly what Gillis did. All while drafting horribly. He drafted exactly one top end player in his 7 year tenure, and the only reason he got that was through the complete mismanagement of his goaltenders. 

 

You’re furthering my point in your second paragraph, at least in regards to Gillis (or something similar as you’re alluding to). A GM should have the foresight to not trade away the future in order to win now. I don’t agree with that approach personally. You’re certainly right in that we can judge by hindsight, what we differ on is Benning’s ability as a GM as a whole, and think he should be removed. I disagree completely. As we gain more assets through the draft, and have better assets, it’s an assumption but a safe one that he can begin moving spare parts in order to fill current and future holes in our lineup. 

Gillis’ successes in my opinion were detrimental as a whole to the future of the team. 

 

Perhaps, but not necessarily as far as trading picks. A 2nd netted us Baertschi, who has been pretty damn good considering his injury. A 2nd also netted us Dorsett (or was it a 3rd?) who also was very good, considering his injury. I don’t want to sit here and defend every move especially when there were moves made that I didn’t agree with at the time (Gudbranson comes to mind but again, I understand the reasoning for it) and that if I was in that position I wouldn’t have made. At the end of the day though, the 2nd round has a 25% chance at best of netting you an NHLer (I believe the criteria I read was a player who plays 100+ NHL games) and I would make that trade for Baer all day long. By that criteria, as I’ve said before, even Vey surpassed those odds. 

 

Ehrhoff was a fantastic trade and I’ve never said otherwise. And while Sundin apparently was great for Kesler, he was 10 million dollars against the cap. The same philosophy I believe was applied to Eriksson, albeit at a far longer term than I would have gone for. But, a significant age difference in the two players and the fact that there was no reason to think Eriksson would be as bad as he has been here points-wise. 

 

Intent imo has to be considered, intent and context. You pointed out the Guddy trade and while that obviously didn’t work out, we were at least able to get an NHL caliber winger in return. Overall from start to finish, a net loss, but not one that has cost us in the short term or even in the long term imo.

 

I guess what I’m trying to say is that while Benning has certainly been nowhere near above reproach, he has overall improved the team, and going forward should continue to do so if he continues along the same path. It’s been exciting, fun hockey to watch this year with the majority of it being youth led, which realistically is what we all wanted. The journey and the moves made to get there doesn’t really make that much of a difference if it’s reaching the same goal imo. 

 

You too, it’s nice to be able to have a conversation with opposing opinions without it turning into Canucks Twitter lol. 

 

 

[IBatch]

7 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

This season too many teams are bad, even thought the Canucks  will finish higher next year they could take a step back, but we'll see.

Benning is not a good GM, there is no amount of paint to cover the errors. That he is still in power one hopes his mistakes are no more than average, that means 50% or so.

 

You gotta be lucky to be good, but you gotta be good to be lucky

But you have to be bad before you can get good, the Canucks need one more REAL bad.

 

Teams with only 3 good forwards and one dman are not doing anything but sitting in mediocrity, they are the "almost teams" even SanJose was/is one, but the signings last summer and at TDL might make a difference. But they are still not talked about as cup favourites.

 

 

 

Soooo...what your saying is we have three guys in four year but that’s not enough?  Plus some supporting players which you don’t bring up. But you do say it’s not enough so why not just let him finish what he started?  Go back and seriously look at every GMs draft record on this team including the mighty Quin..OR if you prefer, look around the league ... yes there are some examples of shrewd drafting but when that topic comes up Benning is now been named as one of them.  He’s not exceptional given his where he’s been drafting, but he is very good.  That’s what we need more that anything and it seems by your post you agree...so why not let it play out?

[spur1]

33 minutes ago, D-Money said:

You see reasons, I see excuses.

 

Anyone can make excuses. The GM's job is to make things happen, even when there are obstacles. 

 

You must be talking about Charrelli. 

JB has been making it happen this year. 

Give the man a raise. 

[GreyHatnDart]

10 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Not excuses NTC are what the are, players have a right to utilize them to their advantage. They're realities not excuses. 

I’d love to see this kind of philosophy applied to people in the real world under contract. “We’re going to move you across the country at a moments notice and expect you to waive your contract saying you can stay where you are, where your family and friends are, and smile on the way out”. 

[IBatch]

3 minutes ago, GreyHatnDart said:

I’d love to see this kind of philosophy applied to people in the real world under contract. “We’re going to move you across the country at a moments notice and expect you to waive your contract saying you can stay where you are, where your family and friends are, and smile on the way out”. 

There’s a few CDCers that I’d like to send to EDM or ARI.  Just to get used to how bad things can really get or be or have been.

[TheRealistOptimist]

8 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I think it’s both ways. It’s over exaggerated on both ends.  While some people think some smaller moves crippled the franchise, on the other side there are many people that will defend everything to the ends of the earth and pretend that many of the mistakes made had a net positive overall.  If you can’t admit Larsen, pouliot, etem, prust moves were mistakes (small impact or not) then you definately fall into the defend everything crowd.  Because you clearly aren’t in the “able to admit that Benning has made mistakes.” Group like me. 

I guess I have a different grading system then you. 

 

I dont view P. Larsen for a 5th as a mistake. It didn’t pan out but it was worth the risk, just to find out if it would work.

 

Pedan and a 4th for Pouliot - to me that is not a mistake. Pouliot may not have a future with this team but we got 2 years of NHL service out of him. Pedan was never going to give you that and a 4th rounder is a probably will never play as many games in the NHL as Pouliot has and will.

 

Jensen and a 6th for Etem - Jensen is now in the KHL. Etem had played parts of 4 seasons in the NHL and was a point per game player in the AHL. Etem had the size, speed and flashes of talent to make this a good trade. He played half a season with us, it didn’t pan out, but compared to a 6th round pick and Jensen, it was worth the risk.

 

Kassian and a 5th for Prust - I was floored when there was a pick involved in this trade. To me this was a bad trade, this was a mistake. But at the end of the day we’re talking about a 3rd/4th liner. The sting was also taken away once we learned of Kassian’s issues and the team we traded him to, released him.

 

I don’t automatically view these as mistakes because none of them worked out for us long term. When I call moves inconsequential, these are the types of moves I’m talking about. 

 

They didn’t set the rebuild back so they were inconsequential.

 

Go look at every GMs moves, 70-80% of them are inconsequential.

[TheRealistOptimist]

12 hours ago, Toews said:

I don't believe Benning is the worst GM in the world. In fact I think we could do much worse than him but I also think someone who is more business savvy would do better in trades and signings to maximize the value of all the assets at our disposal, which include the cap and our owner's deep pockets. The work that Jim has done turning our woebegone scouting staff into (dare I say) one of the best in the league is to be commended but simply drafting talent isn't going to be enough to turn us into contenders. This is why I want to see Aquaman make a change this summer to bring in someone who can cap off the rebuild and push us over the top. I see this as similar to Burke&Nonis drafting and acquiring the core that Gillis was able to shrewdly maneuver around to turn us into contenders.

I love this. Have you seen Pittsburgh, Chicago, Those teams literally drafted their way into being Cup contenders. Now both of them were lucky enough to have at least one #1 overall pick. But because of their drafts they have been Cup contenders for a long time, Chicago less so lately, but they had their run.

 

7 hours ago, Toews said:

I am not sure how I am supposed to answer this question without running into the same problem as my Boyle example in that I do not have the information required to even suggest making a move let alone an entire offseason plan. Nor do I believe myself competent enough to make a plan that will be better than a professional. The only thing I can state is that I do not have enough confidence in this group to be able to pull off putting the depth pieces around this core to push us over the top. This is based on their own record over the past few years. I respect their ability as evaluators of amateur talent but their record speaks for itself when it comes to the pro scouting side of things.

So you want Aquillini to fire Benning this offseason because you don't think he can fill in the roster with the depth pieces necessary to put them over the top, but you say you respect their ability as evaluators of amateur talent? Now before I continue, you (I think it was you) also mentioned in another post that you don't believe, that if you don't win the Cup at the end of the season, it's a failed season (I agree with this). So does this mean you think the Canucks are ready to be Cup contenders next year?

 

Because if you don't, then why would you fire Benning now, when we could use his strengths to build this teams farm system even further until their actually able to compete in the playoffs?

 

I find it funny that people think Benning can't/won't be able to add some 3rd/4th line forwards and some depth defensemen at reasonable costs once this team is performing at a playoff level. If you're a playoff team and trending upwards, you're also going to be attractive to the big name FA's, so you should even be able to add those top FA forwards and defensemen to put you over the top if need be.

 

As if that's the hard part of the job. It's alot easier to add pieces around a core, than it is to acquire those core pieces.

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, D-Money said:

Benning has hit a few homeruns. But I still see major depth issues in the Canucks' system.

 

Philly, Carolina, and Tampa have much deeper pools, which is at least partially due to adding extra picks.

Tampa's depth is due to quality drafting and development. I doubt that their two extra top 100 picks was the difference maker for their depth. As for Carolina and Philly, perhaps their depth is better, but keep in mind that they've also been in their "rebuilds" much longer than we have so far. Even with that said, there are still teams that have had more top 100 picks that still aren't doing that well, so it's not definitive enough to say that it's necessary to acquire more top picks (if we even have the assets capable of acquiring them) to have a better rebuild. Once our college guys sign (hopefully) for example Lockwood, Madden and Rathbone, or even DiPietro and Woo entering our system, our depth will be that much better in every position.

 

Also keep in mind that just because we didn't acquire picks, we have acquired young prospects for our players which is pretty much equivalent to us taking on a pick, but knowing who we are taking. For example, Goldobin was a late 1st in what would've been Benning's 1st draft that we acquired from a vet in Hansen (also got another pick in the deal). We acquired Dahlen who was a 2nd in 2016 for a vet in Burrows, who we then flipped for a 3rd rounder in 2018 in Linus Karlsson. I'd call that acquiring at least a couple more top 100 "picks". I would consider Granlund and Baertschi in the same ilk as they were high round picks as well but before Benning became a Canucks GM.

[gong_8]

I wish Benning would stop giving out information about the inner workings of their meetings and stuff like that.  So many times I have listened to his press conferences and was "Did he really just say that?"

 

Lou Lamoriello had a media silence policy and I wished that they evoked that here.  Nothing ever got leaked under his reign.

[spur1]

1 hour ago, chilliwiggins said:

Benning will be fired before the deadline if they want 17000 season ticket holders again.  Their dollar value for entertainment is quite low if compared to other venues

Lol  I needed a good laugh this morning. 

Back under bridge now. 

[theo5789]

9 hours ago, gong_8 said:

I wish Benning would stop giving out information about the inner workings of their meetings and stuff like that.  So many times I have listened to his press conferences and was "Did he really just say that?"

 

Lou Lamoriello had a media silence policy and I wished that they evoked that here.  Nothing ever got leaked under his reign.

Benning's honesty is a breath of fresh air for me at least. Sometimes it gets him in a bit of hot water for sure, but nothing has really been revealed that has hurt the team immensely. If he had the media silence, it would only raise more questions from the fanbase about the direction of the team. The team clearly only "leaks" what they know won't hurt them much. If they were an open vault then we would know why Linden left already. They just throw the media a bone once in a while to make them feel like they know what they're talking about.

 

Lamoreillo's tenure in Toronto hasn't amounted to much for their team, so I doubt his media silence policy did much for them anyway. They were just lucky to "win" the lottery when they were dead last, but most of their team problems still exist from when he joined the team to when he left.

[Toews]

13 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

I love this. Have you seen Pittsburgh, Chicago, Those teams literally drafted their way into being Cup contenders. Now both of them were lucky enough to have at least one #1 overall pick. But because of their drafts they have been Cup contenders for a long time, Chicago less so lately, but they had their run.

Pittsburgh went nearly 7 years without a Cup win because Shero could not assemble enough depth around Crosby and Malkin. 

 

Bowman was able to guide the team through multiple cap crunches and still able to put together enough depth around the core to win 3 Cups.

 

Both of these teams did it with backdiving contracts which reduced the overall % their best players had to be paid. You no longer have the luxury of doing that. This makes managing the cap effectively and getting your core and depth pieces at the right $ amounts to be even more important to running a successful team than it was in the past. 

Quote

So you want Aquillini to fire Benning this offseason because you don't think he can fill in the roster with the depth pieces necessary to put them over the top, but you say you respect their ability as evaluators of amateur talent? Now before I continue, you (I think it was you) also mentioned in another post that you don't believe, that if you don't win the Cup at the end of the season, it's a failed season (I agree with this). So does this mean you think the Canucks are ready to be Cup contenders next year?

Not sure how you got that from my post. I think we have a good core, I give credit to Benning and his work thus far towards putting that core together. With a few good off-season moves I think its quite likely the piece we draft this year will be the last of our core pieces. I see this team taking a step to become at least a bubble team next year and beyond. I think we have too much talent to keep finishing in the lottery. Going forward with our core I think it makes sense to target a GM whose strengths are in pro-scouting rather than amateur scouting. 

Quote

Because if you don't, then why would you fire Benning now, when we could use his strengths to build this teams farm system even further until their actually able to compete in the playoffs?

I think this team's farm system is run quite well under Judd Brackett. Could it improve more? Sure but I think any gains will be marginal. We stand to gain more if we hired a GM who is been more proficient in the areas I believe we are currently lacking.

Quote

I find it funny that people think Benning can't/won't be able to add some 3rd/4th line forwards and some depth defensemen at reasonable costs once this team is performing at a playoff level. If you're a playoff team and trending upwards, you're also going to be attractive to the big name FA's, so you should even be able to add those top FA forwards and defensemen to put you over the top if need be.

 

As if that's the hard part of the job. It's alot easier to add pieces around a core, than it is to acquire those core pieces.

And the people on HF/Twitter think its easy to assemble a good core when you finish at the bottom of standings every year. We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't think its anywhere close to as easy as you think it is. Making sure that you are not overpaying for these pieces is crucial in a league with this much parity. Both steps are crucial to  building a sustainable contender and easy to screw up. 

 

Gillis biggest mistakes were the Ballard and Booth trades which crippled our ability to add enough secondary scoring under the cap to supplement our core. Yet both were considered strong moves at the time. "Easier" is entirely subjective.

[aGENT]

19 minutes ago, Toews said:

We stand to gain more if we hired a GM who is been more proficient in the areas I believe we are currently lacking.

Circumstance not skill for the most part IMO (Eriksson withstanding).

[gong_8]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Benning's honesty is a breath of fresh air for me at least. Sometimes it gets him in a bit of hot water for sure, but nothing has really been revealed that has hurt the team immensely. If he had the media silence, it would only raise more questions from the fanbase about the direction of the team. The team clearly only "leaks" what they know won't hurt them much. If they were an open vault then we would know why Linden left already. They just throw the media a bone once in a while to make them feel like they know what they're talking about.

 

Lamoreillo's tenure in Toronto hasn't amounted to much for their team, so I doubt his media silence policy did much for them anyway. They were just lucky to "win" the lottery when they were dead last, but most of their team problems still exist from when he joined the team to when he left.

I remember when he talked about PK Subban and Steven Stamkos.  I was thinking, he's not allowed to do that.  They got fined.  It also probably made his relationship with some GM's take a turn.  There was that time when it was revealed that there is this master list that gets circulated around the league about who is available for trade and he said his players were the only ones leaked to the media.  He made it obvious that he was taking Elias Petterson so Vegas had no reason to offer an extra draft pick to not select Cody Glass.  Just this year with Quinn Hughes possibly being asked if he would leave college after the World Juniors.  He said well we talked about it internally but we never approached them about it.  Then there was talk about the pressure on Quinn Hughes to abandoned Michigan just because they were not doing good this year.  Maybe just say no there were no discussions.  Sometimes you don't have to tell the truth about everything.

 

You can kind of sense some of the GM don't think much of Jim Benning.  Not as much as Mike Gillis though.  You even watch TSN, Sportsnet, and CBC and they don't have much to say about him in a positive light.  I don't think its bad as the 2011 team when every person outside of BC hated the team.

 

I really think they should put a PR person beside him whenever he gets a questioned asked.

 

But its not like we are Ottawa.

[SingleThorn]

42 minutes ago, gong_8 said:

I remember when he talked about PK Subban and Steven Stamkos.  I was thinking, he's not allowed to do that.  They got fined.  It also probably made his relationship with some GM's take a turn.  There was that time when it was revealed that there is this master list that gets circulated around the league about who is available for trade and he said his players were the only ones leaked to the media.  He made it obvious that he was taking Elias Petterson so Vegas had no reason to offer an extra draft pick to not select Cody Glass.  Just this year with Quinn Hughes possibly being asked if he would leave college after the World Juniors.  He said well we talked about it internally but we never approached them about it.  Then there was talk about the pressure on Quinn Hughes to abandoned Michigan just because they were not doing good this year.  Maybe just say no there were no discussions.  Sometimes you don't have to tell the truth about everything.

 

You can kind of sense some of the GM don't think much of Jim Benning.  Not as much as Mike Gillis though.  You even watch TSN, Sportsnet, and CBC and they don't have much to say about him in a positive light.  I don't think its bad as the 2011 team when every person outside of BC hated the team.

 

I really think they should put a PR person beside him whenever he gets a questioned asked.

 

But its not like we are Ottawa.

What a load !!!!!! CDCers hang on every word and +/- nobody had Pettersson written in ink ! A couple may have guessed. Your story about JB leaking 'trade lists' needs some context. I have never heard this. Doesn't mean it's not true, but it sure sounds like a David Pratt type pronouncement ! Your GMs not thinking much of JB is really stretching reality. HF board fan ?

[TheGuardian_]

18 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

You don't seem to understand that you only have to beat the other teams and that no one cares or looks at the two point to see if they're bad or good.  The points count all the same and we beat teams like Tampa this year.   You keep somehow thinking that the sky is falling "because" this or that.  It is what it is.  They're competing and that will likely improve versus deteriorate.

 

Benning is a good GM in many minds...our opinions are just as valid and that's all they are.  

 

The fact that this team is exciting is a win....you can't project how that will turn out in relation to down the road but it's certainly a good indicator.  When fresh faced kids new to the league look like they've been playing all year.  

 

Not sure why we have to over complicate this.  Kids are moving in to place, doing well, goaltending's starting to solidify....moving in the right direction for sure.  And Jim's been at the helm.  I watch every game and I'm more excited than I have been for some time.  That speaks volumes and all the rest is just details and splitting hairs.

The standings ARE the ultimate gauge of good vs bad but being better than DFL is not a good thing, this year is a fluke similar to the McDavid draft many fast drops in the standings only to rebound the next year, it didn't mean the team had improved only the rest of the team "tanked" for a better shot at the big two.

 

You have to be careful with the points, 82 OTL's equals 82 points or .500 winning percentage and beating Tampa was a good accomplishment but one game is not a series. You are correct they will eventually improve but too much losing can cause really bad "mojo" if the boys keep not being successful, 50 losses a year is not a good thing. They look good losing is the system but they "look" good.

 

Gillis was a great GM, Burke was a great GM, Nonis was on the cusp, until they were fired, they all get fired, none quit on their own and after they are fired they are shredded and blamed for years. Benning will have his tenure under a magnifying glass, every move, every miss, his tenure will end up with the worst 5+years in the team's history and he will be credited with the most top 10 picks as being only he could select a top ten draft pick and have success.

 

I don't think the sky is falling, i think it fell 3+ years ago and not enough has been done to correct that denial, the biggest fail has been to not trade for more draft picks, each year the team gets 7 picks, so if the team can collect an additional 3 1rst round picks, like NYR's did, they just had 3 years of rebuilding in one year.

 

Actually you can project what will happen down the road if the variables aren't changed, four years ago is the same, three years ago is the same, as two years ago, is the same as last year, is the same as....and if the argument is they are different because of different players then the only constant left has to be removed, the management group which is the same, year after year after year...

 

Not enough kids playing in the NHL, this year three got a shot, one made the team expectantly, Pettersson, they were already talking of him playing a year in the AHL, Gaudette got in because Sutter and Beagle injuries and Hughes plays 4 games. Demko i just consider pretty much a 4 year pro already. Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes? in 6 years of drafting. Need many more picks at that rate.

 

Yes the effort put out by these guys, playing at their career bests does look exciting and worth buying a ticket, but supporting losing is not going to get the managment to try to improve the team, just cut costs and make more money without doing any team improvement.

 

I respect your point of view, you are supporting the players more than the team results. I am trying to just not let fans get fooled by repeats. This has happened before and will happen again just learn from before. Let Benning's contract run out, he won't be fired that way but really watch what he is going to do, put limits on him anyone can see that one more bad year and it is done for 10+years, too soon and this team is doing this all again in 3 years.

 

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

15 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

I guess I have a different grading system then you. 

 

I don’t automatically view these as mistakes because none of them worked out for us long term. When I call moves inconsequential, these are the types of moves I’m talking about. 

 

They didn’t set the rebuild back so they were inconsequential.

 

Thanks for proving my point and completely contradicting your last post. 

 

You state that most defenders will admit the mistakes made..only to follow it up and defend some of the most extremely ovbious mistakes.  

 

They were all moves that didn’t make any sense to our state of rebuilt. Just because you don’t value picks doesn’t mean they are inconsequential and have zero impact on our rebuild. 

 

Gaudette is the result of an “inconsequential” trade with us moving Diaz. Jamie Benn is the result of an inconsequential trade and he defines a franchise. We seems JB’s ability to draft quality players in the late rounds. Gaudette, forsling, brisebois, dipeitro, tryamkin all already playing games in the NHL...and rathbone, Jasek, Lockwood, Madden, all looking with promise as well. You need these inconsequential picks to turn out in order to have a successful rebuild. Not just so they can become Roman Josi or Jamie Benn but even just to build depth and having assets in your pool. That’s what you mortgage when you’re focused on the now instead of the future. 

[TheGuardian_]

35 minutes ago, SingleThorn said:

What a load !!!!!! CDCers hang on every word and +/- nobody had Pettersson written in ink ! A couple may have guessed. Your story about JB leaking 'trade lists' needs some context. I have never heard this. Doesn't mean it's not true, but it sure sounds like a David Pratt type pronouncement ! Your GMs not thinking much of JB is really stretching reality. HF board fan ?

Everyone knew he was taking OJ even before the first pick was made, MacKenzie was talking about it in the pre-draft shows he was just unsure about Chyrchun or Jullevi but Chyrchun had dropped a lot. Everyone knew.

That so much of his thoughts become public is scary because he never talks about 2 years from now, he hardly talks about more then 3 months in advance, he has no long term plan.

 

It is his last year on his contract, let it run out, he is a "lame duck" GM, handcuff his trades or babysit them.

 

Plan for one year of training and development in the NHL and the team will be set for the next ten year, make the playoff and rebuild in 3 years.