Numba9

Lol, that list is kind of dumb to be honest. You have GMs on that list that going up to 28 years. How can you say Benning is the worse GM based off that list when Jim Rutherford was with Carolina for 20 years and had a .511 winning percentage and missed the playoffs 15 out of the 20 years? Two GMs can take over two different teams with completely different timelines; one a rebuild and the other team just out of the rebuild; which GM is going to have better winning percentage? Jim Benning was not a good GM but this deranged need to make him out to be the worst gm in the history of the NHL is ridiculous.

NYR would definitely be an outlier and can't be in good conscious be used as an example of "How to rebuild properly". NYR have had so many things just fall into their lap compared to the Canucks. Their top players are mostly older (Zibenejad, Buchnevich, Kreider were there before they rebuilt), they won the Panarin and Fox free agent lotteries and two draft lotteries. The team that Benning took over in 2014 had one of the bleakest futures i've ever seen in a team.

2019-2020 - Doesn't count because Covid is the only reason they made the playoffs 2020-2021 - Even though the whole team litterly got covid, covid not an excuse for this season

Yeah, he used to be level headed then something changed this year. He's provided some of the worst takes in hockey. I still remember him saying that there was a gulf in talent between the flames and canucks and the only difference is coaching. Basically saying that if the flames had Green they would be a top 7 team. lol

Do you think Benning would have traded for Toffoli if the covid shutdown started before the trade? Do you think if covid never happened Toffoli would have been signed?

IMO when a team is in it's down-cycle the goal is to build and properly develop a new core of elite talent. The "Rebuild" model you describe is something that teams in the NHL are avoiding because of the lottery changes and the poor environment it creates for player development. In fact I think it was Bob Mckenzie who said a "Rebuild" similar to the Canucks model is where teams are going. Keep first round picks, bring in characters players to teach and insulate the younger players. Many quality free agents avoid rebuilding teams, so you have to trade for these character players. And since you are rebuilding team, you likely don't have many quality assets to trade so you resort to trading lower draft picks. Also this isn't the first time I heard this "sign players to cheap 1- year "show me" contracts which can easily be flipped at the deadline for more picks" . It was ridiculous the first time I heard it on HFboards and it's ridiculous to hear it now. Most players that can be "flipped" at the deadline are not going to sign 1 year contracts let alone sign a 1 year contract with a rebuilding terrible team. Yes, there are some examples of this, but it's pretty rare, and it's definitely not frequent enough to be a integral part of a rebuild model.

That poll question doesn't really confirm that social media is a "resounding No to JB"; they needed another "Fire him" option. There are a lot of people that support Jim Benning for one more year, but if he fails again they would probably like to see a change. The people who want to see JB fired right away are the minority everywhere except maybe HFBoards; but even there, judging by various poll questions, it seems that it's still a minority just an extremely vocal one.

I'd have to hear it but if you want real hard evidence, look up each Stanley Cup winner for each year on HockeyDB and their rosters for the year they won; it will have each players age that year. If you do look it up you will find out that Price is full of it. Other than each team's (Pitts, Chicago, LA) first Stanley Cups, the subsequent Stanley Cups (and most recent) were won by older cores at or above 26 years of age. On another note about Price, he seems to be one of the most unintelligent radio hosts in Vancouver. Yesterday he was trying to prove that the Canucks didn't improve from last year because they won more shootouts this year than last year. Completely ignoring other more proven statistics (like goal differential) that easily proved him wrong. It was funny because you can tell Sekeres didn't agree and was holding back from telling Price what an idiot he was being. Another funny thing was literally 10 minutes later Ferraro came on and basically said that they were obviously better than last year but needed more.

Samuelsson is on record stating the main reason he chose Vancouver is because they were a Stanley Cup Contender..There's a Hockey News article that confirms this. Either way I think there is substantial evidence that points to good teams having a much easier time signing top free agents than teams in a rebuild. Pretty much all the assets inherited like Kesler, Hamhuis Bieska ect.. were either severely declining and/or had NTCs making it difficult to get a decent return, couple that with no young core to take over for the Sedins and what you get is one hot mess. I remember almost everyone looked at the Canucks roster in Benning's 2nd year and knew it was going to take years to get back to being a competitive team. For some reason a lot of those same people are now up in arms that Benning has missed the playoffs 4 years in a row.

It's pretty hard to have success when you're a bad team with very few assets and players with NTCs. Here's a question that might give you some perspective, do you think a 26 year Dan Hamhuis would have signed with the current Canucks? How about Samuelsson or Malholtra? I don't think you are really grasping how bad things were when Benning took over and how difficult it is to take a team with barely any good assets to a team where free agents are willing to take less money to join.