Sign in to follow this  
Warhippy

The TDL Benning Complaint Thread Department

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I doubt there is a single Canucks fan not on a high today. 

good day for Jim to ask for a raise. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GreyHatnDart said:

No doubt, but take a look at why they were signed, and when they were signed. Eriksson was a proven commodity internationally with the Sedin’s during the “retool” phase. Coming off a 30 goal season. Smart player who scores garbage goals in front of the net. On paper, seemed like a good fit. 

Gagner has a successful 50 point season with Columbus, and our centre depth and PP needed a lot of help iirc. Overpayment for both, for sure, in hindsight. Had either or both players been successful here you would be praising Benning for his smart moves. He can’t hit home runs with every move, nobody does. 

 

Wasn’t arguing that point. Accidental tank, stealth tank, whatever you want to call it, seems to be working. So I’m unsure why the tank crowd is upset with the results this season? The team was a blast to watch this year for the most part, we have young players almost all trending the right way at the NHL level and in the pool. Next year should be another step in the right direction. 

 

His lack of vision to protect his players? What do you call Gudbranson or Dorsett? He recognized we weren’t tough and gritty enough and made trades to acquire players to stand up for teammates. Dorsett was forced into retirement and Gudbranson didn’t come close imo to playing the way we needed him to. Again, hindsight is 20/20. 

 

You gotta be lucky to be good, but you gotta be good to be lucky. I’m not a rose-coloured glasses Benning fan, he’s made his share of mistakes for sure. But if we’re going to continue beating the dead horse of when the rebuild should’ve began, bad past signings and contracts, etc etc etc... I just don’t see the point? I for one can see why certain moves were made at the time they were made, and clearly not all of them have worked out. End of the day though is as I said, this team is trending the right way and I have no reason to think it won’t continue on an upward trajectory. 

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.

 

 

 

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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.

 

 

 

That’s a matter of perspective, not facts. Just because you can’t see the forest for the trees doesn’t mean nobody else can. 

 

So on one hand you want us to be bad, but are calling Benning bad and the Canucks bad... sooooo aren’t you getting what you want?

 

I’d argue we have more than “3 good forwards and 1 good dman”, and we have more coming. Our best forwards right now are all under 24 years old... is that not the definition of a rebuild trending upwards? I feel like you’re arguing just to argue. 

 

Okay so let’s take a second here with the last paragraph about SJ, as I’m unsure of the point you’re trying to make. Are you saying that they aren’t cup contenders and therefore aren’t successful? Second in the west doesn’t make them cup contenders? While I wouldn’t call them the favourites, to not call them contenders is absolutely ridiculous. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I doubt there is a single Canucks fan not on a high today. 

More so, as I also drafted Hughes to my fantasy team ::D

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

Nobody has said they didn't want more draft picks. I bet you couldn't find one single person on CDC who has said they don't want more draft picks unless they were trolling. 

 

It's the biggest straw man argument on here. 
 

Well considering that wasn’t the point I made, I’m not shocked you think it’s a strawman. I never stated people are saying they don’t want picks. I’m stating people are staying the returns of all the combine picks moved, resulted in more value than to what the probability of the picks would have ended up as. 

 

Which if you believe that, you are in direct contradicting to also believing that JB is a draft guru. So which one is it?  Is JB the great drafter that is able to find Gems everywhere? Or is he mediocre at best and not have been able to find any value out of the picks moved?

 

Quote

I also know many "Benning supporters" (although I think their more "don't fire Benning at this point" people), that are able to admit that Benning has made mistakes.

 

Yeah that’s me. I’m not in the fire benning camp. I just have zero issue with telling it like it is an admitting when a mistake has been made and the value lost. Heck I wasn’t even in the fire Gillis camp back in the day either. When evaluating the team and the moves made, I leave emotions out. 

 

Quote

It's just the Benning detractors over exaggerate the mistakes so much and make them seem much worse than they are and try not to give him credit for anything. 

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. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GreyHatnDart said:

Gagner and Eriksson didn’t cost picks either. Absolutely free assets, and while converting those players into picks/prospects is ideal, if Benning isn’t able to, it’s really a net loss of zero. 

Except it isn't when you factor in opportunity cost. Had we invested the same cap space that we invested in Sam Gagner in say Brian Boyle, we would have gotten a 2nd round pick out of it at the deadline this season. Boyle would have been a more useful player than Gagner. He has been an excellent face-off man for much of his career, I think that would have an impact on our three young centers. Now Boyle is one example, we do not know if he even considered signing with us considering the allure of the NY area as a former Ranger. But my point is if you are able to manage your cap space well, it provides you opportunities to take advantage of situations like this. I have not seen any such sort of shrewd business from our management team. The free agents we have signed have mostly end up being overpaid anchors than actually worth something to a contender. This is because our pro-scouting has not been good enough.

 

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. 

Edited by Toews
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I doubt there is a single Canucks fan not on a high today. 

I'm high on Quinn Hughes man it's like crack

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Toews said:

Except it isn't when you factor in opportunity cost. Had we invested the same cap space that we invested in Sam Gagner in say Brian Boyle, we would have gotten a 2nd round pick out of it at the deadline this season. Boyle would have been a more useful player than Gagner. He has been an excellent face-off man for much of his career, I think that would have an impact on our three young centers. Now Boyle is one example, we do not know if he even considered signing with us considering the allure of the NY area as a former Ranger. But my point is if you are able to manage your cap space well, it provides you opportunities to take advantage of situations like this. I have not seen any such sort of shrewd business from our management team. The free agents we have signed have mostly end up being overpaid anchors than actually worth something to a contender. This is because our pro-scouting has not been good enough.

 

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. 

You’re assuming of course (and I realize you mentioned this) that’s Boyle wanted to come here. It’s possible he was offered a contract and turned it down. You’re also assuming he would’ve had a successful season here worthy of trading a second. There was no reason to think that had Gagner followed up with another 50+ point season he wouldn’t have netted us a 2nd. See how this game works? 

 

The free agents we have signed here have been anchors in hindsight. Again, at the time I can see why they were signed. I can reiterate about Eriksson for example, for the 12th time, but I won’t, I’ve posted my thoughts on that numerous times. I fail to see how our pro scouting has been poor in both players cases though, as they were both coming off good seasons. I’d argue against that in $ and term in the contracts perhaps, but teams, especially weaker teams, tend to need to pay more than stronger teams to acquire players. 

 

I disagree about drafting. The team Gillis inherited already had the core in place and he simply supplemented it. All the heavy lifting had been done, and while he did well in that aspect he also traded the future away, leaving us with a completely bare cupboard. Obviously the key to long term sustainable success is find a balance between short and long term gains. Gillis was one end of the spectrum and in your opinion Benning is on the other. Personally, I would rather a talented pipeline of players be coming in than loading up for one shot at the title, and having an endless up and down cycle of build ups and tear downs. 

 

Edit: I’m curious as to what you think a new GM coming in would be able to do in the off season? Make a signing for a player we need for... a lesser price? Make a trade for a player we need? You think a new guy will be able to sell another GM on one of our veterans that Benning isn’t able to move? Or maybe trade a younger asset, like a Virtanen, in which half of this fan base would lose their collective minds. So please tell me what some new shrewd business type GM would be able to do that in your opinion Benning cannot?

Edited by GreyHatnDart
  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Didn't see an Alex Edler contract thread so I'll just put my thoughts here. There is clearly a mutual interest in Alex coming back but the terms of the deal-particularly length- are a complication. The team , I'm sure, doesn't want to be in a position where they have to protect a 35 year old in the expansion draft. They also will have no interest in paying the "protection fee" many teams paid Vegas.  Given his current form and age I think there is a good chance that he could get 4 years on the open market, therefore possibly making it tricky to get him to agree to a two year deal (unless the $$$ was astronomical). Also,  I'm sure AE does not want to be in a position of being exposed and possibly selected/traded in the expansion draft. I think one way to accomodate all of this would be to front and back load a 3 year deal.  What I'm suggesting would be to make a large portion of the total payable in signing bonuses in the third and possibly first years.  If going into that final year AE was due like 6 million on July 1st and then another 2-3 million in salary for the season-essentially putting him on a 1 year 8-9 million dollar contract going in to the expansion draft-  that could be a deterrent  to Seattle and any other team interested . This poison pill would effectively protect him without the need for an NMC . If AE doesn't want to wait for all the $$$ (interest counts !) then it could be balanced with a large signing bonus in the first year. Of course the downside is that it would make him a less valuable trade commodity at that point but I would think it is at least worth consideration.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say despite all those picks Benning traded away since taking over we have kept a total of 34 picks with 9 more to add to that total this season. He has since kept and not traded the majority of picks the last 2 seasons.

 

I ask again why continue to beat that tired dead horse?

  • Hydration 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

I will say despite all those picks Benning traded away since taking over we have kept a total of 34 picks with 9 more to add to that total this season. He has since kept and not traded the majority of picks the last 2 seasons.

 

I ask again why continue to beat that tired dead horse?

It's not wrong to suggest Benning should have acquired more picks. He's done well with the picks he's had so far, so it's fair to wish he would have had more.

 

And it's not just number of picks - because we've often traded a higher pick than the additional one acquired. In 2015 we had no 2nd, but an extra 5th. In 2016, no 2nd or 4th, but an extra 7th. The extra picks we have this year are in the 6th round.

 

Since Benning took over 2014, Canucks have drafted 16 total times in the top-100, over 5 drafts. In the same timeframe, Arizona has picked in the top-100 23 times, Carolina 23 times, Buffalo 22 times, Philly 20 times, Toronto 20 times, Chicago 18 times, Montreal 18 times, Anaheim 18 times, Tampa 18 times... In fact, the Detroit Red Wings drafted 15 times in the top-100 in just the last 2 drafts.

 

So other teams are finding ways to add picks, and valuable ones...it's not unreasonable to be a least a little jealous.

 

Edited by D-Money
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GreyHatnDart said:

You’re assuming of course (and I realize you mentioned this) that’s Boyle wanted to come here. It’s possible he was offered a contract and turned it down. You’re also assuming he would’ve had a successful season here worthy of trading a second. There was no reason to think that had Gagner followed up with another 50+ point season he wouldn’t have netted us a 2nd. See how this game works? 

What game is that? Gagner was a failed signing. Boyle was a successful one. Boyle was moved for a 2nd at the deadline before Jersey signed him. So we had precedent that Boyle as a rental was valued at a 2nd round pick. Gagner is an undersized forward who brings none of the intangibles that Boyle brings. My point is that Boyle was a smart signing. How many such instances do you remember in Benning's tenure where he was able to flip an asset for more than the cost it took to acquire this asset? 

 

Quote

The free agents we have signed here have been anchors in hindsight. Again, at the time I can see why they were signed. I can reiterate about Eriksson for example, for the 12th time, but I won’t, I’ve posted my thoughts on that numerous times. I fail to see how our pro scouting has been poor in both players cases though, as they were both coming off good seasons. I’d argue against that in $ and term in the contracts perhaps, but teams, especially weaker teams, tend to need to pay more than stronger teams to acquire players. 

 

I disagree about drafting. The team Gillis inherited already had the core in place and he simply supplemented it. All the heavy lifting had been done, and while he did well in that aspect he also traded the future away, leaving us with a completely bare cupboard. Obviously the key to long term sustainable success is find a balance between short and long term gains. Gillis was one end of the spectrum and in your opinion Benning is on the other. Personally, I would rather a talented pipeline of players be coming in than loading up for one shot at the title, and having an endless up and down cycle of build ups and tear downs. 

This part of your post is contradictory. You are penalizing Gillis for trading picks and prospects knowing in hindsight we came one win away from a Cup. But giving Benning a pass because "players were coming off good seasons" and it would be hindsight to look at it otherwise. 

 

In any case Gillis inherited the core and he was able to put the pieces around them to push that team over the top. We had to trade picks and prospects because we were in a window of contending for a Cup. I have zero problem with this now especially considering how close we came. 

 

Benning on the other hand was hired when this team was aging and needed to be rebuilt. Just about every rebuilding team tries to go out and acquire a surplus of picks and prospects. I don't believe this regime has done enough of that.

Quote

Edit: I’m curious as to what you think a new GM coming in would be able to do in the off season? Make a signing for a player we need for... a lesser price? Make a trade for a player we need? You think a new guy will be able to sell another GM on one of our veterans that Benning isn’t able to move? Or maybe trade a younger asset, like a Virtanen, in which half of this fan base would lose their collective minds. So please tell me what some new shrewd business type GM would be able to do that in your opinion Benning cannot?

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.

Edited by Toews
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, D-Money said:

It's not wrong to suggest Benning should have acquired more picks. He's done well with the picks he's had so far, so it's fair to wish he would have had more.

 

And it's not just number of picks - because we've often traded a higher pick than the additional one acquired. In 2015 we had no 2nd, but an extra 5th. In 2016, no 2nd or 4th, but an extra 7th. The extra picks we have this year are in the 6th round.

 

Since Benning took over 2014, Canucks have drafted 16 total times in the top-100, over 5 drafts. In the same timeframe, Arizona has picked in the top-100 23 times, Carolina 23 times, Buffalo 22 times, Philly 20 times, Toronto 20 times, Chicago 18 times, Montreal 18 times, Anaheim 18 times, Tampa 18 times... In fact, the Detroit Red Wings drafted 15 times in the top-100 in just the last 2 drafts.

 

So other teams are finding ways to add picks, and valuable ones...it's not unreasonable to be a least a little jealous.

 

Based on those teams that have picked more in the top 100, do you see any trend where actually having more of those picks boosts your team? It would appear our team's future is just as bright if not more than any of those teams despite not having as many top 100 picks. Benning may be good at finding gems, but there are only so many in the draft.

 

It's certainly not wrong to suggest that Benning could go out and get more picks, but it's not a criticism for me considering he's making his picks mostly count and the majority of the picks he has moved either hasn't panned out either for the respective teams or has added some respectable players for us.

  • Hydration 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 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

 

 

 

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.

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Toews said:

What game is that? Gagner was a failed signing. Boyle was a successful one. Boyle was moved for a 2nd at the deadline before Jersey signed him. So we had precedent that Boyle as a rental was valued at a 2nd round pick. Gagner is an undersized forward who brings none of the intangibles that Boyle brings. My point is that Boyle was a smart signing. How many such instances do you remember in Benning's tenure where he was able to flip an asset for more than the cost it took to acquire this asset? 

 

That's entirely my point. Gillis inherited the core and he was able to put the pieces around them to push that team over the top. We had to trade picks and prospects because we were in a window of contending for a Cup. I have zero problem with this now especially considering how close we came. 

 

Benning on the other hand was hired when this team was aging and needed to be rebuilt. Just about every rebuilding team tries to go out and acquire a surplus of picks and prospects. I don't believe this regime has done enough of that.

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.

This game of using hindsight to say so and so was successful and so and so was not. 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 draft pick obtained for Boyle? Serious question, I’m not of the mind to look. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

Edited by GreyHatnDart
  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Based on those teams that have picked more in the top 100, do you see any trend where actually having more of those picks boosts your team? It would appear our team's future is just as bright if not more than any of those teams despite not having as many top 100 picks. Benning may be good at finding gems, but there are only so many in the draft.

 

It's certainly not wrong to suggest that Benning could go out and get more picks, but it's not a criticism for me considering he's making his picks mostly count and the majority of the picks he has moved either hasn't panned out either for the respective teams or has added some respectable players for us.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

 

The part I find hilarious is literally nobody is opposed to obtaining more picks just some here understand why it is easier said than done. 

 

The only other move realistically that could have/should have been done is Tanev for a pick that is it.

 

Sedins/Edler werent waiving. Hamhuis wasn't willing to go to Washington where there was a deal in place and he refused to go to an eastern conference team. Dallas pulled their offer after acquiring Russell instead, Chicago didn't have the cap space to do a prospect/pick deal. Vrbata used his NTC to advantage of teams that didn't want/need him. 

 

It's real easy to say acquire more picks, the reality is you need moveable assets to attain them. 

You see reasons, I see excuses.

 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.