Benning Mentality

[JM_]

20 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I'm not saying he's a bust and am actually very glad we have him, because we'd be even thinner in our up and coming blue line ( I am a Brisbois fan and wouldn't be surprised if he makes the team at some point and had a similar impact as Hutton), and maybe one day we can look back and say we did all right.  It's a little frustrating to see other guys already in and making an impact, Sergechev is earning his minutes but isn't carrying the mail yet for sure, especially with Hedman on the team.. McAvoy is playing much tougher minutes.

McAvoy is probably surprising himself this year  No one saw this coming.  I think we had similar luck with Boeser. 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I wouldn't get too caught up in zone starts for two reasons.  One, ozone starts only make up a vary small percentage of all shift starts, the majority line changes don't occur during a faceoff, so it doesn't tell the whole story. And two, because zone starts varies team to team.  What zone a player starts at on a face off is reliant on where the previous line ended their shift.  For example, a offensive team like Hawks have 57% of there starts in the offensive zone.  The have taken 681 faceoffs in the offensive zone this year and only 459 faceoffs in the defensive zone. (only 3 of there reg roster players are under 50% ozone starts).  Compare that to a team like the Coyotes.  They only have a 45% ozone start, 598 offensive zone faceoffs vs 721 defensive zone facesoffs.  Just because OEL is only getting 48% ozone starts, it doesn't mean he's being relied on as a shut down D, it's that his team doesn't generate that many ozone starts and he is actually leading his D core in the most offensive zone starts. 

 

With that said I would say Sergachev is getting sheltered but, most rookies should be sheltered when coming into the league, especially ones that are heavily regarded in there offensive skills.  Brock this year is getting 60% ozone starts, if Pettersson makes the team next year I hope he gets something similar.   Same with Juolevi, he might not get the high ozone starts but he will/should be sheltered against the quality of competition he plays against.  The last thing i want is him making the jump and getting put against McDavid, Kopitar and Getzlaf, only for his confidence to get destroyed. We need to make the transition as easy as possible, keep their game simple and let them get accustomed to the transition, as they start to get more and more comfortable, then we can start adding in more responsibility.  

 

 

 

well, they do tell a story though. Watching Green's treatment of Pouliot e.g., started almost exclusively in the o-zone for the first couple of games, and has slowly been given more time in d starts and his average is now under 60% so my guess is he's now closer to 50-50 (have to check the game by game stats to confirm).

 

But true we can't get carried away over 1 single metric. 

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

well, they do tell a story though. Watching Green's treatment of Pouliot e.g., started almost exclusively in the o-zone for the first couple of games, and has slowly been given more time in d starts and his average is now under 60% so my guess is he's now closer to 50-50 (have to check the game by game stats to confirm).

 

But true we can't get carried away over 1 single metric. 

Yep they do tell a story about where the coach feels the players strong suit is,  I'm just saying it's hard to compare a player on one teams zone starts vs a player on another team.  So many things come into consideration, so it's hard to really nail down the meaning.

 

[ilduce39]

24 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I wouldn't get too caught up in zone starts for two reasons.  One, ozone starts only make up a vary small percentage of all shift starts, the majority line changes don't occur during a faceoff, so it doesn't tell the whole story. And two, because zone starts varies team to team.  What zone a player starts at on a face off is reliant on where the previous line ended their shift.  For example, a offensive team like Hawks have 57% of there starts in the offensive zone.  The have taken 681 faceoffs in the offensive zone this year and only 459 faceoffs in the defensive zone. (only 3 of there reg roster players are under 50% ozone starts).  Compare that to a team like the Coyotes.  They only have a 45% ozone start, 598 offensive zone faceoffs vs 721 defensive zone facesoffs.  Just because OEL is only getting 48% ozone starts, it doesn't mean he's being relied on as a shut down D, it's that his team doesn't generate that many ozone starts and he is actually leading his D core in the most offensive zone starts. 

 

With that said I would say Sergachev is getting sheltered but, most rookies should be sheltered when coming into the league, especially ones that are heavily regarded in there offensive skills.  Brock this year is getting 60% ozone starts, if Pettersson makes the team next year I hope he gets something similar.   Same with Juolevi, he might not get the high ozone starts but he will/should be sheltered against the quality of competition he plays against.  The last thing i want is him making the jump and getting put against McDavid, Kopitar and Getzlaf, only for his confidence to get destroyed. We need to make the transition as easy as possible, keep their game simple and let them get accustomed to the transition, as they start to get more and more comfortable, then we can start adding in more responsibility.  

 

 

 

Zone starts have limitations like any stat but leading the team at 70% is certainly relevant. As it’s 5v5 it’s also not counting the 2 minutes a night (of his 15 average) Serg is getting on the PP with elite teammates.  

 

Not to crap on him at all, but he’s being deployed in a very specific way so far.  As you said, he’s being sheltered and effectively utilized in an offensive role.

 

To bring it back to Canuck talk -  I think it would be harder for a team like ours to do the same.  While I agree he doesn’t need top matchups, we will also almost certainly be asking more of Juolevi if he makes the squad next year.

[Hairy Kneel]

Just re-sign JB already.

[oldnews]

33 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

It was really odd seeing some of the talk on him after that 1st world junior game, I though he looked great. Someone posted every shift of his over in the prospects thread and he only made 1 mistake all night, pretty impressive. More than that he had a "Tanev-ness" that I really hope translates up here. 

 

btw... how did this deserve a -1? 

I saw a poster trolling and minusing every response from 48MPH, so I negged him and earned a minus stalker lol. 

All in good fun.  I'm game to return the favour.

 

I've seen numerous NA lists of players to watch, including ones that focus exclusively on Sweden, that make no mention of Pettersson let alone Juolevi - and in the end it's just noise - it doesn't really matter what any of us project of these players, but watching them both, I am completely stoked at the prospect of seeing them added to the Canucks roster in the next few years.  I think they're both 'cerebral' players - maybe that's why we hear the woosh so often where they're concerned.

 

I personally probably would have taken Mittelstadt over Pettersson at the time of the draft - just hadn't seen much at all of Pettersson and he remained a relatively unknown quantity - which is why I'm glad GMJB makes these calls and not me - Mittelstadt looks pretty good, but I would be regretting having taken him now that I've seen what Pettersson is capable of.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

29 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Zone starts have limitations like any stat but leading the team at 70% is certainly relevant. As it’s 5v5 it’s also not counting the 2 minutes a night (of his 15 average) Serg is getting on the PP with elite teammates.  

 

Not to crap on him at all, but he’s being deployed in a very specific way so far.  As you said, he’s being sheltered and effectively utilized in an offensive role.

That goes to say more about their roster than anything, They have 3 players getting over 55% (canucks only have 1)  Right now in tampa they rely on girardi and Coburn being primary shutdown players, that's not to say Sergachev couldn't do that, it just that they have better options.  Kieth is over 65% ozone starts but I would need more context than just zone starts to really determine if he's being sheltered or not.

 

Quote

To bring it back to Canuck talk -  I think it would be harder for a team like ours to do the same.  While I agree he doesn’t need top matchups, we will also almost certainly be asking more of Juolevi if he makes the squad next year.

I'm hoping we don't, but that might come down to what happens in trades this year.  I don't expect much from him next year. 50-60 games, I'd love for him to come in a just play a simple game, 15-17 minutes per game, a little offensive would be nice, and not asked on a lot in shutting down.  I'd be looking for a similar progression to someone like Ellis.  Juolevi is probably a bit more developed at the same age having played a pro season in Europe so he might be a bit faster in progressing but lets let him get his feet wet, and get comfortable and as he progresses then we can start counting on him more.  Yes that means he will have a lot of critiques calling him a bust since he wont be lighting the world on fire right away but I think in the long run he will be better off and if we can land a Ellis caliber player out of him that would be a major win.

[J-23]

8 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Wow. What a very basic, simplistic, surface level interpretation of the facts.

 

It's when you start to look at it a little more in depth that the narrative you're trying to create comes crashing down.

 

- Great/elite prospects in every position.

 

- Going from having one of the worst prospect pools in the league to one of the best in relatively short order.

 

- The fact that many of our highest level prospects are either playing in college or overseas, which usually ties them up for a few years after being drafted.

 

- The fact that we're actually taking the time to properly develop our prospects rather than throwing them to the wolves ala EDM.

Yes sir! Look at the Coilers now, struggling, and those losers got McDavid. 

[oldnews]

20 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Zone starts have limitations like any stat but leading the team at 70% is certainly relevant. As it’s 5v5 it’s also not counting the 2 minutes a night (of his 15 average) Serg is getting on the PP with elite teammates.  

 

Not to crap on him at all, but he’s being deployed in a very specific way so far.  As you said, he’s being sheltered and effectively utilized in an offensive role.

 

To bring it back to Canuck talk -  I think it would be harder for a team like ours to do the same.  While I agree he doesn’t need top matchups, we will also almost certainly be asking more of Juolevi if he makes the squad next year.

Completely agree - that they are relevent and important to keep in context - far more relevent than attempts to explain it away as if it isn't - it indicates somewhat clearly a coaches' intentions where a player is concerned, and how much he feels he can trust them in the broader sense of the game.

I find Green very interesting in this sense, in that he switches things up unpredictably with players up and down the lineup - and that is not common at all.  Sedins weighted differently from one game to the next, other forwards likewise, and his pairings as well. 

Also, the willingness to utilize rookie's like Gaunce and Virtanen in very heavily weighted dzone starts - not common at all with young players and maybe testimony to the kind of development he has overseen previously in the AHL.

Context is always important - because outside of it people can get carried away with assumptions about the effectiveness and ability of players to "drive play".

Hodgson between HIggins and Hansen - probably created a significant misperception/inflation of his abilities on their own merits.

Tkachuk has had a great start to his career - with Backlund and Frolik - a pair of outstanding veteran two way players that form a complementary line - his production should be seen in that context. 

On the other hand, a player like Neiderreiter cracks in playing traditional 4th line minutes with traditional 4th line linemates - produces next to nothing over what seems like a reasonable sample - and the assumption becomes that he's a bust....  In fact, he's multiples the NHLer that Hodgson turned out to be.

 

I think Drouin is another case - close to home in this discussion of Sergachev - Drouin's production was not impressive in context in Tampa.   Easy minutes and productive in powerplay opportunities with an elite unit - but 5 on 5,  not really impressive at all - and not worth the return Yzerman got for him imo.    Can't take away from what young players are able to - produce offensively - it's a clear indication of talent on some levels - but it is limited and often enabled or not by circumstances, so evaluating players in a vacuum without an integrated look can give some misleading impressions/results.

[Crabcakes]

On 12/28/2017 at 4:00 PM, King Heffy said:

On balance, we could do a lot worse.  Look at Melnyk to see what a truly terrible owner is like.  Especially like owning our own farm team.  I just think an extra layer between the owner and the GM makes it easier for the GM to do his job.

I think that the present management group is a correction of a flaw of the previous group.  What I mean is, Linden as President, deals directly with ownership.  Benning as GM, executes the plan and is 1 step removed from explaining (and selling) his moves to ownership.

 

Essentially, Benning can spend most of his time on team issues.  Gillis also spent a lot of time with ownership.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, GreyHatnDart said:

To me McAvoy is having the best year so far in his respective position. Having said that though, 13 other teams passed on him as well before Boston picked him, so it's not as if we're the only team that should be wishing they'd picked him. 

Absolutely.  He may turn into the Boeser of the 2016 draft.   Not many times does any GM get it right after the first couple picks, at the time I thought we were drafting Dubois (who's starting to turn it on in CLB, and has ridiculous possession stats) because pre draft and post lottery balls Benning kept saying he was going to get a skilled gritty forward and most lists had him at number 5.  When they took him at 3 it was a little gut punch, and then when MT was passed on the remote almost hit the wall.  It all worked out ok I suppose we drafted for an organizational need, not the BPA, and without him we'd have no real hope on defense.  

 

If we draft Dahlin somehow, Vancouver could pull themselves out of rebuild mode in short order, we'd have two solid to outstanding pieces to build to top pairings around for the next ten years...

 

I will cool it on the OJ bashing it'd not his fault he was drafted fifth in a year that could go down as one of the best ever.

[Freeridebc]

Pettersons last goal was pretty weak.... 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

It was really odd seeing some of the talk on him after that 1st world junior game, I though he looked great. Someone posted every shift of his over in the prospects thread and he only made 1 mistake all night, pretty impressive. More than that he had a "Tanev-ness" that I really hope translates up here. 

 

btw... how did this deserve a -1? 

Tanev is a good comparison IMO, if we get lucky he could be the next Vlasic who is widely considered the best defensive defenseman in the league ( and regularly makes THNs top fifty players).  That would be awesome.

[Crabcakes]

On 12/28/2017 at 3:54 PM, JamesB said:

 

I don't often agree with oldnews, but I have a similar question here.

 

Aquilini did a mea culpa on the hiring of Torts while Mike Gillis was GM, basically taking responsibility for that decision and correcting it with an expensive buyout. 

 

However, since Linden was hired I am not aware of any credible reports that Aquilini has "meddled". I have seen claims that Aquilini was the driving force behind drafting Virtanen (local interest), that he wants to sign Evander Kane (local interest, and has not happened), that he pressured Benning into pursuing a "win now" instead of a rebuild strategy for the first three years, and one or two other things.

 

But I have seen nothing that seems like genuine evidence of any of these claims. If anyone is aware of any convincing or even suggestive evidence (instead of just supposition) I would be very interested to see it.

 

Aquilini takes a fair amount of criticism on CDC and does not get a lot of support. Personally I think he has been an excellent owner. Not only does he spend to the cap (within approximation error) every year, but he spends a lot on non-cap expenses, including paying for a lot of guys in Utica on NHL salaries instead of AHL salaries. I have not been able to find AHL payrolls for this year, but Utica must be close to the highest. The Canucks (i.e. Aquilini) are also known to be generous on lots of other dimensions as well.

I have never heard him criticize a player publicly or put public pressure on management. And, considering that the Canucks had arguably the worst two-season performance in the NHL in the last two seasons despite being a cap team, he has been extremely supportive and patient.

 

Yes, I know he has a lot of money, but compared with other owners he looks pretty good to me.

What exactly is meddling by ownership?  Obviously, ownership writes all the cheques and should take a certain interest in the club.  The Aquilini's are self confessed fans.

 

I have posted my thoughts on the appropriate involvement of ownership but I don't see other people's opinions.  So I guess I'm asking for yours here.  

 

Again, I think that ownership should be involved in at least agreeing with a strategic plan.  This is the direction the team takes in it's broadest, and most general terms.  For example,  Rebuild or Go all in to win the cup THIS year.  And also ownership should be involved in season end reviews and any adjustments to the strategy that may or may not need to be done.  As far as carrying out the plan, that's the GM's job and ownership shouldn't be involved at this level unless a star player would be moved for example.

 

Hiring a coach would be crossing the line imo.  We don't know what the story was with Tortorella but it looked like he came in and sold the team on hiring him on a weekend.  It was thought that Gillis wanted to hire Stevens from LA and then that changed suddenly.  

 

I really don't see outright meddling by ownership in Vancouver by my definition.  We don't really know what the plan was although a lot of people and media have guessed. So was the signing of Eriksson contrary to plan at the time?  I doubt it.  This was before the announced Rebuild by Linden.

 

 

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, tas said:

it's also worth pointing out that of arizona's 9, 2 of them have combined for 2 games played with nothing but 0's on the board, one is a goalie that played 3 games and got lit up, and one is a 3rd overall pick who, in his draft+3 year now, has totaled 2 points in 18 nhl games when he was drafted as a franchise centerman. 

 

edit: let's expand on this.

 

ottawa - 6 of the 7 have combined for 18 gp and 2 assists. 

 

boston - I only found 6, not 7, but nonetheless, boston has drafted really well. 1 of the 6 played only 1 game, but the other 5 have been impactful. weird that benning's former scouting staff has drafted so well ...

 

carolina - of the 7, 3 have combined for 13 gp and 2 assists, and 1 is a goalie that played half of one game. 

Thanks for doing what I understood but didn't have the time to research.  The other interesting tidbits that I see floating around here is how many draft picks Benning has given up, but nothing about how many he's acquired or what those draft picks turned into as far as players go ( aside from Granlund).  Also the round the pick was isnt included ( anything past the third is a crap shoot).   Overall it appears most posters want Benning around for at least two more drafts, myself included.

[JamesB]

13 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

What exactly is meddling by ownership?  Obviously, ownership writes all the cheques and should take a certain interest in the club.  The Aquilini's are self confessed fans.

 

I have posted my thoughts on the appropriate involvement of ownership but I don't see other people's opinions.  So I guess I'm asking for yours here.  

 

Again, I think that ownership should be involved in at least agreeing with a strategic plan.  This is the direction the team takes in it's broadest, and most general terms.  For example,  Rebuild or Go all in to win the cup THIS year.  And also ownership should be involved in season end reviews and any adjustments to the strategy that may or may not need to be done.  As far as carrying out the plan, that's the GM's job and ownership shouldn't be involved at this level unless a star player would be moved for example.

 

Hiring a coach would be crossing the line imo.  We don't know what the story was with Tortorella but it looked like he came in and sold the team on hiring him on a weekend.  It was thought that Gillis wanted to hire Stevens from LA and then that changed suddenly.  

 

I really don't see outright meddling by ownership in Vancouver by my definition.  We don't really know what the plan was although a lot of people and media have guessed. So was the signing of Eriksson contrary to plan at the time?  I doubt it.  This was before the announced Rebuild by Linden.

 

 

Good comments. I pretty much completely agree, but I will add some comments anyway.

 

Part of what is going on is the distinction between general strategy and specific tactics. Probably almost everyone agrees that the owner should not be involved in tactical decision-making -- who gets drafted, who should be on the coaching staff, specific trades, who should play on the PP, etc. Depending on the specific decision, it might be the President, the GM, or the coach who makes the call.

 

For higher level strategy Crabcakes is certainly right that we would expect owners to have input. But, even there, the owner's role should be quite limited. I see the owner's role as follows.

 

1. The owner obviously gets to set the budget and, fortunately for the Canucks, Aquilini has been clear that the Canucks are a "cap team" -- a team that can consistently spend to the cap on salaries. And he has also been generous with other expenditures, including buyouts, the Utica operation, travel expenses, etc.

 

2. The owner also gets to set high level objectives. For example, an owner might say --  my main objective is bring a Stanley Cup to Vancouver.  Acquilini has made public statements of that type. See, for example,  http://www.vancouversun.com/Vancouver+Canucks+owner+Francesco+Aquilini+says+Winning+Stanley+everything+want+Stanley+shouldn+team/10001813/story.html.

 

Of course, public statements and private directions to management do not necessarily coincide. Sometimes owners put more emphasis in private on just having a competitive team, or on generating profits, but they are not likely to say that in public.

 

3. The owner also gets to choose the overall values and tone of the organization. For example, the Canucks have a high level of community involvement, including support for mental health initiatives such as the Canucks autism network and various other programs. One advantage of local individual owners like Aquilini is that they seem more inclined to be serious about community involvement.

 

4. The owner gets to hire the President and has veto power (and firing power) over other high level positions in the organization, including the GM position, although the team President would have the main role in selecting the GM.

 

5. It would be up to the team President and the GM to construct a strategy that is consistent with the owner's overall objective. For example if the overall objective is to contend for a Cup, I would the President and GM might say something like -- given our current personnel and prospect pipeline we should go for a full rebuild and look for contending window starting maybe four years in the future. Or they might say -- full rebuilds are not the best approach, it is more important to be somewhat competitive at all times. Or they might say -- we still have enough good older players to make a run, let's go all-in this year. Then it would be up to the owner to sign off on the plan, or possibly express concerns. But the GM and President should have much more knowledge and experience about what is feasible from a hockey point of view.

 

6. Finally, I would expect the owner to have sign-off authority over major tactical decisions, such as signing expensive free-agents or paying big money to re-sign top players. For example, with re-signing a player like Horvat, I would expect the owner to say to the GM early on --you know this situation better than me, just make the best deal you can, but keep me informed." When the deal was done but not signed, I assume that Benning said something to the owner like -- "it looks like we have a deal at 5.5 per year for six years." And I would expect the owner to say "Great, thanks for keeping me informed.."

 

While obviously I do not know how the Canucks operate, I suspect that they are pretty close to this model. I also suspect that Linden has been playing a bigger and bigger strategic role and that Benning does not interact a lot with the owner (although they often sit beside each other in the Canuck box at home games).

 

 

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, JamesB said:

Good comments. I pretty much completely agree, but I will add some comments anyway.

 

Part of what is going on is the distinction between general strategy and specific tactics. Probably almost everyone agrees that the owner should not be involved in tactical decision-making -- who gets drafted, who should be on the coaching staff, specific trades, who should play on the PP, etc. Depending on the specific decision, it might be the President, the GM, or the coach who makes the call.

 

For higher level strategy Crabcakes is certainly right that we would expect owners to have input. But, even there, the owner's role should be quite limited. I see the owner's role as follows.

 

1. The owner obviously gets to set the budget and, fortunately for the Canucks, Aquilini has been clear that the Canucks are a "cap team" -- a team that can consistently spend to the cap on salaries. And he has also been generous with other expenditures, including buyouts, the Utica operation, travel expenses, etc.

 

2. The owner also gets to set high level objectives. For example, an owner might say --  my main objective is bring a Stanley Cup to Vancouver.  Acquilini has made public statements of that type. See, for example,  http://www.vancouversun.com/Vancouver+Canucks+owner+Francesco+Aquilini+says+Winning+Stanley+everything+want+Stanley+shouldn+team/10001813/story.html.

 

Of course, public statements and private directions to management do not necessarily coincide. Sometimes owners put more emphasis in private on just having a competitive team, or on generating profits, but they are not likely to say that in public.

 

3. The owner also gets to choose the overall values and tone of the organization. For example, the Canucks have a high level of community involvement, including support for mental health initiatives such as the Canucks autism network and various other programs. One advantage of local individual owners like Aquilini is that they seem more inclined to be serious about community involvement.

 

4. The owner gets to hire the President and has veto power (and firing power) over other high level positions in the organization, including the GM position, although the team President would have the main role in selecting the GM.

 

5. It would be up to the team President and the GM to construct a strategy that is consistent with the owner's overall objective. For example if the overall objective is to contend for a Cup, I would the President and GM might say something like -- given our current personnel and prospect pipeline we should go for a full rebuild and look for contending window starting maybe four years in the future. Or they might say -- full rebuilds are not the best approach, it is more important to be somewhat competitive at all times. Or they might say -- we still have enough good older players to make a run, let's go all-in this year. Then it would be up to the owner to sign off on the plan, or possibly express concerns. But the GM and President should have much more knowledge and experience about what is feasible from a hockey point of view.

 

6. Finally, I would expect the owner to have sign-off authority over major tactical decisions, such as signing expensive free-agents or paying big money to re-sign top players. For example, with re-signing a player like Horvat, I would expect the owner to say to the GM early on --you know this situation better than me, just make the best deal you can, but keep me informed." When the deal was done but not signed, I assume that Benning said something to the owner like -- "it looks like we have a deal at 5.5 per year for six years." And I would expect the owner to say "Great, thanks for keeping me informed.."

 

While obviously I do not know how the Canucks operate, I suspect that they are pretty close to this model. I also suspect that Linden has been playing a bigger and bigger strategic role and that Benning does not interact a lot with the owner (although they often sit beside each other in the Canuck box at home games).

 

 

Thanks James.   I agree.  You've fleshed that out very well.  If they don't operate this way, I think it's the way they should be operating.

 

I really don't see any evidence that they aren't operating this way.

 

I could add that strategy does change in small ways from time to time.  It is a moving target which is something that is lost on most media people (Botchford etc).  For example, I think that for the first 2 and a half years (until last January) they were operating in a way that could give the Sedin's another playoff run.  Young players like Horvat, Baertschi, Granlund and Gudbranson supported the Sedin regime.  Also, free agents like Eriksson and trades like Sutter and Miller also helped to support the Sedins (with Burrows, Hansen).  

 

I think that strategy was altered at the mid season review last year.  They are now in Rebuild mode.  This is now a word that Linden is free to use.  The face of the franchise is now Bo Horvat and players now support this age group.  Exit Burrows and Hansen, enter Dahlen and Goldobin.  

 

Note that most of what was done in the first part, also works in the rebuild so it's really a change of focus not a completely different plan.  You could argue that Eriksson doesn't fit with a rebuild and his 6 year contract does not fit but the stability he brings does help.

 

 

[HC20.0]

I don't see why Benning wouldn't be re-signed. He hasn't been perfect, but he's done a great job with what he had to work with. His big moves:

 

Kesler for Bonino, Sbisa, McCann. Considering how badly Kesler handcuffed JB, this was an alright trade.

 

Garrison + minor parts for a 2nd. Great trade just for dumping Garrison's contract.

 

2nd (McKeown) for Vey. Vey was terrible, but LA traded the pick for a failed playoff push, so it's a wash.

 

2nd for Baertschi. Frickin steal.

 

Shinkaruk for Granlund. Frickin steal.

 

Miller - Solid signing.

 

Vrbata - Good first year.

 

Forsling for Clendinning. Admitedly a blunder by JB.

 

Eriksson. Benning's biggest whiff by a mile.

 

Bonino, Clendenning, 2nd for Sutter, 3rd. Clendenning was a washout. Pittsburgh definitely won this trade as Bonino helped them to 2 cups. Sutter's done well aside from his injuries.

 

Gudbranson for McCann and a 2nd. Florida traded away the 2nd as part of the Kulikov deal. Too early to tell. Gudbranson and McCann were both terrible in their first years with their new teams, but both are having good seasons this year. Gudbranson's been one of our better defenders.

 

Gagner, Vanek, and Del Zotto have been solid acquisitions. Gagner could be better, but is coming around. 

 

Hansen for Goldobin + 4th and Burr for Dahlen are looking like steals.

 

His drafting has been fantastic as well. Virtanen was a whiff (though starting to come around), but otherwise his picks have been great. Boeser, Juolevi, Petterson, Lind, Demko, etc.

 

You can make a case that his trades could be better, but overall Benning's done a pretty decent job. Not the best GM we've ever had, but a farcry from the worst.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

10 hours ago, tas said:

boston - I only found 6, not 7, but nonetheless, boston has drafted really well. 1 of the 6 played only 1 game, but the other 5 have been impactful. weird that benning's former scouting staff has drafted so well ...

2014 - Pastrnak, Hienen, Bjork

2015 - Debrusk, Carlo, Karlsson

2016 - McAvoy

 

 

[kloubek]

11 hours ago, IBatch said:

it seems to me that he should have started with drafting them right at the start given they take two more years at least to get going in general

This exactly.  While Benning has turned our forward group around, our d needs serious attention.

 

To be fair, if Juolevi turns out to be a stud its in not great but ok shape - aside from quality depth and prospects.