The TDL Benning Complaint Thread Department

[BlastPast]

OK, I just took a spin through Steve Yzerman's transaction history while GM of the Lightning . There are defo. some savvy deals that helped build the team they enjoy today , but there are also some things that do not look good in the rearview mirror. Deals that would be referenced ad nauseum if they were done by this team.

 

-Trading a 3rd for and signing a 32 year old Eric Brewer to a 4 yr. X 3.875 deal.  That 3rd rounder ? Jordan Binnington. Irrelevant I know but that's the sort of thing that would come up when discussing the trade.

 

-Trading a 3rd(#64), 2nd(#37), 2nd(#50) for Anders Lindback, Kyle Wilson and a 7th(202)

 

-Giving up a 5th(131) for what amounted to 34 games of Benoit Pouliot

 

- Trading a 4th(110) , 4th (94) for a 5th (142) and B.J. Crombeen

 

-Selecting Brett Connolly 7th overall

 

 

I could continue with a few more but you get the point. The purpose of this isn't to demonstrate what a poor job Steve Y. did-the good outweigh the bad as evidenced by their present team-but to show that holding a  GM to an immaculate standard will always yield more criticism than is necessary . Also, worth noting is that despite inheriting a team that had a young Stamkos and Hedman they missed the playoffs his 2nd and 3rd year and got swept in the first round in his 4th. His 5th and 6th years were strong before missing the playoffs again in his 7th. As you can see, the path to their current dominance ha not been a perfectly linear upward slope and only a fool would have expected it to be.

 

[Baggins]

12 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I don't think we should "intentionally tank the team", I don't want to watch games where the team doesn't try. But at the same time trading draft picks away seems counterproductive to me, especially when this regime has done such a great job of drafting. 

 

They were young players, but they were reclamation projects. If they were going to be guys to carry a team they wouldn't be available for trade. Or atleast for the level picks we were trading for some of them. To me when it came to a Larsen or a Clendening that was trying to gamble on a RH guy to help the PP in the short-term. (as an example) Successful or not it wasn't going to move the needle long term or short term.

 

Sometimes it fine making those moves, I didn't have a problem with the Baertschi trade. But when your constantly going back to that well I think your better off just to draft. They've done a good enough job that these picks can mean more than just taking a short-term flyer on a Larsen, or a Vey, or a Pouliot. exc.

 

Appreciate the response Baggins. 

What's the real difference between using a pick or trading it for a young player with good AHL numbers that's yet to prove himself in the NHL? The only difference is how long you wait to find out if he's an NHL player. Either way the result can be the same - anywhere from boon to bust. Vey falls into the top 30% of 2nd round picks by playing over 100 NHL games. You play 200 NHL games and you're in the top 25% of 2nd rounders. And the majority of that 25% aren't elite or stars. That's actually a small percentage. With no prospect pool to speak of and nothing in Utica NHL ready how was he supposed to rebuild? Keep those picks and wait 3, 4, or 5 years? 

 

Benning started in a position I've never seen before and I'm an old timer. One player on the roster under 27 and everybody else on the decline with no prospect pool. He had to buy out two contracts and was limited on returns with ntc's. and even moving them he was lacking in young replacements. It made total sense to me trading for NHL ready prospects that had AHL success. Unlike some I don't expect every draft pick to be a star. Nor did I expect all these AHL players to be a success. Either route though the more times at the well the greater the chance of a success. To me Benning split between the two options. Get some ready and get some you'll have to wait for.

 

Look at the reaction to trading Forsling for Clendening. Some fans here freaked out. But Clendening had pretty good AHL numbers and was stuck behind a strong Chicago D. Well it's 5 years later and is Forsling lighting up the league? Nope, he's played NHL games but is in the AHL. Five years later there's 5 players from the 2014 2nd round with over 100 NHL games and 6 more from the next 5 rounds combined. That's 11 picks out of 180 prospects with 100+ NHL games and one of them is Forsling. Brisebois was drafted 4 years ago and just played his 1st NHL game. Should Benning have gone just picks and played the waiting game? Would he really be further ahead? 

 

This is why I have no problem at all with Benning's approach. But I'm one of those that doesn't believe in setting your team up to lose to start the season. If out of the playoffs I have no issue with trying to move pending ufa's that you don't intend to re-sign. That's just asset management. But setting your team up to lose from day 1 doesn't sit well with me. You always try to put the best team on the ice you can every year. I'll pay to go to games every year win or lose as long as the GM does that. But I wouldn't spend a penny on a team the GM set up lose from day 1.

[TheRealistOptimist]

3 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

What was the worst contract JB inherited?

The Sedin’s were the worst contracts he inherited. They were the worst because they were being paid $7 million each, had NMC and even if you were able to convince them to waive (which you never would’ve been able to) you would’ve had to deal both to the same place, lowering their value. Also because their production was no where close to worth $7 million.

 

Kesler limited where he would go to to 1 or 2 teams. Hamhuis apparently turned down a trade to Pittsburgh, Benning didn’t accept what he felt was a low ball offer from Dallas (I believe).

 

The biggest problem when JB took over is that he had 2 legacy players in the twighlight of their careers when he took over. This meant people like Trevor Linden felt you couldn’t be a terrible team on purpose while they were still here.

 

None of JBs trades were trading young pieces or draft picks away for old players, to try and win now. They were about trading for players who were closer to NHL ready right now and had already been mostly developed. Unfortunately some of them didn’t work. But if they had each of them would still be core players on this team. 

 

Fans get so caught up on trades involving mid round picks. Yet most of you are the same ones who have already written off Kole Lind and Jonah Gadjovich (2nd round picks) because they’ve had a slow first season in the AHL playing in limited roles. 

 

I get it to some extent we want our every move to be for impact players or lottery picks, so we can turn the corner quicker. But it’s just unrealistic based on the assets we have currently. 

 

Nobody wants to hear it but rebuilding is just about patience. And yes finishing near the bottom of the standings is part of that process, especially if you are not picking out in the draft lottery. 

 

 

[Smashian Kassian]

2 minutes ago, Baggins said:

What's the real difference between using a pick or trading it for a young player with good AHL numbers that's yet to prove himself in the NHL? The only difference is how long you wait to find out if he's an NHL player. Either way the result can be the same - anywhere from boon to bust. Vey falls into the top 30% of 2nd round picks by playing over 100 NHL games. You play 200 NHL games and you're in the top 25% of 2nd rounders. And the majority of that 25% aren't elite or stars. That's actually a small percentage. With no prospect pool to speak of and nothing in Utica NHL ready how was he supposed to rebuild? Keep those picks and wait 3, 4, or 5 years? 

 

Benning started in a position I've never seen before and I'm an old timer. One player on the roster under 27 and everybody else on the decline with no prospect pool. He had to buy out two contracts and was limited on returns with ntc's. and even moving them he was lacking in young replacements. It made total sense to me trading for NHL ready prospects that had AHL success. Unlike some I don't expect every draft pick to be a star. Nor did I expect all these AHL players to be a success. Either route though the more times at the well the greater the chance of a success. To me Benning split between the two options. Get some ready and get some you'll have to wait for.

 

Look at the reaction to trading Forsling for Clendening. Some fans here freaked out. But Clendening had pretty good AHL numbers and was stuck behind a strong Chicago D. Well it's 5 years later and is Forsling lighting up the league? Nope, he's played NHL games but is in the AHL. Five years later there's 5 players from the 2014 2nd round with over 100 NHL games and 6 more from the next 5 rounds combined. That's 11 picks out of 180 prospects with 100+ NHL games and one of them is Forsling. Brisebois was drafted 4 years ago and just played his 1st NHL game. Should Benning have gone just picks and played the waiting game? Would he really be further ahead? 

 

This is why I have no problem at all with Benning's approach. But I'm one of those that doesn't believe in setting your team up to lose to start the season. If out of the playoffs I have no issue with trying to move pending ufa's that you don't intend to re-sign. That's just asset management. But setting your team up to lose from day 1 doesn't sit well with me. You always try to put the best team on the ice you can every year. I'll pay to go to games every year win or lose as long as the GM does that. But I wouldn't spend a penny on a team the GM set up lose from day 1.

 

I agree about not setting your team up to lose. Do the best you can, if you can make a trade to improve okay but not sacrificing picks/futures for a short term thing. That would be my only thing about that.

 

You make a good point about Vey. That was one I didn't really like because I thought they got a good return for Garrison with 2nd & I wasn't confident in Vey being an answer longer term. He had a good first year but I felt we had basically the same kinda player in Schroeder who they let walk, then paid a premium for Vey. Anyways thats just one case. Spilt milk aside; I don't mind going for one of those moves here & there. As I said I liked the Baertschi trade. I didn't mind the Pouliot move, I hadn't seen him in PIT but I liked Pouliot in his draft year. Philip Larsen, Clendening, Pedan, others I wasn't so keen on. I'm fine with it here & there for sure, sometimes you take a gamble on a guy that you can envision stepping into a role. We didn't give up a pick thankfully, but Josh Leivo was probably his best move of that ilk. Just the going back to that well time & time. It always seemed like they were just trying to find something quick & before you know it they had sent more than a few picks out the door.

 

I actually didn't mind the returns for the Gillis guys he traded. 2nd's for Garrison & Bieksa who's best days were likely behind them. Dahlen for Burrows was a steal even if Dahlen didn't work out here. Goldobin & a mid-rounder was good value for Hansen. The Kesler deal was pretty good too. 

 

Again I agree put the best team on the ice you can, but acknowledge where your at. And in our case keep the future in mind when your tempted to try & find a minor improvement now. Ultimately my stance here is questioning whether the long term view was really the priority in the earlier years. I think the answer is no & that its coming back to bite us now. The reason for that is my fear that we will have a playoff team around a good core down the road but lack the supplementary players to be a top 5 contender. Nevermind how far away we are in the short term. I've never take away the job Benning has done at the draft getting this core or the trades/moves I've agreed with. 

[Smashian Kassian]

3 minutes ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

The Sedin’s were the worst contracts he inherited. They were the worst because they were being paid $7 million each, had NMC and even if you were able to convince them to waive (which you never would’ve been able to) you would’ve had to deal both to the same place, lowering their value. Also because their production was no where close to worth $7 million.

 

Kesler limited where he would go to to 1 or 2 teams. Hamhuis apparently turned down a trade to Pittsburgh, Benning didn’t accept what he felt was a low ball offer from Dallas (I believe).

 

The biggest problem when JB took over is that he had 2 legacy players in the twighlight of their careers when he took over. This meant people like Trevor Linden felt you couldn’t be a terrible team on purpose while they were still here.

 

None of JBs trades were trading young pieces or draft picks away for old players, to try and win now. They were about trading for players who were closer to NHL ready right now and had already been mostly developed. Unfortunately some of them didn’t work. But if they had each of them would still be core players on this team. 

 

Fans get so caught up on trades involving mid round picks. Yet most of you are the same ones who have already written off Kole Lind and Jonah Gadjovich (2nd round picks) because they’ve had a slow first season in the AHL playing in limited roles. 

 

I get it to some extent we want our every move to be for impact players or lottery picks, so we can turn the corner quicker. But it’s just unrealistic based on the assets we have currently. 

 

Nobody wants to hear it but rebuilding is just about patience. And yes finishing near the bottom of the standings is part of that process, especially if you are not picking out in the draft lottery. 

 

5

 

If the Sedins were the worst contract then things really weren't that bad. Those guys were never going anywhere regardless. They took alot less before at a time when they were superstars, for a few years arguably top 5 players in the world, and because of it we had our highest of highs. They signed those contracts in 2013 I believe, which yeah they were on the back 9, but they were still players worthy of that money at the time.

 

Kesler handcuffed them but they managed alright. I don't think they were seriously prepared to trade Hamhuis in 2016 & got caught with their pants down, in hindsight even a lowball offer was better than nothing but its not a big deal.

 

As Baggins said, I agree with not trying to lose but I think they realized as time went on where this team was at, and that there wasn't going to be a homerun. If Linden & co. felt that way at the start, then fine. The first year they rebounded & made playoffs. The Sedins were 70 point players. That was fine. But after the 2nd year they should have had better foresight. Gudbranson was 24 so the idea was he could be apart of the future. Problem was he was a bad target & it wasn't the right time to make that move. 

 

At that point after losing the way we did against Calgary, and then things being clear with how the team performed, it seemed very obvious where this team was trending. Loui Eriksson & Erik Gudbranson weren't really going to turn that around whether they were what was advertised or not. But assets were spent, we weren't proactive with the assets on our team & its hurting us now.

 

I don't have a problem with patience. I don't think anyone does. It just would have been nice if things were done a bit different. Less than the allotted 7 picks after 4 years of being the worst team isn't a great look especially as you look at a rebuilding teams like DET (who also didn't wanna burn it down) & NYR being pro-active on UFA's/vets & acquiring (in DET's case) a third more picks.

 

I agree its about patience. And I'm not writing off Gadjovich or Lind myself. I think the first year in the AHL is an eye opener for alot of touted prospects. I'm looking for a step from those guys next year, I do have some confidence that will happen, especially with Lind. 

 

 

 

[nuck-lifer]

Going through Benning's history of drafting, trades and UFA signings since 2014 have come up with the following numbers

1 being horrible and 10 being exceptional

Example

Eriksson = 2 

Petey =10

 

Drafting- 7.31 very good

Trades- 5.57 just above average

UFA signings- 5.27 just above average

 

Not a perfect world, but overall Aquaman should be pretty happy with the results so far since he absolutely started with a dogs breakfast IMO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wilbur]

10 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Every GM in the league knows that Vancouver needs draft picks and many "A" quality prospects and because of the team's perennial position in the standings not many player have asset value.

 

EVERY team needs draft picks and "A" quality prospects.  Aged, NTCed Edler's and Hamhuis's aren't going to return a guaranteed impact player.

[TheRealistOptimist]

11 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

Why even hang on to draft picks at all then?  If it's the same thing trading for players like Vey, let's just do it every time that way we don't have to wait around for the development process.  Send out all our picks, bring in a bunch of given-up-on 22 year olds.

 

The teams we are acquire these players from have a much better handle on their own prospects, they know things that gmjb doesnt.   It's not the same thing

There are prospects on good teams who can’t quite crack the NHL team because they are full of veterans or impact players/prospects already. 

 

These are who Benning was trying to find. They didn’t all end up working out the way we would’ve liked but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth the chance. 

 

I mean I have seen many people on CDC trying to trade for other people’s prospects who people feel could be impact players. I guess according to your logic though you should never trade for another teams prospect ever, because that means one teams already given up on them. 

 

So why were people so mad at Dahlen being traded then? He’s been given up on twice now. I guess Nashville should’ve never traded Erat for F. Forsberg either. 

[Pete M]

This is seeming more like how they rebuilt in the early 80s under Harry f$%ck'n Neale.

[Boudrias]

7 minutes ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

There are prospects on good teams who can’t quite crack the NHL team because they are full of veterans or impact players/prospects already. 

 

These are who Benning was trying to find. They didn’t all end up working out the way we would’ve liked but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth the chance. 

 

I mean I have seen many people on CDC trying to trade for other people’s prospects who people feel could be impact players. I guess according to your logic though you should never trade for another teams prospect ever, because that means one teams already given up on them. 

 

So why were people so mad at Dahlen being traded then? He’s been given up on twice now. I guess Nashville should’ve never traded Erat for F. Forsberg either. 

What some fans are forgetting is that Benning was faced with a complete lack of talent in the transition age group of 24 - 28 years old when he started. He had to ice a team as he drafted for talent and depth. 

 

Baggins talked about icing the best team possible to start each season. Not to sure what he meant other than a suggestion that Benning did not. In light of a timeline I cannot necessarily agree with him. Using that logic you could justify sacrificing future talent in exchange for a short term improvement which would ultimately leave a future team in worse shape. IMHO the reality of a rebuild is that there are a number of tough years before the harvest.   

 

[Pete M]

7 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

What some fans are forgetting is that Benning was faced with a complete lack of talent in the transition age group of 24 - 28 years old when he started. He had to ice a team as he drafted for talent and depth. 

 

Baggins talked about icing the best team possible to start each season. Not to sure what he meant other than a suggestion that Benning did not. In light of a timeline I cannot necessarily agree with him. Using that logic you could justify sacrificing future talent in exchange for a short term improvement which would ultimately leave a future team in worse shape. IMHO the reality of a rebuild is that there are a number of tough years before the harvest.   

 

JB likes 30+ year old players like Vrbata, Prust, LE, Beagle...instead of fixing the "D" when Niskanen, Leddy and Boychuk were available and when Cole, and deHaan were available. Imagine having all those "D" on the team because they could have been (all of them)....instead we have garbage....If he wants to fix this team in a hurry, he better fix the D

[Baggins]

1 minute ago, The 5th Line said:

Why ever hang on to draft picks at all then?

Always the extremist.

 

2 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

If it's the same thing trading for players like Vey, let's just do it every time that way we don't have to wait around for the development process.  Send out all our picks, bring in a bunch of given-up-on 22 year olds.

 

The teams we are acquire these players have a much better handle on their own prospects.  They know things that gmjb doesnt.   It's not the same thing

It depends entirely on where your team is at. No prospects and an aging team why not acquire a few young quality AHL'ers that their team doesn't have room for? It is the same thing. AHL is no more the NHL than junior is. They may succeed, they may not. Both options offer reward or nothing. I'd say you have a higher chance of the late bloomer that becomes a star using the pick, but on the flip side a higher chance of the successful AHL player becoming an NHL player simply because it's a tougher league than junior. Sometimes you need now, sometimes you need the lottery ticket. We needed both. So your extremist attitude doesn't work. It's not one or the other for the position we were in. Both was the better option. Picks are just greener prospects.

 

Anaheim was a deep team and a contender. Why would they move out a proven player NHL player to take a chance on an unproven prospect? What you call a "cast-off" or "or given up on" is simply a victim of circumstance. Being behind a deep team. Clendening was behind a deep contending Chicago D. Anaheim and Chicago knew those prospects had value and wouldn't clear waiver so they went on the market. Now if you don't have room for the players you're trading would you trade for other players you don't have room for? Of course not. Unless of course you're getting a better proven player than you already have. So you want a younger prospect or a draft pick in return for the prospect you're giving up.

 

This is why we moved Grabner. Our entire top 6 just had a career year and he was waiver eligible. Being a contender does it make sense to move a player that has just proven himself or a prospect that hasn't? His AHL numbers gave him value and he wouldn't clear waivers. In that case he was packaged for a needed d-man rather than a younger prospect or pick. These trades happen because of depth and the fact they have value.

 

It's not as black and white as you like to think. There's more than one way and opportunities can be missed by believing there is only one way.

[canucksnihilist]

3 hours ago, oldnews said:

 

 

Sure - but wadr your post wasn't "debate" material - it was a factually incorrect, embellished misrepresentation of the player that doesn't respect what he actually brings.

 

So I responded in the tone you used - and it aint "personal" - but I did provide what I considered the relevent "debate" counterpoints - that recognize the actual role he plays.   No one judges shutdown players on goal differentials - at least no one that understands the game - which is what you did, while sandbagging the player based on a red herring.

Ok ill ignore the button pushing....  try replying without feeding please...

 

maybe i dont understand the game as well as you do.  I'm not perfect and can just react to what i see...  a shutdown center should be judged based on goals for and against no?  How does he compare against other 4th line centers in the bottom half of teams?

 

 

[Baggins]

12 minutes ago, Pete M said:

JB likes 30+ year old players like Vrbata, Prust, LE, Beagle...instead of fixing the "D" when Niskanen, Leddy and Boychuk were available and when Cole, and deHaan were available. Imagine having all those "D" on the team because they could have been (all of them)....instead we have garbage....If he wants to fix this team in a hurry, he better fix the D

You're making the assumption all of those guys would have been willing to come to a team rebuilding. Without backing up an overloaded money truck I have my doubts.

[billabong]

Benning ain’t perfect but no GM is

 

his 2 biggest mistakes are eriksson and taking juolevi over tkachuk 

 

the rest have been meh or so so nothing totally horrendous like a erat for forsberg deal 

 

he’ll be busy at the draft and July 1 

 

i trust him to shake it up and get us into the playoffs in 2020

 

 

[Baggins]

3 minutes ago, canucksnihilist said:

Ok ill ignore the button pushing....  try replying without feeding please...

 

maybe i dont understand the game as well as you do.  I'm not perfect and can just react to what i see...  a shutdown center should be judged based on goals for and against no?  How does he compare against other 4th line centers in the bottom half of teams?

 

 

How many shutdown centers are top scorers playing with top scorers? How many top scorers do they play against? Guy like Ovie, McJesus and others don't get to play against the weakest players in the league. Well if they always face the toughest checkers how do they keep hitting 80, 90, or even 100 points? The majority of shutdown players just can't outscore the talent level they're up against. All they can do, at best, is limit them.

[TheRealistOptimist]

6 hours ago, Pete M said:

JB likes 30+ year old players like Vrbata, Prust, LE, Beagle...instead of fixing the "D" when Niskanen, Leddy and Boychuk were available and when Cole, and deHaan were available. Imagine having all those "D" on the team because they could have been (all of them)....instead we have garbage....If he wants to fix this team in a hurry, he better fix the D

Leddy and Boychuk were both traded in 2014 then signed to 7 year deals. Ian Cole was under contract for 13-14 and 14-15, during 14-15 he was traded to Pittsburgh and re-signed with them before becoming a UFA. Niskanen was a UFA but went from Cup contender in Pittsburgh to Cup contender in Washington (not sure why he would’ve signed in Van). DeHaan was maybe a piece we would’ve been able to get this off-season but at what cost and maybe he didn’t want to come here, seeing as we’re in a rebuild. 

 

I dont know why you chose these examples, but they all seem like pretty bad examples for how JB could’ve easily “fixed” this Defense. 

 

Top pairing defensemen rarely hit the open market and when they do I would imagine they rarely sign with rebuilding teams. 

 

There is no “easy fix” to the Defense for the Canucks. You just have to draft and develop. 

[vannuck59]

9 hours ago, nuck-lifer said:

Going through Benning's history of drafting, trades and UFA signings since 2014 have come up with the following numbers

1 being horrible and 10 being exceptional

Example

Eriksson = 2 

Petey =10

 

Drafting- 7.31 very good

Trades- 5.57 just above average

UFA signings- 5.27 just above average

 

Not a perfect world, but overall Aquaman should be pretty happy with the results so far since he absolutely started with a dogs breakfast IMO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand we could have been extremely better and above the 6.00 total average.

[TheGuardian_]

10 hours ago, Wilbur said:

EVERY team needs draft picks and "A" quality prospects.  Aged, NTCed Edler's and Hamhuis's aren't going to return a guaranteed impact player.

If you buy a lottery ticket would you want a 5% chance at winning or a 0% chance? Most will say 5% is better than nothing.

 

With Benning's reluctance to trade any veteran, except Gillis's players, he assures the team of a slower process in the rebuild and ages out the few good young players the Canucks have.

 

They should possibly consider Horvat in trade talks now, but have a minimum return, a top 6 pick and an "A" prospect? Gaudette to take over some of his duties? After the draft lottery, teams with top 6 picks will be known so it would be looking at which team might have the best package to be returned, even if it is next year's #1 with the "A" prospect this year.

 

The team needs two more top 7 picks but might be able to get 4 1rst round picks this year and next with a few top prospects/players thrown in by trading Boeser and Horvat. 

[vannuck59]

15 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

If you buy a lottery ticket would you want a 5% chance at winning or a 0% chance? Most will say 5% is better than nothing.

 

With Benning's reluctance to trade any veteran, except Gillis's players, he assures the team of a slower process in the rebuild and ages out the few good young players the Canucks have.

 

They should possibly consider Horvat in trade talks now, but have a minimum return, a top 6 pick and an "A" prospect? Gaudette to take over some of his duties? After the draft lottery teams with top 6 picks will be known so it would be looking at which team might have the best package to be returned, even if it is next year's #1 with the "A" prospect this year.

 

The team needs two more top 7 picks but might be able to get 4 1rst round picks this year and next with a few top prospects/players thrown in by trading Boeser and Horvat. 

Wait! No to trading Boeser and Horvat, But a combination off one or two of Virtanen, Markstom, Goldobin, Pearson, Hutton, Stecher , Juolevi , would be on the block for a couple of first rounders.