Hockey Graphs ranks GMs

[King Heffy]

People like the posters complaining about Benning in this thread are the reason ownership didn't wwant a full rebuild in the first place.

[apollo]

3 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

How dare he play his entire career with one franchise.  That turncoat.  And he only spent 13 years playing in Colorado (and winning a cup) How could he possibly keep living and working in that beautiful area after his playing career was done. And he's such an American sellout that he only represented Canada in international play a measly six times.  

 

Get over yourself. 

Is Joe Sakic your father? I could care less about Canada's hockey team. I'm %100 Canadian but I'm %1000 a Vancouverite and British Columbian. My allegiance lies with the Canucks first and foremost. 

 

2010 I cheered for Canada because their best player, by far was a Canuck. 

 

2014 I cheered for Sweden because they chose to make their best player a backup goalie instead of giving him his #1 role. I cheer for the Canucks. 

 

Get over yourself. 

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

Don't know whether to take this comment seriously or as a joke.... 

Obviously I'm joking to an extent but if I was in their positions, I would do everything in my power to sign with Vancouver. I don't care if it meant making 5 million instead of 7.5... 

[CeeBee51]

Well, since we have the worst GM, worst Prez, worst coach, worst players, worst training staff, etc, etc,  I guess we have no where to go but up

[qwijibo]

1 minute ago, apollo said:

Is Joe Sakic your father? I could care less about Canada's hockey team. I'm %100 Canadian but I'm %1000 a Vancouverite and British Columbian. My allegiance lies with the Canucks first and foremost. 

 

2010 I cheered for Canada because their best player, by far was a Canuck. 

 

2014 I cheered for Sweden because they chose to make their best player a backup goalie instead of giving him his #1 role. I cheer for the Canucks. 

 

Get over yourself. 

Obviously I'm joking to an extent but if I was in their positions, I would do everything in my power to sign with Vancouver. I don't care if it meant making 5 million instead of 7.5... 

No, I'm a hockey fan.  You're a delusional Canucks fanboy. And I'm sure Price and Weber would love to take less money to come to the tire fire currently known as the Canucks. Who wouldn't want to play for one of the worst teams in the league

 

[apollo]

56 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Actually, was asking about your comment that Sakic has done a better job than Benning.

Oh lol... 

 

Well I guess you can say soderberg is just as bad as sutter contract wise... at least he was free though and didn't give up a guy like bonino + for him... 

 

Sakic didn't hand out a 6x6 to Loui... Sakic also didn't pass on Tkachuk... 

[The Lock]

Just now, apollo said:

Obviously I'm joking to an extent but if I was in their positions, I would do everything in my power to sign with Vancouver. I don't care if it meant making 5 million instead of 7.5... 

Well that's you and clearly Sakic is not you. Would you want someone from Earth telling you your apollo mission can't leave to space because it's not "loyal to Earth"?

[apollo]

1 minute ago, qwijibo said:

No, I'm a hockey fan.  You're a delusional Canucks fanboy. And I'm sure Price and Weber would love to take less money to come to the tire fire currently known as the Canucks. Who wouldn't want to play for one of the worst teams in the league

 

Ok you're a hockey fan good job. I'm a Canucks fan over anything. 

 

Buddy, when price and weber signed their extensions you want to know who the best team in the NHL was? Who was winning more games than anyone? Go figure it out... they signed in 2011 and 2012. 

 

It was the Canucks. Let me make that easy for you.

 

Sadly both were RFA's... if I was either of them, I'd ask for a trade though to van and sign long term here. That's the bottom line... but I'm loyal to my province. At least Carey signed with a Canadian team... Shea took an offer sheet from Philly 

[apollo]

4 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Well that's you and clearly Sakic is not you. Would you want someone from Earth telling you your apollo mission can't leave to space because it's not "loyal to Earth"?

Can't argue with that!

 

But that's just my opinion on BC guys that don't try to play here...

 

I bet had Joe signed with us in 06-07, he'd make way more money here, and he'd be the president of the Canucks, not trevor. 

[WeneedLumme]

3 hours ago, Johnny Shotgun said:

Just more useless drivel from self proclaimed experts. Meaningless.

With more useless drivel piled on by self proclaimed "realist fans". Who are cackling with glee over the opportunity to spew some more of their hate on the Canucks at a time when the team isn't even doing anything to provide pretexts to hate on.

[spook007]

1 hour ago, CeeBee51 said:

Well, since we have the worst GM, worst Prez, worst coach, worst players, worst training staff, etc, etc,  I guess we have no where to go but up

Nobody likes us...we don't care 

[bloodycanuckleheads]

1 hour ago, CeeBee51 said:

Well, since we have the worst GM, worst Prez, worst coach, worst players, worst training staff, etc, etc,  I guess we have no where to go but up

Yeah, you would think...

[khay]

15 hours ago, Toews said:

Jarmo Kekalainen was a failure according to many fans till his team took a jump in the standings. That's what it will take for Benning to silence his critics. He will have to draft, develop. and construct a winning team.

 

Here is Benning's GM record thus far:

 

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showpost.php?p=131807505&postcount=1

 

Instead of thread just bashing the source I thought we can actually have a discussion about how good Benning really is compared to his peers. Where would you rank him compared to other GMs?

I have to say that his trade records aren't actually bad. In fact, he took some gambles (if you call trading for a player that you scouted a gamble), which paid dividends almost immediately in Baer and Granny. 

 

Kesler trade is debatable.

 

Bonino trade, in my opinion is a loss. I wouldn't say Sutter is definitively better player than Bonino and yet, Bonino is cheaper and we gave up Clendening (I know, a journeyman now but still a loss of an asset).

And, Burrows and Hansen trade looks like one of those win-win trades. 

 

I don't get why he gets bashed for his trades.

 

 

[TheGuardian_]

Interesting responses from some posters, at the beginning of the season the hockey "experts" had the Canucks with 65 points, those experts were wrong the Nucks got 69pts, but so many posted that those guru's of the game knew nothing, were wrong and just printed that because they had it in for the Canucks.

 

Now a statistical evaluation comes out and rates all the NHL GM's the same way and again some posters are in denial, the stats are wrong, the stats are biased, the stats aren't taking into account "hope", "could be's" and "maybe's".

 

So to derail the thread comes the comparison to Colorado.

 

The Canucks had a "staggering 450 man games lost", maybe, but who? 75+ games for Rodin? Half the season for Gudbranson? Those two equal over 1/4 of games lost. Ditto some of the games lost to AHLer's that had a cup of coffee in the show. How many games did the Sedins miss or a starting goalie or 3 dmen at the same time or Sutter, Burrows and Hansen at the same time? Tanev's missing had the biggest impact defensively. It's is curious that games missed is now a good reason for a poor season but not 3 or 4 years ago.

 

The hockey "experts" are even questioning whether or not OJ is NHL ready or if he might need anther couple of years in the minors, dmen are always a "safe" pick.

 

For the most part stats just simply quantify what many good hockey people already know how to do, they allow for more indepth evaluating without having to be present personally to see everything and in some cases can identify trends.

 

Did, or does it really need to said that this team hasn't been successful? Or that it is in worse shape now than 3 or 4 years ago? There have always been prospects in the pipeline, there still are, but the previous group didn't trade NHL players or draft picks for "hopefuls", that Benning was able to get a player like Granlund that happened to work states just what the value of second round picks were worth in those drafts and how the ones that didn't work are worse because they ended up not even having a prospect.

 

The team didn't HAVE TO HAVE an age group, they needed higher end NHL prospects, in three years almost nothing and now smaller players that might not be able to handle the traffic of the post season. Two season's, one to help get to the show, look decent to sell tickets and one to win the "goal of every team", the playoffs and cup.

 

This graph might be actually rating Benning and this group lower next year, what then, Vegas's fault? Bias? The Sedins fault....again as Linden stated, stupid experts, what?

[ilduce39]

These "rate the GM" pieces always seem to spin their tires trying to justify our spot in the standings more than offering any real analysis.  Usually through the lens of the 2014 narrative that he only acquires "meat and potatoes."  Drafting Virtanen and the Sbisa/Dorsett contracts have scarred the "analytics" community so badly they have nightmares about Brown and Rasmussen every draft or when Gudbranson's contract negotiation is mentioned.  

 

Meanwhile, Jim has done a great job recently picking up some higher skilled players in Baertschi, Granlund, Goldobin and Dahlen.  He could have a great, dynamic group there along with Bo, Brock and our 1OA but until they're NHL proven Jim's still a bum I guess.

 

A nice start to these things would be appreciating the monumental task JB had of rebuilding a prospect pool that had Horvat as the only potential top-6 player. Even then he was seen as a 3rd line guy.  

 

You don't realistically fill that pool in 3 years and you definitely don't have it translating at the NHL level in that time frame.  

 

We're still missing a top C and an elite puck moving PPQB.  We get a good crack at filling one of those this draft.  Can Tanev be moved for another? 

 

Otherwise there's a least pieces to start rounding out a decent roster over the next few years.  That's not a bad start for our GM considering it's from scratch.

[TheGuardian_]

32 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

These "rate the GM" pieces always seem to spin their tires trying to justify our spot in the standings more than offering any real analysis.  Usually through the lens of the 2014 narrative that he only acquires "meat and potatoes."  Drafting Virtanen and the Sbisa/Dorsett contracts have scarred the "analytics" community so badly they have nightmares about Brown and Rasmussen every draft or when Gudbranson's contract negotiation is mentioned.

This graph was not produced just to make Jimmy look bad, the person that created it probably couldn't care less about this team. It ranks all gm's the same, it just happens that Jimmy and management fall where they do in comparisons.

 

I am sure you don't believe that some guy back east decided to make up a graph and publicize it internationally just to "get Jimmy".

[TheGuardian_]

56 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

You don't realistically fill that pool in 3 years and you definitely don't have it translating at the NHL level in that time frame.

Why not? This is the new NHL, RFA's, UFA's. Why hasn't Cassels or Suban been given a chance? Other team's throw away's are in fact, Benning traded away 2nd round picks for some. Why didn't Jensen, Archibald, Valk or Shinkruk get a better shot? Because they were Gillis's boy's? What do any of these players look like on the ice? In a game? In the NHL? Remember they wanted Horvat to go back down to, the only reason he didn't was because of his injury.

 

It seems Benning is acting like a male lion, the first thing he does when he takes over the pride is kill all the cubs. In this Benning doesn't try any of the previous regime's players, he gets rid of them and can then blame "the cupboards are bare".

 

A loss of confidence can ruin a career, having a team give up on you or keep you down can do that as well.

 

And after three years and drafting in the top 6, Horvat is still the only player with NHL top six "potential", not just top 6 on this team, there are lots of those.

[oldnews]

38 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Why didn't Jensen, Archibald, Valk or Shinkruk get a better shot? Because they were Gillis's boy's? What do any of these players look like on the ice? In a game? In the NHL?

It seems Benning is acting like a male lion, the first thing he does when he takes over the pride is kill all the cubs.

Yawn,  TheGuardian being TheGuardian - addicted to low vibe drama and petty inconsequential protests.  TheGuardian of the interests of AHL tweeners.

 

Answer - because they're AHLers.

And look like AHLers on the ice.

 

You do realize that Jensen cleared waivers in October, right.  No one claimed him.  31 GMs guilty of denying him his rightful place in the NHL!

And Shinkaruk looks.....like an AHLer......and a whole lot worse than Granlund!

 

Maybe you should start your own nursery for abandoned cubs!  I'm sure they'd make a great NHL hockey team.

 

 

[fanfor42]

I think the fact Benning was ranked last is awesome would be terrible if he was ranked in the middle with all the lemmings.

 

Last means he's bucking the trend and people are taking shots at him. Good sign.

[ilduce39]

1 hour ago, TheGuardian_ said:

This graph was not produced just to make Jimmy look bad, the person that created it probably couldn't care less about this team. It ranks all gm's the same, it just happens that Jimmy and management fall where they do in comparisons.

 

I am sure you don't believe that some guy back east decided to make up a graph and publicize it internationally just to "get Jimmy".

I never said this was a hack job on JB, just that this piece seems to be looking at Vancouver's place in the standings and trying to justify it by filling in the blanks based on stereotypes Jim received his first year in the job.  

 

The "methodology" of assigning a number between 1-5 to a few categories doesn't instill a lot of confidence.  

 

A 1.5 in development... Why?  Is Virtanen alone enough to sink that to the lowest score? Who else has stalled in their development? 

 

Stan Bowman got a 3 for drafting and a Benning got a 2.5 - why?  Nick Schmaltz and Ryan Hartman?  Boeser looks better than both and he was drafted late in the round as well... and then there's Tryamkin and Forsling (say what you will about losing them.)   DeBrincat looks nice but so do Demko and Gaudette to name a pair of guys Chicago would have had a chance to nab. 

 

2.5 in trades despite landing Baertschi and Granlund and getting awesome value for Dahlen and another good pickup in Goldobin.  Even Vey and Baertschi for two 2nds is a win considering the likelihood of 2nds panning out.  Can you say we lost the Gudbranson deal when neither McCann nor Guddy have shown what they can do?  

 

It feels very subjective.  "The Canucks are bad so he must be making tons of mistakes."

 

56 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Why not? This is the new NHL, RFA's, UFA's. Why hasn't Cassels or Suban been given a chance? Other team's throw away's are in fact, Benning traded away 2nd round picks for some. Why didn't Jensen, Archibald, Valk or Shinkruk get a better shot? Because they were Gillis's boy's? What do any of these players look like on the ice? In a game? In the NHL? Remember they wanted Horvat to go back down to, the only reason he didn't was because of his injury.

 

It seems Benning is acting like a male lion, the first thing he does when he takes over the pride is kill all the cubs. In this Benning doesn't try any of the previous regime's players, he gets rid of them and can then blame "the cupboards are bare".

 

A loss of confidence can ruin a career, having a team give up on you or keep you down can do that as well.

 

And after three years and drafting in the top 6, Horvat is still the only player with NHL top six "potential", not just top 6 on this team, there are lots of those.

Come on Guardian...

 

Subban could have gotten a shot - sure - especially in light the Larson failed experiment.  

 

But the rest are the proof of how poor the inherited talent was.  The chance of any of those players ever getting a cup of coffee let alone being impact NHL'ers is pretty slim. Baertschi and Granlund have done fine after their parent clubs "gave up" on them so that's a load as well.

 

Bo, Gaunce, Hutton, McEneny.. enough of the Gillis-era youth are getting a chance so the "male lion" analogy is just gobbledygook.  

[King Heffy]

58 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Why not? This is the new NHL, RFA's, UFA's. Why hasn't Cassels or Suban been given a chance? Other team's throw away's are in fact, Benning traded away 2nd round picks for some. Why didn't Jensen, Archibald, Valk or Shinkruk get a better shot? Because they were Gillis's boy's? What do any of these players look like on the ice? In a game? In the NHL? Remember they wanted Horvat to go back down to, the only reason he didn't was because of his injury.

 

It seems Benning is acting like a male lion, the first thing he does when he takes over the pride is kill all the cubs. In this Benning doesn't try any of the previous regime's players, he gets rid of them and can then blame "the cupboards are bare".

 

A loss of confidence can ruin a career, having a team give up on you or keep you down can do that as well.

 

And after three years and drafting in the top 6, Horvat is still the only player with NHL top six "potential", not just top 6 on this team, there are lots of those.

Benning didn't avoid playing the Gillis picks out of spite.  Gillis had a pretty terrible record of drafting and Benning was brought in to clean up the mess left by that idiot.