Jim Benning

[BlastPast]

1 hour ago, Lazurus said:

You would think in a rebuild there would be less than a third of the team 30 and over and a GM would be trading for more picks and fewer aging vets. The Canucks do have 11 players 30+ on the roster now. That just doesn't seem like a young team.

There is 9 by my count and 4 of those are literally a few months past their 30th birthday. Two were traded for and that was 5-6 years ago.  

[Fanuck]

 

19 minutes ago, BlastPast said:

There is 9 by my count and 4 of those are literally a few months past their 30th birthday. Two were traded for and that was 5-6 years ago.  

That's what I figure as well:

Edler

Sutter

LE

Myers

Tanev

Rousell

Beagle

Marky

Benn

 

Blue guys are just barely 30. 

[Fred65]

Theo

 

JB has  done well with his six year time period. You know who has done well ….. Boston. They won the Cup in 2011 lest we forgot since then they've managed to be a top of the league team and competing season in season out, Vcr mostly down hill ( hence the high end draft picks) Boston has mostly picked in the low end of the draft, because they're a good team. As to Gudbranson lets be honest the guy couldn't tie his shoe laces with out instructions. Heck Hutton was a better defenceman than EG and we let him go, and rightly so. The Gudbranson trade is the very  antipathy of a bad scouting job. He was slow, low hockey IQ, basically the best you could ask for as an off the glass and out player. Right now he's in the league because he's a goon. It didn't take long for Pitt to get him out of town. The good news is we got Pearson, nothing fantastic but a Green appreciated player

 

Should have traded Luongo rather than Schneider  are you kidding me … most fans seem to forget that Luongo really messed with Vcr. He had a shall we say complicated love life which Mrs Luo discovered in the middle of the SC in 2011 and declared he was coming home to where she could keep him on a leash. It was Florida or nothing! Almost impossible to trade, we're extremely fortunate to get Markstrom out of that self indulging Luongo  trade. Not content with that he did a number on us with his retirement ( how fans applaud this guy suggests the education system in Vcr is some what lacking   )

 

I'm not anti JB by any means, I kind of like him but we can't stray from the facts, I don't hang on his pearls of wisdom when he speaks but acknowledge him in a folkie sort of way, he's a nice guy.  I don't like some of his management decissions, hire Weisbrod, fire Gillman and if Brackett leaves it won't impress me, Brackett should have been extended last year or before. I get the impression this group doesn't like hired hands that are smarter than them. Seems like the pro trades are made in a coffee shop with a bunch of the guys. No in depth assessment or lists of pros and cons. I've never heard any one praise JB intellect, either him or Gear seem to be  outmaneuvered by other GM's and agents. Cap management is not Vcr's strong point … IMHO 

[theo5789]

37 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Theo

 

JB has  done well with his six year time period. You know who has done well ….. Boston. They won the Cup in 2011 lest we forgot since then they've managed to be a top of the league team and competing season in season out, Vcr mostly down hill ( hence the high end draft picks) Boston has mostly picked in the low end of the draft, because they're a good team. As to Gudbranson lets be honest the guy couldn't tie his shoe laces with out instructions. Heck Hutton was a better defenceman than EG and we let him go, and rightly so. The Gudbranson trade is the very  antipathy of a bad scouting job. He was slow, low hockey IQ, basically the best you could ask for as an off the glass and out player. Right now he's in the league because he's a goon. It didn't take long for Pitt to get him out of town. The good news is we got Pearson, nothing fantastic but a Green appreciated player

Boston core was younger in 2011 and thus has sustained longer success from that point. They've retooled well, but we will see how much longer it lasts. JB was in the management group in Boston and has probably picked up a thing or two during his time here to help us bounce back quickly.

 

You have your opinion on Gudbranson, that's fine. But don't downplay Pearson because that was a fantastic pickup for the pro scout group. Finally a consistent winger for Bo, our captain, that has put up nearly career numbers when his career looked to be fizzling is an excellent find.

 

37 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Should have traded Luongo rather than Schneider  are you kidding me … most fans seem to forget that Luongo really messed with Vcr. He had a shall we say complicated love life which Mrs Luo discovered in the middle of the SC in 2011 and declared he was coming home to where she could keep him on a leash. It was Florida or nothing! Almost impossible to trade, we're extremely fortunate to get Markstrom out of that self indulging Luongo  trade. Not content with that he did a number on us with his retirement ( how fans applaud this guy suggests the education system in Vcr is some what lacking   )

Never heard those rumours. Please share the source so I can read up on it myself. I do know that Toronto was in the mix in trade negotiations as Burke said, so it surely wasn't Florida or nothing. But this is your personal vendetta against Luongo, it has nothing to do with your belief that Schneider was dealt as a "rebuild" move.

 

37 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I'm not anti JB by any means, I kind of like him but we can't stray from the facts, I don't hang on his pearls of wisdom when he speaks but acknowledge him in a folkie sort of way, he's a nice guy.  I don't like some of his management decissions, hire Weisbrod, fire Gillman and if Brackett leaves it won't impress me, Brackett should have been extended last year or before. I get the impression this group doesn't like hired hands that are smarter than them. Seems like the pro trades are made in a coffee shop with a bunch of the guys. No in depth assessment or lists of pros and cons. I've never heard any one praise JB intellect, either him or Gear seem to be  outmaneuvered by other GM's and agents. Cap management is not Vcr's strong point … IMHO 

We haven't had a problem where we had to move someone that we didn't want to due to cap reasons. You may think some players are overpaid or what not, but until we lose a player that we wanted to keep due to cap reasons, then our cap management is fine. Aquilini is okay spending to the cap, so that is his problem if he was hoping for a more bargain bin group (I hear Dorian is the man to support if you're looking for that type of GMing).

 

JB's pro trades have always been of the mindset of making hockey trades rather than trying to rip someone off. The league has shifted to this mentality. You might find some trades that are better here and there, but unlikely you'll find any GMs that has hit on every trade they have made.

[Fred65]

Theo, it all fills in our day during this sports down period  . I know there are a lot of JB disciples, but what ever the reason ( and the Bruins had a number of vets some older than Vcr roster) the Bruins have been transitioned from then  without much of a down period. I see 5 players from their Cup win left. Of course JB left, his boss Chiarelli  the mastermind was fired and same with the coaches. Since Neeley came in he cleaned house. We preferred to "turn this team around quickly" and strung the quick into 6 years. I'll say this the constant annual failure did garner us some high draft picks. So I suspect that Vcr will pass Boston in the near future but don't bet your house on it. 

 

The crux of the matter for Vcr is the Cap, and it is a problem, and filling in around the core of youth. JB seems to have a passion for older vets and high prices so I'm not holding my breath. Fans seem to get attached to players and managers & in my mind that's not good. We all get wrapped up in prospects and think they're the best but they're only prospects, prospects that Green doesn't always trust and frankly other teams have good prospects too. Utica was not going to win the Calder Cup …. fact and thier best player was an AHL vet.  Oh well lets hope JB manages. In the meantime I have to attend to some chores  

[theo5789]

11 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Theo, it all fills in our day during this sports down period  . I know there are a lot of JB disciples, but what ever the reason ( and the Bruins had a number of vets some older than Vcr roster) the Bruins have been transitioned from then  without much of a down period. I see 5 players from their Cup win left. Of course JB left, his boss Chiarelli  the mastermind was fired and same with the coaches. Since Neeley came in he cleaned house. We preferred to "turn this team around quickly" and strung the quick into 6 years. I'll say this the constant annual failure did garner us some high draft picks. So I suspect that Vcr will pass Boston in the near future but don't bet your house on it. 

 

The crux of the matter for Vcr is the Cap, and it is a problem, and filling in around the core of youth. JB seems to have a passion for older vets and high prices so I'm not holding my breath. Fans seem to get attached to players and managers & in my mind that's not good. We all get wrapped up in prospects and think they're the best but they're only prospects, prospects that Green doesn't always trust and frankly other teams have good prospects too. Utica was not going to win the Calder Cup …. fact and thier best player was an AHL vet.  Oh well lets hope JB manages. In the meantime I have to attend to some chores  

Keep in mind that Boston had been drafting well to sustain themselves this long (with Benning as part of their management group). Before Benning took over, we barely even had a prospect group, hell we didn't even have our own farm team for a period. We didn't have the transitional group to carry us over. Like I said before, a 6 year turnaround time (we were looking to be playoff bound this year) isn't that bad comparatively to some teams in the league and especially when we didn't go full tear down from day 1 of Benning's tenure.

 

As I've also said, we haven't been restricted from anything and lost anyone due to the cap yet. We haven't run into cap troubles yet. If we aren't getting full value on the players, it hasn't hurt the team cap-wise, just Aquilini's pockets and he seems okay with it so far giving his trust in Benning. Prospects need to be developed and as soon as they are, they become cheap depth options to mitigate the cap issues. Most AHL teams are led by vets, so what? We had a good team and some of our prospects have improved during their time there to allow them to support the top vets. Keep in mind that Rafferty was leading the defense group and DiPietro took over the starting duties. Lind made big strides as well. With Goldobin and potentially Baertschi out next year, Lind may have a more prominent role amongst other prospect additions to the team.

 

We are starting to have one of the youngest teams in the league, so whatever older vets JB seems to like in your eyes have had the scales tipped by the influx of youth to the roster. Benning likes to support his young players with character vets which is a model that other teams are starting to follow. Soon these vets will be pushed out by youth and our current youthful core will become the veteran group. It's a process and I trust it with the way things have trending thus far.

[Toews]

16 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Gudbranson was a 20+ min dman for Florida who was 24 years old when we acquired him and was a hard hitting RD that stood up for his teammates. Just look at the posts that suggest we go after a Dillon or Edmondson, etc and that's the type of dman many want. Two more teams took flyers on him after his time here. Perhaps the goal for him was to be a protector for Juolevi who would've been the brains of the pairing, but we all know that he had his setbacks and the plan didn't work out. I still respected Gudbranson's time here, but let's not forget that we added Pearson for him who's turned out well for us which is a plus to the pro scouting side.

Ice-time can be misleading. Gudbranson only started averaging 20+ min when Willie Mitchell got injured. He wasn't a legitimate top 4 defenseman even when he did trade for him. He was getting less ice-time in Florida than Hutton got in his tenure with the Canucks, and I think we can all agree that Hutton is not a legitimate top 4 defenseman.

[theo5789]

24 minutes ago, Toews said:

Ice-time can be misleading. Gudbranson only started averaging 20+ min when Willie Mitchell got injured. He wasn't a legitimate top 4 defenseman even when he did trade for him. He was getting less ice-time in Florida than Hutton got in his tenure with the Canucks, and I think we can all agree that Hutton is not a legitimate top 4 defenseman.

Fair enough point, but that doesn't mean we weren't hoping to get more out of him. If he was a legit top 4 dman with the attributes he had, his price tag would've been even higher and possibly unattainable (think about what a trade for someone like Parayko would be like, you wouldn't get him for the package we gave up for Gudbranson). He was 24 and was starting to get bigger minutes and filled an RD spot we were hoping to fill and was a physical presence.

 

JT Miller was getting "3rd line" minutes in Tampa, but we clearly expected more. We were expecting more from Sutter who was primarily a 3rd line center for the team's he was on. You take some chances and hope for home runs, you aren't always going to connect, but when you do, you get guys like JT Miller. Sutter had unfortunate injuries and Gudbranson didn't like up to the billing, but we got Pearson in the end for him.

[Crabcakes]

8 hours ago, Lazurus said:

You would think in a rebuild there would be less than a third of the team 30 and over and a GM would be trading for more picks and fewer aging vets. The Canucks do have 11 players 30+ on the roster now. That just doesn't seem like a young team.

It depends if you want vets to support a young core or if you want a bunch of young kids trying to mentor themselves

[189lb enforcers?]

Players over 30 are... over 30... period. 

 

[Toews]

3 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Fair enough point, but that doesn't mean we weren't hoping to get more out of him. If he was a legit top 4 dman with the attributes he had, his price tag would've been even higher and possibly unattainable (think about what a trade for someone like Parayko would be like, you wouldn't get him for the package we gave up for Gudbranson). He was 24 and was starting to get bigger minutes and filled an RD spot we were hoping to fill and was a physical presence.

I believe the Panthers shopped Gudbranson rather than the other way around. The Canucks were desperate to fill that second RHD slot with Tanev being the only legit option on that side. In general we should have been wary why the Panthers were giving up on a former 3rd overall pick who plays the most coveted position in the sport (RHD). 

Quote

JT Miller was getting "3rd line" minutes in Tampa, but we clearly expected more. We were expecting more from Sutter who was primarily a 3rd line center for the team's he was on. You take some chances and hope for home runs, you aren't always going to connect, but when you do, you get guys like JT Miller. Sutter had unfortunate injuries and Gudbranson didn't like up to the billing, but we got Pearson in the end for him.

I won't lie I was wary of the Miller trade when it happened but it has been the right move for this team. Miller has turned into a great mentor for some of our young players, I would never have envisioned that. Miller has definitely been a force multiplier for us, a truly incredible addition by Benning. Credit to him.

 

I disagree that it justifies the Sutter/Gudbranson trades. I think they were decidedly inferior players and it was obvious the very first game these guys played as Canucks. I don't think there ever was any home run potential there with those two. They were useful bodies to plug into the lineup but in the end they largely didn't live up to their billing, Gudbranson was touted as a potential top 4 defenseman and Sutter was supposed to be a "foundational player". We made a bunch of trades like those to acquire lots of middling players and expended draft capital as a result. I believe this was done to satisfy an unrealistic mandate from ownership, ie. we want to win but we want to rebuild as well, also referred to as 'retool'. 

 

If you look at the early years of Benning what came up a lot was "losing culture", people frequently talked about the Oilers and how we had to avoid their fate. But anyone looking at the Oilers would see that they never had Edler+Tanev and the Sedins to insulate any talent they did bring in. The Canucks were at a decided advantage to the Oilers. I am uncertain how much of what is blamed as "losing culture" in Edmonton was not just some supremely $&!#ty roster construction. The Oilers sucked at drafting, they sucked at free agency and they couldn't stop getting in their own way. Look at what the Avs got for Duchene who is an inferior player to Hall who could only fetch Larsson. To boil the Oilers struggles down to "losing culture" is imho reductive. The idea that this team didn't sign veterans is also not true, they did sign veterans they were just largely way over the hill when they got them and they had to overpay them to come to Ed-freaking-monton.

 

The Canucks have done a lot of losing the last few years but it hasn't ruined our young talent nor do I think it had the potential to when we had such great mentors in the twins and Eagle+Tanman. The narrative of losing culture I believe was to justify the unrealistic mandate. Maybe Sutter had some sort of imperceptible impact on Horvat which turned him into the player that he is today but I can't rely on something that I cannot see. I see a lot of assets traded which could have been used more efficiently and I know that the Canucks refused to 'rebuild' (proposed by Mike Gillis) prior to Benning even getting there. I simply don't believe for a second that Benning would have made the exact same set of moves if he had complete autonomy over the organization. Benning in his first draft drafted 5 players who look like they are going to be NHL regulars, Virtanen, McCann, Demko, Tryamkin, Forsling. In general you are lucky if you get 3 NHL regulars in a draft. 

 

Someone here referenced HFboards, their issue has always been that they have spent all their time fixating on Benning when the problems that plagued this organization were present long before he arrived here. It makes me wary that we pushed Linden out of the organization because he was advocating for a more patient approach. 

Edited April 17, 2020 by Toews

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, Toews said:

I believe the Panthers shopped Gudbranson rather than the other way around. The Canucks were desperate to fill that second RHD slot with Tanev being the only legit option on that side. In general we should have been wary why the Panthers were giving up on a former 3rd overall pick who plays the most coveted position in the sport (RHD). 

I never said we targetted Gudbranson, but I think we did jump at the opportunity when we heard he was available (I'm sure other teams would've gotten into a bidding war for his services). I think we expected more from Gudbranson. We weren't trading for a finished product, we were hoping for more from a 24 year old former 3rd overall pick given a larger opportunity. Yes Benning possibly could've looked at some red flags, but these are the risks you take. If Gudbranson was an established top 4 RD at that age and with his size, he would've cost far more than what we gave up.

 

3 hours ago, Toews said:

I won't lie I was wary of the Miller trade when it happened but it has been the right move for this team. Miller has turned into a great mentor for some of our young players, I would never have envisioned that. Miller has definitely been a force multiplier for us, a truly incredible addition by Benning. Credit to him.

 

I disagree that it justifies the Sutter/Gudbranson trades. I think they were decidedly inferior players and it was obvious the very first game these guys played as Canucks. I don't think there ever was any home run potential there with those two. They were useful bodies to plug into the lineup but in the end they largely didn't live up to their billing, Gudbranson was touted as a potential top 4 defenseman and Sutter was supposed to be a "foundational player". We made a bunch of trades like those to acquire lots of middling players and expended draft capital as a result. I believe this was done to satisfy an unrealistic mandate from ownership, ie. we want to win but we want to rebuild as well, also referred to as 'retool'. 

Miller was another example of someone that could've had some red flags (eg why was he getting limited minutes, why did his production drop, etc) and we took that risk, gave him a bigger opportunity and he flourished. This is very similar to the Gudbranson situation, just that it worked out for one and not the other. We took a risk on Pearson and that has played out nicely as well. We also jumped on Toffoli (like we did for Gudbranson) as his trade value would've been much higher at the TDL.

 

Sutter was likely expected to be a 2nd line center for us, which would also be a bigger role for him than he's had before. No one would've predicted that he would get a major long term injury in his first season with us after being an iron man prior. Bo Horvat would emerge and took over the 2nd line center spot which pushed Sutter into a different role than originally planned. I think Sutter would've had a much different outlook here had he not starting getting all of his injuries here, but that is something no one could've predicted when we brought him on.

 

I believe Sutter scored in his first game with us and Gudbranson was a physical force in his first game with us. I find it hard to believe that anyone could've predicted their career paths as Canucks based on their first games.

 

3 hours ago, Toews said:

If you look at the early years of Benning what came up a lot was "losing culture", people frequently talked about the Oilers and how we had to avoid their fate. But anyone looking at the Oilers would see that they never had Edler+Tanev and the Sedins to insulate any talent they did bring in. The Canucks were at a decided advantage to the Oilers. I am uncertain how much of what is blamed as "losing culture" in Edmonton was not just some supremely $&!#ty roster construction. The Oilers sucked at drafting, they sucked at free agency and they couldn't stop getting in their own way. Look at what the Avs got for Duchene who is an inferior player to Hall who could only fetch Larsson. To boil the Oilers struggles down to "losing culture" is imho reductive. The idea that this team didn't sign veterans is also not true, they did sign veterans they were just largely way over the hill when they got them and they had to overpay them to come to Ed-freaking-monton.

 

The Canucks have done a lot of losing the last few years but it hasn't ruined our young talent nor do I think it had the potential to when we had such great mentors in the twins and Eagle+Tanman. The narrative of losing culture I believe was to justify the unrealistic mandate. Maybe Sutter had some sort of imperceptible impact on Horvat which turned him into the player that he is today but I can't rely on something that I cannot see. I see a lot of assets traded which could have been used more efficiently and I know that the Canucks refused to 'rebuild' (proposed by Mike Gillis) prior to Benning even getting there. I simply don't believe for a second that Benning would have made the exact same set of moves if he had complete autonomy over the organization. Benning in his first draft drafted 5 players who look like they are going to be NHL regulars, Virtanen, McCann, Demko, Tryamkin, Forsling. In general you are lucky if you get 3 NHL regulars in a draft. 

 

Someone here referenced HFboards, their issue has always been that they have spent all their time fixating on Benning when the problems that plagued this organization were present long before he arrived here. It makes me wary that we pushed Linden out of the organization because he was advocating for a more patient approach. 

We are only starting to see our young talent being brought in. Only Bo Horvat really had been under the Sedins. Edler and Tanev haven't sheltered any young dman other than Hughes now (and if it were up to some fans, they would've been dealt long ago before they had any opportunity to do any real sheltering). We brought in vets as stop gaps as we didn't have the youth to bring up early on in Benning's tenure and they were to become players for the young players to compete to earn a spot on the team and to ice a team. They were subsequently cut when young players did surpass them.

 

Benning has drafted well and we are just starting to see this influx of youth coming in as depth as we are establishing the young core as well.

 

The Duchene trade garnered far more than expected. Ottawa had just made it to the 3rd round of the playoffs and were looking to bolster themselves even more. There was no way Sakic would've known the behind the scenes happenings that would blow up and flip Ottawa upside down. They got lucky rather than finding superior value. With that said, Edmonton did undersell Hall, but that just goes to show what an incompetent management can do to a team. The major gripe against Benning is about his record during his tenure and that it's been 6 years, well Edmonton is a prime example of a team that 6 years is nothing for a rebuild (especially when he's dealing with outside factors that didn't allow him to rebuild from day 1). Colorado was also in a funk for quite some time and both they and Edmonton were gifted with actual lotto picks unlike the Canucks who had to unearth their own gems under their own destiny as we weren't handed anything.

[Toews]

8 hours ago, theo5789 said:

I never said we targetted Gudbranson, but I think we did jump at the opportunity when we heard he was available (I'm sure other teams would've gotten into a bidding war for his services). I think we expected more from Gudbranson. We weren't trading for a finished product, we were hoping for more from a 24 year old former 3rd overall pick given a larger opportunity. Yes Benning possibly could've looked at some red flags, but these are the risks you take. If Gudbranson was an established top 4 RD at that age and with his size, he would've cost far more than what we gave up.

Never said you did. My point was the red flags with Gudbranson should not be understated. Analytics predicted that he was a poor acquisition. I wonder now if we had Gear in place earlier whether we would have traded for him. 

Quote

Miller was another example of someone that could've had some red flags (eg why was he getting limited minutes, why did his production drop, etc) and we took that risk, gave him a bigger opportunity and he flourished. This is very similar to the Gudbranson situation, just that it worked out for one and not the other. We took a risk on Pearson and that has played out nicely as well. We also jumped on Toffoli (like we did for Gudbranson) as his trade value would've been much higher at the TDL.

The only red flag for me with Miller was that we traded a protected 1st for him. He could have scored 20 less points this season and I would still be satisfied with this trade. I was hoping for a player who could put up around 45-55 points while being an excellent complementary player on the top line. The fact that he turned out to be more was gravy on top, but Miller was always a solid player even going back to his time with the Rangers. Tampa was an exceptionally deep team, that was no secret.

Quote

Sutter was likely expected to be a 2nd line center for us, which would also be a bigger role for him than he's had before. No one would've predicted that he would get a major long term injury in his first season with us after being an iron man prior. Bo Horvat would emerge and took over the 2nd line center spot which pushed Sutter into a different role than originally planned. I think Sutter would've had a much different outlook here had he not starting getting all of his injuries here, but that is something no one could've predicted when we brought him on.

Sutter never flashed the kind of skill to indicate to me that he could potentially be true top 6 center. I watched him Pittsburgh as well, I scoffed at Linden calling a "foundational" player. Maybe we can agree to disagree here because I don't think Sutter was ever a 2nd line center nor did I ever expect him to be one for us. Bonino at the time had decent value because he was a 3rd line center with term making just 1.9M making him especially valuable add to contending teams looking to shore up their C depth. Looking back I wish we had traded him for futures, may have even got a 1st at the deadline for him instead of foundational Sutter who we ended up paying 4.375M to because he was a pending UFA. Contending teams don't want to pay that figure for a bottom 6 center, crippling the trade value of the asset.

Quote

I believe Sutter scored in his first game with us and Gudbranson was a physical force in his first game with us. I find it hard to believe that anyone could've predicted their career paths as Canucks based on their first games.

Based not just off their first games but their track record in the NHL also indicated that we were overestimating their capabilities. They were useful players for us to plug into the lineup but poor acquisitions considering the assets expended to get them and the roles they were expected to fill.

Quote

We are only starting to see our young talent being brought in. Only Bo Horvat really had been under the Sedins. Edler and Tanev haven't sheltered any young dman other than Hughes now (and if it were up to some fans, they would've been dealt long ago before they had any opportunity to do any real sheltering). We brought in vets as stop gaps as we didn't have the youth to bring up early on in Benning's tenure and they were to become players for the young players to compete to earn a spot on the team and to ice a team. They were subsequently cut when young players did surpass them.

We also invested in a lot of fringe NHLers on other teams, expending draft capital on a failed strategy of "filling in the age gap". None of these players ever materialized into anything worth salvaging long term. Baertschi (2nd) was the one shining star which people used to justify those moves but he too has dropped off the face of the planet. Linden Vey (2nd), Andrey Pedan (3rd), Derrick Pouliot (4th), Adam Clendening (5th/Forsling), Emerson Etem(6th), Adam Larsen(5th), picks were moved out to get each one of these guys and they were never worth anything more than a cup of coffee.

 

I have less of a problem with a 5th for Prust and a 3rd for Dorsett as we can count that as veteran acquisitions that teams make for a rebuild. Of course those teams also usually have excess draft capital which we never really possessed.

Quote

Benning has drafted well and we are just starting to see this influx of youth coming in as depth as we are establishing the young core as well.

Indeed but would be further ahead and how will some of our past moves affect our future chances of lifting the Stanley Cup. There are lots of teams in the NHL who have acquired some young elite talent. The teams that win Cups will have great cost controlled depth around those pieces as well. The Canucks still have a ways to go towards achieving that goal. We need to clean up some of our cap management, again I really hope Chris Gear's promotion goes a long ways towards achieving that. 

Quote

The Duchene trade garnered far more than expected. Ottawa had just made it to the 3rd round of the playoffs and were looking to bolster themselves even more. There was no way Sakic would've known the behind the scenes happenings that would blow up and flip Ottawa upside down. They got lucky rather than finding superior value. With that said, Edmonton did undersell Hall, but that just goes to show what an incompetent management can do to a team. The major gripe against Benning is about his record during his tenure and that it's been 6 years, well Edmonton is a prime example of a team that 6 years is nothing for a rebuild (especially when he's dealing with outside factors that didn't allow him to rebuild from day 1). Colorado was also in a funk for quite some time and both they and Edmonton were gifted with actual lotto picks unlike the Canucks who had to unearth their own gems under their own destiny as we weren't handed anything.

It can take time for a team to team to crawl out of being a perennial bottom feeder. My point was that this process is prolonged when teams shoot themselves in the foot the way Edmonton has constantly done. Blaming their problems on a "losing culture" is a simplistic explanation, their biggest issue has been managerial incompetence due to a fanboy owner who kept hiring ex-Oilers. 

 

Our problem is that we nearly traded an entire year's of draft picks and have squat to show for it. This doesn't include holding onto players for too long in the hopes of failed playoff runs. Had ownership been accepting of a rebuild maybe we could have flipped those players for more picks. We didn't have to wait to the deadline to move Vrbata and Hamhuis, could have just moved them the previous offseason. Had ownership been willing to eat money off of some of those contracts we could have received more. 

 

Thanks for the civil discussion. It feels much nicer now that a lot of the usual suspects who derail threads with personal attacks are temporarily out. I don't have any strong views on individual moves but the whole collection of the them when put together just makes me see that we could potentially have been further ahead than we are currently, had we had a more patient owner. I hope Aquaman has actually learned from this and in the future will exercise more restraint. We would never had the teams that we did had Nonis not stood his ground on Brad Richards.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Toews

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, Toews said:

Never said you did. My point was the red flags with Gudbranson should not be understated. Analytics predicted that he was a poor acquisition. I wonder now if we had Gear in place earlier whether we would have traded for him. 

Perhaps this is a reason why Gear was promoted. I think if we had Hughes earlier or someone like OJ not have a set back that Gudbranson could've had a partner to be the brains of the operation while he was the muscle and it may have worked. Gudbranson looked a lot better with someone like Edler with the smarts and skills than say someone like Hutton or Pouliot when it became more of a tire fire. I think he could've been a Methot to Karlsson, but that situation took too long to arise and we decided to move on and were able to get a solid middle 6 winger in Pearson.

 

2 hours ago, Toews said:

The only red flag for me with Miller was that we traded a protected 1st for him. He could have scored 20 less points this season and I would still be satisfied with this trade. I was hoping for a player who could put up around 45-55 points while being an excellent complementary player on the top line. The fact that he turned out to be more was gravy on top, but Miller was always a solid player even going back to his time with the Rangers. Tampa was an exceptionally deep team, that was no secret.

Seeing the initial reaction to the trade would suggest it wasn't as obvious that Tampa was hiding a bit of a gem. The ones that did had no problem with moving the 1st because it was a protected one, so we were looking at a middle to low 1st rounder. While he produced decent numbers in NY, he wasn't considered a solid player. AV was interviewed and he said he gets it now which Miller agreed, so he had the potential, but needed the time to figure things out. There was a reason why Gudbranson was a 3rd overall pick as he also had potential, but he just didn't live up to it.

 

2 hours ago, Toews said:

Sutter never flashed the kind of skill to indicate to me that he could potentially be true top 6 center. I watched him Pittsburgh as well, I scoffed at Linden calling a "foundational" player. Maybe we can agree to disagree here because I don't think Sutter was ever a 2nd line center nor did I ever expect him to be one for us. Bonino at the time had decent value because he was a 3rd line center with term making just 1.9M making him especially valuable add to contending teams looking to shore up their C depth. Looking back I wish we had traded him for futures, may have even got a 1st at the deadline for him instead of foundational Sutter who we ended up paying 4.375M to because he was a pending UFA. Contending teams don't want to pay that figure for a bottom 6 center, crippling the trade value of the asset.

Sutter was a 30-35 point 3rd line center which included a 21 goal campaign prior to us acquiring him. I guess the belief was that if we could get him more minutes that he could be a 50 point guy while being a solid defensive forward. Hard to say what he could've accomplished if he didn't get hurt. In the end, he because a support piece taking the hard minutes, so Bo didn't have to at such a young age. Sutter's skill was more a shoot first type player much like Kesler and perhaps we wanted to find a Kesler type replacement. In hindsight, Bonino probably should've been dealt for futures, but as you've been alluding to, Benning wasn't told to do a full tear down, so he tried to do what was best to accomplish the goals set for him.

 

2 hours ago, Toews said:

Based not just off their first games but their track record in the NHL also indicated that we were overestimating their capabilities. They were useful players for us to plug into the lineup but poor acquisitions considering the assets expended to get them and the roles they were expected to fill.

We also invested in a lot of fringe NHLers on other teams, expending draft capital on a failed strategy of "filling in the age gap". None of these players ever materialized into anything worth salvaging long term. Baertschi (2nd) was the one shining star which people used to justify those moves but he too has dropped off the face of the planet. Linden Vey (2nd), Andrey Pedan (3rd), Derrick Pouliot (4th), Adam Clendening (5th/Forsling), Emerson Etem(6th), Adam Larsen(5th), picks were moved out to get each one of these guys and they were never worth anything more than a cup of coffee.

 

I have less of a problem with a 5th for Prust and a 3rd for Dorsett as we can count that as veteran acquisitions that teams make for a rebuild. Of course those teams also usually have excess draft capital which we never really possessed.

Yes those players didn't work out, but we also moved out players for picks. I believe I looked back and we didn't have less than our full allotment of picks. We had probably more lower end picks, but we have also made some of the lower picks count which mitigates that issue. Whatever failed strategy we had prior has turned into one of the deepest prospect pools we have in ages. With that said, you mentioned that it was obvious from their first games that they wouldn't be a fit. I was simply pointing out that each had impressive first games and perhaps set the bar/standard that was expected for the duration of their career here.

 

2 hours ago, Toews said:

Indeed but would be further ahead and how will some of our past moves affect our future chances of lifting the Stanley Cup. There are lots of teams in the NHL who have acquired some young elite talent. The teams that win Cups will have great cost controlled depth around those pieces as well. The Canucks still have a ways to go towards achieving that goal. We need to clean up some of our cap management, again I really hope Chris Gear's promotion goes a long ways towards achieving that. 

It can take time for a team to team to crawl out of being a perennial bottom feeder. My point was that this process is prolonged when teams shoot themselves in the foot the way Edmonton has constantly done. Blaming their problems on a "losing culture" is a simplistic explanation, their biggest issue has been managerial incompetence due to a fanboy owner who kept hiring ex-Oilers. 

I was responding to a poster before that was suggesting the downfalls of Benning (perhaps his incompetence) and I am simply trying to explain that that isn't the issue here. Apparently a 6 year tenure is too long because he said we could turn this around quickly. Despite some ownership meddling that required to get them on board during this 6 year tenure to getting us a incredibly deep prospect pool to being on the verge of the playoffs again from where Benning had begun, IMO, is relatively short order in comparison to some other teams, even beyond Edmonton. Some teams were blessed with franchise 1st overalls to turn their fortunes around and we never got that luxury as well. We microscope Benning's moves, but every GM in the league could be criticized when looked at further. Only one team wins the Cup and they become the example while every other GM has done something wrong.

 

2 hours ago, Toews said:

Our problem is that we nearly traded an entire year's of draft picks and have squat to show for it. This doesn't include holding onto players for too long in the hopes of failed playoff runs. Had ownership been accepting of a rebuild maybe we could have flipped those players for more picks. We didn't have to wait to the deadline to move Vrbata and Hamhuis, could have just moved them the previous offseason. Had ownership been willing to eat money off of some of those contracts we could have received more. 

Disagreeing with ownership is one thing, but I've been discussing Benning. As I mentioned earlier, over Benning's time we had our full allotment of picks. So while we did trade away some, we also acquired some back. What's to show for it is our deep prospect pool and we have been trending the team up for the last 3 seasons and potentially could've been back to the playoffs this year with a young core. And it's not just picks, we have acquired prospects (and traded some away) and made some decent signing of college/CHL free agents as well. Errors have been made for sure, but the grand scheme of things is that we are progressing forward. We didn't pull a full 180 overnight and it's been a process and I'm trusting it.

 

2 hours ago, Toews said:

Thanks for the civil discussion. It feels much nicer now that a lot of the usual suspects who derail threads with personal attacks are temporarily out. I don't have any strong views on individual moves but the whole collection of the them when put together just makes me see that we could potentially have been further ahead than we are currently, had we had a more patient owner. I hope Aquaman has actually learned from this and in the future will exercise more restraint. We would never had the teams that we did had Nonis not stood his ground on Brad Richards.

Yeah it certainly has been a breath of fresh air to not deal with the reactionaries after every loss. Aquilini seems to have embraced the rebuild and realizes that it's better business to have a young and exciting team.

[Canuck Surfer]

On 4/17/2020 at 4:51 AM, Fred65 said:

He had a shall we say complicated love life which Mrs Luo discovered in the middle of the SC in 2011

I always wondered why he lost his nut in that series. 

 

Maybe he was getting his tires pumped after all... 

[Fred65]

Theo

 

Quote

Yeah it certainly has been a breath of fresh air to not deal with the reactionaries after every loss. Aquilini seems to have embraced the rebuild and realizes that it's better business to have a young and exciting team.

I don't know the financial well being of Herr Aquallini but I'd think he's growing tired of not sharing a slice of the play-off pie

Edited April 18, 2020 by Fred65

[theo5789]

5 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Theo

 

I don't know the financial well being of Herr Aquallini but I'd think he's growing tired of not getting a slice of the play-off pie

Luckily we were in position to get back there this season. It also helps to put people in the seats with a young and exciting team and having people buy merch of the new guys rather than the stale old ones before getting the playoff cash. With a young established group, we can at least be in the playoffs for a decent stretch rather than a one off and hopefully during at least one of those years we can take it all the way.

[GoCanucks16]

Benning will find a way to clear up cap space. He's a smart guy I think many people underestimate.

[Sedinyoureyesontheprize]

What’s with the super long posts in this thread? 
 

When it comes to Benning we know he’s a great scout who’s had to grow into a NHL GM. He’s steadily improved in that role and he’s done a fantastic job helping  the team through the rebuild all while maintaining some level of competitiveness unlike other rebuilding teams (**ahem oilers). JB will lead the Canucks to glory alongside all his underrated draft picks. 

[CanadianRugby]

On 4/23/2020 at 12:50 AM, Setyoureyesontheprize said:

What’s with the super long posts in this thread? 
 

When it comes to Benning we know he’s a great scout who’s had to grow into a NHL GM. He’s steadily improved in that role and he’s done a fantastic job helping  the team through the rebuild all while maintaining some level of competitiveness unlike other rebuilding teams (**ahem oilers). JB will lead the Canucks to glory alongside all his underrated draft picks. 

So he's done a fantastic job, but also had to grow into being a GM. 

Canucks were competitive, but also the worst team in the league over 3 year period.

His draft picks are underrated, but he's a great scout and built though the draft. 

You had 3 arguments with yourself in one paragraph.  I'm impressed.