Benning the New Think Tank for GMs

[badbeatjackpot]

Yes the nhl gms are now copying JB insead of LA or Chicago.... You know the winners of the past 4 of 5 cups?

Well since this is the first year Benning has done this, I actually think that others will copy it in the future as it's honestly a better plan

[SvenBae]

This is why I hope we keep Benning for a long time. Guy is everything you want in a GM.

Good connections and relations around the NHL

Former and long-time scout

GM experience with a Stanley Cup winning team

Connection to Vancouver

Very high hockey IQ

Excellent supporting staff

Absolute dedication to the game

EDIT: Oh yeah, and a former player

[GoodCanadianKideh]

As much as we nabbed Clendening from Chicago...

This is as much their model as Benning's.

In the last 14 months they traded for Rundblad (paid a 2knd), Tim Erixon (paid Morin) and Pokka (throw in on Leddy trade). They also signed Trevor Van Riemsdyk as a college UFA. They also had drafted Dahlbeck and Clendening, not in the first round and were in their system. That gave them first the chance to test drive their young D and pick their preferences (ejected Erixon for example, kept Rundblad, traded Clendening who was odds on fave to surface last year at this time). Then the depth to make trades. That was just last year. They gave up 3 good young D at the deadline this year but still have 3 good young D (Van Riemsdyk, Rundblad and Pokka plus the spoils of their trades.

Buy Low, sell High. Pretty sure they have this model in the business world?

(For those shrewd enough to properly assess value)

They also gave Stanton away for nothing. Apparently, they have quite a stockpile of young, ready to play in the NHL defensemen, that aren't able to crack the lineup of the Hawks current roster.

[badbeatjackpot]

As much as we nabbed Clendening from Chicago...

This is as much their model as Benning's.

In the last 14 months they traded for Rundblad (paid a 2knd), Tim Erixon (paid Morin) and Pokka (throw in on Leddy trade). They also signed Trevor Van Riemsdyk as a college UFA. They also had drafted Dahlbeck and Clendening, not in the first round and were in their system. That gave them first the chance to test drive their young D and pick their preferences (ejected Erixon for example, kept Rundblad, traded Clendening who was odds on fave to surface last year at this time). Then the depth to make trades. That was just last year. They gave up 3 good young D at the deadline this year but still have 3 good young D (Van Riemsdyk, Rundblad and Pokka plus the spoils of their trades.

Buy Low, sell High. Pretty sure they have this model in the business world?

(For those shrewd enough to properly assess value)

Hmm, I partially agree with you but the main difference is that it looks as though the cornerstones of Benning's franchise is building through the draft and first round picks (Horvat (inherited) , Virtanen, McCaan) and the remainder is filling in through trading for players born in the 91-93 range while Chicago also built it's core around the draft but is filling in the remaining pieces by trading their redundant younger guys for vets like timonen , vermette and desjardins.

This could just be the cycle of a team that is a contender willing to sell younger assets for vets who can help win the cup but I think Benning will differ from Chicago as pieces like timonen, vermette, and desjardins will be filled from within the organization and we won't be trading for rentals even when it comes time to contend.

[aGENT]

I don't think you know what it means

I'm pretty sure I do.

FYI a person can't be a "Think Tank".

[hlinkas wrister]

I like Benning - I really do. And I think he's making some good moves to accelerate the retool.

But I'm going to hold off anointing him as a "genius". If Vey, Clendening, and Baertschi don't really pan out, and McKeown, Forsling, and whoever the Flames pick with the 2015 2nd rounder do, I imagine many of those praising him now will be calling for his head.

It wasn't too long ago that Ehrhoff/Samuelsson/Hamhuis were ripping it up, and Hodgson/Rodin/Schroeder were dominating the WJC, and everyone basically thought Gillis could do no wrong. That tune changed pretty quickly too.

Cold hard truth right there. +1 to the OP though, I may not agree with your premise (or your use of "think tank") but your thread is at least semi-original, refreshing compared to most of the regurgitated topics on this board.

[Gaudette Celly]

In this case, Benning saw the need to get some very-near help for the short-term, with decent upside. The current crop of draft prospects are 2-4 years away from being contributing players, and that's a bit on edge with how much the Sedins, Burrows, Hamhuis, and Bieksa have left in the tank. So it was borne somewhat out of necessity in order to keep the team from having a serious dip in a couple of years.

But I'm going to hold off anointing him as a "genius". If Vey, Clendening, and Baertschi don't really pan out, and McKeown, Forsling, and whoever the Flames pick with the 2015 2nd rounder do, I imagine many of those praising him now will be calling for his head.

But that's the point -- it's all a gamble whichever way it's played. If you have the #50 pick and can either draft an 18-year-old or trade it for a player who is three years into development and promising, common sense says you cut the odds and take the player. Most second rounders never even make the league, if but for a cup of coffee. Two to three years of post-draft evaluation gives a much clearer indication how they will turn out, and especially if they even see the NHL. That's certainly worth investing in over a bag of magic beans, especially outside of the first round.

Agree with OP that Benning has taken a somewhat original approach that other teams may want to emulate.

Once again -- why isn't Edmonton doing this? MacTavish should be all over it, because:

1. Their drafting record past the first round is horrible
2. Their prospect pool is barren
3. They cannot attract decent free agents, and must over-pay

4. They continue to throw young kids with a jar of water into a blazing inferno of losing and incompetence

Thus trading is their best option. Could not Edmonton have used a Clendening, or a Pedan, or a Vey, or a Baertschi? They have no stable of prospects coming and cannot draft worth a crap, so move the picks (which are high and thus valuable) for assets that have shown they will likely make the league. At the very least, it may make the team competitive enough to get out of the cellar and the cycle of despair.

As Benning has shown, there are always teams with "distressed assets" (pending waiver-eligible) or cap issues that need to sell cheap. Were they even in the running for Boychuk?

[steviewonder20]

Personally, I think the term genius is used too frequently and the sample size on Benning as a GM is too small. I would certainly label Sam Pollock and Ken Holland as GM geniuses but will wait and see if Benning can create a dynasty here first.

[alfstonker]

I agree with the OP (apart from the "think tank" reference)

I think what I like best about JB is he is just a genuine old fashioned hockey scout. He has an eye for players, I don't think that is in dispute. The clever bit was done by Gillis and TL.

Gillis found Utica and hired Travis Green and TL hired Willie D, a coach renowned for youth development and winning at every level he has coached in.

TL said he wanted a team to play fast, skilful but gritty hockey and tasked JB and Willie to create a winning team where this new breed of young Canuck can be introduced into a winning environment.

TL knew he had an elite if ageing core that still had 2 or 3 seasons at the top in them and his plan was to get JB to supply a conveyor belt of talent in these 2-3 years so that Willie could fashion a perennially contending team with the capability of actually winning the SC.

[Me_]

It's that board on his wall that has all 30 teams and their depth chart.

Edisson invented the lightbulb with that system

Ford invented the V8 with that system

Chrystler invented himself by buying a Ford, jacking it up, and categorizing every bits and pieces and then repeating the process.

Countless other extremely successful people use accurate thought and surround themselves with accurate thinkers.

He works hard, he's focus and most of all, thanks to his board, he's up to date. So when he pulls the trigger, it's less of a crap shoot than most other GMs.

He looks like a genius to everyone else because he actually puts time in his work. 98% of people would not be as dedicated. Those people call Benning types, genius.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Benning's best move, IMO, was trading a 3rd for Pedan, not the 2nds for Vey and Baertschi, or Forsling for Clendenning. The reason is that Pedan is a near-elite prospect on track for call-ups next year, but not yet subject to waivers like all of the above-mentioned. This is the real sweet-spot between fast-tracking a rebuild, allowing for development, and maximizing raw talent.

[JamesB]

I say it's a new way of doing business as traditionally GMs kept their picks for the draft or used the picks for rentals at the deadline.

Benning's way is to use 2nd and 3rd for prospects or RFAs that are 2-3 years from being good contributors to the organization. His method of focusing on targeting players of similar age 21-23 is a relatively new concept as it increases the odds of building a solid team for a specific point in time (2-3 years)

I like the OP and I agree that Benning has made some interesting moves that I like. But we will have to wait to see how Vey, Baertchi, Clendening, and Pedan work out before assessing his strategy. I agree that they do not all have to be successful, but we need at least two of them to be good NHL players before we can call this strategy a "success".

But I think you are exaggerating the originality. I think we might be affected by what is sometimes called "avialability bias". We pay a lot more attention to the draft and to trades for players we have heard of. We pay less attention to trades for prospects so we do not notice them much, especially when other teams make those trades. Therefore these trades are "less available" in memory and we underrate their frequency.

One move of this type that Gillis made was when he traded a 1st round pick and Grabner (a mature prospect) for Ballard and Oreskovich (also a prospect a few years in). Gillis said at the time that Oreo was important part of the trade. We know how that one worked out.

My sense is that propects are often traded two to four years after being drafted but whenever I hear of such a trade I ignore it.

The downside of such trades is that guys who underperform relative to their draft position usually continue to underpeform. Another issue is that it is almost impossible to get "star" level players in this way -- the guys you can build a Cup contender around -- players like Crosby and Malkin in Pittsburgy, Toews and Patrick Kane in Chicago, Doughty and Kopitar in LA, the Sedins, Stamkos and Hedman in Tampa etc. Those guys were all high first round picks.

Sometimes 2nd rounders become stars (Bergeron and Lucic in Boston or Weber in Nashville) but those kinds of guys are not available as 21 to 23 year-olds in return for 2nd or 3rd round picks.

The biggest need the Canucks have is franchise type players to replace the Sedins. And it hard to get those kind of players anywhere except in the draft. Horvat, Virtanen and McCann might become very good players, but we need a good 1st round pick again this year.

[Knucklehd]

A shrewd GM indeed, couldn't be happier with his acquisitions and direction he is taking the club!!

[Western Red]

I'm least worried about Pedan. Post #31 is really on point.

Most worried about Forsling for Clendenning, but at the time we really needed a body. I think both parties oversold each player. Forsling just reminds me of a Lumme type, which we could use if Jordan Subban doesn't make the league. That being said I don't think JB has been crazy or reckless at all.

[kchengc]

In the finance or consulting world, every now and then, somebody publishes or comes up with a new way to do business and then it becomes a major trend for the rest of the industry. I believe Benning has done that this year with a quick turnaround / retool.

For nearly a decade now, GMs and fans have been preaching patience when it comes to building a contender talking about how it needs to be done through the draft. What Benning has done is find a way to speed up the process while still keeping the draft in mind. Since he has taken over the team, he has acquired NHL ready prospects for 2nd rounders (Baertschi and Vey) traded a young prospect years away from the show (Forsling) for Clendenning, Pedan for a 3rd rounder, drafted McCann and Virtanen, had the luxury of Horvat stepping up.

All of these players are either currently NHL ready or will be in 2-3 years. He's kept his first rounders who will be the staple of the team and filled the remainder by using the 2nd and 3rd rounders who are close to being NHL ready.

He's created a log jam both on forward and defence as well as goalies.

Basically, I think that he's playing percentages and probably understands that not all his moves will pan out but he's created so much internal competition that out of guys like Jensen, Shink, BoSang,Corrado, Baertschi, Vey, Stanton, Biega, a few will emerge to take the spots from the vets.

The best analogy is that he's loaded his gun with a lot of bullets all pointed for a run in 2-3 years. By using his 2nd and 3rd rounders on guys that will step up in 1-3 years, he's basically stockpiled players where he has the luxury of choosing the cream of the crop out of his prospects instead of the traditional method of using the draft every year in chronological order which actually decreases the chance of building a strong team.

Mathematically speaking, if 1st rounders have 70% chance of making it and 2nd rounders have 30% and we repeat that every year, a lot of things have to go right for the rebuild to work. For instance, hitting 2 correct first rounders in a row is 49%. (0.7*0.7) The odds of hitting consecutive NHLers for 2nd round is only 9% (0.3*0.3)

By using his 2nd and 3rd rounders to acquire players that are all 2-3 years away from making an impact, he's increased his odds of making a stacked young team that will be competitive for years to come that are on ELC or are RFA.

All Benning has to do is recycle this plan every 3-5 years to restock his prospect pool.

I see this blueprint being copied by GMs as it really is a better way to build a team.

The beauty is that we still have vets on the team that will still produce in 2 years so the combination of good vets like the Sedins with a logjam of prospects ready to step up and win a spot bodes well for the future.

The man is a genius.

I agree that Benning used this method to speed up the "rebuilding" into "retooling on the fly". The problem of this model is that you may get your 2nd liner/pairing players at best; as other teams have the luxury of knowing the progress of players before you acquiring them. Definitely these players that Benning trade for aren't sure bet even after a few years of development suggest that there may be holes in their game or other flaws that won't make them a slam dunk success in the NHL. The best case scenario is that the original team have players who play a similar role and couldn't offer the opportunity for those older prospects to step up (i.e. like Grabner was a few years ago with us), and may be (just a may be) you can get a player with higher chance of success.

On the other hand, I think that your stats are a bit misleading. Instead of having consecutive success with your 1st and 2nd round picks, the other way to look at this is how will throwing away consecutive draft picks affect your prospect pool. By trading away two consecutive first round picks, there is a 1 - (0.3*0.3) = 0.91 chance that either or both of them may one day become NHL player(s). Similarly, by trading away two consecutive second round picks, there is a 1 - (0.7 * 0.7) = 0.51 chance that either or both of them becoming NHL player(s).

For example, we have technically traded 2 consecutive 2nd round picks for Vey and Baertschi. The assets that we traded away was approximate 51% chance of having 1 or 2 NHL players (i.e. 9% chance of 2 NHL players, plus 42% chance of 1 NHL player).

[The Lock]

The 18 year old draft is certainly a hit and miss exercise ....and more misses than hits below the 1st round. But if we didn't have 2 and 3rd etc round picks we wouldn't have

..

..

Demko 2nd round

.

Cassels 3rd round

.

Subban 4th round

.

Hutton 5th round

.

Corrado 5th round

.

Edler 3rd round

.

I don't think you can put this into a working model, it's assessing what there is and reacting player by player

My only issue with this way of thinking is so far Edler and maybe Corrado are actually in the NHL of that group. Before those extra picks we had other 2nd rounders like Sauve and Ellington that didn't pan out at all. It's also very possible and likely that not everyone on your list will pan out as well.

I simply don't think using our current prospect pool as to why we should have 2nd and 3rd round picks really makes the most sense. I think it makes more sense to focus on who's in the NHL out of that group.

[Crabcakes]

Who is BoSang?

I've seen this name come up a couple of times on CDC. I googled the name and the nearest I get is Josh Ho Sang, the Islanders prospect who they drafted late in the first round last year. He thinks he's going to be the best player in the draft 2014 once they all mature. Is this the guy?

In no way is he a Canuck prospect.

[Ronalds.Kenins41]

Bennings move with the greatest short- term benefit was Vrbata and Miller. He has done some great stuff so far and I get it. We just beat the top team in the league, we are doing better than all of us expected. It's all candy and flowers. But just a shot back down to earth. Lets look at our team and how much Benning did.

Sedins,bieksa- Burke

Edler, Hansen, Burrows- Nonis

Horvat,Kassian, Kenins, Hamhuis, Tanev, Corrado, Higgins, Matthias, Markstrom, Lack, Erickson and way more- Gillis

Miller, Dorsett, Vrbata, Vey, Sven Bart., Cledenning, Pedan (the last four are not guarnteed hits... yet)- Benning

Also having logjams are only beneficial if your dealing with high end talent. If your dealing with a bunch of grinders fighting for spots it hurts the team more cause the grinders will prevent the skilled players from ever making it.

I'm not saying he is not a genius but that he should only be given credit where it's due. Now I know some people will say that Gillis had the team floundering last year and look where it is now. Last year, we had Torts who lets face it, drove the sedins into the ground, disrespected all of his players eventually leading to the kesler(lack of success) and luongo trades. Last year was more on Torts and less on Gillis (When Gillis came on radio explaining how torts was a ownership hire he was done).

But Gillis also had the same thing Benning had with having the Burke and Nonis moves. However, he had 80% success rate with all of his moves (signings, trades, and college agent finds) his drafting sucked in his first three years.

If Benning can be a great draft GM and beat Gillis' success rate then, then my friend, we can truly call him a genius. But right now, I it's wayy too early to tell.

[manicdonkey]

BoSang is Bobby Sanguinetti

I think the key to sustainability with this method Benning is employing is to start to reverse the process in a few years when the team (hopefully) peaks. Then you're trading your excess bubble players for the extra draft picks in subsequent drafts so that as the team crests and starts to fall again the prospect pool is stocked heavily by the time the window of success should be closing.

Done expertly it should lead to a team that's always competitive having prospects when the team is faltering and having draft picks when the team is strong.

[knucklehead85]

Bennings move with the greatest short- term benefit was Vrbata and Miller. He has done some great stuff so far and I get it. We just beat the top team in the league, we are doing better than all of us expected. It's all candy and flowers. But just a shot back down to earth. Lets look at our team and how much Benning did.

Sedins,bieksa- Burke

Edler, Hansen, Burrows- Nonis

Horvat,Kassian, Kenins, Hamhuis, Tanev, Corrado, Higgins, Matthias, Markstrom, Lack, Erickson and way more- Gillis

Miller, Dorsett, Vrbata, Vey, Sven Bart., Cledenning, Pedan (the last four are not guarnteed hits... yet)- Benning

Also having logjams are only beneficial if your dealing with high end talent. If your dealing with a bunch of grinders fighting for spots it hurts the team more cause the grinders will prevent the skilled players from ever making it.

I'm not saying he is not a genius but that he should only be given credit where it's due. Now I know some people will say that Gillis had the team floundering last year and look where it is now. Last year, we had Torts who lets face it, drove the sedins into the ground, disrespected all of his players eventually leading to the kesler(lack of success) and luongo trades. Last year was more on Torts and less on Gillis (When Gillis came on radio explaining how torts was a ownership hire he was done).

But Gillis also had the same thing Benning had with having the Burke and Nonis moves. However, he had 80% success rate with all of his moves (signings, trades, and college agent finds) his drafting sucked in his first three years.

If Benning can be a great draft GM and beat Gillis' success rate then, then my friend, we can truly call him a genius. But right now, I it's wayy too early to tell.

If you got markstrom under gillis u should have luongo under nonis