JB has thrown away far too many assets - needs to be replaced as GM

[Rob_Zepp]

11 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

You seem to forget 3 things.

1. I cheered when Benning traded Hansen & Burrows for legit prospects

2. That was the only time there was reason to cheer about trading for prospects

3. If you're trading a pick for a prospect, you're not gaining a prospect.  You're moving sideways in prospect count

 

 

Vey was an outstanding prospect.   Kid's life got messed up - I guess you blame the Canucks.

 

Baer was an outstanding prospect.    Canucks took a chance.   With some better injury luck, he is a top 6 for anyone.

 

Pouliot was an excellent prospect.   Dice rolled and it didn't pan out.

 

Pearson was an excellent prospect.   First 20ish games as a Canuck look intriguing.

 

The list goes on, and on and on and.......

 

IF you trade a pick for a prospect, you are exchanging prospects and you are betting the pick you are giving up will amount to about its slot averaged value and you have rated the player/prospect you are acquiring as higher than that slot averaged value.   It has nothing to do with "moving sideways"   Sure, not all moves works but there is a lot thought into each one and the core thought is the team will benefit more from what is coming in than, on average, what is going out.

 

Cherry picking moves for any GM will make them look either great or bad if they are in the job long enough.    How you evaluate a GM is after they are done, you line up all the assets in with the assets out and see which way the scale tips.   It is a cumulative thing.

 

Aside - I really shake my head, even at this early hour on a beautiful Thursday morning (sun up and birds happy), that this needs explaining in a Canadian hockey market on a Canadian team's fan site to a fan that seemingly been around the forum enough years that one would think something would have sunk in.

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

12 minutes ago, Comeback_Kings said:

The Penguins signing bottom six fwd Tanev long term mirrors what Benning did last year with Beagle, Roussel.  Makes it look like Benning is actually ahead of the game. 

 

All these years, Benning's been trying things, team getting better, exciting young core and the decision not to trade out players like Horvat, Edler, Tanev, Markstrom

Shhh...you are scaring the pessimists.    

[CanadianRugby]

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Replies typical when someone doesn't know their arse from a tea kettle ^^^

[Rob_Zepp]

3 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

If it burns when it is that deep, perhaps you are doing it wrong.    Perhaps try batting from other side of the plate?   

[Cup2022]

On 3/16/2019 at 1:15 PM, Generational.EP40 said:

1.) not saying to get ride of him entirely, just at the managerial level as he undoubtably has restocked the prospect cupboard for us which can’t be denied

 

2.) should retain some sort of position, preferably something like president or VP of hockey operations to overlook things and continue sharing his expertise when it comes to drafting/prospects

 

3.) so why should he step down / be replaced as GM? Let’s look:

 

 

That’s shocking. We have almost nothing of significance to show for over JB 5 year tenure.

 

 

 

...it’s no surprise we hired a newbie GM at the time. This critical transition phase the organization is in, we can’t be allowing this much trial&error with the scarce assets we have to work with in the first place. 

 

On top of the asset inefficiency, his inexperience as manager has been evident with the signings as well. Overpaying & giving extended years to questionable players, just unnecessary. All it’s done is become dead weight which can’t be moved and will anchor the roster in the years ahead.

 

That manager inexperience? To continue, he hasn’t been able to commit to a plan or vision since day1. A rebuild was clear as day but the R word was never uttered until Linden became president. Prior to that he dodged it like the plague and would never admit it. Thought he could fast track by trading picks in the beginning when those picks could’ve been paying dividends for us right now. Too much flip flopping between ideologies. Remember “meat & potatoes”? That died shortly but then he couldn’t fully let it go either as evident by drafting Virtanen coming off a major surgery...he just couldn’t help himself. Even now, we struck gold with EP. Rebuild was endorsed but now that we got lucky and EP has fast forwarded that timeline, he thinks we can fight for a playoff(WC) spot. The man can’t help himself and begins jumping the gun too easily, can’t stay focused on the mission. 

 

Just far too much indecisiveness and it’s fair to say we’ve seen enough. Let’s get a proven GM who can be relied on to stay the course, not get ahead of himself, and let the nature of the rebuild take place organically while JB overlooks the draft aspect. I think that would be best for all parties. Stack up on maximum assets, get a cap structure going, get rid of bad contracts in this vital transition phase when we will shortly but surely be on the rise. Hypothetically, targeting an Yzerman or someone along those lines as GM+President would be ideal. 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

EDIT

summed up:

 

> JB pro: drafting

> JB cons: everything else about GMing (trades, signings, vision, commitment) 

> get someone who is better than Jimbo at the cons 

> keep Jimbo for the pro(prospects), just in a different/special role AKA I’m not saying cut him loose entirely

I didn't even read this $&!#. Become a leafs fan Dumbass is amazing tsn says.

[CanadianRugby]

3 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Vey was an outstanding prospect.   Kid's life got messed up - I guess you blame the Canucks.

 

Baer was an outstanding prospect.    Canucks took a chance.   With some better injury luck, he is a top 6 for anyone.

 

Pouliot was an excellent prospect.   Dice rolled and it didn't pan out.

 

Pearson was an excellent prospect.   First 20ish games as a Canuck look intriguing.

 

The list goes on, and on and on and.......

 

IF you trade a pick for a prospect, you are exchanging prospects and you are betting the pick you are giving up will amount to about its slot averaged value and you have rated the player/prospect you are acquiring as higher than that slot averaged value.   It has nothing to do with "moving sideways"   Sure, not all moves works but there is a lot thought into each one and the core thought is the team will benefit more from what is coming in than, on average, what is going out.

 

Cherry picking moves for any GM will make them look either great or bad if they are in the job long enough.    How you evaluate a GM is after they are done, you line up all the assets in with the assets out and see which way the scale tips.   It is a cumulative thing.

 

Aside - I really shake my head, even at this early hour on a beautiful Thursday morning (sun up and birds happy), that this needs explaining in a Canadian hockey market on a Canadian team's fan site to a fan that seemingly been around the forum enough years that one would think something would have sunk in.

 

 

Pouliot & Vey were terrible from the moment they hit the ice for this team.  Pearson is only 4 years younger than Sutter.  Is Sutter still a prospect too?  And Baer is good, I like Baer that was the biggest win of a trade for Benning.  But if Baer is the best prospect you've traded for, it helps explain why "staying competitive" by trading for NHL ready guys worked out so well we were the worst team in the league over 4 years.  

 

It's amazing you think Benning is trying to improve the team by rating a prospect higher than the pick he's giving up.  As if the other GM is like, well.. I guess today we make the Canucks better.  And it's not like Benning has been killing in in trades.  He's, and this is agreed on even by a lot of Benning loyalists on here, been average at trading.  

 

If you're rebuilding and you give up a prospect or pick for another prospect or pick, that's called a hockey trade.  You win some you lose some, but as far as prospect quantity goes you're moving sideways.  All these picks outside the first few picks are gambles, it's a roll of the dice.  That's why rebuilding teams try to get as many rolls as they can.  

 

Goldobin & Dahlen maybe didn't work out for the Canucks, but they cost us assets that we were losing anyway.  Vey didn't work out, but he also cost us the prospect we would have drafted instead of him.  

[Rob_Zepp]

Just now, CanadianRugby said:

Pouliot & Vey were terrible from the moment they hit the ice for this team.  Pearson is only 4 years younger than Sutter.  Is Sutter still a prospect too?  And Baer is good, I like Baer that was the biggest win of a trade for Benning.  But if Baer is the best prospect you've traded for, it helps explain why "staying competitive" by trading for NHL ready guys worked out so well we were the worst team in the league over 4 years.  

 

It's amazing you think Benning is trying to improve the team by rating a prospect higher than the pick he's giving up.  As if the other GM is like, well.. I guess today we make the Canucks better.  And it's not like Benning has been killing in in trades.  He's, and this is agreed on even by a lot of Benning loyalists on here, been average at trading.  

 

If you're rebuilding and you give up a prospect or pick for another prospect or pick, that's called a hockey trade.  You win some you lose some, but as far as prospect quantity goes you're moving sideways.  All these picks outside the first few picks are gambles, it's a roll of the dice.  That's why rebuilding teams try to get as many rolls as they can.  

 

Goldobin & Dahlen maybe didn't work out for the Canucks, but they cost us assets that we were losing anyway.  Vey didn't work out, but he also cost us the prospect we would have drafted instead of him.  

Good gawd you like to cherry pick.   I need to go run some files and check on a few kids at the rink but while you sit in your little den of hate, simply look at the Canuck roster each of the years that Benning has been GM and pick all the players he has brought in that were elite prospects.     Give it a try - even the Granny for Shink trade was far in the Canuck's favour.   Motte was a nice TDL pick up.    The list is quite long if you actually care to climb out of your den and see the light.   Mom won't mind.

[CanadianRugby]

 

1 minute ago, Rob_Zepp said:

 I need to go run some files and check on a few kids at the rink but while you sit in your little den of hate, simply look at the Canuck roster each of the years that Benning has been GM and pick all the players he has brought in that were elite prospects.     Give it a try - even the Granny for Shink trade was far in the Canuck's favour.   Motte was a nice TDL pick up.    The list is quite long if you actually care to climb out of your den and see the light.   Mom won't mind.

100% of the time af few of you Benning loyalists get cornered in an argument you rely on personal insults or 'witty' one liners.  It's all good brah, I like my den.  It's most likely much nicer than yours.  

 

Here, let me take one of your fav arguments and flip it on you.

No GM is completely flawed.  They all pull off good moves sometimes.  But if you look at the entirety of Benning's time here, he's pretty much just good at drafting.  If we replaced him with a GM that has a vision, and is actually good at trades & signings then we're set.  Because with our new scouting staff we'd still be good at the one thing we're really good at now.  

[Tomatoes11]

5 hours ago, Alflives said:

I agree with you that we wasted picks (seconds were the ones most concerning to me) on filling holes, when just signing UFAs would have worked.  But JB’s (IMO, ill conceived) method not only worked, but worked great.  He built a fabulous young core, while still filling our prospect cupboard with really good players.  The next decade looks to be the best in our team’s history.  

Just because one disagrees with the method, shouldn’t preclude from giving credit if the results are excellent.  One may not agree with how i make a cake, but if the cake tastes great than most would say thanks, that’s a really good cake.  

Its time to throw off our old ideas on what’s the best way to make a cake, and compliment JB on cooking us a really good one, don’t you think?  

Lol it didn’t work. We would have looked much better with the picks vs the hacks we traded them for. That’s the thing. It didn’t work. Slowed us down considerably.

[4thLineGrinder]

 

can't make an egg without breaking a few omelettes

[Junkyard Dog]

21 minutes ago, 4thLineGrinder said:

 

can't make an egg without breaking a few omelettes

[Alflives]

4 hours ago, Tomatoes11 said:

Lol it didn’t work. We would have looked much better with the picks vs the hacks we traded them for. That’s the thing. It didn’t work. Slowed us down considerably.

And this is exactly where we disagree.  The result of JB’s work is a great young core, very good support players, and a fabulous prospect pool.  That’s the ideal platform for our window for winning to be open from now and for a decade.  

[Alflives]

Just now, The 5th Line said:

Jack Skille was an elite prospect at one point,  I'm guessing he's on your list as well?  

 

.  

Hawks, during their rebuild, drafted Skille 8 OA.  

[BigTramFan]

On 3/17/2019 at 9:15 AM, Generational.EP40 said:

1.) not saying to get ride of him entirely, just at the managerial level as he undoubtably has restocked the prospect cupboard for us which can’t be denied

 

2.) should retain some sort of position, preferably something like president or VP of hockey operations to overlook things and continue sharing his expertise when it comes to drafting/prospects

 

3.) so why should he step down / be replaced as GM? Let’s look:

 

 

That’s shocking. We have almost nothing of significance to show for over JB 5 year tenure.

 

 

 

...it’s no surprise we hired a newbie GM at the time. This critical transition phase the organization is in, we can’t be allowing this much trial&error with the scarce assets we have to work with in the first place. 

 

On top of the asset inefficiency, his inexperience as manager has been evident with the signings as well. Overpaying & giving extended years to questionable players, just unnecessary. All it’s done is become dead weight which can’t be moved and will anchor the roster in the years ahead.

 

That manager inexperience? To continue, he hasn’t been able to commit to a plan or vision since day1. A rebuild was clear as day but the R word was never uttered until Linden became president. Prior to that he dodged it like the plague and would never admit it. Thought he could fast track by trading picks in the beginning when those picks could’ve been paying dividends for us right now. Too much flip flopping between ideologies. Remember “meat & potatoes”? That died shortly but then he couldn’t fully let it go either as evident by drafting Virtanen coming off a major surgery...he just couldn’t help himself. Even now, we struck gold with EP. Rebuild was endorsed but now that we got lucky and EP has fast forwarded that timeline, he thinks we can fight for a playoff(WC) spot. The man can’t help himself and begins jumping the gun too easily, can’t stay focused on the mission. 

 

Just far too much indecisiveness and it’s fair to say we’ve seen enough. Let’s get a proven GM who can be relied on to stay the course, not get ahead of himself, and let the nature of the rebuild take place organically while JB overlooks the draft aspect. I think that would be best for all parties. Stack up on maximum assets, get a cap structure going, get rid of bad contracts in this vital transition phase when we will shortly but surely be on the rise. Hypothetically, targeting an Yzerman or someone along those lines as GM+President would be ideal. 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

EDIT

summed up:

 

> JB pro: drafting

> JB cons: everything else about GMing (trades, signings, vision, commitment) 

> get someone who is better than Jimbo at the cons 

> keep Jimbo for the pro(prospects), just in a different/special role AKA I’m not saying cut him loose entirely

The problem with the OUT and IN table is that if you traded A for B, then B for C, then C for D, the table would show A,B,C as OUT and D as IN. Even if D was a better player than A that you started with, it looks like you gave up A+B+C. This is a nonsense evaluation.

 

If you simply look at the picks, I count 9 out and 7 in. Not exactly worth 45 pages of argument...just sayin’

[Darius]

1 hour ago, The 5th Line said:

Still makes me nervous when I see successful clubs taking opposite routes and acquiring picks whenever they can. 

 

St Louis has made 68 picks in 10 years.  In 2015 they had 5 picks. In 2017 they had 6 picks.  2013 they had 4 picks.  They had 10 picks in 2014(they got Barbashev and Fabbri out of it)  They missed the playoffs last year.  If we were talking about this last year would you have blamed the lack of pick hoarding as a bad direction for the team?

 

I understand the merits of accumulating picks, especially where they can be used as currency in trades etc....but there is more than one way to build a winning team.

 

In my opinion the bedrock of the team is the first round pick.  The top tier players make everyone look good.  They attract UFAs, they give you org the opportunity to develop players in the latter rounds.

[BPA]

Sheesh.  You guys act like JB was in full rebuild when he was first hired.

 

The mantra back then was re-tool.  Because the owners still believed they could be competative (get back into the playoffs) with aging Sedins and a stale core.

 

[combover]

37 minutes ago, BPA said:

Sheesh.  You guys act like JB was in full rebuild when he was first hired.

 

The mantra back then was re-tool.  Because the owners still believed they could be competative (get back into the playoffs) with aging Sedins and a stale core.

 

That alone makes him a failure. 

This team had no chance the window was closed a solid nhl gm would could see that. It leads ta o the fact that he’s been a nothing more than puppet. 

The mandate hasn’t changed even without the sedin excuse make this team a mediocre fringe wild card team. The rebuild and the draft position is a result of a failed plan to stay competitive.

[Tre Mac]

Haven't made the playoffs in whatever years and now somehow this team is having cap issues.  The first page comments says it all about this fanbase - blind af.  All I hear about JB defense is prospects blah blah balh, there is more to being a successful GM than drafting and JB is failing at the other aspects of his job.  I agree 100% with the OP if you can keep him on in some capacity you do it but he needs to be replaced as GM of the Canucks.  

[BPA]

10 minutes ago, combover said:

That alone makes him a failure. 

This team had no chance the window was closed a solid nhl gm would could see that. It leads ta o the fact that he’s been a nothing more than puppet. 

The mandate hasn’t changed even without the sedin excuse make this team a mediocre fringe wild card team. The rebuild and the draft position is a result of a failed plan to stay competitive.

Sure.  You tell the boss that they need to rebuild while the boss thinks they just need a few pieces to get back into the game.

 

Regardless of what anybody says, everything goes through the owner first.  They pay the bills.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, BPA said:

Sure.  You tell the boss that they need to rebuild while the boss thinks they just need a few pieces to get back into the game.

 

Regardless of what anybody says, everything goes through the owner first.  They pay the bills.

And considering that fact of owner approval, JB has done a brilliant job.  We have a great young core.  We have excellent mature support players.  We have a fabulous prospect pool.  JB deserves an extension.