Assessing Benning - Again

[JamesB]

Fans and pundits have been assessing Benning since he was first hired after the end of the 2013-14 season. But many people have pointed out that it takes time to turn a team around and that it takes at least two or three years before a meaningful assessment can be made. 

 

I personally have argued several times on the CDC that the key year for Benning is the 3rd year (this year). You don't turn a bottom feeder into a Stanley Cup contender in 3 years, but you can see the direction. That is especially true in this case, as Benning's announced strategy when he was hired was to rebuild the team and simultaneously put a good team on the ice. The initial mantra was "to develop young players in a winning environment". We can certainly assess the "winning environment" part and we can look at how player development is going.

 

Most people on CDC, including me, were happy when he was hired. As AGM in Boston he was credited with playing an important role in building a Stanley Cup winner, particularly for his work on the draft and on assessing and developing young players generally. But in other areas -- contract negotiation, trades, cap management, asset management, etc. he was relatively inexperienced as he came up through the scouting and player development channel to the AGM position. He must have gotten some experience in those areas, but being the guy in charge was obviously new to him. Still, if the objective was to rebuild he seemed like a good guy to go with.

 

Summary of Major Decisions:

Year 1:

The big decisions for year 1 included:

i) trading Kesler for Bonino, Sbisa, and a 1st round pick

ii) picking Virtanen at #6 and McCann at #24, along with Demko in the second round and Tryamkin in the 3rd round.

iii) trading picks for older prospects: 2nd for Vey, 2nd for Baertschi, 3rd for Pedan, 3rd for Dorsett (a vet)

iv) signing Miller and Vrbata as expensive UFAs.

v) resigning Dorsett and Sbisa at surprisingly high salaries.

 

Year 2:

i) trading Bonino, Clendening and a 2nd round pick for Sutter and a third round pick; re-signing Sutter for a big raise.

ii) drafting Boeser in the first, no 2nd pick, getting Brisebois in the 3rd round (for pick obtained by trading Lack)

iii) picking up Bartkowski as a UFA, trading Kassian and a pick for Prust, re-signing Weber,

iv) keeping Virtanen and McCann with the team instead of sending them to junior

v) trading Shinkaruk for Granlund

vi) Acquiring Rodin and Larsen

 

Year 3:

i) trading McCann and a 2nd round pick for Gudbranson

ii) picking Juolevi in the first round, no 2nd round pick.

iii) signing Eriksson as a UFA (basically replacing Vrbata in the salary structure)

 

EDIT: I should have mentioned Stecher in the 3rd year summary, so I am adding him now. Definitely a positive move.

 

Assessment:

 

The "winning environment" part has not worked out. The team did make playoffs in 2014-15. Although we had a disappointing first round loss to Calgary in the playoffs, I guess the result was a "success" given the announced strategy. But personally I did not like the idea that "success" means being a marginal playoff team (i.e. about the league average). I want to build a Cup contender.

 

But in 2015-16 we did not need to worry about being an average team. It was a terrible year and many people have picked the Canucks to finish at or near the bottom of league this year. At present the Canucks are dead last in scoring and are pretty much in a tie for last in winning percentage with several other teams. The winning part of "rebuild while winning" has not been successful.

 

In 2014-15 the team did better than it otherwise would have by paying a lot for Miller and Vrbata as veteran UFAs, and Dorsett also helped. But, Vrby is gone, Miller will be gone next year, and Dorsett is now overpaid for what he does. In my view, those moves contributed nothing (or contributed negatively) to an actual rebuild. I think we are doing the same thing with Eriksson. You can add some useful pieces in the UFA market but you can't build or rebuild a winner with UFAs. In my view, paying a lot for UFAs only makes sense if you have a good young core as a foundation.

 

What about the rebuild?

 

The Canucks pipeline is better than it was but not as good as it should be and is nowhere near what it needs to be to have any realistic chance of building a Cup contender.

The trades to get older prospects have not worked out:  Vey and Clendening are gone. Pedan cleared waivers (meaning no other NHL team thinks he is worth taking even for free), and Baertschi is struggling (again). Right now, those trades do not look good. Similarly, I think the draft pick used to get Dorsett was a waste. He came with only one year on his contract and Benning paid a lot to re-sign him. He probably could have signed Dorsett as a UFA for that amount. It would have been better to use those draft picks to actually draft players.

 

As for the draft picks, the Virtanen pick is not looking good. The other players under consideration for #6 overall -- Nylander and Ehlers  -- are looking a lot better so far. Virtanen defenders will say "it takes time to develop a power forward". While true, we can still evaluate the trajectory and Virtanen's trajectory looks a lot like what Craig Button predicted it would be -- that of a bottom 6 grinder. Demko we think will be good and Tryamkin is impressive for a 3rd rounder. Boeser looks like a great pick for a low first rounder. The Juolevi pick worries me. After a terrible year last year all the Canucks got from the draft was Juolevi. He might work out well but there are three other Ds from the draft would are similar and I would say that two of them are ahead of Juolevi right now. Overall I think Benning's record in the draft is not perfect, but is good. But he should have retained draft picks and worked to get in more draft picks so that he could exploit his area of comparative advantage instead of minimizing it.

 

Compared to the kind of pipeline that Edmonton, Toronto, Winnipeg and even Arizona and Calgary and other recent bottom feeders have, the Canucks do not look strong.

 

Right now, the Canucks are one of the worst teams in the NHL.

Utica is one of the worst teams in the AHL. I would say there are no promising prospects in Utica except Demko.

The Canuck prospect pipeline in the CHL is at best average, and there are not top prospects in Europe.

 

My vote is that Benning has been disappointing. I would not vote for firing him yet, but I do think that by the end of the year we should have a good read and if the Canucks looks then as bad as they do now, it might be time for a change at the GM position. I think the biggest problem is trying to put a playoff team on the ice while rebuilding. It is not impossible but it is hard, especially for a newbie GM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[J-Dizzle]

Oh look, another Benning thread.....

[Stelar]

Yawn..... I choose to judge him at the 17 game mark. Or maybe the 23 game mark..... or maybe the 46th game mark

 

or maybe I'll wait till the end of the season

[Oliewud]

That's the scariest part of our situation right now, Utica has NOBODY. This whole organization is a total mess from top to bottom.

[baumerman77]

Look at the Canucks record over the past 3 season. There is a direct relationship between Benning's influence on the team and its performance; as time has went on the team has gotten worse under his management. Now obviously we were trending down before, but he did next to nothing to rebuild in the new NHL era which is predicated on skill and speed, not physicality and size. Look at our goal scorers, of the pitiful 17 goals we've scored in 11 games; only 3 goals have come from players Benning's acquired. All the rest have come from past GMs - our top players are still the guys who were acquired by past GMs. Many people want to blame WD who does deserves some blame. But let's not forget that Benning hired him and Benning has stuck with him so far. He is Benning's coach and Benning is ultimately responsible for his poor performance as coach. A big part of being a good GM is picking the right coach. 

 

I know most people want to like Benning and especially Linden. Fans want to think we are trending in the correct direction so they want to blame the coach or ownership. But the fact is the management has made horrible decisions and they have hurt the on ice product. Benning seems like a decent scout (he looks to have gotten Boeser and Demko right, probably made a mistake with Virtanen and the jury is still out on Juolevi) but he's a horrific manager.

[appleboy]

How many players do most teams develop into NHL pros from a draft year? What is the average time line for them to reach the NHL? 

 

Three years to turn around a franchise that was ran into ground is not realistic.

 

Virtanen - Playing in the NHL,but a work in progress

McCann - Playing but turned into Gudbranson

Tryamkin - D men take longer but could become one of Bennings best picks.

Boeser   -  We will soon see. Looks like a bute

Demko  -  Take 5 to 7 years for goal tenders.

Juolevi  -  Junior where he should be.

 

If you develop one NHL player per draft you are average and unless they are a first overall pick they take 2 to 5 years.

Linden and Benning do not have a magic wand.

Maybe Harry will them loan his. 

[Art Vandelay]

Other than the Forsling trade, I have not disliked anything he has done when it happened. Signing Sbisa for above market value when he isn't a point producer was risky, and has failed miserably. Same as the Vey trade.

 

So what has he not done, that he should have? IMO, trading Hamhuis, Edler, Burrows, Dorsett, ... etc, basically everyone over 27, but the Sedin's, and gone full rebuild. That was the obvious game plan this Summer (Hamhuis at deadline). 

 

I think he has been asked to be competitive and rebuild, which I don't think was possible with how bad the Canucks prospects were after Gillis was fired. In the end, if you don't rebuild when you need too, the league will force you too because your team won't be good. 

[LaBamba]

The results are starting to speak for themselves. 

 

Winning Environment = Fail.

Drafting = Win.

Prospect Depth = Fail

Prospect Quality = Neutral 

Overall Depth = Fail.

Signings and contracts = Fail.

Trades = Win.

Trade Necessity = Fail.

Vision = Fail.  

Culture = Fail.

Brand = Fail.

Creativity = Fail. 

 

The guy is so good at drafting that I still like him overall. I just don't agree with his vision and plan (or lack of.) Benning is a weirdo, but he isn't stupid. I think most of his failures are owner influenced which is unfortunate. Would love him to build this team with his strengths. 

[Mathew Barzal]

Does anyone know how the scouting process occurs. Is it like an office meeting where scouts just feed Benning with information they have or does this guy actually do thorough homework on every single potential prospect for us?

 

If he is actually the mastermind behind our drafts then I give him a B- given that he's been forced to compete and get younger with this roster.

 

If he is just internalizing and vomiting out the consensus between our scouts then I give him a C.

[Where's Wellwood]

How many years did Babcock say it would take Toronto to get good when he was hired?

[appleboy]

6 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

Look at the Canucks record over the past 3 season. There is a direct relationship between Benning's influence on the team and its performance; as time has went on the team has gotten worse under his management. Now obviously we were trending down before, but he did next to nothing to rebuild in the new NHL era which is predicated on skill and speed, not physicality and size. Look at our goal scorers, of the pitiful 17 goals we've scored in 11 games; only 3 goals have come from players Benning's acquired. All the rest have come from past GMs - our top players are still the guys who were acquired by past GMs. Many people want to blame WD who does deserves some blame. But let's not forget that Benning hired him and Benning has stuck with him so far. He is Benning's coach and Benning is ultimately responsible for his poor performance as coach. A big part of being a good GM is picking the right coach. 

 

I know most people want to like Benning and especially Linden. Fans want to think we are trending in the correct direction so they want to blame the coach or ownership. But the fact is the management has made horrible decisions and they have hurt the on ice product. Benning seems like a decent scout (he looks to have gotten Boeser and Demko right, probably made a mistake with Virtanen and the jury is still out on Juolevi) but he's a horrific manager.

Horrific manager.

How

[Davathor]

Benning's been real good

[baumerman77]

5 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Horrific manager.

How

His trades, signings, extensions, asset management, philosophy, decision making, player development and choice of coaching all have been bad. Sure there have been a few decent decisions in there but they are far outweighed by the bad ones. He has easily been one of the worst Canucks GMs I have seen in his 2 and half years. 

[appleboy]

You come along a mountain road and you find a car teetering over the edge and there is some people screaming for help. You run up and grab a hold of it to try and help. Part of the cliff breaks way and down goes the car. 

Was there anything you could have done differently?

[Rocksterh8]

19 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

Look at the Canucks record over the past 3 season. There is a direct relationship between Benning's influence on the team and its performance; as time has went on the team has gotten worse under his management. Now obviously we were trending down before, but he did next to nothing to rebuild in the new NHL era which is predicated on skill and speed, not physicality and size. Look at our goal scorers, of the pitiful 17 goals we've scored in 11 games; only 3 goals have come from players Benning's acquired. All the rest have come from past GMs - our top players are still the guys who were acquired by past GMs. Many people want to blame WD who does deserves some blame. But let's not forget that Benning hired him and Benning has stuck with him so far. He is Benning's coach and Benning is ultimately responsible for his poor performance as coach. A big part of being a good GM is picking the right coach. 

 

I know most people want to like Benning and especially Linden. Fans want to think we are trending in the correct direction so they want to blame the coach or ownership. But the fact is the management has made horrible decisions and they have hurt the on ice product. Benning seems like a decent scout (he looks to have gotten Boeser and Demko right, probably made a mistake with Virtanen and the jury is still out on Juolevi) but he's a horrific manager.

 

Very well said, I agree 100% !

[Positive Canuck]

Its taken 3 years for Benning to build the softest and lowest scoring forward group in the NHL.  
Bravo !
#KumbayaCanucks 

[appleboy]

3 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

His trades, signings, extensions, asset management, philosophy, decision making, player development and choice of coaching all have been bad. Sure there have been a few decent decisions in there but they are far outweighed by the bad ones. He has easily been one of the worst Canucks GMs I have seen in his 2 and half years. 

You seem a little bitter!

I say he cleaned up a mess and pieced together a team for the short term.

In his interview today he said there would be no deals for the short term. That means that he gets where this team is at. No quick fix.  No magic wand.

[baumerman77]

The Canucks were a bottom 3 team last year. We are likely going to be around the same this year. Yet, both years we were right up near the cap ceiling. Do you know how rare it is for teams at the bottom of the NHL to be among the highest salary cap teams? Very rare. And the Canucks are about to do it two years in a row. 

[BlackBeard]

We could have been better if JB didnt try to be look smart, as if he sees something we dont, and had picked what was right in the eyes of a lot of people and drafted Nylander or Ehlers. And in the past draft he again tried to be smart and picked Juolevi when Tkachuk was the consensus 

[Kevin Biestra]

People slapping TS with the minus?  It's a well constructed post.