External Validation

[Benchsplinters]

1. Lack > An asset that would have left via UFA at years end anyway, considering the payday he is going to want, but not really deserve. Turned that into a 3rd and a 7th. 3rd used to pick Brisbois who by all accounts if development goes well, looks to be a solid T4 with significant leadership qualities.

2. Kassian > An under performing, inconsistent winger who just couldn't put it together. Has been through 4 NHL coaches and is soon on to his 5th and has yet to surpass the role of a 3rd line player. Turned that into a character guy to help with the transition, and most importantly is on an expiring contract = roster flexibility for youth the year after next.

3. Bieksa > An over the hill, past prime 5/6 defender with the cap hit of a T4. Needed to move on to allow other leaders in the room to step up and have their voices heard. Turned that into a 2nd round pick (probably a late 2nd) in a ridiculously deep draft.

4. Kesler > A beat up, egotistical a-hole who acted as such by severely handcuffing Benning by only giving him one real team to trade with. Turned that into a young (at the time) fringe T4 dman who could very well improve (and has), an elite 3rd line center and a 1st which turned into McCann who looks like a beauty.

So to summarize:

Out:

1 Washed up overpaid defender

1 Inconsistent and enigmatic winger

1 Beat up hard nosed center who can win draws, but with serious attitude issues

1 Pending UFA goaltender with a log jam at that position

In:

1 2nd round pick in a deep draft

1 Future T4 dman

1 Character guy to help with this years portion of the transition

1 Fringe T4 dman who has improved since arriving (trending up)

1 Elite 3rd line center

1 Future 1/2 line center

All in all, I'd say Benning did quite well with what he had to work with.

Well said. +1 for you. It is most obvious that the majority of the negativism of the team is kindled by a group of egotistical media types that have little knowledge about what they are writing. They have certainly spent time in the sporting world and in so doing, leave an impression with some that are so impressionable. They all love to suggest they have a personal inside track to a team that makes them look privy to team information. They have all burned the Canucks on many ocassions with their critical stories and wild speculations so why would any team associate entrust them with any insider information, knowing it will be given a spin to suit their own private agendas.

Subsequently the media runs with nothing more than speculation with a strong mix of controversy. They have learned that it sells papers and most of all the advertisments contained in those papers makes money and keeps them employed.

Yes, I agree with you one hundred percent. Benning has done a great job with what he has had to work with and endure. IMVHO, I believe that he and Linden are far more knowledgeable and professional than the media have made them out to be. Theirs is a mighty task to deal with in all this adversity but they will build us a good hockey team.

[tyhee]

The discussion seems to have moved on from JamesB's original post.

To go back to it:

-Yes, the media has been pretty uniformly negative for a while now.

-It seemed to me the uniform negativity started a couple of days after the Sbisa and Dorsett extensions. I haven't gone through old articles to show the point, but until then I felt more critical of management than the media, since then I've thought the media more critical and sometimes unfairly so.

-The opinions of the media seem to me often to run together, right or wrong. For example, a year ago it would have been difficult to find a positive article about Edler or Lack.

-I personally believe the criticism from CanucksArmy has gone further than is warranted. In particular, there are suggestions that Benning doesn't really have a plan or strategy or can't follow one. One very brief example is "However, being a GM of an NHL team means you need to be able to set a vision, execute a strategy ..." in the critical piece at http://canucksarmy.com/2015/7/5/laurence-gilman-hockey-innovation-and-the-future-of-the-canucks-front-office.

While we see many of the same type of statement on CDC (so I expect my comments to be unpopular here) I think that is unfair. Much as one might be critical of negotiations and evaluations of the value of individual players, I think one thing that Benning has done extremely well is stick to his plan. It's been stated many times that the Canucks intend to make the playoffs each year and go as far as they can, but they won't sacrifice draft picks and prospects to do so. They'll trade picks and prospects for other picks, prospects and young players but not won't trade them for older, immediate help.

With the single exception of acquiring toughness (the Dorsett and Prust acquisitions) it seems to me he's stuck to that.

I've been critical of some Benning moves and have agreed with much of the media criticism surrounding those moves, but think the criticism that he doesn't follow the plan and is sending mixed messages is incorrect.

-Some of the criticism about Benning's ability to follow a plan comes from those arguing for a rebuild, getting rid of older assets while possible and going for high draft picks. The fact that isn't the plan Benning is following doesn't mean he's being inconsistent with HIS plan or is incapable of following a plan.

-I also think it unfair to criticize Benning for his "make the playoffs" plan. While probably nobody on this forum really knows what happens between the owners, president and GM, a full rebuild-making the team noticeably worse in the short term-is something that one would expect to discuss with the owners as it is their money that would be lost during the rebuild. Can anyone say that they know that Linden and Benning actually have a free hand to go about such a rebuild? If not, why should they be criticized for doing the jobs they were hired to do?

I've been and remain critical of many Benning moves, but they do tend to fit together. Last season in his opinion the team needed to acquire a scorer, an experienced goalie and some toughness. He didn't have the cap space to do both, so traded Garrison to get the cap space to sign both Miller and Vrbata. He acquired some toughness (something he clearly considers necessary) in Dorsett, even at the cost of a 3rd round pick. He acquired Vey to be the 3C so let Schroeder and Santorelli go. One can argue the wisdom of those moves, but he made his evaluations and made the moves he considered it necessary to deal with them.

-Not having much faith in the media's opinion generally, I won't comment on JamesB's main point about whether (to rephrase) it is meaningful that the commentary right now is pretty much exclusively negative about Benning's performance. I understand his point about the lack of external validation, but am not sure in the sports world that external validation from the media is necessarily meaningful.

That's not a reflection on whether there are or are not grounds for concern. I don't think whether or not there is media support for Benning's performance has much bearing on whether his performance to date has been positive, negative or, as I believe, some of both.

[BenDrinkin]

There has been a lot of discussion of Benning on CDC. There is plenty of criticism but the Benning supporters outnumber the critics. That is not surprising. The people on CDC are Canuck fans and want to feel good about the team.

But it would be nice to see some external validation -- positive comments by respected media people about the Linden/Benning regime. Does anyone know of any positive commentary on the Linden/Benning moves.

I have never seen as consistently negative views about the Canuck management in the media as seem to be out there now. That is amazing for a guy just one year in. It took previous GMs a long time to build up consistent criticism. People are not saying Benning has been terrible, but they are saying the he (and the Canucks) are losing ground.

Here is an example from Money Puck at Canucks Army: http://canucksarmy.com/2015/7/5/laurence-gilman-hockey-innovation-and-the-future-of-the-canucks-front-office

I won't post the whole article but here is a key excerpt:

However, as the organization's missteps mount, from bad contracts to bad trades, the undercurrent of front office unrest has slowly bubbled to the surface. This culminated in the termination of Laurence Gilman, Lorne Henning, and Eric Crawford - the some of the last remaining builders of the greatest Canucks team that ever was.

It's hard to blame Trevor Linden too much for this debacle. With no operational hockey experience, it was always clear Linden was hired because he's a local legend and ownership was in dire need of a PR win. No one in Vancouver should have been fooled into believing he's actually been hired to run an NHL hockey team. While this episode seems destined to tarnish Linden's legacy in this city, he's not really the problem here. This is Jim Benning's team - full stop.

It's also hard not to have a touch of sympathy for Jim Benning. It's not like he's the first person to be promoted past the level where he seems most well-suited. Benning clearly has talent evaluating prospects. On balance, the 2014 and 2015 Canucks draft picks look to be slightly above average, and Benning was able to make a couple small time deals around the margins to land Sven Baertschi and Adam Clendening - both trades we celebrated in this space as being a shrewd use of higher-risk assets to land young and near NHL-capable pieces. He's not the best in the league in this area (which is sort of problematic if you want to win a Stanley Cup one day), but he's far from the worst either.

However, being a GM of an NHL team means you need to be able to set a vision, execute a strategy, negotiate contracts, and maximize asset value, all within the context of a challenging salary cap structure.

If it was just one one or two critical media guys, okay. But the Province and Sun reporters are all pretty negative about Benning's record so far and they have become amazingly consistent. Same with the Pass It to Bulis bloggers (Harrison Mooney and Daniel Wagner) and Thomas Drance and many other respected Canuck bloggers and commentators.

So, like I asked above, are there any positive external evaluations out there?

(By the way, Matthias was signed by TO for 2.3 million and DeFazio was signed by Boston on a two-way deal that pays 100K in the AHL. That is a big loss for Utica.)

Does anyone know of any positive commentary on the Canucks, period?

I kid, but my point is that Canadian sports media loves to crap on the Canucks, so it will be a tough search.

[TheCammer]

1. Lack > An asset that would have left via UFA at years end anyway, considering the payday he is going to want, but not really deserve. Turned that into a 3rd and a 7th. 3rd used to pick Brisbois who by all accounts if development goes well, looks to be a solid T4 with significant leadership qualities.

2. Kassian > An under performing, inconsistent winger who just couldn't put it together. Has been through 4 NHL coaches and is soon on to his 5th and has yet to surpass the role of a 3rd line player. Turned that into a character guy to help with the transition, and most importantly is on an expiring contract = roster flexibility for youth the year after next.

3. Bieksa > An over the hill, past prime 5/6 defender with the cap hit of a T4. Needed to move on to allow other leaders in the room to step up and have their voices heard. Turned that into a 2nd round pick (probably a late 2nd) in a ridiculously deep draft.

4. Kesler > A beat up, egotistical a-hole who acted as such by severely handcuffing Benning by only giving him one real team to trade with. Turned that into a young (at the time) fringe T4 dman who could very well improve (and has), an elite 3rd line center and a 1st which turned into McCann who looks like a beauty.

So to summarize:

Out:

1 Washed up overpaid defender

1 Inconsistent and enigmatic winger

1 Beat up hard nosed center who can win draws, but with serious attitude issues

1 Pending UFA goaltender with a log jam at that position

In:

1 2nd round pick in a deep draft

1 Future T4 dman

1 Character guy to help with this years portion of the transition

1 Fringe T4 dman who has improved since arriving (trending up)

1 Elite 3rd line center

1 Future 1/2 line center

All in all, I'd say Benning did quite well with what he had to work with.

+1. Good post. There are still some things I don't like about the Bieksa and Kassian deals but I don't think the return is as bad as people are making out.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

a deal in place for Bieksa for 40thpick, backed out and took a 58-60th 24 hours later

Don't be afraid to be disingenuous. If you think that this really happened, no wonder you are down on Benning. As the feeble arguments dissolve away, you are left with plain lies to justify your criticism. Doug Wilson slime-balled us. How could you write such a stupid thing? Does Benning not know that 40 is higher 58?

[SaintPatrick33]

Does anyone know of any positive commentary on the Canucks, period?

I kid, but my point is that Canadian sports media loves to crap on the Canucks, so it will be a tough search.

We need to win a Cup before we get any positive commentary. A cup win leads to at least 10 years of positive vibes.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

If you don't agree with me then you are a stupidhead that doesn't understand hockey

Best you got?

[butters]

We need to win a Cup before we get any positive commentary. A cup win leads to at least 10 years of positive vibes.

in this town that would probably only last until draft day.

[SaintPatrick33]

in this town that would probably only last until draft day.

For all the younger fans maybe, but for us oldtimers who have been waiting 30 plus years, it will be a big relief. A lot of the younger generation have grown up with good teams who have failed to deliver, they have never been at a point where the Canucks were once a laughing stock of the league. I think that is why so many people are quick to jump on them for every decision.

[lmm]

a deal in place for Bieksa for 40thpick, backed out and took a 58-60th 24 hours later

Don't be afraid to be disingenuous. If you think that this really happened, no wonder you are down on Benning. As the feeble arguments dissolve away, you are left with plain lies to justify your criticism. Doug Wilson slime-balled us. How could you write such a stupid thing? Does Benning not know that 40 is higher 58?

what is your definition of slime-balled?

and what proof do you have to support that statement?

[thejazz97]

in this town that would probably only last until draft day.

[Crabcakes]

Did he say he intended to piss away assets? no

He traded Garrison for a second, so far so good, then flipped that second for Vey

he had a deal in place for Bieksa for 40thpick, backed out and took a 58-60th 24 hours later

I don't think I need him to say he is going to piss away assets.

If that's what you think happened then you haven't been paying attention.

1. Garrison trade was a salary dump. It allowed the signing of Vrbata or Miller.
2. Benning thought that the 2nd pick for Bieksa was in 2015. Doug Wilson "said" it was for 2016. One of them was "mistaken" or lying.

[lmm]

If that's what you think happened then you haven't been paying attention.

1. Garrison trade was a salary dump. It allowed the signing of Vrbata or Miller.
2. Benning thought that the 2nd pick for Bieksa was in 2015. Doug Wilson "said" it was for 2016. One of them was "mistaken" or lying.

1., Garrison trade was an excellent salary dump, no argument from me there.

2. We gave Benning the benefit of the doubt when Kesler gave him a list of 1 team. He had to know or at least some of the rest of us knew that if you open up an NTC that the team you are dealing with hold the cards. He should have known that what Wilson offered was not going to get better if he hesitated. And it did not. I agree that one of them was lying or mistaken, or maybe both. That does not necessarily mean it was Wilson. Kesler... believes that Wilson slimeballed Benning but cannot provide proof. Benning is on record as saying that next years draft is better than this, so maybe that is where the confusion came in. Either way Benning lost 20ish spots in the draft.

[Supra]

1., Garrison trade was an excellent salary dump, no argument from me there.

2. We gave Benning the benefit of the doubt when Kesler gave him a list of 1 team. He had to know or at least some of the rest of us knew that if you open up an NTC that the team you are dealing with hold the cards. He should have known that what Wilson offered was not going to get better if he hesitated. And it did not I agree that one of them was lying or mistaken, or maybe both. That does not necessarily mean it was Wilson. Kesler... believes that Wilson slimeballed Benning but cannot provide proof. Benning is on record as saying that next years draft is better than this, so maybe that is where the confusion came in. Either way Benning lost 20ish spots in the draft.

I think San Jose is going to be a much better team than people think, but still he definitely lost some spots. I think the trade to Anaheim was just to stick it to the Sharks for messing around with the pick year. San Jose was clearly targeting Roy seeing he fell last minute and wanted to use the pick to move up to get him instead. you can't blame them but still, Benning was clearly pissed about that.

[Crabcakes]

1., Garrison trade was an excellent salary dump, no argument from me there.

2. We gave Benning the benefit of the doubt when Kesler gave him a list of 1 team. He had to know or at least some of the rest of us knew that if you open up an NTC that the team you are dealing with hold the cards. He should have known that what Wilson offered was not going to get better if he hesitated. And it did not. I agree that one of them was lying or mistaken, or maybe both. That does not necessarily mean it was Wilson. Kesler... believes that Wilson slimeballed Benning but cannot provide proof. Benning is on record as saying that next years draft is better than this, so maybe that is where the confusion came in. Either way Benning lost 20ish spots in the draft.

Benning was trying to make trades for picks in this years draft. All GM's are busy beyond belief before the draft. To spend any time working on something that had no bearing on the current draft doesn't make sense. If he thought that he was making a trade for a pick in next years draft why wouldn't he wait until after this years draft to make the deal. There was no reason to try to complete a complex deal involving a player waiving a NTC before the draft.

When Wilson found out that he could trade up with his 39th pick to get 31 and draft Roy, he made up a story to tell Benning. Wilson slime-balled Benning all right.

and the hesitation, I expect that was the time it took to have Bieksa sign the release

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

I don't know that Wilson is a piece, but there are strong indications. I think he targeted Vancouver and tried to paralyze them at the draft. And maybe that is picking on a rookie GM. I think it has more to do with the fact that everyone else in the division is wise to the snakeman. Pure speculation no doubt. I also think that Boston sent Hamilton to Calgary to slap Chiarelli in the face, but that's just me.

However, I'd say there's at least enough evidence to assume that Vancouver was pissed that the deal fell through.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

Fine, I can't assume his intent...but when there was enough traction and contract negotiations that the trade is reported on Sportsnet, it looks a lot like they strung us along.

[Gaudette Celly]

Rebuild? Top players moving? Ok.....that's life (Panties fit loosely)

Top assets REPEATEDLY traded for MUCH less valuable returns? Not cool (Panties twisting into knot)

Kassian Lack and Bieksa gone and not ONE sexy asset to show for it? (Throw Kessler in there too....although McCann could be the savior)

If it walks like a suck and quacks like a suck...It sucks,

And these deals suck

Benning's trades remind me of the Phanuef to TO deal.....5 pounds of whatever does not equal 1 pound of top tier talent.

Crap, I thought you'd at least gone into hibernation with all your whining...

[Gaudette Celly]

They're a gaggle of chickenlittle dimwits, always chirping the same chorus regardless.

Do yourself a favour and don't listen to them.

There isn't an intelligent hockey mind among them anyhow - far from it - they all a bunch of wannabes talking out their arses.

You may note in that last 'Canucksarmy' crapola, one of the few moments where they actually depart from their armchair pretenses and offer an actual idea - the prescription he offered was to go out and sign the 33 year old Justin Williams (who went to a potential contender in Washington btw) and Cody Franson - both in free agency (obviously).

If that's the best they can come up with themselves, they should shut their chirp-holes.

I'd like someone -- anyone -- to tell me the value of reading Tony Gallagher. Anyone? It's quite literally the "sports entertainment" of writing, i.e. pro wrestling.

As for CanucksArmy, so much of what they write is puerile tripe, trying to sound intelligent under the pretention of "statistical analysis" which is nothing but thinly-veiled appealing to scoring as the primary basis of success for all players to make the NHL. As with the Horvat article they're embarrassing themselves, and it's good to see that people commenting there are starting to call them out on their number-nerding and mockingbirding of the local crap media. Seriously -- I don't think any of them even watch games let alone players to come up with such shallow banality, let alone have a clue what Linden and Benning are doing.

As oldnews says, don't even bother reading that garbage, or at least do so with a discerning mind and either laugh or pity at their pathetic expense.

[TimberWolf]

If you don't agree with me then you are a stupidhead that doesn't understand hockey

Best you got?

1- Why, do you think I was directing that at you specifically?

2-There's a quote button at the bottom right of posts