[Poll] Jim Benning

[canuck73_3]

6 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I'm not talking about our prospect pool as a whole.

 

He was just responding to my comment about how the D has been in shambles under Benning and he included guys like Rafferty and Teves in his rebuttal.

Your ignorance is showing... 

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I'm not talking about our prospect pool as a whole.

 

He was just responding to my comment about how the D has been in shambles under Benning and he included guys like Rafferty and Teves in his rebuttal.

Those two guys are depth in Utica.  I'm talking about OJ, Woo, Tryamkin, Rathbone, and Utanen.  These guys will all be pushing for spots with the next 1 to 3 seasons.  

[Darius]

22 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

You're counting the chickens before they hatch. Hughes looks like he'll be a good one, but again he's one of those top 1st round picks that Benning didn't exactly do anything to garner (other than suck). It wasn't long ago that we were penciling in guys like Shinkaruk and Jensen to be in our top-6, prospects don't always pan out.

 

I never argued that we don't have a solid prospect pool or one that's a lot better than what Gillis left Benning with, but again, when you have zero expectations to win and have the green light to suck and draft high for 5 years, it'd be pretty difficult to not improve your prospect pool.

 

I don't take any credit away from Benning for his hits in the draft, but having some hits in the draft (especially when you draft as high as we've been drafting) isn't some sort of extraordinary accomplishment, it should be the bare minimum.

 

No, I wouldn't have traded picks and prospects for D-men because that's not what you should do during a rebuild. Problem is, Benning did, and has very little to show for it: 

- Sbisa was a large part of the Kesler trade, probably could have received a pick or prospect instead

- Prospect for Clendening

- Pick for Larsen

- A recent 1st round prospect + high 2nd for Gudbranson

- Pick for Pouliot

 

And that list doesn't include the picks given up for failed forward projects.

 

This is my main gripe with Benning. It's okay that we've sucked for several years. It's not okay that during this time we given up, not accumulated, extra assets that we need to separate ourselves from the pack. It's the main reason why, 5 years into Benning's tenure, we still have glaring holes in our lineup and pretty much nothing to trade to fill them.

Funny how you state that you would not have traded picks and prospects for D men during the rebuild but in a previous post you bring up SJ being able to acquire a generational D man for relatively cheap as an example of shrewd management (Im assuming you mean EK) .... did you see what SJ gave up ?  I find it highly unlikely you would have been praising a similar trade (for what was initially a rental) from Benning during this team's downswing.  

 

You bring up Picks and prospects for guys like Larsen and Pouliot - but the way I look at it , most of those moves involved low probability picks to get filler D men to hold down the fort until younger better players were available to replace them.  THIS org basically HAD ZILCH, ZERO, in the prospect pool in terms of  (projected) top tier D men, so I can see why he brought in those types of players.   Look at a guy like Pouliot - a former top 10 pick, used to play for Green.  With basically zero in the D prospect pool why not try a hail mary move with the hopes you can revive him - the gamble was worth a  fourth plus an AHL plug. 

 

When he brought in guys like Pouliot and MDZ (I realize MDZ was signed and not traded for) did you think he was trying to make a cup run?  Those guys were fodder - gone once they could be replaced.  

 

The problem I have with your position (im assuming its similar to others that i have read) is that you complain that the GM did not take measures to obtain quality players on the blue line, at the same time you proclaim you would not give up any picks to do so.  So how would you have done it?  Do you expect magical trades where you trade fodder or older players for top 4 d men, or do you want the gm to overpay a UFA to come to a rebuilding team?  Which is it?   

 

Finally, Gudbranson was a bad trade.  I can see why he did it - the team was humiliated by the Calgary forecheck and Ferland running around like a wrecking ball exposing how soft the D was.  

 

 

 

[ABNuck]

There's really only one thing about JB that I would want him to change:

 

STOP DYING YOUR HAIR OUT BEFORE THE DRAFT EVERY YEAR!!

 

Does he somehow think that he relates to the next Gen-Z's by not having any gray hair? Gray hair is a sign of wisdom...show it some respect JB!

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, ABNuck said:

There's really only one thing about JB that I would want him to change:

 

STOP DYING YOUR HAIR OUT BEFORE THE DRAFT EVERY YEAR!!

 

Does he somehow think that he relates to the next Gen-Z's by not having any gray hair? Gray hair is a sign of wisdom...show it some respect JB!

I've noticed JB's head too.  It looks silly.  At least it's not a comb over.  

[kanucks25]

4 minutes ago, Darius said:

Funny how you state that you would not have traded picks and prospects for D men during the rebuild but in a previous post you bring up SJ being able to acquire a generational D man for relatively cheap as an example of shrewd management (Im assuming you mean EK) .... did you see what SJ gave up ?  I find it highly unlikely you would have been praising a similar trade (for what was initially a rental) from Benning during this team's downswing. 

You realize that where San Jose is organizationally and where we are organizationally is like night and day, right?

 

4 minutes ago, Darius said:

You bring up Picks and prospects for guys like Larsen and Pouliot - but the way I look at it , most of those moves involved low probability picks to get filler D men to hold down the fort until younger better players were available to replace them.  THIS org basically HAD ZILCH, ZERO, in the prospect pool in terms of  (projected) top tier D men, so I can see why he brought in those types of players.   Look at a guy like Pouliot - a former top 10 pick, used to play for Green.  With basically zero in the D prospect pool why not try a hail mary move with the hopes you can revive him - the gamble was worth a  fourth plus an AHL plug. 

You can find these guys in free-agency or waivers, you need not give up assets for them.

 

4 minutes ago, Darius said:

The problem I have with your position (im assuming its similar to others that i have read) is that you complain that the GM did not take measures to obtain quality players on the blue line, at the same time you proclaim you would not give up any picks to do so.  So how would you have done it?  Do you expect magical trades where you trade fodder or older players for top 4 d men, or do you want the gm to overpay a UFA to come to a rebuilding team?  Which is it?

Just stockpile assets and then, when ready, use your extra assets and cap space to pry players out of other organizations. Or just keep your picks to give yourself a better chance at drafting the players you need. For example, the 2nd round pick we gave up in the Gudbranson package could have been Debrincat. Now I'm not saying you can go back and nitpick every draft selection but to suggest X pick doesn't matter because the chances of it becoming anything are low is ridiculous.

Edited June 27, 2019 by kanucks25

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, gameburn said:

Without EP40 and the Boeser draftings?  Lol, the numbers would be much different.  These guys suggest a brighter future has already begun.

 

They really would be. One has to ask themself, where would this team’s future be without Pettersson?  Petey is an elite talent that has sped up this rebuild by a few years.  Without him in the lineup, this year we'd be once again preparing for another bottom feeder season.  With that in mind, you then have to ask yourself another question, was acquiring a talent like Petey a planned focus our did we simply luck out.  Drafting wise, I give full credit to JB and Brackett for taking him but had the season gone as planned, we wouldn't have been in a position to take Petey.

 

In the summer of 2016 Canucks made some big moves try and improve the roster.  We went out and traded a high price for Gudbranson, we signed a big name 30 goal scorer in Eriksson,. We made moves to make the team better in the now. 

 

We had a lot of reason for optimism, We were finally expecting a healthy Sutter to start the season, a newly acquired Granlund, an addition of a puck moving  leading KHL scoring D in Larsen, Sven Baertschi was coming off his first break out season, Hutton was coming off his rookie 25 point season and even Virtanen was heading into his sophomore year after getting his feet wet with 55 games the previous year. 

 

All the signs pointed towards suggesting our previous 75 point season (filled with injuries) was going to be a small blimp and Canucks would be back into the post season.  Even on this board in the season previews people were of the belief that playoffs were where this team was heading.  People lost there kind on any media outlet that suggested canucks would be a bottom 5 team.  

 

But then what happened?  Canucks stunk, these building moves didn’t turn out at all and Canucks actually regressed to us having our worst season in the last 17 years.  This season resulted in us drafting the most promising player we’ve had since 17 years prior.  People often use the “if we drafted Tkachuk we wouldn’t have EP”.  Well in the same aspect had that team did what the GM’s expected it to do, we wouldn’t have EP either.  EP came about by an unplanned tank and it resulted in the head coach being fired.  The ironic part is, JB’s failure to build a playoff team that season likely bought him a few more years of a job, as EP is the shining star that fills everyone with so much hope. 

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

You realize that where San Jose is organizationally and where we are organizationally is like night and day, right?

 

You can find these guys in free-agency or waivers, you need not give up assets for them.

 

Just stockpile assets and then, when ready, use your extra assets and cap space to pry players out of other organizations. Or just keep your picks to give yourself a better chance at drafting the players you need. For example, the 2nd round pick we gave up in the Gudbranson package could have been Debrincat. Now I'm not saying you can go back and nitpick every draft selection but to suggest X pick doesn't matter because the chances of it becoming anything are low is ridiculous.

San Jose is an aging team, and will being taking a step backwards, while our young core led team will be taking a step forward.  I say we pass them, if not this year, then next year for sure.  

[kanucks25]

6 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Those two guys are depth in Utica.  I'm talking about OJ, Woo, Tryamkin, Rathbone, and Utanen.  These guys will all be pushing for spots with the next 1 to 3 seasons.  

Sure, but at this rate (if everything pans out, which is a big if) it will have taken Benning 7-8 years to really fix the defense. I don't know if that's acceptable, regardless of what he inherited

[kanucks25]

Just now, Alflives said:

San Jose is an aging team, and will being taking a step backwards, while our young core led team will be taking a step forward.  I say we pass them, if not this year, then next year for sure.  

Doesn't really have anything to do with the acquiring D-men discussion but okay

[ForsbergTheGreat]

20 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Actually our list of prospects is a lot better than most.  Look at the Leafs, Flames, and Oilers for example.  Ours has high end, and it's deep.  Our fabulous prospect pool was another reason why JB made the JT Miller trade, and gave up a 2020/2021 first.  We have young players coming up, who will be on ELC contracts, and will support our current core.  We are in a great position going forward, thanks to our prospects.   

Flames have andersson, valimaki and kylington. It’s actually pretty good and that doesn’t include hanifin who’s only 22. 

[Alflives]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Flames have andersson, valimaki and kylington. It’s actually pretty good and that doesn’t include hanifin who’s only 22. 

Flames are in a terrible situation.  I see them dropping off big time.  (Hanifin is not a prospect)

[Darius]

15 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You realize that where San Jose is organizationally and where we are organizationally is like night and day, right?

You were the one that brought up SJ and their shrewd management being able to bring in a guy like EK for a low cost.  

 

 

Quote

 

You can find these guys in free-agency or waivers, you need not give up assets for them.

 

So you would have gone for waiver foddder instead. Ok, how does that improve the D? Isnt that your complaint - that the D is terrible?

 

 

Quote

 

Just stockpile assets and then, when ready, use your extra assets and cap space to pry players out of other organizations. Or just keep your picks to give yourself a better chance at drafting the players you need. For example, the 2nd round pick we gave up in the Gudbranson package could have been Debrincat. Now I'm not saying you can go back and nitpick every draft selection but to suggest X pick doesn't matter because the chances of it becoming anything are low is ridiculous.

 

So basically you are telling me you would have hoarded picks, and supplemented the D with waiver wire fodder or low cost UFAs.

 

Guess what?  Your D wouldnt have been any better than Benning's d right now....

 

I still dont have a clear answer on how you would have greatly improved the D if you did not give up any picks or prospects.

 

BTW -the odds of a second working out to be Debrincat calibre are probably a lot higher than the fourth rounder given up for Pouliot, so your point is misleading.  Also every team can be examined for similar examples for missed out draft picks like the first for Hamilton could have been Barzal, the second for Elliot could have been Jordan Kyrou etc...etc...

Edited June 27, 2019 by Darius

[D-Money]

16 hours ago, IBatch said:

Like the last one where you say it’s “waaaaaaaaaaay” of an overpayment. I’ve read enough media responses to know that in now way is what the consensus feels.  In fact the majority of what I’ve read so far is congratulations to Benning for filling a need with a modest UNDERPAYMENT.

I read/listen to a lot of media outside of Vancouver. It's been pretty much 1/4 "fair deal", 1/2 "great player, but that's too high of a price", and 1/4 outright mocking of Benning for losing his shirt in the deal.

 

Harman Dayal of The Athletic is a J.T. Miller fan, and wrote an article days before the draft pointing to him as a player they should target. But his thoughts on the trade are pretty much the same as mine, and he makes some great points, so I will quote him from this article (paywall):

 

Quote

...All things considered, there are a lot of things to like about Miller and I’m confident that he’ll provide a lot of value to the team’s top-six for this upcoming season.

Should the Canucks have been willing to give up their first-round pick?

In a vacuum, it’s pretty easy to convince yourself that trading a first and a third isn’t bad value when comparing the immediate impact of a 26-year-old top-six forward who’ll probably be around for at least four years compared to a couple of prospects that may or may not end up contributing.

 

At the same time, you can’t ignore context and in this vein, there are a couple of key factors to consider. One is the timeline of a trade like this, where you’re moving your own first-round pick. I could completely understand this type of a move if the Canucks were a contending team that felt it was one piece away from Stanley Cup contention, but the truth is they’re not close to that point yet. The playoffs are definitely within reach after a move like this, but that’s not the ultimate goal of the rebuild...

 

...The way I see it, the one thing the core four — Pettersson, Quinn Hughes, Boeser and Horvat — all have in common is that they’re first-round picks. In the last five years, what’s the best piece for this rebuild the Canucks have found outside of the first round of the draft? Is it Troy Stecher? Tanner Pearson or Sven Baertschi after that? First-round drafting is clearly the source of almost the entire core and this management’s biggest strength and so given how far away the Canucks still are from the ultimate goal, it’s certainly concerning that they’re moving their own first.

 

Lottery protection for next year is nice, but early signs point to the 2020 draft as tremendously deep. Even if Vancouver makes the postseason and winds up picking later in the first round, such a selection could be considerably more valuable than an equivalent pick in a different year...

 

...If the Canucks were to make the playoffs next year, giving up a pick between say 16th and 23rd overall doesn’t sound so bad, but the strong 2015 class where players like Mathew Barzal, Kyle Connor, Thomas Chabot, and Brock Boeser were picked in that range is a reminder of just how much talent could be available later in the first round if the 2020 draft is as deep as many believe. Should Vancouver miss the playoffs, 2021 could be a scary year as the pick would be unprotected and they’d still be a couple of key injuries away from missing the postseason.

 

Of course, there’s no guarantee that you select the right player in either draft, but as a team that’s still building toward the future, it’s a roll of the dice you’d love to have, especially if it’s under a management group that’s drafted well.

 

Naturally, the counterargument would be that you can’t rebuild forever and that you have to expedite the process and improve the team for the short run at some point. I’m 100 percent on board with this line of thinking, but the point was to do so without sacrificing the future and there’s no denying that such a reality was possible...

What was the market for JT Miller like — did the Canucks overpay?

Moving past the missed opportunity to leverage cap space and the timing of moving a first-round pick in this phase of the rebuild, the other contextual factor to consider is Tampa Bay’s cap situation. Even with Ryan Callahan on LTIR, CapFriendly shows that Tampa Bay would have had just roughly $5.38 million in space to re-sign star centre Brayden Point and fill out a few more roster spots. Clearly, salary had to be shed in some sort of way. Further complicating matters for Tampa Bay is that the other trade candidates — Tyler Johnson and Alex Killorn — both held full no-trade clauses and would thus be harder contracts to trade.

At the same time, many have argued that the Lightning may not have seen a Miller trade as a must and that perhaps league-wide interest dictated the price at a hefty first and a third. It doesn’t sound like this was the case, as John Shannon told Sportsnet 650 that there weren’t many teams in on Miller.

 

Regardless, in the modern salary cap world, you shouldn’t be paying a premium for players that other teams have to dump for cap reasons. Leverage is a real thing in trade negotiations and it skews what many believe market value should be for a player. Just look at the PK Subban deal as a perfect example. Nashville wanted to dump his salary just as Tampa Bay wanted to dump Miller’s salary and so they dealt the former to New Jersey for two second-round picks, middling prospect Jeremy Davies and depth defenceman Steven Santini. Nobody can deny that that’s an incredibly cheap price for Subban who was a Norris Trophy finalist as recently as the 2017-18 season.

 

The other thing that I can’t quite understand is the timing of the deal given the context that GM Jim Benning provided on the trade market immediately following the draft.

 

“I think there’s teams that still wanna move money and I think prices [on the trade market] will drop,” said Benning. “I think prices were high going into the draft, I think they’re gonna start coming down now as we get closer to free-agency and so we’ll see where it goes.”

 

If trade market prices were high going into the draft and bound to come down, what was the rush to make the deal and pay full value on Day 2?

 

The closer things would have gotten to July 1, the more leverage Vancouver would have had because that’s when Miller’s limited no-trade clause would have kicked in and so Tampa Bay would essentially see free-agency as a soft deadline to get a deal done. Benning was asked about why he pulled the trigger so early if prices were expected to come down and it’s tough to gauge a full idea of management’s thought process...

 

...It’s fair to be of the mindset that Miller is a solid top-six forward and yet also believe that the price paid was too steep and that’s ultimately where I stand.

As a player, Miller offers versatility in being able to play all three forward positions, has 50+ point scoring ability and enticing physical tools when considering his speed and size. Stylistically, he checks many of the boxes the Canucks needed from a top-six forward with his consummate playmaking and transitional value. He’s been durable throughout his career and is locked up at a reasonable rate for another four years.

 

The price paid, however, is a tough pill to swallow. You always have to give to get, but if prices were indeed set at a first and a third for Miller and waiting to negotiate lower wasn’t an option for whatever reason, then the Canucks needed to get creative to ensure that they were able to pay such a premium without sacrificing the future...

 

[gameburn]

22 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

They really would be. One has to ask themself, where would this team’s future be without Pettersson?  Petey is an elite talent that has sped up this rebuild by a few years.  Without him in the lineup, this year we'd be once again preparing for another bottom feeder season.  With that in mind, you then have to ask yourself another question, was acquiring a talent like Petey a planned focus our did we simply luck out.  Drafting wise, I give full credit to JB and Brackett for taking him but had the season gone as planned, we wouldn't have been in a position to take Petey.

 

In the summer of 2016 Canucks made some big moves try and improve the roster.  We went out and traded a high price for Gudbranson, we signed a big name 30 goal scorer in Eriksson,. We made moves to make the team better in the now. 

 

We had a lot of reason for optimism, We were finally expecting a healthy Sutter to start the season, a newly acquired Granlund, an addition of a puck moving  leading KHL scoring D in Larsen, Sven Baertschi was coming off his first break out season, Hutton was coming off his rookie 25 point season and even Virtanen was heading into his sophomore year after getting his feet wet with 55 games the previous year. 

 

All the signs pointed towards suggesting our previous 75 point season (filled with injuries) was going to be a small blimp and Canucks would be back into the post season.  Even on this board in the season previews people were of the belief that playoffs were where this team was heading.  People lost there kind on any media outlet that suggested canucks would be a bottom 5 team.  

 

But then what happened?  Canucks stunk, these building moves didn’t turn out at all and Canucks actually regressed to us having our worst season in the last 17 years.  This season resulted in us drafting the most promising player we’ve had since 17 years prior.  People often use the “if we drafted Tkachuk we wouldn’t have EP”.  Well in the same aspect had that team did what the GM’s expected it to do, we wouldn’t have EP either.  EP came about by an unplanned tank and it resulted in the head coach being fired.  The ironic part is, JB’s failure to build a playoff team that season likely bought him a few more years of a job, as EP is the shining star that fills everyone with so much hope. 

 

Very valuable what you did here.  Very easy for us to forget the team's recent history.  Sutter was supposed to be a key anchor (well, along with Eriksson they are anchors now, lol); and I remember our actually considering seriously that Horvat was the number 3 center, with Sutter at 2.  That lasted 4 weeks after the season started.   And Henrik was the 1C we could never replace. Which takes us back to Pettersson: not only was he better than expected points/talent wise, the guy could actually play center (which people doubted he could) which meant that Henrik had finally been replaced, and Horvat could now be one of the better 2C in the league.   

 

You mention Larsen too... who even remembers this shot in the dark. Your last paragraph is brilliant: we stunk so bad that we fell into Pettersson.  It's easy to forget that this whole thing was supposed to be a re-tool.  The retool idea explains the Eriksson mess, the Sutter problem and the inability to cut bait and move Edler and Tanev.  It's easy to forget how mistaken the re-tool idea was, and how much it hurt the rebuild that was actually needed.  And then along comes a generational talent in Pettersson, almost certainly one of only 2 or 3 players to come along in the McKinnon/McDavid/Point class.  Good drafting or luck.  Well, not luck, who has had worse luck on the draft lottery than us?

 

Which brings us to Miller: Benning must wake up at night now and wonder if that conditional pick is going to come back to bite him.  Because, as your historical account makes clear, we had reasons to be optimistic a few years back, and then flopped.

[kanucks25]

Just now, Darius said:

You were the one that brought up SJ and their shrewd management being able to bring in a guy like EK for a low cost.  

My point was simply that other GMs are able to make moves here and there that bring in a good or even impact pieces. However, for Benning, it's always an excuse like "Well who was available? what was he going to trade for him? there was no opportunity, you don't have any inside information, so you can't claim that there were any good opportunities out there that Benning didn't find." Not sure why we're content with the bare minimum from our GM, I think we deserve better than that.

 

3 minutes ago, Darius said:

So you would have gone for waiver foddder instead. Ok, how does that improve the D? Isnt that your complaint - that the D is terrible?

I understand that the D and team in general is going to be terrible during a rebuild. My problem with the "rebuild" is that we've done a piss poor job of accumulating a surplus of assets during our down period. We've given up picks and prospects to fill roster spots and have made zero creative moves to bring in assets.

 

5 minutes ago, Darius said:

I still dont have a clear answer on how you would have improved the D if you did not give up any picks or prospects.

How could I give you a clear answer? I'm wasn't a GM in the NHL in the last 5 years. Any feasible scenario I type up will be shot down as arm-chair GMing that would never be realistic.

 

7 minutes ago, Darius said:

BTW -the odds of a second working out to be Debrincat calibre are probably a lot higher than the fourth rounder given up for Pouliot, so your point is misleading.  Also every team can be examined for similar examples for missed out draft picks like the first for Hamilton could have been Barzal, the second for Elliot could have been Jordan Kyrou etc...etc...

I said myself that it's not fair to go back and nitpick every pick one by one. But to to suggest that it's okay to throw away picks and prospects to fill roster spots during a period of time that you're going to be ass anyway is simply wrong.

[Tomatoes11]

7 hours ago, iceman64 said:

Dude it started on you commenting how benning has been doing over his tenure and saying he should have found a way to get around ntc nmc's and traded them but thats impossible but as for the picks he traded off were only 2nd round anyway and hardly any risk trying out a new guy or 2 as it comes up to address roster needs, so some didn't work out but JB was just trying to hold the ship afloat while he first tweaked it and then as clauses came off he kicked building into another gear and he's not finished but yeah there has been glitches but it hasn't stopped us going forward so relax... 

Dude, I never mentioned nice and nmc because there was no need to hold anything a float by pudding away picks. We could have gotten to exactly where we are right or better if we just did nothing and keep The picks. 

 

There was absolutely no need to hold anything a float if we were going to twiddle our thumbs for 5 years. Should have just kept the picks. 

 

Not sure, why people feel the need to make up some fake scenarios where Benning had to do more than a simple tear down. 

[Tomatoes11]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Actually our list of prospects is a lot better than most.  Look at the Leafs, Flames, and Oilers for example.  Ours has high end, and it's deep.  Our fabulous prospect pool was another reason why JB made the JT Miller trade, and gave up a 2020/2021 first.  We have young players coming up, who will be on ELC contracts, and will support our current core.  We are in a great position going forward, thanks to our prospects.   

Button has the oilers ahead of us and the flames tied I believe. I posted that article in another thread.

 

Truth is, Benning has done a really poor job in 5 years with a simple tear down. He tried to rebuild too fast basically and for some reason people defend him. Go figure.

[Alflives]

Just now, Tomatoes11 said:

Button has the oilers ahead of us and the flames tied I believe. I posted that article in another thread.

 

Truth is, Benning has done a really poor job in 5 years with a simple tear down. He tried to rebuild too fast basically and for some reason people defend him. Go figure.

Button Smutton.  The guy eats mutton.  

Truth is JB has drafted us a fabulous prospect pool.  

Actually, it's all only our opinions (Button's included) of course.  

[Tomatoes11]

Hilarious how people think just because our cupboards were empty we had to trade picks to fill it. Lol

 

Sorry but that’s hilarious. You fill empty cupboards with picks..... not overage prospects on the verge of busting like ALL of Benning’s trades were and are.