The TDL Benning Complaint Thread Department

[oldnews]

18 hours ago, GreyHatnDart said:

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.

 

I can't agree with you on this point.

First - Gillis was quite conservative compared to the vast majority of GMs when it came to spending futures on short-term needs, rentals, etc.  He may not have drafted up to your liking, but I don't recall him ever spending a 1st round pick to enhance the chance of a playoff run - and with a few exceptions rarely even spent 2nd round picks.  He spent one 1st on Ballard (a longer-term piece/acquisition - argue with it if you want, but not really a 'short term gain') and 2nds on Pahlsson, Roy - but overall, I think the idea that Gillis 'forgot the long term' is a generally unfair if not a misrepresentation relative to the median of what contenders do.

Moreover - Gillis identified the need to shift priorities - or at least divide them - and made the move to add Horvat - a draft pick - in 2013 - well before ownership appears to have gotten on board with the idea of transitioning or even retooling.  Who  knows about the imperatives there - but I think it's pretty clear from the hiring of Tortorella, that there came a point at which they clearly were not on the same page.

 

 

[oldnews]

26 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Everyone knew he was taking OJ even before the first pick was made

that's complete nonsense wadr.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

20 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

And if we had the assets to acquire more of those picks we likely would have but we didn't. Some of us understand why Benning proceeded the way he did.

 

Talk about beating a dead horse. We did have those picks. We traded 5 picks in the top 100 in his first 24 months. 

 

You and a few other go one asking “how could he got picks, we didn’t have assets”. If you’re looking for great how. Just look at what we moved because he DID acquire those assets. The difference was instead of hoarding like the other teams mentioned. he was moving them out at a faster rate. 

 

This discussion has long been over but people keep going on with repeating the exact same points that have been debunked over and over. 

 

“We are only down one pick during this rebuild” 

Great coming out even is not the goal of a rebuild, it’s coming out +5 to +10. DET and NYR have made more picks (20+) in the last two years than Canucks did in their first 3 years of the rebuild.

 

”canucks didn’t have the same assets to obtain picks”

lack, juice, garrison, kesler beg to differ. Again had we not moved out picks for rebuilding short cut moves this team would have had another 10 picks over the first 3 drafts. 

 

“Most picks don’t play over 100 games, just look at their odds, the returns played more games”

The goal of rebuilding a successful franchise isn’t to find below average players the matched the odds. The goal is to find elite talent you can build and win around.  

 

While the odds are still low, the most successful way at finding those players is through the draft. Even Jim Benning agrees, those are his exact words. 

 

And regardless of people seeing this post. In two pages we will see one of these quotes stated again and round and round it goes. 

[TheGuardian_]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

1 hour ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Everyone knew he was taking OJ even before the first pick was made

that's complete nonsense wadr.

He told Marek in between periods at a top prospects game.

[oldnews]

7 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

He told Marek in between periods at a top prospects game.

cool story - but do you have a source?

[TheGuardian_]

50 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

“Most picks don’t play over 100 games, just look at their odds, the returns played more games”

The goal of rebuilding a successful franchise isn’t to find below average players the matched the odds. The goal is to find elite talent you can build and win around.  

It is rocket science to many. Elite win games, elite are not common so more picks are needed. Simply making the NHL is not good enough.

Every 1rst round pick has/is making the team with the exception of OJ so far, why not trade for more 1rst's if that is true? 

 

The returns, project AHL players their draft teams have given up on and are happy to get a #32 to 36 overall pick, are on a team that has not won. This is good? The returns have lost more games.

[TheGuardian_]

Just now, oldnews said:

cool story - but do you have a source?

Watch the video yourself.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, TheGuardian_ said:

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.

This is confusing Gaurdian.  What does “lame duck” GM, handcuff his trades or babysit them even mean? And the last paragraph...well who the heck knows what that means either.

 

WE ALL GET IT.  You don’t like Benning. That’s ok your welcome to your opinion because that’s all it is.  

 

In the mean time I’m going to enjoy the players we have drafted during his tenure, Hughes second game tonight.  Suppose we shouldn’t have drafted him because we were supposed to be winning Stanley Cups by now right?  My opinion is based on facts.  We didn’t win a cup with a presidents trophy team, or an underdog Linden team.  Might as well shake it up and try a different approach, one that requires patience and good drafting (which we’ve never done like this).   But flame away.  Next up Benning is undoubtedly the worst GM in hockey history right?  One view could be, that he’s the best we’ve ever had, we just don’t know it yet.

[TheGuardian_]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

While the odds are still low, the most successful way at finding those players is through the draft. Even Jim Benning agrees, those are his exact words. 

 

And regardless of people seeing this post. In two pages we will see one of these quotes stated again and round and round it goes. 

One thing about being a scout, a scout's success isn't about finding just the stars it is about finding players that can play in the NHL, a GM's job is getting stars to build a good team so bums are in the seats. The ultimate goal of the GM is to sell tickets.

[oldnews]

8 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Watch the video yourself.

Have a valid source?  Post it.

 

"watch the video' is not a source wadr.

[ilduce39]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

And regardless of people seeing this post. In two pages we will see one of these quotes stated again and round and round it goes. 

Because you haven’t proven the larger point and you never will.  

 

People like myself aren’t buying that a franchise should forego all NHL and AHL talent acquisition opportunities to focus 100% on draft pick accumulation. 

 

It’s okay for a rebuilding team to trade picks for younger players. 

 

It’s okay for a rebuilding team to trade vets for young players rather than picks. 

[TheRealistOptimist]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

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. 

What are you talking about? 

 

I gave my breakdown of those particular trades mentioned. There are mistakes Benning has made and I can admit them, but like I said I don't view those as mistakes per say because they were worth the risk. Moves like trading for Gudbranson and signing Eriksson ended up being mistakes. 

 

Ps. I also want draft picks, I just care less about picks in rounds 4 through 7.

[ilduce39]

1 minute ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

What are you talking about? 

 

I gave my breakdown of those particular trades mentioned. There are mistakes Benning has made and I can admit them, but like I said I don't view those as mistakes per say because they were worth the risk. Moves like trading for Gudbranson and signing Eriksson ended up being mistakes. 

 

 

He’s hung up on a binary view of those moves as “mistake” vs “non mistake.”  

 

We’ve all admitted that many early moves didn’t pan out long term but any discussion of management’s rationale/risk management or the actual overall negative impact of said “mistakes” spins him out.

[TheRealistOptimist]

4 hours ago, Toews said:

Not sure how you got that from my post.

It's just putting 2 and 2 together. I quoted the parts where I would've got that from. 

[TheGuardian_]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

1 hour ago, TheGuardian_ said:

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.

This is confusing Gaurdian.  What does “lame duck” GM, handcuff his trades or babysit them even mean? And the last paragraph...well who the heck knows what that means either.

Lame duck refers to a GM in the last year of his contract, usually meaning he will not be there to see his work or the owner will not let him make any substantial moves he is just warming the seat so to speak. If a GM knows he is to be gone he might make a move that could delay progress or not end up good in the long term like signing and Eriksson type deal, good for the moment but bad long term, he is only worried about saving his job. Handcuffing trades is the same, he could trade away...say Horvat for some good picks this year but he won't be invested to trade for next year's picks.

 

All players take a year or so to get used to the NHL, so bring up Lind, Gadovitch, Gaudette, OJ, Woo, Lockwood, Zhukenov, Jasek, Brisebois, McEney, Madden, Rathbone, MacEwen, Karlsson all to get a shot in the league, they are all possible to go through waivers. The team will not do very well and end up in the lottery again but now they will have many prospects that have seen the NHL that will enhance any deals to trade up in the 2020 draft or even get additional 1rst round picks. The team picks another one or two top ten picks.

The following year will likely be the lockout/strike, 100% so far and Seattle wanted to play next year but it was delayed and a lot of players have huge signing bonuses payable July 1, before a strike or lockout can be declared in September. Should that happen and with new draft rules to actually help bottom feeders, there is an excellent chance for another top ten pick. Then starting fresh in 2021 the team loaded with enough top talent to be a force for a decade or longer with a good and thoughtful GM.

23 minutes ago, IBatch said:

WE ALL GET IT.  You don’t like Benning. That’s ok your welcome to your opinion because that’s all it is.

I only have to put up with him one more season, it is if any deals he does resemble the one's he has done already, trading picks next year, signing old FA's to bad deals.

What i never liked was the non answers or the generic every team answer, "we want to get younger", "we want to be faster" but never a plan to do so or any urgency to do so if anything more delaying.

27 minutes ago, IBatch said:

In the mean time I’m going to enjoy the players we have drafted during his tenure, Hughes second game tonight.  Suppose we shouldn’t have drafted him because we were supposed to be winning Stanley Cups by now right?  My opinion is based on facts.  We didn’t win a cup with a presidents trophy team, or an underdog Linden team.  Might as well shake it up and try a different approach, one that requires patience and good drafting (which we’ve never done like this).   But flame away.  Next up Benning is undoubtedly the worst GM in hockey history right?  One view could be, that he’s the best we’ve ever had, we just don’t know it yet.

My opinion of Hughes is he is too small for his position in the playoffs, he looked good his first game but he looked small. That's okay for forwards but can be a critical problem for a defender. IMO Stecher is as well. This team has defence that is not up to NHL standards, that being 41 wins and 41 losses. I hope the kid does well because Benning hasn't done well drafting dmen, in his entire career.

As far as winning cups right now, no impossible and this is not the first time building thought the draft has happened but the other time astute trades were made as well, bleive me i am far from those that think this is done over nite but i do know this can be done faster than 7 years, no matter what you think this is year 5 of Benning and going into year 3 of rebuilding with Benning. Hindsight will judge teh GM, so far all except Quinn (and even he got burned a bit) have been really bad after they leave, blamed for years of failing after the fact, all of them, so that he will be dissected after and found wanting is a guarantee.

And you are right, never has Vancouver ever had so many top ten picks without trading for them, losing does have a silverlining the w0rser they are the better the picks.

 

One more bad year, a pause and then playoffs for ten years minimum, but it needs one more bad year.

[Toews]

1 minute ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

It's just putting 2 and 2 together. I quoted the parts where I would've got that from. 

If I was convinced that Benning had put together a contender or had the ability to do so, I wouldn't be advocating that we replace him. I think Benning is good at half his job, on the amateur side of things I can trust him moving forward making the right picks for us but I simply don't have any trust that he will have the foresight to dodge landmines like the Eriksson contract or the Gudbranson trade or the plethora of picks we have bled to find gold and only been left with a lump of clay instead.

 

I think I have been fairly patient these past 4 years. There were periods where I wavered in having faith in this management but they did win me back with some moves which I will always appreciate but I think it's time to move on and bring in someone with a different vision. Probably not a popular position with many posters here but it is what it is. 

[TheRealistOptimist]

6 minutes ago, Toews said:

If I was convinced that Benning had put together a contender or had the ability to do so, I wouldn't be advocating that we replace him. I think Benning is good at half his job, on the amateur side of things I can trust him moving forward making the right picks for us but I simply don't have any trust that he will have the foresight to dodge landmines like the Eriksson contract or the Gudbranson trade or the plethora of picks we have bled to find gold and only been left with a lump of clay instead.

 

I think I have been fairly patient these past 4 years. There were periods where I wavered in having faith in this management but they did win me back with some moves which I will always appreciate but I think it's time to move on and bring in someone with a different vision. Probably not a popular position with many posters here but it is what it is. 

Fair enough.
 

My opinion is obviously different. At least so far as, I believe his GM report card is still incomplete.

[appleboy]

Between Benning and Bracket the drafting has been good and may very well be improving.  Drafting is the organization's strength right now.

I start fresh every year and wash away the past. Jim's directive comes from ownership and it gas been very clear that they have made deals to try to speed things up .  I think it is obvious that most of the improvements that this club is showing comes from drafted players. 

I just hope that their focus going forward is now on what they do best. That should include finding ways to add picks. 

[GreyHatnDart]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

I can't agree with you on this point.

First - Gillis was quite conservative compared to the vast majority of GMs when it came to spending futures on short-term needs, rentals, etc.  He may not have drafted up to your liking, but I don't recall him ever spending a 1st round pick to enhance the chance of a playoff run - and with a few exceptions rarely even spent 2nd round picks.  He spent one 1st on Ballard (a longer-term piece/acquisition - argue with it if you want, but not really a 'short term gain') and 2nds on Pahlsson, Roy - but overall, I think the idea that Gillis 'forgot the long term' is a generally unfair if not a misrepresentation relative to the median of what contenders do.

Moreover - Gillis identified the need to shift priorities - or at least divide them - and made the move to add Horvat - a draft pick - in 2013 - well before ownership appears to have gotten on board with the idea of transitioning or even retooling.  Who  knows about the imperatives there - but I think it's pretty clear from the hiring of Tortorella, that there came a point at which they clearly were not on the same page.

 

 

Okay, fair points. But to suggest Gillis’ pro scouting was superior to Benning’s is laughable. Look at those players he traded picks for. Yikes. Not much long term out of any of those fellas. 

[Toews]

3 hours ago, GreyHatnDart said:

Okay, fair points. But to suggest Gillis’ pro scouting was superior to Benning’s is laughable. Look at those players he traded picks for. Yikes. Not much long term out of any of those fellas. 

Ok, what do you think was Gillis' strength? What exactly contributed to us finishing one win away from a Cup? Gillis' drafting was abysmal, you are seemingly objective about that but you cannot seem to give him credit for where he succeeded which was to put enough depth around the core to take us one win away from a Cup. I hope you won't be this dismissive of Benning's accomplishments four years removed from the job.

 

Look at Gillis' picks! But Benning gets a pass... for now.

Quote

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.