Jim Benning on TSN 1040 (May 4)

[stawns]

You're correct.

I should clarify that I don't think all he has done was bad. I think Baertschi trade was good. I also thought Tanev's extension was great. I liked the Clendening trade as well. And I know his hand was forced with the Kesler trade (although I would have preferred Bonino and the 10th pick instead).

As I said I am mixed about his actions (trades, signings, etc). However, the more I hear the reasons for his actions the more concerned I become. A lot of his rhetoric is about "intangibles" or rather latent variables (concepts that are difficult to measure directly) such as physicality, leadership, sandpaper, heart, etc. No doubt these things are important but the problem that it is hard to rank players based on these traits. Does Dorsett have more grit than Prust? Does Iginla have more or less leadership than Toews? In a sport and a position (GM) that is dependent on ranking players in comparison to each other, intangibles shouldn't be the trump more directly measurable aspects of the game, especially when it is for more than a couple million (a low paid fourth liner or 6/7 dman who is cheaply signed because of intangibles is a different story).

I was excited when Benning cited advanced stats as a reason for the Tanev deal. But then he completely negated and went against analytic insight with the Sbisa deal.

Sbisa's extension was an over-payment from a traditional stats, advanced stats, and eye test standpoint. Even Bob Mckenzie had to clarify that it was $3.6 mil per year for 3 years and not $3.6 total over 3 years. Many other traditional media members and well as the analytics blogsphere noted that it was an overpayment.

Some people think that Sbisa is worth or could be worth his new $3.6 mil per year contract. However, even to these people the timing was very odd. Benning signed him during the season, he could have waited until after the post-season (to see how he performed), he could have waited until after the draft (when their is a lot of trade movement), he could have waited until after free agency (to keep his money and his options open) and lastly he could of went to arbitration where he could have signed Sbisa for much less based on the criteria the arbitrators use for assigning players worth (however in the case of arbitration he would not have been able to sign him for three years).

you don't think Benning has a good eye for dmen, being one himself? I think because he was so young when he came into the league, people forget how young he still is. Sbisa has all the tools to be a well rounded, versatile top 2 d-man in the league in the next 3 years, and given the current market, that's about exactly what he would get from any team.

On top of that, just because he is signed doesn't mean he can't be moved at some point. This is JB, not MG.

[stawns]

Should be an interesting draft. I'd expect more moves for sure and it looks like the team is gearing up to deal Bieksa, (who won't say it, but probably wants out anyway, really.)

Higgins and perhaps Burrows are probably aproachable too. NTC's are meaningless in a transitional phase. So is losing in round one of the playoffs.

please to all three

[Pavel.10.Bure]

In my opinion Hamhuis isn't what he used to be but he still is a top 4 defenseman. He just needs a partner who isn't Weber or Bieksa.

Sam Bennett rag dolled him on the playoffs, and his speed has gone down extremely. I'm really hoping that was the cause of the injury. But I understand that Father time has caught up with Hammer. It's not really his partner who's the issue, but it might help if he did have a better one. In our Defense cores, he should still be a Top 4, and that should point how badly we need a reset on D.

[riffraff]

I can't believe that he admitted, in public, that the saddledome affected a veteran laden teams performance in the first round of the playoffs.

[awalk]

^ I wouldn't be surprised if this was something JB knew coming in, after watching the Canucks vets get rattled in 2011.

[riffraff]

Id deal subban for anyone that hits to hurt.

[oldnews]

From the onset last year I did not like the hiring of this management group and to a lesser degree WD as head coach. This is a very precarious time in our franchise - we need to replace core players with younger players - that is perhaps the most difficult situation any management group could confront. I did and still do not like the idea of having rookies (Linden and Benning) trying to undertake such a difficult task.

Unfortunately, every time I hear Benning he makes me cringe more and more. The Sbisa deal of course was horrible. But when he explains his reasoning it makes him sound even worse. Even if he believe Sbisa is good for whatever reason I have yet to hear him actually explain why it was so important to make that signing during the regular season.

I just hope Benning's scouting abilities are as advertised although I am skeptical again on this point. Buffalo's drafting record was average when he their head scout and when he was in Boston their drafting was below average. Of course he didn't have final say on who was drafted so I am holding out that he made good recommendations which weren't actualized.

Again, likewise with your posts.

I'd take an intelligent, unpretentious man like Benning over the inverse (like his most vocal critics here) any and every time.

Excellent case in point of you pretentiously talking through your hat is your opening volley above, attempting to claim that a situation where core players need to be replaced with youth "is perhaps the most difficult situation any management group could confront."

That is certainly your style - high drama / low substance - but the situation Benning adopted is far from the most difficult any management group could confront. That claim alone indicates how weak your grasp is of the state of this franchise, and the relative difficulties it faces moving forward.

The most difficult situation for a new management group to confront is one where they don't have the assets to convert to futures in the first place. This team is not, by any stretch of the imagination lacking assets, nor is it crippled by immoveable veteran contracts, nor contracts that hurt this team if they retain them. Edler, Hamhuis, the Sedins - their top core players are all excellent contracts. Burrows is worth his cap hit. Hggins, Hansen are excellent value - easy sells if that were the consensus. Vrbata is a steal that any contending team with cap space would welcome - generally touted as the best FA signing of last summer. Perhaps the most problematic cap hit at this point - Bieksa's is an expiring contract and a deal signed years ago - or MIller - a two year term remaining that imo would not be difficult to move if a substanital return is not expected, and he cost no assets in first place.

Having a group of veterans, NHL level depth, and a quality prospect pool is not a difficult situation to adopt - far from it. It is actually a very exciting groundwork to move forward with.

The more challenging situations are those like as in Calgary a few years ago, where they let their prospect pool run dry (they had virtually no talent under 25 yrs of age before the Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett era). let their veterans reach the point of virtually no value (Kipprusoff being a prime example - they got nothing for him - and waited until they could land a mere late pick and fringe prospects for Iginla). With all due respect, that was a far more difficult and mismanaged context to step into.

The situation Toronto is in, is likewise, a more difficult one than Benning adopted. They've waited until all their warts were showing when they should have sold while they were overachieving - and now they're attempting to sell devalued assets. They let their prospect pool run relatively shallow. They re-signed a horrible core to absolutely horrible contracts that have hamstrung their ability to move them. let alone get a decent return on them. They've put the 'solution' in the hands of a group that came in and could not see what needed to be done - Shanahan sat like a deer in the headlights as the team predictably crashed - and he remains to carry on with the rest of the 'rebuild'. That is a difficult situation - far worse than what Benning adopted.

This team had and has a wealth of assets - whether people appreciate the sum of the parts is another matter. The "core", however one chooses to define it, consists almost exclusively of players that are both quality NHLers and good cap value. One can argue all they want about a couple possible exceptions, but those exceptions are short term and minor by comparison to the problems some other teams face.

This team had the makings of a playoff team - something it achieved with a few retool moves.

It has a prospect pool that has it's AHL affilitiate in a highly competitive, contending position.

It has reasonable depth at every position, reasonable youth talent at every position, and a salary and contract structure that gives them the necessary flexibility, particularly considering the youth emerging.

It brought in a person whose strength is assessing youth talent. You can make feeble attempts to devalue Benning's eye for talent all you want - what the hockey world generally consider his strengths fit very well with the needs of this franchise moving forward - if in fact the point is to convert the franchise's assets into youth moving forward.

Regardless, your story, of 'the most difficult situation any management group could confront" is borderline ridiculous. Actually, probably crossed the border into downright ridiculous.

[two drink minimum]

Hamhuis took a while to get his game back after a serious injury, ut in the playoffs he was getting back to his old self and in the WHC he looks great. He'll be fine for a few mor eyears.

Well put. He is still just 32 and very solid when fully healthy. He should be paired with Tanev as the #1 shut down tandem. If Benning could package up Markstrom and Edler for a top flight pp left shot D-man and sign Franson as a free agent then the Defense could really improve. Bieksa still has enough game to be a bottom pairing, so something like...

Hammer Tanev

?? Franson

Sbisa Bieksa

Stanton, Weber, Corrado

Shut down pair... Hammer Tanev

PP pair... ???(Edler trade return) - Franson

3rd pair... Sbisa- Bieksa

Benning needs to find a trade partner who needs a Goalie prospect and is willing to take Edler in exchange for a solid #2 left shot d-man who can man the pp. If he could somehow fool the Leafs out of Morgan Reilly he could win GM of the year. It wont happen but its fun to dream

[hockeygod77]

sibs deal was fair ..he can play hard hitting d and has ok shot..idlike to see the d men really practice their point shots this off season..too many high or off target shots...better not as hard but accurate in my view.....thats what they need elder can do it when he wants but really tha type of player would make pp much better...past players salo rehouse reinsert brown lume etc...good point shots

[baumerman77]

Again, likewise with your posts.

I'd take an intelligent, unpretentious man like Benning over the inverse (like his most vocal critics here) any and every time.

Excellent case in point of you pretentiously talking through your hat is your opening volley above, attempting to claim that a situation where core players need to be replaced with youth "is perhaps the most difficult situation any management group could confront."

That is certainly your style - high drama / low substance - but the situation Benning adopted is far from the most difficult any management group could confront. That claim alone indicates how weak your grasp you have of the state of this franchise, and the relative difficulties it faces moving forward.

The most difficult situation for a new management group to confront is one where they don't have the assets to convert to futures in the first place. This team is not, by any stretch of the imagination, crippled by immoveable veteran contracts, nor contracts that hurt this team if they retain them. Edler, Hamhuis, the Sedins - their top core players are all excellent contracts. Burrows is worth his cap hit. Hggins, Hansen are excellent value - easy sells if that were the consensus. Vrbata is a steal that any contending team with cap space would welcome - generally touted as the best FA signing of last summer. The most problematic - Bieksa is an expiring contract - and MIller - a two year term remaining that imo would not be difficult to move if a substanital return is not expected, and he cost no assets in first place.

Having a group of veterans, NHL level depth, and a quality prospect pool is not a difficult situation to adopt - far from it.

The more challenging situations are those as in Calgary, where they let their prospect pool run dry (they had virtually no talent under 25 yrs of age before the Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett era). let their veterans reach the point of virtually no value (Kipprusoff being a prime example - and waited until they could land a mere late pick and fringe prospects for Iginla).

The situation Toronto is in, is likewise, a more difficult one than Benning adopted. They've waited until all their warts were showing when they should have sold while they were overachieving - and now they're attempting to sell devalued assets. They let their prospect pool run relatively shallow. They resigned a horrible core to absolutely horrible contracts that have hamstrung their ability to move. let alone get a decent return on them. They've put the 'solution' in the hands of a group that came in and could not see what needed to be done - Shanahan sat like a deer in the headlights as the team predictably crashed - and he remains to carry on with the rest of the 'rebuild'. That is a difficult situation.

This team has a wealth of assets - whether people appreciate the sum of the parts is another matter. The "core", however one chooses to define it, consists almost exclusively of players that are both quality NHLers and good cap value. One can argue all they want about a couple possible exceptions, but those exceptions are short term and minor by comparison to the problems some other teams face.

This team had the makings of a playoff team - something it achieved with a few retool moves.

It has a prospect pool that has it's AHL affilitiate in a highly competitive, contending position.

It has reasonable depth at every position, reasonable youth talent at every position, and a salary and contract structure that gives them the necessary flexibility, particularly considering the youth emerging.

Your story, of 'the most difficult situation any management group could confront" is borderline ridiculous.

I normally don't respond to your slander but you are clearly misrepresenting my views here.

I clearly said replacing core players with young players is "PERHAPS the most difficult situation any management group could confront." I'm not saying that our current team's situation is the most difficult but rather general situation of trying to rebuild is a very difficult situation for a new management to confront. By that (my) definition, you are splitting hairs by saying that Toronto or Calgary are any different. We are all trying to rebuild (retool, restock, etc) albeit at different speeds and at different stages along the spectrum.

I'll be happy to start responding again to your replies to my posts on the condition that we just discuss the Canucks related issues at hand and that you do not devolve into personal attacks again.

[Gaudette Celly]

Because he's on the small side. If he was 6'2 & 210, he would've been signed the day he was drafted.

He also wouldn't have made it out of the first round.

[oldnews]

I normally don't respond to your slander but you are clearly misrepresenting my views here.

I clearly said replacing core players with young players is "PERHAPS the most difficult situation any management group could confront." I'm not saying that our current team's situation is the most difficult but rather general situation of trying to rebuild is a very difficult situation for a new management to confront. By that (my) definition, you are splitting hairs by saying that Toronto or Calgary are any different. We are all trying to rebuild (retool, restock, etc) albeit at different speeds and at different stages along the spectrum.

I'll be happy to start responding again to your replies to my posts on the condition that we just discuss the Canucks related issues at hand and that you do not devolve into personal attacks again.

If you think the difference between Vancouver and Toronto is "splitting hairs" that only further qualifies my point that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can whine about being "slandered" all you want - what I provided was anything but 'slander' - it was a fairly clear criticism of your weak viewpoint and equally weak, unqualified attempts to belittle Benning and Linden, while posturing far more authority than you earn with these repeatedly unconvincing posts.

[Phil_314]

sooooo Sbisa was re-signed as insurance just incase we lose Bieksa and Hamhuis to free agency? dafuq

Honestly I'd rather scrape the bottom of the UFA barrel and see what's available than keep him for that much. The team signed Weber for cheap and look how he's made a decent impact on this team. Who knows what other hidden gems management could've looked to bring in?

P.S. that almost sounds like the Keith Ballard deal all over again, getting him in case Juice left and they didn't sign Hammer. Both of them (Ballard/ Pizza) also had/ have crappy contracts!

[baumerman77]

If you think the difference between Vancouver and Toronto is "splitting hairs" that only further qualifies my point that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Once again you are misunderstand my definition and my point. If we were talking about the Leafs I would say the same thing- it is a precarious time and having an inexperienced management group is inherently risky. I believe that applies to both the Leafs and the Canucks. I am not saying that the Canucks franchise is in the worst situation in the league. Nor am I saying that the Canucks' management has the most difficult job in the league.

Perhaps you think that the Canucks future looks brighter than I do and thus you don't think this is as critical of a time as I do. But I believe the decisions that will be made in the next two seasons (and the decisions that were made this year) will have a long term impact on the franchise.

[pianoman13]

Can't wait to see the opening line-up this fall.

It's too bad ownership felt it necessary to try a play-off push this year because they deferred the transformation at least two years and may have lost out on a great asset in this year's draft. That's business.....and that's why I am less passionate about the Nucks and the game. Between the ownership and the league, there is always something that smells off.

So something smells off because they made the playoffs?? They didn't give up anything to get there... didn't rent any players. Screw picking a few spots higher and missing the playoffs. If thats the way you think then I'm sure the canucks don't mind you are 'less passionate' about them. Makes no sense at all....

[thrago]

I'm really not a fan of this Build a team while still making the playoffs concept. Since the first lockout who has won the Cup that way? Detroit and Boston are the examples that keep getting brought up but Boston has had 4 top 10 picks since the lockout and Detroit anyone think there is a Cup in there near future since Lidstrom retired? I don't I personally think that Detroit is in the exact same position as us, unless they miss the playoffs for awhile its gonna be a long time before they are contenders again.

[oldnews]

Once again you are misunderstand my definition and my point. If we were talking about the Leafs I would say the same thing- it is a precarious time and having an inexperienced management group is inherently risky. I believe that applies to both the Leafs and the Canucks.

Perhaps you think that the Canucks future looks brighter than I do and thus you don't think this is as critical of a time as I do. But I believe the decisions that will be made in the next two seasons (and the decisions that were made this year) will have a long term impact on the franchise.

Backtrack all you want - or pretend to be misunderstood if you think that works for you. The only person you're outsmarting is yourself.

Again, the fact you'd say the same thing in either situation only goes to exemplify how hopelessly oversimplified your perception of the comparative situations are.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty taking you seriously tbh.

You come in here (again) and comment that you "cringe" every time you hear Benning speak and then you whine about being called out on your unsubstantiated arrogance, as if you're being 'slandered'. The form in which I engage your arrogant commentary has everything to do with how you present in the first place.

[Apple Juice]

Also, it provides leverage in contract talks. If a team has nobody signed, all of a sudden, Hamhuis and Bieksa become PIVOTAL. If you got other guys on the roster, then it gives you options.

Exactly. And with their goal of infusing youth into the lineup, both Hamhuis and Bieksa's contracts are off the books and this will allow them to create competition for a young guy to come in and take it whether it be Corrado, Clendening, Subban, Tryamkin, Pedan, etc.. Sbisa's contract is there because he can play in the Top 4 taking the heavy load of minutes as the "experienced" guy while they play the rookie who earns the roster spot with limited minutes.

[brownky]

My showerthought for the day:

Year Before:

Bieksa - Hamhuis

Dan becomes 'Over the hill' at age 30

Last year:

Bieksa - Edler : Edler's worst ever season as a defenceman.

This year:

Bieksa - Hamhuis (to start the year): Hamhuis is reeaallly old.

and

Bieksa - Sbisa : Sbisa's Pizzas.

Perhaps there's a trend here.

[baumerman77]

Backtrack all you want - or pretend to be misunderstood if you think that works for you. The only person you're outsmarting is yourself.

Again, the fact you'd say the same thing in either situation only goes to exemplify how hopelessly oversimplified your perception of the comparative situations are.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty taking you seriously tbh.

You come in here (again) and comment that you "cringe" every time you hear Benning speak and then you whine about being called out on your unsubstantiated arrogance, as if you're being 'slandered'. The form in which I engage your arrogant commentary has everything to do with how you present in the first place.

I treated you cordially and gave you another shot, yet you persist with personal attacks. Once again, I will not be responding to anymore of your posts/comments. Your critiques should be concerning the issues/argument, not about the authors which you presume to know.