Benning on Team 1040 December 9

[TheOgRook]

Same ones that would normally be complaining in the post game are here today I see.  It's like clockwork around here

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, bohoforpresident said:

Basically when he becomes like elder is now then...

 

Sorry I didn't see that post.

 

I wouldn't say he gets ragdolled... he does block alot of shots though. This is speculative though. You're maximizing return for a players decline that may or may not happen. Also... assuming that both juolevi and briseboi will turn into top 4 nhlers.

 

Crystal balling.

 

Edler, for good or bad, is still our best D. But yes, before he starts to diminish in play and value.

 

I'd say he gets ragdolled often AND blocks a lot of shots. His style of play WILL break him down IMO. I admit freely that's my opinion.

 

No, that's assuming that some mix of Juolevi, Hutton, Gudbranson, Stetcher, Tryamkin, Brisebois and any other D we acquire remain or turn in to top 4 players. I'd say 4 of them already have shown to be or likely be, top 4 players. Whether any of them can develop in to top pair players is more crystal balling.

 

[Beary Sweet]

It will be nice if JB will be able to accumulate more draft picks. We might also have the Torts 2nd that they may expose to us this year as they look to be on their way to a successful season. We also have Miller, Burrows off the books after this season and would be nice if we could fetch something for them. They can easily sign here during free agency. Burrows will probably return, not sure about Miller since Vegas may be interested in him. Also don't want to rush Demko. I'll be content also if we have a quiet deadline. It will be very understandable and I'm aboard the JB and TL plan as long as we'll be competing soon. Also this rebuild on the fly while competing for a playoff spot isn't going as bad as I thought it'd be. Willie is developing the young guys well and hopefully he continues to do so

[TheOgRook]

1 hour ago, Rocksterh8 said:

 

Has Jim Benning EVER traded for a pick? please name them

 

Juice,?  You should take the paper bag off, it's clearly affecting your vision  

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

I am one of the biggest critics of Jim Benning around here and after hearing this interview I am on board. Every GM makes mistakes and it looks like he is committed to looking more forward than now. He is a great talent evaluator and I'm excited to see what he can do with a surplus of picks. 

 

 

[WeneedLumme]

I believe that when JB says he will not ask any players to waive their NTC's, he is telling the truth, as he generally does. However, I also suspect that if another team made him an offer that he liked for one of those players, JB would give them permission to contact the player's agent to find out if the player would be willing to waive to go to that team.

[oldnews]

I agree with Benning's assessment of where the team stands.

 

1) The team has not used every veteran asset in retool deals - but from Luongo/Schneider to Kesler, Garrison, Bieksa (and fruitless attempts to move hobbled veterans) - they've moved on from the majority of their veteran players.

2) The remaining vets - Sedins, Edler, Burr, Miller, Hansen - one more retool deal might make sense, but not necessarily going to improve the team.

3) Add the reality of the expansion draft to the equation and there will very likely be literally next to no market for most veteran contracts in any event, and if so, a depreciated buyers market.  GMs will be in a better position to buy than sell this year - no point trying to force it against the grain of that, it spells lost value in any event.  I might be inclined to rent Miller if the team is out of contention, but there is literally no point speculating about that at this point.

4) The team has very solid young assets at virtually every position - they could stand to add/draft a forward or two at LW/C - but at the same time, they have picks and assets that they can use to accomplish that.

5) The demographic of the team has been shifted enough to close the gap between Sedins and Horvat generations.  Enter Sutter, Gudbranson and a few guys like Baetschi and Granlund and you have the makings of a less extreme transition than you'd see in tanktown markets where their kids routinely get exposed.

6) The team is more likely to retain picks and add if possible now that the team has reached a point of comfort in their existing viable depth.

 

I think all-in-all it's a pretty successful progression in the form intended. 

The team is relatively competitive - even without key veterans in the lineup. (Every team has a tipping point which they far exceeded last year - this year they still stand a chance to compete).

The team has managed to significantly improve their futures while at the same time adding players to the group in the range where the contending years created an understandable gap.  Credit to Gillis for initiating the process in acquiring Horvat and Markstrom.

 

I personally am very pleased with Benning's progress - he had a difficult dual task and set of imperatives/limits to work with - and he made out like a true boss in the very key moves he's made - the Kesler, Sutter, Gudbranson, Sbisa progression was extremely key to this team's present and future - the Baertschi/Granlund deals were important to get some players for Horvat to play with beyond the current core.  I like deals like the Pedan deal - if we hadn't been so proficient in landing Tryamkin, Stecher and upticking Sbisa, he'd be even more important to this team's depth - no point in hindsighting deals like that.

Most of the complaints around here revolve around peripheral assets wadr - with the expectation that every Jensen/Etem or Bieksa-Garrison deal/2nd/Vey pan out as key roster assets.  The micro-complaints about every last pick are tedious - every team has countless assets on the periphery that do not turn into NHLers - that's the reality of 50 contracts, and handfuls of other unsigned prospects - 2 out of 3 will eventually never make the team regardless.

But two years in, no teardown, and the wealth of youth assets is nevertheless very impressive.  Great job thus far GMJB.

[canucklehead80]

38 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

I believe that when JB says he will not ask any players to waive their NTC's, he is telling the truth, as he generally does. However, I also suspect that if another team made him an offer that he liked for one of those players, JB would give them permission to contact the player's agent to find out if the player would be willing to waive to go to that team.

What is truth today, may not be truth tomorrow. Things could change, especially for our UFAs. JB may also not be so worried about Edler as Tanev should have good value himself once he returns.

[appleboy]

6 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I agree with Benning's assessment of where the team stands.

 

1) The team has not used every veteran asset in retool deals - but from Luongo/Schneider to Kesler, Garrison, Bieksa (and fruitless attempts to move hobbled veterans) - they've moved on from the majority of their veteran players.

2) The remaining vets - Sedins, Edler, Burr, Miller, Hansen - one more retool deal might make sense, but not necessarily going to improve the team.

3) Add the reality of the expansion draft to the equation and there will be very likely be literally next to no market for most veteran contracts in any event, and if so, a depreciated buyers market.  GMs will be in a better position to buy than sell this year - no point trying to force against the grain or that.

4) The team has very solid young assets at virtually every position - they could stand to add/draft a forward or two at LW/C - but at the same time, they have picks and assets that they can use to accomplish that.

5) The demographic of the team has been shifted enough to close the gap between Sedins and Horvat generations.  Enter Sutter, Gudbranson and a few guys like Baetschi and Granlund and you have the makings of a less extreme transition than you'd see in tanktown markets where their kids routinely get exposed.

6) The team is more likely to retain picks and add if possible now that the team has reached a point of comfort in their existing viable depth.

 

I think all-in-all it's a pretty successful progression in the form intended. 

The team is relatively competitive - even without key veterans in the lineup. (Every team has a tipping point which they far exceeded last year - this year they still stand a chance to compete).

The team has managed to significantly improve their futures while at the same time adding players to the group in the range where the contending years created an understandable gap.  Credit to Gillis for initiating the process in acquiring Horvat and Markstrom.

 

I personally am very pleased with Benning's progress - he had a difficult dual task and set of imperatives/limits to work with - and he made out like a true boss in the very key moves he's made - the Kesler, Sutter, Gudbranson, Sbisa progression was extremely key to this team's present and future - the Baertschi/Granlund deals were important to get some players for Horvat to play with beyond the current core.  I like deals like the Pedan deal - if we hadn't been so proficient in landing Tryamkin, Stecher and upticking Sbisa, he'd be even more important to this team's depth - no point in hindsighting deals like that.

Most of the complaints around here revolve around peripheral assets wadr - with the expectation that every Jensen/Etem or Bieksa-Garrison deal/2nd/Vey pan out as key roster assets.  The micro-complaints about every last pick are tedious - every team has countless assets on the periphery that do not turn into NHLers - that's the reality of 50 contracts, and handfuls of other unsigned prospects - 2 out of 3 will eventually never make the team regardless.

But two years in, no teardown, and the wealth of youth assets is nevertheless very impressive.  Great job thus far GMJB.

This is a perfect assessment of what they had to do and how they have accomplished it. I can remember a statement from Benning where he said that once they got the team back to a proper age balance that they would be keeping their picks. They inherited one of the oldest teams in the league and had nothing coming in from the system to change that dynamic.  They have done an amazing job in a shot time period.

 

This will be a hard sell to the fans though. They just want a team that wins now and have 0 interest in the process.

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

 

I disagree about one thing: placating fans is what keeps their asses in the seats, something that apparently is happening at an alarmingly lower rate lately.

 

The Canucks will do it their way but at their peril. Not listening to what your customers want is a very dangerous business plan. It is a very risky strategy to maintain the core status quo for any longer.

 

Benning is also on glue if he thinks the vets are why we are winning. The young players are why we are winning. 

 

A winning, contending team is what brings the fans, like what we've had the previous decade.  For the tankers, stripping the team will do the exact opposite and clear the rink completely. 

Point is, management isn't going to cowtow and change their plan due to a minority of complainers who admittedly do not even understand what they're doing.  Whether the plan succeeds or fails is yet to be seen, but they aren't changing it no matter how much the media and subset of fans voice their lack of comprehension.  Especially not a mere 2.5 years after they've begun.

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, LaBamba said:

I am one of the biggest critics of Jim Benning around here and after hearing this interview I am on board. Every GM makes mistakes and it looks like he is committed to looking more forward than now. He is a great talent evaluator and I'm excited to see what he can do with a surplus of picks. 

 

Ha, good one.  Almost started to believe you there.

 

55 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

 

 

Sigh, he got you again...

[elvis15]

3 hours ago, Fateless said:

I'm still very unhappy that they're flat-out unwilling to look at trading any of the remaining NTC players. 

 

As it currently stands, we're going to be exposing one of Baer or Granlund because Burrows and Hansen both must be protected. While I love both Burrows and Hansen, I would much rather one or both of them be traded for picks and prospects. Hansen is a very valuable commodity right now and is the perfect player to help a team make a run at the cup. Burrows has shown he has value still and could likely garnish a 2nd or 3rd from a contender and we could very likely sign him back in free agency.

 

The fact that we may end up losing one of our young players that have been developing because management is unwilling to trade a vet makes me sick.

Probably already been mentioned to you, but Burrows is a pending UFA. He likely won't get another deal with an NTC even if we do extend him, so he could be left unprotected to allow us to protect our younger players.

 

But for Benning, of course he's going to want to hang onto our picks and get more. If a deal comes up that makes sense we could move one still, or more likely swap some picks in a trade, but I'd hope we upgrade in either position or quantity (or both).

 

As far as our vets with NTC's, while he may get calls on them they'd likely be exploratory at best. That means asking what it'd take to get them vs any kind of offer we couldn't refuse, or maybe a low ball starting point. I'd hope he'd be aware of something and semi-explore it in the case of someone like Burrows, Hansen, Edler, etc., but I doubt we'd see any traction on a trade call for the Sedins without a serious first offer.

[Dr. Crossbar]

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Tanev, Hutton, and Tryamkin have all mentioned Hamhuis' being instrumental in their development. I'll take the players words on the situation. 

This is true. The young guys have also mentioned Burrows as well in interviews. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, TheOgRook said:

 

Dont let the facts get in the way of an argument.  Worked for Trump I suppose  

 

its been shown time time and time again the we had a big hole in the early to mid twenties players that could make an impact on the game.  Not sure where you are getting your info

yes facts.  How many of those players in the mid twenties that can make an impact on the game did we bring in?

 

Time and time again this is quoted, "age gap".  Please tell me the facts.. It's not like we didn't Santorelli, Matthias, Richardson, Kassian, Corrado.... And even if you choose to ignore them facts.  Who cares. What's the purpose of filling that age gaps?  Perhaps a smooth transition so it's not a huge gap between the sedins and the next core?  We'll I guess you'd have to consider that goal a sucess now wouldn't you.

 

Seriously just put an ounce of thought into what your logic..

"We needed Vey, Etem, Larsen, Pedan, Clendening because we didn't have anyone in that age grouping" 

 

I'll wait for your facts. 

[baumerman77]

Benning fanboys love the interview; Benning haters despise it.... what else is new. 

[aGENT]

9 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

"We needed Vey, Etem, Larsen, Pedan, Clendening because we didn't have anyone in that age grouping" 

 

44 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Most of the complaints around here revolve around peripheral assets wadr - with the expectation that every Jensen/Etem or Bieksa-Garrison deal/2nd/Vey pan out as key roster assets.  The micro-complaints about every last pick are tedious - every team has countless assets on the periphery that do not turn into NHLers - that's the reality of 50 contracts, and handfuls of other unsigned prospects - 2 out of 3 will eventually never make the team regardless.

 

[Noseforthenet]

3 hours ago, Fateless said:

I'm still very unhappy that they're flat-out unwilling to look at trading any of the remaining NTC players. 

 

As it currently stands, we're going to be exposing one of Baer or Granlund because Burrows and Hansen both must be protected. While I love both Burrows and Hansen, I would much rather one or both of them be traded for picks and prospects. Hansen is a very valuable commodity right now and is the perfect player to help a team make a run at the cup. Burrows has shown he has value still and could likely garnish a 2nd or 3rd from a contender and we could very likely sign him back in free agency.

 

The fact that we may end up losing one of our young players that have been developing because management is unwilling to trade a vet makes me sick.

Burr is a free agent and had a NTC only. he can be exposed, but it wouldn't matter anyways because it's only NMCS which are the foil for us. Sedins and Eriksson. 

[appleboy]

No one is good enough at trading or evaluating to hit on every deal. You bring in group and see who earns their way. No one bats 100% and to think otherwise is ridiculous. You also can't continue to build a team with UFA's every year. You need younger players to give some stability for a few years ahead. Twenty four years olds can be penciled in for a five year period or until someone younger pushes them out.

[RakuRaku]

What? No update on our Swedish Rocket Rodin??? Come on now..... weeks ago we heard he was close....and all quiet again... just tell us if he is ever gonna play in Canucks uni!!!!!

[Dr. Crossbar]

Interesting when you put this together with the recent Linden interview at Sportsnet. Not sure if many caught it, but Linden actually said we're in the middle of the change process. If that's to be taken literally, we're looking at another three years in the retool, rebuild, whatever. 

 

Linden's been the main guy preaching patience as well. Now Benning's message is patience and we need to work with what we have. If we do play meaningful games in March, it'll be on the backs of youth. 

 

Sounds like this is where the plan plateaus, let the young guys step up, and we run out the clock on NTCs and contracts. 

 

Glad we're keeping picks and letting youth play through the challenges. Should be an interesting deadline and off season.