Trader Jim: trades once viewed as terrible have turned out great

[theminister]

Pedan's a capable AHL'er who may yet turn into at least a depenable NHL'er. Baertschi I would have liked to move a 3rd for instead of a 2nd but that's marginal difference. I liked both (and still do) but that's two out of a number of deals.

Lack and Bieksa having other trades rumoured (both with San Jose, we can't know for sure they were offered but it's still out there) for better returns than the ones we got. Miller being in play but still choosing to move Lack. Forsling to Clendening to a part of the Sutter deal. Garrison to a 2nd to Vey. Kassian plus a pick for Prust and his larger cap hit.

Benning has a vision he wants to put in place, and I'm not saying all are bad deals to make this happen, but I don't think he's careful enough with the assets he has to be able to turn it all into the top end pieces we really need.

So...to be clear...if Pedan becomes a serviceable NHL depth player it's a good trade? If Baer becomes a 500gp NHLer we are good? You would have liked to get them cheaper? It's a nothing comment. We'd ALL like to get assets cheaper but that is not how it works.

Elvis, if you run on that modus nothiing ever gets done. You do sacrifice immediacy for the betterment of the whole. Waiting kills you. Even Sun Tzu said it. Choose your battleground.

All of the trades you critique are understandable in context. The Garrison-Vey may yet return equal value, or more, once we move Vrbata and maybe more. We dumped Kassian, see it for what it was, we traded a 5th for Prust  

Can you show yet JB has lost a single trade yet? Objectively? There isn't data to support that.

 

[Apple Juice]

I read this last night - first time in awhile that I've really enjoyed a Canucks Army piece.

One thing I didn't get, or missed: early on he says there's one exception to the rule that everyone is on pace for a worse season than their last as a Canuck, but doesn't seem to ever say who that is. I was half expecting it to be Tortorella, but that can't be right, can it?

I'm not sure either. I'm trying to think who but I couldn't... Maybe Kenins but I doubt that.

[Honky Cat]

It seems as though Benning has a clear vision of what he wants,or wants to do...even though at first,it seems very unorhodox..but good for him....It can really open your eyes to how impatient,and short sighted some of this fanbase can be.

It's still early,and he's not going to hit home runs every time,....but so far so good..

[TheCammer]

Hardly a sorcerer. He's been giving up more value that could be used for other trades, often moving cheaper cap hits for larger ones, and turning down one deal for another with a seemingly lesser return. Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn't. He's had to eat some crow on some deals (like turning Garrison's return into Vey and then sending him to the AHL this year, or moving Forsling for Clendening only to dump him a year later). I'd just like to see him get full value in trades or go with the younger and/or cheaper option if the on ice performance isn't significantly different.

And players traded to or playing on teams that are struggling now (especially in small sample sizes) are hardly evidence supporting Benning being better at trades.

Yeah, that's clearly not the case. Even if I haven't supported the overall look of his deals, he's trying to ice a quality team. I just think we have a ways to go and can use all the help we can get by maximizing our opportunities.

How did he dump Clendening? Clendening was used to get Sutter

[smokes]

As much as there are so many fans of Lack, the way Lack is playing, this is starting to look like a good trade.

[The Lock]

Yes Yes, this. The Bigger Picture.

I'd add something I've theorized about in past threads, that there's an element of reparations in his early trades. We know now that Gillis was not very respected around the league - possibly starting with the fact that he was a former player agent, but more importantly due to his attitude during the 2011 playoffs. I think other GMs and management in general saw how this carried over into his trading philosophy, trying to 'win' every trade.

I think Jim is just expanding on his previous reputation around the league - that of an honest, down to earth scout-at-heart. Teams will be more likely to call him inquiring about players and prospects, knowing he'll give them his thoughts and they can hopefully work out an equal value trade.

His basic philosophy around trades seems to be catering them so both teams come out better. That's probably a difficult pill to swallow for the hardcore armchair GM's, but it's a much more realistic way of doing business.

While I understand it's just a theory, I can see it happening. It's very evident he's down to earth and easy to talk to. It's also very evident he loves to scout and it incredibly knowledgeable on the subject.

I think a good example of moving in the direction you want to go rather than value for value would be the Sutter deal. I'm pretty sure a lot of people here would think Bonino for Sutter would be value for value, but we want to get somewhere and Pittsburgh would likely say no, so we had to sweeten the deal with Clendenning. Did we want to trade away Clendenning? Of course not, but that's who Pittsburgh had interest in. You can look at it as "we lost Forsling and Clendenning" or you can look at it as "we got Sutter as a result of trading Forsling away". We'll get more defensive prospects. It's really not the end of the world.

Consider how much faster Vancouver looks this year compared to last year. How many years would that have taken Gillis or Nonis to accomplish? lol

[elvis15]

So...to be clear...if Pedan becomes a serviceable NHL depth player it's a good trade? If Baer becomes a 500gp NHLer we are good? You would have liked to get them cheaper? It's a nothing comment. We'd ALL like to get assets cheaper but that is not how it works.

Elvis, if you run on that modus nothiing ever gets done. You do sacrifice immediacy for the betterment of the whole. Waiting kills you. Even Sun Tzu said it. Choose your battleground.

All of the trades you critique are understandable in context. The Garrison-Vey may yet return equal value, or more, once we move Vrbata and maybe more. We dumped Kassian, see it for what it was, we traded a 5th for Prust  

Can you show yet JB has lost a single trade yet? Objectively? There isn't data to support that.

For the first two, they're deals I support from Benning. Even if I might like a more clear win on the values exchanged as they were at the moment of the trade, I don't fault him at all on those.

Of course with other deals, like the Kassian one, it's a more clear win with hindsight for sure. We weren't privy to Kassian's issues (even if rumours were circling) so without knowing that it was tough to give up a pick and take back a good player (but one who didn't have the upside of Kassian and came with a higher cap hit) at the time. You won't get a complaint from me on that deal now though.

It's not about him losing trades, it's about him more consistently losing a bit of extra value to make deals happen. I agree acting quickly for what you want is a good thing quite often, and it's a good debate how much the resulting deals have helped us now that we look back.

At some point though, it'd be nice for GM Jim to turn all that goodwill he's trying to earn with these 'fair' deals into a clear win when the deal happens. Maybe we see that with Vrbata and a good return from him despite his slow start this season. Maybe that's a draft day deal to move up or get more picks and we build for the future. I'm waiting for that balance though, knowing there is a top end talent gap we'll have to fill once the Sedin era is over.

I'm not saying Benning is a bad GM, not at all, just that he still has lots of work to do and will need all the pieces he can to make other deals that will pull it all together.

How did he dump Clendening? Clendening was used to get Sutter

As an extra piece in the deal, and after they'd decided he wasn't what they thought he'd be so he was expendable. There was a pretty healthy debate around if that was the right value to give, but that was definitely a deal Benning made with the intent of doing it now versus haggling on pieces.

As much as there are so many fans of Lack, the way Lack is playing, this is starting to look like a good trade.

Pretty hard to fault Lack considering it's a new team for him, and not one that's in the top half of the standings either. Same with the point in the article about Garrison; sure he hasn't been as productive this year but Tampa hasn't been doing as well in general.

[The Lock]

I'm waiting for that balance though, knowing there is a top end talent gap we'll have to fill once the Sedin era is over.

That's where patience comes into play. It's kind of like how creativity works: it's never one big decision that makes a difference. It's all of the smaller decisions.

[theminister]

For the first two, they're deals I support from Benning. Even if I might like a more clear win on the values exchanged as they were at the moment of the trade, I don't fault him at all on those.

Of course with other deals, like the Kassian one, it's a more clear win with hindsight for sure. We weren't privy to Kassian's issues (even if rumours were circling) so without knowing that it was tough to give up a pick and take back a good player (but one who didn't have the upside of Kassian and came with a higher cap hit) at the time. You won't get a complaint from me on that deal now though.

It's not about him losing trades, it's about him more consistently losing a bit of extra value to make deals happen. I agree acting quickly for what you want is a good thing quite often, and it's a good debate how much the resulting deals have helped us now that we look back.

At some point though, it'd be nice for GM Jim to turn all that goodwill he's trying to earn with these 'fair' deals into a clear win when the deal happens. Maybe we see that with Vrbata and a good return from him despite his slow start this season. Maybe that's a draft day deal to move up or get more picks and we build for the future. I'm waiting for that balance though, knowing there is a top end talent gap we'll have to fill once the Sedin era is over.

I'm not saying Benning is a bad GM, not at all, just that he still has lots of work to do and will need all the pieces he can to make other deals that will pull it all together.

As an extra piece in the deal, and after they'd decided he wasn't what they thought he'd be so he was expendable. There was a pretty healthy debate around if that was the right value to give, but that was definitely a deal Benning made with the intent of doing it now versus haggling on pieces.

Those statements are a far cry from what you said earlier, that he 'shouldn't be losing on a majority of them either.' In fact, I still challenge that by asking which trade can be identified as a loss? 

Losing a bit of value? That's your impression and not an objective statement. Which trades did he lose value on? Just because you would have rather him trading a 3rd instead of a 2nd, or getting a 2nd instead of a 3rd, doesn't mean anything. I'd like to buy a house in Vancouver for $100,000 but I can't.

The Win will be on the ice...a la chemistry...not on paper. IMO were getting clear wins because we are moving towards our goals of getting younger and tougher. 

FYI....JB didn't throw in Clendening, Rutherford required him. We didn't want to give him up. 

[elvis15]

That's where patience comes into play. It's kind of like how creativity works: it's never one big decision that makes a difference. It's all of the smaller decisions.

Hindsight is great, but I'm not seeing it yet. I've never seen a GM who's moves ended up being good but generally all had the appearance of being average to below average at the time the deals where made. Plenty of bad GMs who's moves looked like that and turned out even worse, but not usually good ones.

We've seen already some are good, and some are bad. Some have taken a few steps to get to the good stage (with so so results along the way). We've got a big step to really be a competitive team in the next 5 years and I don't see it yet.

[elvis15]

Those statements are a far cry from what you said earlier, that he 'shouldn't be losing on a majority of them either.' In fact, I still challenge that by asking which trade can be identified as a loss? 

Losing a bit of value? That's your impression and not an objective statement. Which trades did he lose value on? Just because you would have rather him trading a 3rd instead of a 2nd, or getting a 2nd instead of a 3rd, doesn't mean anything. I'd like to buy a house in Vancouver for $100,000 but I can't.

The Win will be on the ice...a la chemistry...not on paper. IMO were getting clear wins because we are moving towards our goals of getting younger and tougher. 

FYI....JB didn't throw in Clendening, Rutherford required him. We didn't want to give him up. 

Rutherford did require Clendening by the media accounts, but Linden also pointed afterwards to how we weren't happy with his play and he was expendable to an extent.

None of us are true insiders so we rely on media reports to an extent, but in both the Lack and Bieksa deals there were rumoured trades offering a little higher value that Benning turned down trying to get more, only to have to accept less later.

Again, it's not much in most cases (not saying any were clear losses, just that in my opinion we took less value) but that usually balances out with a little bit of a win in other deals.

You know I respect your opinion and we've talked in person on prospects and the state of all things Canucks, but comparing the value difference from a 2nd to a 3rd isn't the same as trying to buy a house in Vancouver for $100K. If you'd said it's the difference between spending $925K and $1M you might have a point, but then that's what I'm talking about by having $75K to use elsewhere.

[theminister]

Rutherford did require Clendening by the media accounts, but Linden also pointed afterwards to how we weren't happy with his play and he was expendable to an extent.

None of us are true insiders so we rely on media reports to an extent, but in both the Lack and Bieksa deals there were rumoured trades offering a little higher value that Benning turned down trying to get more, only to have to accept less later.

Again, it's not much in most cases (not saying any were clear losses, just that in my opinion we took less value) but that usually balances out with a little bit of a win in other deals.

You know I respect your opinion and we've talked in person on prospects and the state of all things Canucks, but comparing the value difference from a 2nd to a 3rd isn't the same as trying to buy a house in Vancouver for $100K. If you'd said it's the difference between spending $925K and $1M you might have a point, but then that's what I'm talking about by having $75K to use elsewhere.

And I respect yours. 

I understand it's not the same but the principle is. You're not getting that house for $925k because someone else is going to pay it in this market. You might get another house be not the one you want more. You aren't losing value, you're just paying market price....which is fine because you can sell in the same market 

[oldnews]

Gotta love GMJB.  I love a professional that does his homework, knows what he's looking to accomplish and doesn't hesitate to take calculated risks when the opportunities present themselves.  Loved the Kesler deal in particular, and even more once it re-translated into Sutter.   Sbisa's improvement has been steady.  McCann is a steal.  Love the Bieksa deal - although I love Juice - it was necessary and a solid return.  Losing Kass hurt, but not as much as he's apparently hurting himself - and Brandon has been what we expected.   Players like him and Dorsett (another solid deal) are significantly undervalued in general around here.  Love the Baertschi, Vey and Pedan deals whether they pan out or not - not going to hindsight them - they are precisely the type of trade forward deals that made sense for this franchise at the time and I'd have been looking to do precisely the same kind of thing.  The Vrby signing was an absolute no-brainer - may be struggling a bit in the present but he's the quality of player you don't keep down for long.

Fpr me, the only move I was luke-warm about / disagreed with at the time was the term given to Miller.  Losing Eddie also hurt - and I don't find Ryan easy to warm up to - but I'm not going to nitpick or second guess Benning's judgement there.  Miller is clearly a quality starter and it's easy to make a case on either side of this equation imo.  

But all this talk of his trades don't really get to the core of his strength - the drafting he's done - that is already paying dividends.

Benning has made a virtually ideal successor to Gillis - and the transition has been virtually seamless.

Couldn't be happier with his overall performance thus far - and both Linden and WD deserve credit for being integral to the process.

 

[elvis15]

And I respect yours. 

I understand it's not the same but the principle is. You're not getting that house for $925k because someone else is going to pay it in this market. You might get another house be not the one you want more. You aren't losing value, you're just paying market price....which is fine because you can sell in the same market 

Market value plays in for sure, but then we saw deals going through elsewhere that were above market value (i.e. Lehner, Talbot and Jones). There are question marks to why the value was different in those cases, even if it was just the perception of ability and value (again, other teams view of Lack's ability when we know he's not that much worse than the other goalies traded). It's not always quantifiable but it does bring up the question why it's happening and we end up with a little shorter stick.

[Crabcakes]

http://canucksarmy.com/2015/11/11/psychic-or-voodoo-why-aren-t-jim-benning-s-trades-coming-back-to-bite-him

TL;DR
= Jim Benning is a sorcerer when it comes to trades.

 

I'll be the first to admit, I did criticize a number of his moves (trades/signings) but man have they ever panned out. Not to mention the assets shipped out have had very little effect on their teams. 

All hail Trader Jim.

Jim has not been seen holidaying in Haiti so I don't think it's voodoo he's practicing.  Apparently, when he has the time, he's at his ranch in Oregon and has been seen mucking out the stables.  My thoughts are that he's been talking to the horses.  Horse sense.  It's always the simplest explanation. 

[DeltaSwede]

Gotta love GMJB.  I love a professional that does his homework, knows what he's looking to accomplish and doesn't hesitate to take calculated risks when the opportunities present themselves.  Loved the Kesler deal in particular, and even more once it re-translated into Sutter.   Sbisa's improvement has been steady.  McCann is a steal.  Love the Bieksa deal - although I love Juice - it was necessary and a solid return.  Losing Kass hurt, but not as much as he's apparently hurting himself - and Brandon has been what we expected.   Players like him and Dorsett (another solid deal) are significantly undervalued in general around here.  Love the Baertschi, Vey and Pedan deals whether they pan out or not - not going to hindsight them - they are precisely the type of trade forward deals that made sense for this franchise at the time and I'd have been looking to do precisely the same kind of thing.  The Vrby signing was an absolute no-brainer - may be struggling a bit in the present but he's the quality of player you don't keep down for long.

Fpr me, the only move I was luke-warm about / disagreed with at the time was the term given to Miller.  Losing Eddie also hurt - and I don't find Ryan easy to warm up to - but I'm not going to nitpick or second guess Benning's judgement there.  Miller is clearly a quality starter and it's easy to make a case on either side of this equation imo.  

But all this talk of his trades don't really get to the core of his strength - the drafting he's done - that is already paying dividends.

Benning has made a virtually ideal successor to Gillis - and the transition has been virtually seamless.

Couldn't be happier with his overall performance thus far - and both Linden and WD deserve credit for being integral to the process.

 

Very good post! +1

I tend to disagree with you on Miller. After Luongo and Schneider were both gone the Canucks needed a starting goalie and the one available was Ryan Miller. Lack was nowhere near ready for a starting role when the deal was made and it has allowed the Canucks some breathing room before Markstrom and/or Demko take over. Probably been the most valuable player to the Canucks this season, keeping them in countless of games.

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Market value plays in for sure, but then we saw deals going through elsewhere that were above market value (i.e. Lehner, Talbot and Jones). There are question marks to why the value was different in those cases, even if it was just the perception of ability and value (again, other teams view of Lack's ability when we know he's not that much worse than the other goalies traded). It's not always quantifiable but it does bring up the question why it's happening and we end up with a little shorter stick.

Lehrer was scouted by Murray. He knew exactly what goalie he wanted and overpayed to get him. Does that make

talbot had the best numbers of any goalie on the market. Hence why he went for more that lack. 

Jones was moved out of conference and then shipped back for a 2016 pick. If Canucks wanted to they could have got more "value" for lack if they wanted to get a year later draft pick. Probably not a first but more than our early third.  But then your playing with risk as the pick you get back could become a late 2nd and basically be a third anyway. On top of that. Not a lot of emphasis has been likely put into the 2016 draft so it's a crap shoot to try and predict if the 2016 3rd is better than a 2015 3rd. Atleast with the 2015 3rd you have a pretty good idea who what your getting 

the rumor for lack was s 2nd round pick by the oilers only 9 spots higher. Benning new the players likely to be available and made the decision that there wasnt enough difference in players to send him inter division. In the end linden said the player they would have taken ended up still being available anyways. So no value lost. 

 

One other thing to remember with the lack deal is trading is a two way street. Edm plays in our division and got to see lack play regularly. They would have their own value on what they think he's worth. SJ did the same with jones. At the end of the day Edm needed a goalie and if they thought lack was the best goalie avalible they would have been willing to give up a higher price. They weren't.

you keep saying hindsight. But no deals have clear cut winners until you give it some time and can look back and judge and that's what the main post is about. At the time of the deal ppl were bashing benning on how he lost every deal. But after some time (and we will need more to judge) it's starting to turn out that these trades benning is coming out ahead. 

[WeneedLumme]

Lehrer was scouted by Murray. He knew exactly what goalie he wanted and overpayed to get him. Does that make

talbot had the best numbers of any goalie on the market. Hence why he went for more that lack. 

Jones was moved out of conference and then shipped back for a 2016 pick. If Canucks wanted to they could have got more "value" for lack if they wanted to get a year later draft pick. Probably not a first but more than our early third.  But then your playing with risk as the pick you get back could become a late 2nd and basically be a third anyway. On top of that. Not a lot of emphasis has been likely put into the 2016 draft so it's a crap shoot to try and predict if the 2016 3rd is better than a 2015 3rd. Atleast with the 2015 3rd you have a pretty good idea who what your getting 

the rumor for lack was s 2nd round pick by the oilers only 9 spots higher. Benning new the players likely to be available and made the decision that there wasnt enough difference in players to send him inter division. In the end linden said the player they would have taken ended up still being available anyways. So no value lost. 

 

One other thing to remember with the lack deal is trading is a two way street. Edm plays in our division and got to see lack play regularly. They would have their own value on what they think he's worth. SJ did the same with jones. At the end of the day Edm needed a goalie and if they thought lack was the best goalie avalible they would have been willing to give up a higher price. They weren't.

you keep saying hindsight. But no deals have clear cut winners until you give it some time and can look back and judge and that's what the main post is about. At the time of the deal ppl were bashing benning on how he lost every deal. But after some time (and we will need more to judge) it's starting to turn out that these trades benning is coming out ahead. 

Very good, very valid points. But valuation and negotiation are areas where people with the least experience and knowledge tend to be determined to believe they are immensely knowledgable. It is unlikely that you will get mini-mod or any of the other negative know-it-alls to acknowledge anything no matter what facts you point out.

I agree that many of JB's trades seem to be turning out better than they appeared at the time. I attribute this to the fact that evaluation and projection of talent quality are his forte. 

Everybody has their strong points. MG's was contract negotiations. Unfortunately his weak point was a lack of experience in assembling the various different parts necessary to field a competitive team. He did well at first with fine-tuning a good existing framework, but eventually found himself out of his depth.

[Alflives]

Very good, very valid points. But valuation and negotiation are areas where people with the least experience and knowledge tend to be determined to believe they are immensely knowledgable. It is unlikely that you will get mini-mod or any of the other negative know-it-alls to acknowledge anything no matter what facts you point out.

I agree that many of JB's trades seem to be turning out better than they appeared at the time. I attribute this to the fact that evaluation and projection of talent quality are his forte. 

Everybody has their strong points. MG's was contract negotiations. Unfortunately his weak point was a lack of experience in assembling the various different parts necessary to field a competitive team. He did well at first with fine-tuning a good existing framework, but eventually found himself out of his depth.

do not the best managers, in any business, recognize their own areas of weakness, and and hire people to support those areas, while hiring others to compliment areas of strength?  Maybe that was MGs weakness?

[Jack Fig]

Gotta love GMJB.  I love a professional that does his homework, knows what he's looking to accomplish and doesn't hesitate to take calculated risks when the opportunities present themselves.  Loved the Kesler deal in particular, and even more once it re-translated into Sutter.   Sbisa's improvement has been steady.  McCann is a steal.  Love the Bieksa deal - although I love Juice - it was necessary and a solid return.  Losing Kass hurt, but not as much as he's apparently hurting himself - and Brandon has been what we expected.   Players like him and Dorsett (another solid deal) are significantly undervalued in general around here.  Love the Baertschi, Vey and Pedan deals whether they pan out or not - not going to hindsight them - they are precisely the type of trade forward deals that made sense for this franchise at the time and I'd have been looking to do precisely the same kind of thing.  The Vrby signing was an absolute no-brainer - may be struggling a bit in the present but he's the quality of player you don't keep down for long.

Fpr me, the only move I was luke-warm about / disagreed with at the time was the term given to Miller.  Losing Eddie also hurt - and I don't find Ryan easy to warm up to - but I'm not going to nitpick or second guess Benning's judgement there.  Miller is clearly a quality starter and it's easy to make a case on either side of this equation imo.  

But all this talk of his trades don't really get to the core of his strength - the drafting he's done - that is already paying dividends.

Benning has made a virtually ideal successor to Gillis - and the transition has been virtually seamless.

Couldn't be happier with his overall performance thus far - and both Linden and WD deserve credit for being integral to the process.

 

The bolded part is highly-relevant to me. It's perfectly fine getting warm bodies to fill roster spots and solidifying the current team. But the draft table is where Jim is best able to turn water into wine, so each time I see him acquiring a draft pick is when I see his greater plan falling into place. The draft table is where his heavy lifting is done.