[Confirmed] Jim Benning signs as new Canucks GM

[messier's_elbow]

18 points in 23 playoff games in a nucks uni

Then one injury and we waste 3 more years on Booth. It's impossible to know if Sammuelson would have rebounded here, but I think he would have and the Booth and Erhoff mistakes are why we suck now.

Sammuelson was expendable at the point he was traded, even though im not a Booth fan at all. Letting Ehrhoff go was all money related. Keeping Ballard over him was nuts though. I remember a lot of CDCer's wanted to keep Ballard over Ehrhoff.... shows you the level of competence in here.

[Pears]

Sammuelson was expendable at the point he was traded, even though im not a Booth fan at all. Letting Ehrhoff go was all money related. Keeping Ballard over him was nuts though. I remember a lot of CDCer's wanted to keep Ballard over Ehrhoff.... shows you the level of competence in here.

The logical choice would've been to trade Ballard for a late 2nd/early 3rd round pick then just give Ehrhoff Ballard's $4.2 million or whatever it was.

[messier's_elbow]

The logical choice would've been to trade Ballard for a late 2nd/early 3rd round pick then just give Ehrhoff Ballard's $4.2 million or whatever it was.

Yeah I remember I presented something to that effect, and cdc bit my head off. I guess they saw something I definitely didnt in Ballard.

[Pears]

Yeah I remember I presented something to that effect, and cdc bit my head off. I guess they saw something I definitely didnt in Ballard.

I liked Ballard don't get me wrong, but Ehrhoff was just on another level than Ballard and Ballard just didn't live up to his contract. Just imagine our defence if we kept both

[messier's_elbow]

When Botchford had that article a few days ago I didnt think much about it cause its Botchford. Now though, Elliot Friedman is saying the same thing and seems to think Kesler still wants out. Time to offer him up for Pouliot and a 1st. Get er done JB!

[Boudrias]

Benning does not say that a meeting with Kesler happens in his first week on the job without Kesler having said he wants to go. Kesler might be saying otherwise as PR but that is the fact. Interesting tidbit was on player exit interviews where many were complaining about poor upper end forward skills. For almost 3 years running the Canucks have not had an effective 2nd line. If not for Santorelli this last season would have seen Van even lower in the standings.

[nuck nit]

In defence of Booth and Gillis..His concussion history has never been an issue since he has been a Canuck..It's been other injuries.

Concussions are like when a computer gets dropped a few times- maybe there was a problem before with the computer but dropping it creates a whole new set of issues and compounds existing issues.

A player that can no longer cognitively function at the highest levels often begins experiencing/accumulating other injuries.

[RUPERTKBD]

When Botchford had that article a few days ago I didnt think much about it cause its Botchford. Now though, Elliot Friedman is saying the same thing and seems to think Kesler still wants out. Time to offer him up for Pouliot and a 1st. Get er done JB!

That would probably get it done. It all depends on whether the Pens will let Pouliot go, or not. If they stick to Despres, or one of the other lesser prospects, then I'd pass.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Canucks usually find way to mess up and pick the wrong player at draft. That's why people are calling for scouts to be gone. Especially when Linden says the player they pick will be the cornerstore of this organization for years to come.

Since there are no franchise players in this draft, I hope he said a cornerstone.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

I liked Ballard don't get me wrong, but Ehrhoff was just on another level than Ballard and Ballard just didn't live up to his contract. Just imagine our defence if we kept both

In hindsight, it's clear that MG made a mistake by letting Ehrhoff walk. That's not to say that he should have matched that ridiculous 10-year front-loaded contract. Just imagine the penalties we'd be looking at with Ehrhoff plus the Luongo cap circumvention.

But it was pretty obvious at the time that Ehrhoff, and rightly so IMHO, felt that he shouldn't have his salary determined by an arbitrary structure that said no one on the Canucks' D could make more that the $4.6 million Gillis awarded to Bieksa. Gillis broke his internal cap to retain Edler two years later. At the time of the Ehrhoff negotiations, I honestly believe that a $5 million to $5.5 million cap hit (on a reasonable term) would have gotten an extension done. Gillis refused to go above an offer that was identical to Bieksa's.

That all said, the biggest mistake that Gillis made was not in letting Ehrhoff (and also Salo, Samuelsson, etc.) go. It was in failing to replace these players. It was the right choice not to pay Ehrhoff $40 million over ten years (and $10 million in the first season). It made sense to move on from aging veterans like Salo and Samuelsson. The problem was that management failed to recognize the roles these players played and how crucial they were to the overall model that had made the Canucks the best team in the NHL for a couple years (or at least through 2010-11).

The signing of Garrison proved just how far off the mark Gillis (and the pro scouts) were. It was not a mistake, in itself, to have signed Garrison. He's a good player and he's signed to a pretty good deal, given his value as an individual asset. The mistake was in believing that Jason Garrison was a replacement for Salo (and that Edler could replace Ehrhoff--or even play that kind of role).

Sami Salo was not merely a guy with a hard shot. He did a lot more than that, most notably with his ability to calmly and competently move the puck--and he could do so in his own zone, through the neutral zone, and in the offensive zone.

Coupled with the loss of their best puckmover, in Ehrhoff, the Salo departure cemented the change on the Canucks from one of the league's premiere puckmoving and transition teams--and one of the most potent offenses both on the power play and at 5v5--to an overall group that suddenly looked "slow" and plodding, often struggled to traverse the ice between the two blue lines, and lacked a "quarterback" type on the back end during offensive zone time and on the power play--and with a corresponding decline in effectiveness and production rates on offense.

The Canucks already had a guy with a bomb from the point. Edler's 103 MPH slapper is just as hard as Garrison's (and Salo's). But by adding Garrison and letting Ehrhoff and Salo walk, the Canucks had two trigger men and no one at the point to set them up (and with no puck rushing types on D, they also now had no one who could really help the forwards gain--and maintain--the offensive zone).

Edler tried his damnedest to become an offensive #1D would could drive the team's offense. But he's just not that guy. He lost, in back-to-back years, his two best defensive partners and the guys who had been critical in the Canucks getting full value out of Edler. The resulting problems are now well-documented and this entirely avoidable "decline" is now two years and running.

MG (and his staff) should have foreseen these problems. The easiest thing would have been to retain Ehrhoff and Salo. This would have kept the Canucks contending for at least a couple more years. The better choice would have been to retain one of them as a stopgap and to have devoted most of this organization's focus to finding new, younger replacement talent that could keep the Canucks playing a winning style of hockey into the future.

Unfortunately, Vancouver chose door #3 and we now have to hope that new management and coaches will lead to the new players that are necessary to finally clean-up this mess. Hopefully Benning and company can figure things out on a timeline that still gets some value out of the Sedins (and Edler/Garrison).

[canuckels]

In hindsight, it's clear that MG made a mistake by letting Ehrhoff walk. That's not to say that he should have matched that ridiculous 10-year front-loaded contract. Just imagine the penalties we'd be looking at with Ehrhoff plus the Luongo cap circumvention.

But it was pretty obvious at the time that Ehrhoff, and rightly so IMHO, felt that he shouldn't have his salary determined by an arbitrary structure that said no one on the Canucks' D could make more that the $4.6 million Gillis awarded to Bieksa. Gillis broke his internal cap to retain Edler two years later. At the time of the Ehrhoff negotiations, I honestly believe that a $5 million to $5.5 million cap hit (on a reasonable term) would have gotten an extension done. Gillis refused to go above an offer that was identical to Bieksa's.

That all said, the biggest mistake that Gillis made was not in letting Ehrhoff (and also Salo, Samuelsson, etc.) go. It was in failing to replace these players. It was the right choice not to pay Ehrhoff $40 million over ten years (and $10 million in the first season). It made sense to move on from aging veterans like Salo and Samuelsson. The problem was that management failed to recognize the roles these players played and how crucial they were to the overall model that had made the Canucks the best team in the NHL for a couple years (or at least through 2010-11).

The signing of Garrison proved just how far off the mark Gillis (and the pro scouts) were. It was not a mistake, in itself, to have signed Garrison. He's a good player and he's signed to a pretty good deal, given his value as an individual asset. The mistake was in believing that Jason Garrison was a replacement for Salo (and that Edler could replace Ehrhoff--or even play that kind of role).

Sami Salo was not merely a guy with a hard shot. He did a lot more than that, most notably with his ability to calmly and competently move the puck--and he could do so in his own zone, through the neutral zone, and in the offensive zone.

Coupled with the loss of their best puckmover, in Ehrhoff, the Salo departure cemented the change on the Canucks from one of the league's premiere puckmoving and transition teams--and one of the most potent offenses both on the power play and at 5v5--to an overall group that suddenly looked "slow" and plodding, often struggled to traverse the ice between the two blue lines, and lacked a "quarterback" type on the back end during offensive zone time and on the power play--and with a corresponding decline in effectiveness and production rates on offense.

The Canucks already had a guy with a bomb from the point. Edler's 103 MPH slapper is just as hard as Garrison's (and Salo's). But by adding Garrison and letting Ehrhoff and Salo walk, the Canucks had two trigger men and no one at the point to set them up (and with no puck rushing types on D, they also now had no one who could really help the forwards gain--and maintain--the offensive zone).

Edler tried his damnedest to become an offensive #1D would could drive the team's offense. But he's just not that guy. He lost, in back-to-back years, his two best defensive partners and the guys who had been critical in the Canucks getting full value out of Edler. The resulting problems are now well-documented and this entirely avoidable "decline" is now two years and running.

MG (and his staff) should have foreseen these problems. The easiest thing would have been to retain Ehrhoff and Salo. This would have kept the Canucks contending for at least a couple more years. The better choice would have been to retain one of them as a stopgap and to have devoted most of this organization's focus to finding new, younger replacement talent that could keep the Canucks playing a winning style of hockey into the future.

Unfortunately, Vancouver chose door #3 and we now have to hope that new management and coaches will lead to the new players that are necessary to finally clean-up this mess. Hopefully Benning and company can figure things out on a timeline that still gets some value out of the Sedins (and Edler/Garrison).

I was going to try to say something but look all my ideas in one lol!

[theminister]

Since there are no franchise players in this draft, I hope he said a cornerstone.

"And the stone that the builder refuse shall be the head cornerstone."

[DrChill]

The thing with Booth is that there is no point buying him out if we are going to retool.

If your need the capspace sure. other than the fact he is paid too much for what he does, he is a good 3rd liner right now. And he has started at the end of the season to show the performance that we traded for originally. If that performance comes this next year and we aren't a payoff bound team trade him for futures. If he sucks, send him to the minors. Buying him out only helps if we need cap space for another player.

The question for this lies in how Benning see next year, do we trade Kesler, do we sign UFAs for big money? what is the overall plan.

[TOMapleLaughs]

"And the stone that the builder refuse shall be the head cornerstone."

Who's refusing?

We'll probably need a franchise player, one that can win, if we hope to win. And I think we want to win. At least I hope.

In this draft not even Ekblad is regarded as a franchise player. But next years' draft has some franchise players.

...

"If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail."

edit: I can relax.

Linden: "We are going to pick a player that is going to be a cornerstone for this franchise."

It's only unreasonable fans that put such labels on 'alright' prospects. Like Horvat is the next Toews and such.

[theminister]

Who's refusing?

We'll probably need a franchise player, one that can win, if we hope to win. And I think we want to win. At least I hope.

In this draft not even Ekblad is regarded as a franchise player. But next years' draft has some franchise players.

...

"If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail."

I think you mistook the meaning of the quote.

Was Marty St Louis a franchise player?

One man's garbage is another man's gold.

[oldnews]

"And the stone that the builder refuse shall be the head cornerstone."

precisely.

a claim like 'there are no franchise players in this draft' is like pretending to know what the weather will be on this day in 2019.

[TOMapleLaughs]

I think you mistook the meaning of the quote.

Was Marty St Louis a franchise player?

One man's garbage is another man's gold.

So what's the plan? Collect other teams' garbage?

Anyway, it's moot as Linden did not imply this years' draft choice would be the cornerstone player.

[oldnews]

the Booth and Erhoff mistakes are why we suck now.

Yeah, it really is that simple Merci.

(But you forgot the Hodgson trade. )

Suggesting in hindsight that Gillis should have matched or bettered the insane deal Regier gave Ehrhoff is about as rational as pining on as if the Samuelsson deal doomed this team.

[aGENT]

In hindsight, it's clear that MG made a mistake by letting Ehrhoff walk. That's not to say that he should have matched that ridiculous 10-year front-loaded contract. Just imagine the penalties we'd be looking at with Ehrhoff plus the Luongo cap circumvention.

But it was pretty obvious at the time that Ehrhoff, and rightly so IMHO, felt that he shouldn't have his salary determined by an arbitrary structure that said no one on the Canucks' D could make more that the $4.6 million Gillis awarded to Bieksa. Gillis broke his internal cap to retain Edler two years later. At the time of the Ehrhoff negotiations, I honestly believe that a $5 million to $5.5 million cap hit (on a reasonable term) would have gotten an extension done. Gillis refused to go above an offer that was identical to Bieksa's.

That all said, the biggest mistake that Gillis made was not in letting Ehrhoff (and also Salo, Samuelsson, etc.) go. It was in failing to replace these players. It was the right choice not to pay Ehrhoff $40 million over ten years (and $10 million in the first season). It made sense to move on from aging veterans like Salo and Samuelsson. The problem was that management failed to recognize the roles these players played and how crucial they were to the overall model that had made the Canucks the best team in the NHL for a couple years (or at least through 2010-11).

The signing of Garrison proved just how far off the mark Gillis (and the pro scouts) were. It was not a mistake, in itself, to have signed Garrison. He's a good player and he's signed to a pretty good deal, given his value as an individual asset. The mistake was in believing that Jason Garrison was a replacement for Salo (and that Edler could replace Ehrhoff--or even play that kind of role).

Sami Salo was not merely a guy with a hard shot. He did a lot more than that, most notably with his ability to calmly and competently move the puck--and he could do so in his own zone, through the neutral zone, and in the offensive zone.

Coupled with the loss of their best puckmover, in Ehrhoff, the Salo departure cemented the change on the Canucks from one of the league's premiere puckmoving and transition teams--and one of the most potent offenses both on the power play and at 5v5--to an overall group that suddenly looked "slow" and plodding, often struggled to traverse the ice between the two blue lines, and lacked a "quarterback" type on the back end during offensive zone time and on the power play--and with a corresponding decline in effectiveness and production rates on offense.

The Canucks already had a guy with a bomb from the point. Edler's 103 MPH slapper is just as hard as Garrison's (and Salo's). But by adding Garrison and letting Ehrhoff and Salo walk, the Canucks had two trigger men and no one at the point to set them up (and with no puck rushing types on D, they also now had no one who could really help the forwards gain--and maintain--the offensive zone).

Edler tried his damnedest to become an offensive #1D would could drive the team's offense. But he's just not that guy. He lost, in back-to-back years, his two best defensive partners and the guys who had been critical in the Canucks getting full value out of Edler. The resulting problems are now well-documented and this entirely avoidable "decline" is now two years and running.

MG (and his staff) should have foreseen these problems. The easiest thing would have been to retain Ehrhoff and Salo. This would have kept the Canucks contending for at least a couple more years. The better choice would have been to retain one of them as a stopgap and to have devoted most of this organization's focus to finding new, younger replacement talent that could keep the Canucks playing a winning style of hockey into the future.

Unfortunately, Vancouver chose door #3 and we now have to hope that new management and coaches will lead to the new players that are necessary to finally clean-up this mess. Hopefully Benning and company can figure things out on a timeline that still gets some value out of the Sedins (and Edler/Garrison).

So much that ^^^ +1

[TOMapleLaughs]

precisely.

a claim like 'there are no franchise players in this draft' is like pretending to know what the weather will be on this day in 2019.

These kind of forecasts are made by scouts every draft. Of course they can be wrong, and of course franchise players on weak teams are still franchise players, sortof, but if there are questions of Ekblad's 'franchise' quality at this point, then it's a pretty safe bet the prognosis of our 6th pick will not be 'franchise player'. And that's perfectly fine. I didn't expect one. I expect a significant building block, but not the guy who can bring this team a cup.

Next year we should use the draft to acquire one. If we don't, then I guess we need to be really crafty otherwise. Boston signed theirs as a UFA, for example. San Jose and Dallas got theirs via trade.

Chicago, Philly, Pittsburgh, LA, Vancouver, Washington, NYR, Car, TB, Det, Ott, Winnipeg, Nash, Anaheim, Minny, CBJ, StL, Colorado, Montreal, Edmonton, NYI, Florida, Cgy and Buffalo all got theirs via the amateur draft.

Collecting another teams' garbage is a TO-style move.