Jim Benning

[BlastPast]

10 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I think there's a balancing act in the end.

 

If you want your team to get better right away you need to get older (ie. need to trade for an existing NHL player). Exceptions to this means you got lucky.

If you want your team to get better gradually in order to keep your youth, you need to develop from the inside.

 

Neither of these type of moves will ever be guaranteed to work. As a result, I believe if you want the best result, you need to hedge your bets and do both in the end. Obviously there's a time and place for it all, but if you get the right players in the end, does it really matter how the team developed?

 

Personally, I just want a good team in the end and this moaning and groaning over the details of it, even if we get a good player like Toffoli out of it for a time, is kind of silly, but that's my opinion on it.

This. While some people have done nothing but bitch for the last three years the team has gotten markedly better (goal diff. has improved by 70+ I believe). At what point do you just get over it ? If they hit 100+ points next season is that enough? 110 points? Where is the threshold where you just stfu, enjoy the team, and stop being a pedant ?  

[Wilbur]

28 minutes ago, BlastPast said:

This. While some people have done nothing but bitch for the last three years the team has gotten markedly better (goal diff. has improved by 70+ I believe). At what point do you just get over it ? If they hit 100+ points next season is that enough? 110 points? Where is the threshold where you just stfu, enjoy the team, and stop being a pedant ?  

Some won't be happy until the Canucks win the cup.  Even if they make it to the final, I'm sure someone will say if they hadn't of traded for Linden Vey and Sven Baertschi they would've gone all the way!

[The Lock]

8 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Some won't be happy until the Canucks win the cup.  Even if they make it to the final, I'm sure someone will say if they hadn't of traded for Linden Vey and Sven Baertschi they would've gone all the way!

Megna would have been our savior in 2 years!  

[The Lock]

31 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

If you keep your young assets and it doesn't work, what are you stuck with?  Young assets.

 

Fill your team full of overpriced FA's and older players and it doesn't work, what are you left with?  Overpriced FA's and older players.  

 

I don't want a "good team" I wan't a winning team that can have sustainable success.  

 

We are clearly in a mode where we desperately need to make the playoffs, it's not even a secret anymore.  Desperate teams can find themselves in trouble.

 

Did you guys forget we gave up more futures and then began choking away our playoff spot?  

That's not how it works though. If you keep your young assets and it doesn't work, that implies that your young assets aren't going to help you. Take a look at Edmonton. Look at the value of Taylor Hall when he was traded for Larsen. Take a look at the value of Eberle when he was traded. Same with Yakupov. Poor performance leads less valuable players and that value doesn't necessarily correlate to whether that player is good or not. It's a "what have you done for me lately" kind of market, and if that player is not playing to standards that he would otherwise, some other team's going to look really good trading with you for that player in the end.

 

I'd also argue that, if you don't support those young players with other complementary players like your Millers and Toffolis, you're severely limiting yourself. As an example, I want to point to Buffalo in the 2000's. They developed from the inside. Benning was even part of their scouting staff for part of it. They hardly got anywhere thought because they weren't willing to trade their assets for complementary players. Now, part of that was a set budget they had, but it goes to show that not getting any FA's means you are practically shooting yourself in the foot.

 

You claim you don't want a "good team", well I think in order to have the sustainable success you need a good team. What I want and what you want are the exact same in that case.

 

I'm not going to ignore our past in terms of trades and not just doing a rebuild, but we're not at that stage anymore, so what's the point in complaining about that? At this point we need to think about our future. You said it yourself. We need to make the playoffs. However, I don't see how we're desperate given how we've been able to surprise the rest of the league. The only thing that seems desperate is the fact that Benning traded that first round pick. Aside from maybe Acquilini putting pressure on Benning, I think any desperation is perhaps a little overexaggerated.

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

I think there's a balancing act in the end.

 

If you want your team to get better right away you need to get older (ie. need to trade for an existing NHL player). Exceptions to this means you got lucky.

If you want your team to get better gradually in order to keep your youth, you need to develop from the inside.

 

Neither of these type of moves will ever be guaranteed to work. As a result, I believe if you want the best result, you need to hedge your bets and do both in the end. Obviously there's a time and place for it all, but if you get the right players in the end, does it really matter how the team developed?

 

Personally, I just want a good team in the end and this moaning and groaning over the details of it, even if we get a good player like Toffoli out of it for a time, is kind of silly, but that's my opinion on it.

If the up and coming core group (Horvat, Boeser, Petey, Hughes, Demko) don't get playoff experience while they're still developing, then they will never reach their maximum potential.  I believe that the plan is to have enough veteran leadership to support the young talent so that they make the playoffs (Miller, Toffoli, Beagle, Pearson, Roussel, Sutter, Edler, Myers, Tanev, Markstrom).  Longer term, the young guys who go through this together will in turn provide veteran leadership for a new crop of players.  And so the cycle goes.  This is why Benning's plan is better than Linden's plan (if indeed it was like what Winnipeg has done).

 

So I think they really are doing both things as you say.

 

It is as sustainable as it can be provided you stick to the plan.  Look what the Bruins did.  They had a retool while their core was still young enough, missed the playoffs in 2014-15 and 2015-16 and last year, took a second crack at the cup with the same core as in 2011.  Granted, the retool was brought on as a result of a cap crunch.  Chicago had a similar pattern.

 

 

[Crabcakes]

On 3/25/2020 at 1:40 PM, kilgore said:

Yes.  Yes they did.  At least Aquilini did, and JB went along with it.  

The problem was the mixed messaging.  And the revisionist "rebuild" history. that many CDC posters are falling for.

 

Good article explaining it;

https://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/jim-benning-s-revisionist-rebuild-history-doesn-t-hold-water-1.23923166

 

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
- George Orwell, 1984

 

...It’s also not how Benning spoke at the time. Instead of taking the first-round playoff exit as a sign of a need to rebuild, Benning and his management team seemed to take making the playoffs at all as a sign they were moving in the right direction, at least publically. In an interview with Bob McKenzie heading into the 2015-16 season, Benning suggested the Canucks would once again be a 100-point team and make the playoffs thanks to an infusion of youth, speed, and toughness.

 

For the moment, however, let’s ignore what Benning said and look at what he did. What did Benning do immediately after they made the playoffs that first season?

There were a few early moves that could be interpreted as rebuilding moves. Benning sent Eddie Lack to the Carolina Hurricanes for a 3rd and a 7th-round pick. He somehow got the San Jose Sharks to give him a 7th-round pick for Patrick McNally. Kevin Bieksa was moved to the Anaheim Ducks for a 2nd-round pick in 2016.

Those are decent moves to add picks, particularly when you consider how Lack and Bieksa saw their play drop off significantly after they were moved and McNally lasted just two seasons in the AHL before dropping to the ECHL and going overseas to Europe. Benning also traded Zack Kassian and a 5th-round pick to the Montreal Canadiens for Brandon Prust, but their reasoning had more to do with Kassian’s personal struggles off the ice than the team itself.

Benning’s biggest move, however, was the polar opposite of a rebuilding move. He traded Nick Bonino, Adam Clendening, and a 2016 2nd-round pick for Brandon Sutter and a conditional 3rd.

That’s a move designed for short-term success, not for a rebuild that prioritizes long-term success at the cost of short-term pain.

If we fast forward a year to 2016, when the Canucks would supposedly be on year into their rebuilding process, there’s no sign whatsoever of a rebuild taking place.

2016 was the year Benning traded Jared McCann, a 2nd-round pick, and a 4th-round pick for Erik Gudbranson and a 5th. That’s a move that sacrificed multiple pieces with future potential for a player that was meant to help the Canucks win immediately.

2016 was also the year Benning signed Loui Eriksson to a six-year, $36 million contract. That’s not the signing of a rebuilding team. With an eye towards how Eriksson had performed with Daniel and Henrik Sedin in international competition, that was a win-now-and-damn-the-future-consequences signing.

The intent here isn’t to revisit a couple of Benning’s most-derided moves as Canucks GM, but to instead drive home the point that the Canucks were absolutely not in rebuild mode in 2015 or 2016. There is no possible way to interpret the moves made in those years as those of a rebuilding team.

 

.........

 

The moves made by Benning in 2016 and 2017 make sense if the team was trying to get back to the playoffs. You can argue whether they were the right moves or not, but at least they make sense. If the team was rebuilding, however, then his moves make no sense whatsoever.

 

As I see it, there are three ways to interpret Benning’s revisionist history. One is that he’s being dishonest and trying to spin his early years as GM to look better. That’s not a particularly good look.

Another possibility is that he’s being absolutely honest and that everything he and the Canucks did after his first year on the job was, in fact, a rebuild. That’s not a good look either. Apart from drafting fairly well, the Canucks didn’t do any actual rebuilding in 2015 or 2016.

The third possibility is that Benning is being completely honest, but that he has a definition of the word “rebuild” in his mind that bears no resemblance to how anyone else defines the word “rebuild.”

 

.......

 

I just think it's worthwhile to have a clear view of the past. There's nothing wrong with being optimistic about the future of the Canucks and believing that they are currently on the right path for success, but those that revise the past are doomed to repeat it.

 

 

I agree with that last paragraph.  It was an "accidental" rebuild. Which was salvaged through great scouting and some luck too in their top draft picks, ready to play right way, in the last few years. But our position in those drafts, being low enough in the standings to be so high in the lottery, was not in the plan.  I'm still optimistic.  But lets not rewrite history. 

 

Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia

Benning has always been rebuilding the Canucks

 

 

I pretty much agree with Bulis that the early plan for the Canucks was to give the Sedin's another shot at the cup and this dragged on until mid-season 2016-17 and I have argued as much on CDC.  Eriksson was intended to be on a line with the Sedins to recreate their World Cup chemistry.  This was a win now move.

 

It's pretty clear to me that there was a strategy change when Burrows, Hansen were traded and Linden spoke the word "re-build" after refusing to say it for so long.

 

Now, I can't readily explain why Benning would have said in 2015 that he felt the team needed a rebuild rather than a retool.  I can only think, and I'm speculating here, that Benning spoke out of turn.  That he wanted to rebuild but his boss, President Linden put the brakes on that plan.  I think that there may have been a difference of opinion on how the team should proceed that took the better part of 2 years to resolve.  Linden finally lost the argument.  He finished the season and resigned.

 

I think that there is a very good reason for the Canucks progressing so well since Linden left.  There is clarity of purpose and no more arguments in the front office as to the direction the team is taking.  

[Kevin Biestra]

14 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I pretty much agree with Bulis that the early plan for the Canucks was to give the Sedin's another shot at the cup and this dragged on until mid-season 2016-17 and I have argued as much on CDC.  Eriksson was intended to be on a line with the Sedins to recreate their World Cup chemistry.  This was a win now move.

 

It's pretty clear to me that there was a strategy change when Burrows, Hansen were traded and Linden spoke the word "re-build" after refusing to say it for so long.

 

Now, I can't readily explain why Benning would have said in 2015 that he felt the team needed a rebuild rather than a retool.  I can only think, and I'm speculating here, that Benning spoke out of turn.  That he wanted to rebuild but his boss, President Linden put the brakes on that plan.  I think that there may have been a difference of opinion on how the team should proceed that took the better part of 2 years to resolve.  Linden finally lost the argument.  He finished the season and resigned.

 

I think that there is a very good reason for the Canucks progressing so well since Linden left.  There is clarity of purpose and no more arguments in the front office as to the direction the team is taking.  

 

Maybe.  But is the philosophy behind trading for Toffoli and JT Miller that different from the philosophy behind signing Loui Eriksson, aside from Loui being a few years older?

 

Isn't the idea behind trading for Gudbranson a lot like the idea behind trading for Miller?

 

There may have been a philosophy shift.  I can't say for sure that there wasn't.  But it could just be Benning doing better at the same thing he was trying to do before and also benefiting from some top 7 draft picks added to the mix.  This team without Petterson and Hughes arriving and making an immediate difference would still be an absolute bottomfeeder.

[189lb enforcers?]

18 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Maybe.  But is the philosophy behind trading for Toffoli and JT Miller that different from the philosophy behind signing Loui Eriksson, aside from Loui being a few years older?

 

Isn't the idea behind trading for Gudbranson a lot like the idea behind trading for Miller?

 

There may have been a philosophy shift.  I can't say for sure that there wasn't.  But it could just be Benning doing better at the same thing he was trying to do before and also benefiting from some top 7 draft picks added to the mix.  This team without Petterson and Hughes arriving and making an immediate difference would still be an absolute bottomfeeder.

The EP and QH grand slam homeruns are awesome, but I’m not about to pretend those two single moves were part of some “plan”. He can have the credit for getting those picks right, but how he got there is another story all together and no amount of revisionist “half and half” theory can budge me from that opinion. 
 

Had EP not become EP, Benning would be driving Gillis around in a Mazda somewhere right now. Still, I’ll take a lucky GM over most. 

[khay]

2 hours ago, The Lock said:

That's not how it works though. If you keep your young assets and it doesn't work, that implies that your young assets aren't going to help you. Take a look at Edmonton. Look at the value of Taylor Hall when he was traded for Larsen. Take a look at the value of Eberle when he was traded. Same with Yakupov. Poor performance leads less valuable players and that value doesn't necessarily correlate to whether that player is good or not. It's a "what have you done for me lately" kind of market, and if that player is not playing to standards that he would otherwise, some other team's going to look really good trading with you for that player in the end.

 

I'd also argue that, if you don't support those young players with other complementary players like your Millers and Toffolis, you're severely limiting yourself. As an example, I want to point to Buffalo in the 2000's. They developed from the inside. Benning was even part of their scouting staff for part of it. They hardly got anywhere thought because they weren't willing to trade their assets for complementary players. Now, part of that was a set budget they had, but it goes to show that not getting any FA's means you are practically shooting yourself in the foot.

 

You claim you don't want a "good team", well I think in order to have the sustainable success you need a good team. What I want and what you want are the exact same in that case.

 

I'm not going to ignore our past in terms of trades and not just doing a rebuild, but we're not at that stage anymore, so what's the point in complaining about that? At this point we need to think about our future. You said it yourself. We need to make the playoffs. However, I don't see how we're desperate given how we've been able to surprise the rest of the league. The only thing that seems desperate is the fact that Benning traded that first round pick. Aside from maybe Acquilini putting pressure on Benning, I think any desperation is perhaps a little overexaggerated.

Agree.

 

What do you call young assets that didn't work? Overaged AHLers, KHLers, SHLers. Above poster that you were responding to, claiming that you still end up with young assets is false.

 

What do you call a team full of young assets without complementary players? Edmonton Oilers.

 

Yes, JB shouldn't have signed Eriksson but no team wins without contributing vets.

 

[BlastPast]

I don't buy the logic that trading for Sutter/Gudbranson was the antithesis of rebuilding. Both were young players at the time of acquisition and if you actually take the time to look at the rosters you would see they were in need of players. You have problems; you try to solve them. Sometimes attempts are successful, sometimes not or only somewhat. Also, the ability to pivot , even during a season , seems reasonable given there is always going to be a bit of a "random walk" element to every season. 

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Maybe.  But is the philosophy behind trading for Toffoli and JT Miller that different from the philosophy behind signing Loui Eriksson, aside from Loui being a few years older?

 

Isn't the idea behind trading for Gudbranson a lot like the idea behind trading for Miller?

 

There may have been a philosophy shift.  I can't say for sure that there wasn't.  But it could just be Benning doing better at the same thing he was trying to do before and also benefiting from some top 7 draft picks added to the mix.  This team without Petterson and Hughes arriving and making an immediate difference would still be an absolute bottomfeeder.

I get what you're saying because it crossed my mind as I was writing my post.  I think that it really depends on who the core of the team is at the time because adding these sorts of players is trying to support the core.  Eriksson and Gudbranson were both added when the Sedin's were considered the top players.  When Miller and Toffoli were added, the Sedin's were retired and it was clear that the top centres moving forward were going to be Pettersson and Horvat.

 

The odd player out was Sutter because I think that he was always intended to be a centre who could take defensive match ups and ease the way for younger centres coming up.  But things are never black and white.

 

 

[The Lock]

21 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

The EP and QH grand slam homeruns are awesome, but I’m not about to pretend those two single moves were part of some “plan”. He can have the credit for getting those picks right, but how he got there is another story all together and no amount of revisionist “half and half” theory can budge me from that opinion. 
 

Had EP not become EP, Benning would be driving Gillis around in a Mazda somewhere right now. Still, I’ll take a lucky GM over most.

Being a GM must be the most thankless job out there it seems sometimes. I don't know if there's a single GM I haven't heard complaints about in this league. The difference comes down to "how many complaints?" lol

[Canuck Surfer]

On 3/26/2020 at 7:40 AM, kilgore said:

Yes.  Yes they did.  At least Aquilini did, and JB went along with it.  

The problem was the mixed messaging.  And the revisionist "rebuild" history. that many CDC posters are falling for.

 

Good article explaining it;

https://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/jim-benning-s-revisionist-rebuild-history-doesn-t-hold-water-1.23923166

 

Aquilinni has had literally dozens of twitter posts in support of young team. And its direction.

 

The development of the young players.

 

Ascent of young stars!

 

I have no doubt he would also prefer it hurry up. Likes the thought of play off revenue. Is the Miller trade a sign of that. Toffoli...

 

But we traded Kevin Bieksa in 2015. First we replaced him with Matt Bartkowski & Tryamkin was called up at the end of the year. Tryamkin was a definite youth move! Biega, Canuck legend Alex Biega, played his first full year, 50 games anyway. Depth provided by Taylor Fedun & Adam Cracknell. Bieksèa cap went to Sutter, one of those support players. Clearly Bieksa was passed his prime. Nobody will EVER convince me they really intended to win with that line up.

 

Matt bartkowski, at 26 with one NHL goal to his CV. A left handed minimum wage UFA was our 2knd pair right side D. I have no doubt Willie D choked on his chicken bones.

 

In 2016 yes we added Gudbrandson. As the previous year did not spell still need to win. So much as it was wholly embarrassing. I applauded Guddy being acquired for that reason. And drafting Juolevi, signing Stecher. But I had no illusion we had fixed the D as many proclaimed. Posted as such at the time. We also replaced Bartkowski with Phillip Larsen. Gave waiver pickups Reid Boucher, Megna, Chaput & Jack Skille ice time. Gaunce a 4th line regular shift. Cramarossa...

 

Me, I loved Megna! A sacrificial lamb who afforded us the chance to send down Jake. Cramarossa!

 

Maybe we acquired Louie Eriksson in a bid to over support the dying window of the twins. Maybe, but I do not believe any hockey person of salt thought Cracknell, nor Phillip Larsen were legitimate players to underpin a team. I do believe Miller & Vrbata were acquired to give us a last hurrah two years earlier.

 

I believe Eriksson was signed to score some goals. Unfortunate that he failed at it. Keep some excitement in the arena while we took our lumps. Avoid rock bottom! Which I, where tank nation guys disagree, support. Compete harder, make young guys earn their roles.      

 

Nothing, no dumb article, no CDC zealot will convince it was more.  

[alt kilgore]

1 hour ago, Canuck Surfer said:

 

....................................................

Nothing, no dumb article, no CDC zealot will convince it was more.  

 

lol Ok

I thought it was a pretty good article.

One thing that gets lost somewhat of course is the Sedin factor. I am critical of Benning not recognizing the need for a real rebuild sooner. Even if some of that was his wanting to keep his job. But I can also understand that it would have taken a lot of courage and possibly risk his brand spanking new GM job if he insisted on it early, when the Sedin's still had life left in them.  There probably was another run possible, but it would have relied on Jim lucking out on steals of FAs not the other way around. But I can forgive the temptation. It was the perfect storm.  I also understand what the twins meant to the city and franchise, and you'd have to be one cold Wally Buono to start trading away 2011 pieces so soon.  Heck , we could have gotten a nice package I'm sure for the Sedins, if they had waived back then, but I can understand how that wasn't going to happen, nor was it that possible having to trade both together.

 

But storm or not, it was JBs job to have to make unpopular decisions, to be ahead of the game. Instead he has been patch working this team together with FAs, trading away picks and prospects for years, who would just now be maturing, all the while talking playoffs. Getting rid of more P & Ps than getting them. But I grant you hindsight is 20/20.  What if Eriksson + the Sedins did become a new super line.  Vey, Vrbata, Gagner, and other early acquisitions all played better than expected. (Megna too!)  If wishes were horses.

 

But that didn't happen. It was a big gamble that didn't pay off. In his last seasons, he's been more successful with both drafting and with FAs. Better late than never. I hope he can get the log jam sorted out he created that's coming. And not have to give up more picks or prospects or good players in doing it.

.

.

Edited April 15, 2020 by kilgore

[Canuck Surfer]

Thanks @kilgore

 

I agree. A lot of decisions, which may be unpopular have to be made. And a GMs most important critic is always his owner. I have no doubt, like any business, the owner expects an annual & 5 year plan. Then progress on both. 

 

Personally, I was very critical of JB at his 1 and 2 year anniversary stages. I felt we did not win, when we had our window because we only had 1 year with a top shelf D core. And as described earlier. JBs 2knd year he decimated our D. Hi 1st year he added Miller & Vrbata, did not improve the Defence. 

 

Tactically, not that I have supported every move. I became much more at ease when he started investing in our D. Lottery picks Gudbrandson, Juolevi, Hughes. More recently with Meier. Not that the decisions were perfect. In hindsight, maybe I would not have supported Juolevi or Guddy. But you cannot hit home runs without investing. And investing in all positions. 

 

I would not have traded for Miller. Nor Tofolli. Miller looks great in spite of my opinion. 

 

I support Benning as a whole. I like where we are going.

[Sedintwinpowersactivate]

I’m a fan of Benning and I think he deserves seeing his rebuild reach its peak.  Whether that’s a cup or not.  He has made many mistakes and had successes.  I think his crowning achievement to date is building a young core of good character people.

 

Misses: 

1) Juolevi over Tkachuk... I think they drafted a defence man over forward by need.  A big mistake in hindsight considering what Tkachuk would look like on our team.  Maybe a decision based on perceived character of Tkachuk?  Bennings worst mistake to date going against the popular choice in Tkachuk who would be one of our cornerstone players.

2) Loui Ericksson.  I liked the move at the time.  It was either Lucic or Ericksson.  Loui has let Jim down.  
3) Gubranson trade.  Failure to recognize the changes in the NHL that have made this type of player ineffective.  Jared McCann had a pretty good year.  Again maybe he traded a player with some character flaws for a high character player.  Unfortunately Gubranson could no longer play.

4) Rewarding players that no longer fit in with expensive and longer contracts.  Sutter, Baertchi and Gubranson (prior to the trade)

5) Inability to gain draft picks during the rebuild.  I have to give Jim a pass on this one because The Gillis regime left a big hole in their prospect pool as well as the mid career pros.  The Canucks were seriously lacking in the 22-26 year old players.  That’s why Benning traded for Linden Vey and Branden Sutter among others.  This plan hasn’t really worked out.

6) Worst record in the NHL The last 5 years without bottoming once.  No lottery luck.  Ok the lottery luck is not Jim’s fault.  But our record despite his best efforts by signing FAs and trading picks for middle pros in an effort to avoid an Oilers situation ultimately didn’t work.  We’ve been a bottom 5 team that has had trouble building a winning culture.  Benning’s biggest fear and motivation for most of his decisions to date is a team with a losing culture.  I think he has done ok at building a team that works hard every night despite the lack of talent.

 

Hits:

 

1) Drafting- despite the Juolevi Tkachuk decision and never getting lottery luck this Canucks regime has added an impressive prospect pool.  They have added 3 team cornerstone players in Boeser, Petterson and Hughes.  Hit on later round picks as well.

 

2) Team culture and character.  Despite a rough start in this regard JB has been able to build a team with great mix of character veterans and good kids.  The team works hard every night.  Sedins and now Horvat have been the leaders to follow in this regard.

 

3) Green hiring.  Despite many on CDC I believe Green has a great grasp on the team.  He is a players coach that communicates really well with his players.  That’s the new NHL.  No longer can you coach like a tyrant.

 

4) strength in goal and at centre.  The build has always put a onus on these two positions.  We’re starting to improve the wings and defence as well.

 

 I’m looking forward to the next few years.  JB deserves the chance to see it through.

 

my thoughts... cheers

 

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, Sedintwinpowersactivate said:

I’m a fan of Benning and I think he deserves seeing his rebuild reach its peak.  Whether that’s a cup or not.  He has made many mistakes and had successes.  I think his crowning achievement to date is building a young core of good character people.

 

Misses: 

1) Juolevi over Tkachuk... I think they drafted a defence man over forward by need.  A big mistake in hindsight considering what Tkachuk would look like on our team.  Maybe a decision based on perceived character of Tkachuk?  Bennings worst mistake to date going against the popular choice in Tkachuk who would be one of our cornerstone players.

2) Loui Ericksson.  I liked the move at the time.  It was either Lucic or Ericksson.  Loui has let Jim down.  
3) Gubranson trade.  Failure to recognize the changes in the NHL that have made this type of player ineffective.  Jared McCann had a pretty good year.  Again maybe he traded a player with some character flaws for a high character player.  Unfortunately Gubranson could no longer play.

4) Rewarding players that no longer fit in with expensive and longer contracts.  Sutter, Baertchi and Gubranson (prior to the trade)

5) Inability to gain draft picks during the rebuild.  I have to give Jim a pass on this one because The Gillis regime left a big hole in their prospect pool as well as the mid career pros.  The Canucks were seriously lacking in the 22-26 year old players.  That’s why Benning traded for Linden Vey and Branden Sutter among others.  This plan hasn’t really worked out.

6) Worst record in the NHL The last 5 years without bottoming once.  No lottery luck.  Ok the lottery luck is not Jim’s fault.  But our record despite his best efforts by signing FAs and trading picks for middle pros in an effort to avoid an Oilers situation ultimately didn’t work.  We’ve been a bottom 5 team that has had trouble building a winning culture.  Benning’s biggest fear and motivation for most of his decisions to date is a team with a losing culture.  I think he has done ok at building a team that works hard every night despite the lack of talent.

 

Hits:

 

1) Drafting- despite the Juolevi Tkachuk decision and never getting lottery luck this Canucks regime has added an impressive prospect pool.  They have added 3 team cornerstone players in Boeser, Petterson and Hughes.  Hit on later round picks as well.

 

2) Team culture and character.  Despite a rough start in this regard JB has been able to build a team with great mix of character veterans and good kids.  The team works hard every night.  Sedins and now Horvat have been the leaders to follow in this regard.

 

3) Green hiring.  Despite many on CDC I believe Green has a great grasp on the team.  He is a players coach that communicates really well with his players.  That’s the new NHL.  No longer can you coach like a tyrant.

 

4) strength in goal and at centre.  The build has always put a onus on these two positions.  We’re starting to improve the wings and defence as well.

 

 I’m looking forward to the next few years.  JB deserves the chance to see it through.

 

my thoughts... cheers

 

Just a couple of thoughts. You praise that we got high character players, yet your primary gripe seems to be the Juolevi over Tkachuk pick. Does Tkachuk scream high character to you? If not, then perhaps that's why we passed on him. We may have went more for need, but Juolevi was highly ranked as well and unfortunate injuries have set him back rather than us missing on the pick due to quality of the player. We still may get a career out of Juolevi.

 

The other thing is Gudbranson could still play and still is currently in the NHL. Perhaps our style of play didn't fit with his game, but he's still a coveted player in the NHL seeing as a couple of teams were still willing to take a chance on him after us as well.

 

Sutter was extended almost as soon as we acquired him. He was a healthy player at the time and given his age and production, I'm not sure how he could be considered not a fit for the team. Baertschi was extended before his concussion issues and at the time, he was progressing quite nicely. The team has felt that he's been hesitant since his concussions, but this non-fit was after the fact. Gudbranson was extended because there was demand for the player, so we tried to make it work. We were able to move him for a middle 6 player for us, so no harm no foul.

 

As for the worst NHL record, well Benning took over a team that needed a overhaul. That overhaul was done immediately. Not many GMs would come into that situation and turn a 180 on the team. I'm glad the team didn't scapegoat Benning and has let him have some stability in building us in the direction we are in today.

[Fred65]

For what it's worth both Theo and Sedin make some good and balanced observations. From my perspective there are areas that are passed over. JB has been GM now since 2014, that's 6 years!! It's trite to refer to Gillis IMO. Vcr was at the owners insistence trying to chase after SC glory before the Sedins left and the income too  I see little reference to Judd Brackett ( maybe because folks perceive the departure of Brackett ) But what the separation in influence has never been established, we may judge after Brackett leaves. JB record for Pro scouting needs  real attention and soon. He's either let down by the Pro scouts or he influences them too much. I liked the fact the JB went with Podkolzin when he new he was likely 3 year before we would see him in the NHL and his job was on the line, that takes jam IMO. I'm not sure JB has the ability to sign both Hughes and Pettersson ( big tickets) and still be able to sign an appropriate surrounding roster while staying under the Cap, so IMO it was a bad move to let Gilman leave. I've never been a fan of Weisbrod and Chris Gear is unproven and I don't see playing football as  a plus, he didn't apprentice in other organization and pick the brains of others. I hope JB is not a guy that likes yes man but it could be dissenting views are not appreciated, but that's speculation

[Fanuck]

The only reason one would mention Gillis in a conversation about JB would be to reference the situation JB was inheriting when he came here. 

Unless you go the route of 'scorched earth' rebuild (which it has since come out as public knowledge that Aquaman did not authorize because he wanted his elderly father to have the possibility of seeing a cup win) it would take any GM several years to re-build what we had going on here when JB was hired.  After 5 hundred-point seasons in 6 years and a cup final run, our system was gutted of high value prospects - this takes time to re-establish unless you tear it down - which as mentioned Aquaman said himself he did not want.  JB took his time, did what he could to satisfy Aquaman that he was icing a decent team, all the while astutely making some pretty good picks along the way.  As recently as a year ago, our prospect system was ranked by several different sources as top five in the entire league and presently, we are/were right in the mix for a playoff spot.  I'd say given the circumstances of what he inherited and the constrictions of what ownership was putting on him, JB has done an admirable job. 

[Toews]

First you have to get people to accept that there is a such a thing as "rebuilding" and that they can't just apply whatever interpretation they deem fit to the term. In the context of sports the term "rebuilding" is clear it means you uproot the old foundation and start building anew aka "strip it down". This means players get jettisoned for draft picks, you make full use of your additional cap space by taking bad contracts of other teams and sign players to cheap 1- year "show me" contracts which can easily be flipped at the deadline for more picks. You may then add a veteran or two to insulate players but usually this is done at the cost of cap space and not at the expense of draft capital, which you are always trying to maximize. You are also trying to sign any RFAs (that you see a future for) to long term contracts(5-8 years) and trying to limit anyone you don't foresee being part of the future core to short term contracts (1-2 years).

 

This is a general model that teams in professional sports try to follow. Of course an ambitious/under-fire GM may step outside of that model and use their draft capital/cap space to land a big fish in free agency. This comes with risk though, do it too soon and you may just have built a middling team which misses the playoffs while spoiling draft position.

 

The Canucks were never following the model I described above and they never claimed to either. They didn't start using the word “re-build” until much later. This was what Linden said in 2016.

 

I think the Sedins were a convenient excuse, as great as they were, organizations don't make decisions based on appeasing any individual except the owner. You could have won 6 Super Bowls and they would still give you the business end of the boot. Everyone has a boss, and what the bossman says everyone has to follow or get out of the way. Linden from everything I have read resigned because he didn't think we were ready to take the next step, which probably means he was against the Miller trade and the Myers signing. 

 

PS: the Sedins were always all class. I don't think they would have thought it unfair at all that the franchise was making plans for the future. It was clear at the time the window had pretty much been slammed shut.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Toews