babych Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 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.) Babych has been here for 7 years and you know what? Babych has heard your "piss and whine" story EVERY SINGLE YEAR! So here is Babych's advice: get out in the summer, ignore this forum, AND LIVE YOUR LIFE! Babych out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 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. When the Gallaghers do it? No, who is? But when the Ferraros shows concern that is much different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Babych has been here for 7 years and you know what? Babych has heard your "piss and whine" story EVERY SINGLE YEAR! So here is Babych's advice: get out in the summer, ignore this forum, AND LIVE YOUR LIFE! Babych out. news flash Babych was good, was good, (great in fact, loved the guy), but never got the impression he was a "refer to myself in the third person" kinda guy. You are dishonoring a legendary name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Just how many rentals did Benning acquire at the last deadline? Zero. He's stated a year ago he wouldn't be trading prospects/picks for rentals. He said he's only open to hockey trades. Like trading a second for Baertchi. If we're out of the playoff race it wouldn't surprise me at all if he traded expiring contracts as rentals. If we're in the playoff race I won't be surprised if he holds onto those pending ufa's. Who knows what Benning will do, but my thinking is that he's going to do as much auditioning this year as possible. That is, bring up guys like Pedan, Hutton, Gaunce, and Grenier to see what they've got. If they show they can play, then JB may be willing to part with veterans for picks and/or prospects and get the young guys in. That way, in the short-term run to the playoffs by putting in ready replacements it cannot be argued that he's in any way throwing the season but maximizing value for assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babych Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 news flash Babych was good, was good, (great in fact, loved the guy), but never got the impression he was a "refer to myself in the third person" kinda guy. You are dishonoring a legendary name. Babych has seen your profile - Babych respects that you have almost 20,000 posts. But you know what? Baybch doesn't care what you have to say! If you smell, what Babych is cookin'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 When the Gallaghers do it? No, who is? But when the Ferraros shows concern that is much different. I don't think Ferraro (admittedly) knows what's going on either. Whereas some (Gallagher) assert confidently that they are smarter than Benning to declare that he's incompetent, others like Ray and McIntyre are simply confused. Then there are others like Aaron Ward who basically roll their eyes at fans and media for their impatience and dearth of understanding. Seems far too many people are so shallow and one-dimensional in their thinking that they cannot see the big picture going on here. Not that we can describe it all either, but there most definitely IS a pattern that is being consistently executed and the plan being put in place becomes clearer with pretty much every move they make. Just take a step back and try to see how it's coming together, including in that the realities of the salary cap era and all its implications for how teams acquire and move players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Babych has seen your profile - Babych respects that you have almost 20,000 posts. But you know what? Baybch doesn't care what you have to say! If you smell, what Babych is cookin'? Not surprised. 20,000 posts just means oldnews says too much Babych. Babych has been here longer than oldnews, who must defer. Epic stache. Desjardins approves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierdaddy Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I really don't think it's hard to see their plan at all. It's just a weak excuse to criticize the management because they don't agree with how things are being done. I'd be just as concerned (maybe more so) if everyone agreed and praised every move. There isn't a management team alive batting a thousand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I don't think Ferraro (admittedly) knows what's going on either. Whereas some (Gallagher) assert confidently that they are smarter than Benning to declare that he's incompetent, others like Ray and McIntyre are simply confused. Then there are others like Aaron Ward who basically roll their eyes at fans and media for their impatience and dearth of understanding. Seems far too many people are so shallow and one-dimensional in their thinking that they cannot see the big picture going on here. Not that we can describe it all either, but there most definitely IS a pattern that is being consistently executed and the plan being put in place becomes clearer with pretty much every move they make. Just take a step back and try to see how it's coming together, including in that the realities of the salary cap era and all its implications for how teams acquire and move players. The problem is, the media listens to each other and get confused. If you listen to the source alone, you have a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantastico Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Medias pissed that their best quotes got traded , and their insider info got fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pomorick Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 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? Duh 58 is higher than 40 and stuff!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 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. ... ... -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. Great comments and thanks for getting back to the question I posed in the OP. I would emphasize two important insights in your message. 1. Quite possibly Benning and Linden are doing what they were hired to do and doing it very well. It is likely that the owner wants them to be in the playoffs if at all possible. While fans like me might prefer to see the team tank for a couple of years and enjoy watching the prospects develop that strategy would probably cost the owners many millions of dollars, Last year the value of being in contention for the playoffs and then making the playoffs was probably at least $10 to $15 million (relative to being out of the picture as of, say, the trade deadline) and quite possibly more. Of course building a serious Cup contender might offset a short run loss but you might take the loss and never build a Cup contender (like Edmonton, Toronto, Arizona, and Buffalo have done for quite a while). So that is very risky. 2. I agree that it is probably unfair or simply incorrect to accuse Benning of being inconsistent. He has been consistent. He has consistently said is not trading top young prospects for short run gain, and he has been consistent in that. He has also said that he wants to use his other assets to do as well as possible in the short run -- hence to desire to sign Miller and Vrbata and to shore up team toughness (Dorsett, Sbisa, Prust) which he thinks is important. We might disagree with his actual decisions, but he has not been inconsistent. And I do not see the Kassian trade as inconsistent at all. Benning had obviously concluded that Kassian was a problem and he just wanted to get rid of him. However, I wonder if the moves made by Calgary, Edmonton, Anaheim, LA, and even San Jose have persuaded the owner to give up on the playoffs next year. All these teams improved and all look better on the paper than the Canucks. That is what I am detecting in the messaging coming from Benning. I would love to see Benning get a chance to use what is his real skill -- evaluating young players. Last year's draft was good, this year's draft seems good, and picking up Baertschi and Pedan looks good. (Vey does not look so good, but I assume that was WD's choice.) Imagine what he could do with a high first round pick, a couple of low first rounders (in return for Vrby and Hammer) and maybe three second rounders. That would make next year's draft a lot of fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Great comments and thanks for getting back to the question I posed in the OP. I would emphasize two important insights in your message. 1. Quite possibly Benning and Linden are doing what they were hired to do and doing it very well. It is likely that the owner wants them to be in the playoffs if at all possible. While fans like me might prefer to see the team tank for a couple of years and enjoy watching the prospects develop that strategy would probably cost the owners many millions of dollars, Last year the value of being in contention for the playoffs and then making the playoffs was probably at least $10 to $15 million (relative to being out of the picture as of, say, the trade deadline) and quite possibly more. Of course building a serious Cup contender might offset a short run loss but you might take the loss and never build a Cup contender (like Edmonton, Toronto, Arizona, and Buffalo have done for quite a while). So that is very risky. 2. I agree that it is probably unfair or simply incorrect to accuse Benning of being inconsistent. He has been consistent. He has consistently said is not trading top young prospects for short run gain, and he has been consistent in that. He has also said that he wants to use his other assets to do as well as possible in the short run -- hence to desire to sign Miller and Vrbata and to shore up team toughness (Dorsett, Sbisa, Prust) which he thinks is important. We might disagree with his actual decisions, but he has not been inconsistent. And I do not see the Kassian trade as inconsistent at all. Benning had obviously concluded that Kassian was a problem and he just wanted to get rid of him. However, I wonder if the moves made by Calgary, Edmonton, Anaheim, LA, and even San Jose have persuaded the owner to give up on the playoffs next year. All these teams improved and all look better on the paper than the Canucks. That is what I am detecting in the messaging coming from Benning. I would love to see Benning get a chance to use what is his real skill -- evaluating young players. Last year's draft was good, this year's draft seems good, and picking up Baertschi and Pedan looks good. (Vey does not look so good, but I assume that was WD's choice.) Imagine what he could do with a high first round pick, a couple of low first rounders (in return for Vrby and Hammer) and maybe three second rounders. That would make next year's draft a lot of fun. On Vey, think people are too quick to dismiss him. He didn't have a great year but it was decent overall... Also to Bennings defence Vey did align in terms of "getting younger" but guess people don't want to go through the growing pains of certain young players... oh wait never-mind as Kassian should've gotten his 4th chance to actually be a professional. Sorry if I sound snarky to you, I meant it more directed at the CDC population thats been trolling the Kassian trade thread. Anyways I do agree that while I doubt we are "tanking" or trying not to make the playoffs, I do think we're in a good position to hit the payload when selling as you have mentioned some of the players. Overall I'm a fan of Benning because things are actually changing so good or bad I'm happy to see it moving in a different direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Welcome to the media of Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRedYellow Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 We wanted change, we got change! (This forum never stops complaining... ) It takes more than one year to see a result...especially with an old core and lots of trade clauses... It's just ridiculous to read what many CDC members posts... IMO Benning and Linden has been very consistent and they obviously have a plan (which they don't have to spell out to us!) which they're trying to follow. Probably a plan for 3-5 years, where they wanna stay competitive before they get a contender. I got no problems with that at all, and even though I consider myself having a very high Hockey-IQ (and doesn't agree with all their decisions so far) I can't say that I'm better than them, so I'll just let them do their stuff for a couple of years and then pin down my verdict! I'm a Canuck and so are they, so let's give them a rest and cheer for our team, in good times AND bad times!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Vey does not look so good, but I assume that was WD's choice Willie doesn't make the trades and I rather doubt the new rookie coach showed up and said, "you need to trade for this guy". LA made Vey available for the same reason we moved Grabner: There was no roster spot available and he was waiver eligible. I have no doubt Benning talked to our scouts and Willie about Vey. But it was Benning that chose to make the trade. Btw, I have no problem with Vey. I thought he had a decent season for a rookie. But then I do tend to have more patience than others when it comes to the young guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlinkas wrister Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Yes there are always some media critics. But the consistency among negative views is unusual. For most of the Gillis regime he had a lot of supporters in the media, and Burke and Nonis both had quite a lot support in the early years. So, yes there is always media criticism, but the current situation is unusual. Thanks, a fun read. Not much in it to make me feel optimistic about the Canucks but, like I said, fun to read. DeFazio was never going to play for the Canucks. But he is a very good AHL player and was very popular in Utica. Personally I got a lot of pleasure out of the Utica run this year and it is too bad to see Utica dropping down the priority list for the Canucks. It probably has something to do with firing Henning, who use to run the situation. Clearly the Canucks have decided that it is less important to have a "winning environment" in Utica and more important to let prospects take the key roles on the team. That might be right, but I am still sorry that Utica will not be as good next year. James. I'm not going to touch on your OP as, like most people, I don't give a rat's ass what the media has to say about the Canucks. 30 + years as a fan helps to grow thick skin I guess. I don't get why you are using the bolded parts above as a stick to beat the franchise with though. The Utica comets are not a "business investment" or a "mini franchise" that exists to make money for the Canucks or happiness for the fine citizens of Utica. The only reason they are part of the Canucks family is to let Canucks prospects "take key roles on the team". Frankly, it would be ridiculous if one of our prospects couldn't be developed properly because the team wanted to keep some career AHL plug in the pipeline instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Btw, I have no problem with Vey. I thought he had a decent season for a rookie. But then I do tend to have more patience than others when it comes to the young guys.I think Vey represented a reasonable risk, and is certainly worthy of another season of investment. But at 24, he needs to show improvement in his weaker areas this season. If not, I wouldn't support keeping him around beyond this year. Must show more ability to win battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyHatnDart Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I think Vey represented a reasonable risk, and is certainly worthy of another season of investment. But at 24, he needs to show improvement in his weaker areas this season. If not, I wouldn't support keeping him around beyond this year. Must show more ability to win battles. I agree. Not sure why a lot of CDC is so impatient with this guy. He just completed his first full season as a rookie, with a successful campaign in my opinion. Towards the end he was in and out of the lineup on a nightly basis so the "Medicine Hat spoon fed ice time" connection was total crap and unwarranted. Yet he continued to improve in all 3 zones. IF he is able to improve his strength and acceleration he could prove to be a good middle 6 guy. Why is this a bad thing? Patience people, they aren't all like Horvat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 Willie doesn't make the trades and I rather doubt the new rookie coach showed up and said, "you need to trade for this guy". LA made Vey available for the same reason we moved Grabner: There was no roster spot available and he was waiver eligible. I have no doubt Benning talked to our scouts and Willie about Vey. But it was Benning that chose to make the trade. Btw, I have no problem with Vey. I thought he had a decent season for a rookie. But then I do tend to have more patience than others when it comes to the young guys. Of course Benning makes the trades. But it is also pretty obvious that he consults closely with WD -- or at least he did last year. And if a newly hired coach says: "I would really like to pick up this young guy who used to play for me. I think he is really good." that is going to have a lot of influence. I do not know what really went on but it is very plausible that the new coach gets to make a couple of calls of this type if the cost is not too high and if the move is a reasonable fit for the overall strategy. I also don't think there is much doubt that WD had a role in the Dorsett and McMillan acquisitions as well. Nothing wrong with that. A GM should listen to the coach. But if Vey does not pan out I think it would be a mistake to be too negative about Benning as I think it is likely that WD used up his "get out of jail free" card on Vey. James. I'm not going to touch on your OP as, like most people, I don't give a rat's ass what the media has to say about the Canucks. 30 + years as a fan helps to grow thick skin I guess. I don't get why you are using the bolded parts above as a stick to beat the franchise with though. The Utica comets are not a "business investment" or a "mini franchise" that exists to make money for the Canucks or happiness for the fine citizens of Utica. The only reason they are part of the Canucks family is to let Canucks prospects "take key roles on the team". Frankly, it would be ridiculous if one of our prospects couldn't be developed properly because the team wanted to keep some career AHL plug in the pipeline instead. Fair enough. I realize that the primary reason for the Utica Comets is to develop prospects. But, speaking personally, I enjoyed the Utica success this year. So I personally will be a bit sad to see the Utica performance decline. In fact, it would not surprise me if the Utica operation was an area of disagreement between Benning and Henning that contributed to Henning being fired. Henning obviously built a very strong team, but it depended heavily on AHL vets like Cal OReilly, Sanguinetti, DeFazio, Huskins and others. After watching a lot of Utica games in the playoffs, Benning, Linden, and WD probably concluded that they would like the prospects to play a bigger role even if the team does not do quite as well. Like I said, I can see that might be the best decision for the Canucks. But I personally would have liked to see Utica contend for the Calder Cup again next year. That now seems unlikely. Also, there is not way the Utica operation makes money. The arena is just too small. So maybe the owner was not enthusiastic about paying the relatively high salaries the Canucks were paying to the AHL vets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.