A Fair Criticism of Jim Benning

[SealTheDeal]

As I mentioned previously, Benning has presided over the weakest stretch of Canucks performance in the history of the franchise. People blame Gillis for emptying the cupboards, but with the exception of his last season the Canucks placed first in their division every year of his tenure, and never missed the playoffs, and averaged two rounds of playoff hockey per season; it is hard to fault a GM for spending to win when you are a division champion every year. On the other hand, I propose that Benning (and the rest of management) can be faulted for routinely misreading the strategic position of the club. While capably drafting a reasonable core without the benefit of lottery success, his other moves have generally weakened the team rather than strengthened it, and attempts to compliment the core have tended to be mistimed. 

 

It will be interesting to assess the Myers signing in a few years. I’m of two minds. On the one hand, it is difficult to find quality right handed defence men, and I feel that it is likely the price of premium talent will increase due to what I expect to be large cap increases in the next few years, and the thinning of talent with the Seattle expansion. On the other hand, Myers analytics are not strong, and he was signed on the first day of free agency in a year when cap space was at an absolute premium. It will be interesting to see what Gardiner and other remaining FAs sign for, to see if there was better value available by waiting. If so, it will be a demonstration of another misreading of the market. I do not disagree with the acquisition of FAs this offseason though - I think this is absolutely a year where you spend to the cap collecting assets. 

Edited July 4, 2019 by SealTheDeal

[CanadianRugby]

8 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Well, I'm not going to say you're wrong. I see where you're coming from. There was that element of still wanting to win for sure and went for playoffs. Like I said before, those ntc/nmcs were going to keep us competitive anyway. So I understand why that decision was made to "turn the team around." They couldn't tear the team down, so turning the team around was the solution.

 

To me, though, isolating that alone is oversimplifying things and not looking at all environmental factors at the time that also informed decision making. I just see so much more going on dynamic wise at the time. Within that, we still had to get younger plus draft and develop. There were opposing forces that made win now more of a challenge.

 

After the first year, he had to make major change. Albeit within a retool mentality because of the immovable contracts. He couldn't keep the entire roster the same so, yeah, he had to trade prospects and picks for more NHL ready players. That was the quickest way to make change and try to keep the team competitive. 

 

The thing is, it couldn't have been both ways - keep prospects and picks AND make major change to the roster. Change was being demanded and expected ... and promised by the organization. Again, it couldn't have been both ways at the time. Change had to happen after being bounced by Calgary. The roster HAD to change where we could make change.

 

People criticize him for using picks and prospects to make the change they want to see but then criticize him because he made change and it wasn't to their liking. That is where the criticism gets somwhat unfair. That's not to say the results shouldn't be criticized but things couldn't be both ways. The fact remains, things HAD to change. Hanging on to players, picks, prospects for the right deal prevented change from occuring.

 

It's interesting to look at what could have been. If the plan worked better, it would have been amazing to see the Sedins hoist the Cup. I wouldn't have cared how it happened. Imo, that was what motivated Linden's direction for the team. I don't think it's a coincidence he and the Sedins left in the same year.

 

I remember back in 2014-15 a lot of people in here saying that Benning would be defined by how he replaced the Sedins. That was when no one could see how he'd pull it off. There's a lot that went right in this process, too, amid mixed messages, failures, and challenges. 

 

I disagree with a couple of your points.

 

1. I don't think all the NTC's were unmovable or prevented a rebuild.  Other than Edler, every player waived their clause when asked to.  Even Garrison who really didn't want to.  They (and some guys without a NTC) were kept because they still had skill.  A lot of players wasted away or left for no return.  For example, Santorelli was let go for nothing after having 28 points in 49 games.  Next year he and Franson were traded for a 1st & Leipsic by Toronto.

 

2. He didn't have to trade prospects & picks for NHL ready players.  He could have signed them, like he's done last couple of seasons.  You don't waste draft picks on rentals when you're taking a nosedive to the bottom of the standings for 4 years. People say, well that's hindsight but those same people will defend Benning by saying well of course we took a nosedive.  We had no prospects thanks to Gillis.  Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  Either we were doomed to suck (and should have added picks) or we weren't doomed to suck and the 4 terrible seasons are on Benning.

[canuck73_3]

42 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

I disagree with a couple of your points.

 

1. I don't think all the NTC's were unmovable or prevented a rebuild.  Other than Edler, every player waived their clause when asked to.  Even Garrison who really didn't want to.  They (and some guys without a NTC) were kept because they still had skill.  A lot of players wasted away or left for no return.  For example, Santorelli was let go for nothing after having 28 points in 49 games.  Next year he and Franson were traded for a 1st & Leipsic by Toronto.

 

2. He didn't have to trade prospects & picks for NHL ready players.  He could have signed them, like he's done last couple of seasons.  You don't waste draft picks on rentals when you're taking a nosedive to the bottom of the standings for 4 years. People say, well that's hindsight but those same people will defend Benning by saying well of course we took a nosedive.  We had no prospects thanks to Gillis.  Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  Either we were doomed to suck (and should have added picks) or we weren't doomed to suck and the 4 terrible seasons are on Benning.

Santorelli was “let go for nothing” because he was injured and on an expiring contract. His injury occured in January and he was to be out 5-6 months, revisionist history is fun.

Edited July 5, 2019 by canuck73_3

[Gollumpus]

1 hour ago, CanadianRugby said:

I disagree with a couple of your points.

 

1. I don't think all the NTC's were unmovable or prevented a rebuild.  Other than Edler, every player waived their clause when asked to.  Even Garrison who really didn't want to.  They (and some guys without a NTC) were kept because they still had skill.  A lot of players wasted away or left for no return.  For example, Santorelli was let go for nothing after having 28 points in 49 games.  Next year he and Franson were traded for a 1st & Leipsic by Toronto.

 

2. He didn't have to trade prospects & picks for NHL ready players.  He could have signed them, like he's done last couple of seasons.  You don't waste draft picks on rentals when you're taking a nosedive to the bottom of the standings for 4 years. People say, well that's hindsight but those same people will defend Benning by saying well of course we took a nosedive.  We had no prospects thanks to Gillis.  Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  Either we were doomed to suck (and should have added picks) or we weren't doomed to suck and the 4 terrible seasons are on Benning.

a.) Picks traded during the 4 "terrible seasons" (I'm assuming 2014 to 2017(?). There were more out than in, but the value of the picks seems to favour the in side:

 

Picks out: 2nd - 4  3rd - 3  4th - 1  5th - 2  6th - 1  7th - 1  (12)

 

Picks in: 1st - 1  2nd - 2  3rd - 3  4th - 1  5th - 1  7th - 2   (10)

 

b.) On trades involving players with NTCs, you do have to include the injury issues related to some of these trades that didn't happen. *Foggy memory here*: Hamhuis and Vrbata (others?) were both injured prior to the TDL as I recall which made them less attractive to other teams. Hamhuis was also reluctant the first time he was asked to waive, but agreed to do so the following season (and was then injured). Tanev also had injury issues that may have prevented a trade.

 

c.) Destination of where the player was to be traded also was a factor, no? If TB decided they didn't want Garrison then what? What about Kesler? Having a very short list of destinations hampered the return on any deal, including the one with Anaheim.

 

d.) Another thing about keeping these older players who were already on the team (or brought in via trades or signings) was that posters here complained about "not letting the young guys play!". So, aside from a few dollars that didn't really have an effect on the team (yes, people here will start screaming about weaponizing the cap space and getting additional picks), the young guys still wouldn't be getting the ice time.And really, what guys are we talking about here who were NHL ready during this time period? 

 

In addition, just because you call up another GM and offer to take a bad contract off of his hands in return for a high pick and/or prospect doesn't mean that he will gladly take you up on your generosity. And the same applies to you if you were trying to unload a cap dump contract.

 

                                                                         regards,  G.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Gollumpus

[SealTheDeal]

9 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

a.) Picks traded during the 4 "terrible seasons" (I'm assuming 2014 to 2017(?). There were more out than in, but the value of the picks seems to favour the in side:

 

Picks out: 2nd - 4  3rd - 3  4th - 1  5th - 2  6th - 1  7th - 1  (12)

 

Picks in: 1st - 1  2nd - 2  3rd - 3  4th - 1  5th - 1  7th - 2   (10)

 

b.) On trades involving players with NTCs, you do have to include the injury issues related to some of these trades that didn't happen. *Foggy memory here*: Hamhuis and Vrbata (others?) were both injured prior to the TDL as I recall which made them less attractive to other teams. Hamhuis was also reluctant the first time he was asked to waive, but agreed to do so the following season (and was then injured). Tanev also had injury issues that may have prevented a trade.

 

c.) Destination of where the player was to be traded also was a factor, no? If TB decided they didn't want Garrison then what? What about Kesler? Having a very short list of destinations hampered the return on any deal, including the one with Anaheim.

 

d.) Another thing about keeping these older players who were already on the team (or brought in via trades or signings) was that posters here complained about "not letting the young guys play!". So, aside from a few dollars that didn't really have an effect on the team (yes, people here will start screaming about weaponizing the cap space and getting additional picks), the young guys still wouldn't be getting the ice time.And really, what guys are we talking about here who were NHL ready during this time period? 

 

In addition, just because you call up another GM and offer to take a bad contract off of his hands in return for a high pick and/or prospect doesn't mean that he will gladly take you up on your generosity. And the same applies to you if you were trying to unload a cap dump contract.

 

                                                                         regards,  G.

My argument is not that we should have somehow got a better return on diminishing assets, nor that we should have intentionally nose-dived further in the standings. I see nothing wrong in trying to have a winning culture, as long as an organization can consistently draft well outside of the top 2-3 overall pics. The jury was out on that as far as Benning was concerned over the first few years, with Virtanen being disappointing and Boeser not having yet emerged, but time has vindicated him in this respect. If you have that ability, signings like Miller, Vrbata, Vanek, etc are completely reasonable. Also, accumulation of multitudes of 2nd and 3rd rounders is not necessarily great asset management, and the acquisitions of Granlund, Beartschi, Vey etc. were not bad gambles. If Beartschi can put a good, injury-free season together this year, he may even become a reasonably valuable asset that may offset the acquisition cost of all of these previously mentioned players.

 

I disagree with those who believe the franchise would have been considerably enhanced had we been able to gut the team for a few more pics. It is a dubious strategy to attempt to build a franchise by getting lucky with a horde of second rounders. You will also struggle to attract any value on the free agent market if your team is breathtakingly bad. I also disagree with those who are claiming the Canucks drafting has been horrible for a decade - it is still a little too early to claim that Benning can't draft well outside the first round. PLayers like Tryamkin and Demko may still turn out to be valuable assets, and they are from Benning's first draft. Gaudette is a roster player. If any of Brisebois, Lockwood, Lind, or DiPietro pan out, it will be further data in favour of Benning's ability to draft well generally.

 

What I simply do not understand is a signing like Eriksson, or most of last years signings. Roussel, who I really like, was a high price signing for what he was likely to bring to the team. A move like Gudbranson. . . maybe, because he was hardly old at the time he was acquired and he has been moved for something that may have some value. Even Myers. . . I understand that we are trying to open up a window and the club has needs at RHD. Will he turn out to be a good value signing? For all of those that blame Gillis for saddling the Canucks with a bunch of players with NTCs and NMCs. . . Miller, Eriksson and Myers. . . it's not exactly uncommon throughout Benning's regime either.

 

Benning has been able to draft his way into sustained employment. I am stunned by his ability to find talent that will emerge in 3-5 years (Boeser, Petterson, Hughes etc.) but equally stunned by his seeming inability to evaluate talent currently playing at the NHL level. . . I would have thought that these would be nearly identical skills. Did he just have good luck with drafting and bad luck with signings? Does something get lost in the mix when he evaluates the value of a pic versus the value of cap space versus organizational need versus roster players? Is it a category problem? I really don't understand.

[Gollumpus]

Good post. I'd give a more in depth comment on this, but right now I'm off to get brunch. Eggs Benny....

 

                                                     regards,  G.

[Dr. Crossbar]

22 hours ago, SealTheDeal said:

By apologetics I meant “to make a reasoned defence for”. 

 

I must still respectfully disagree, in the sense that an explanation is not equivalent to an excuse. 

 

Perhaps we need to clarify our positions. I claim that:

 

The acquisition of Miller, Vrbata, Vanek etc did not extend the window of competitiveness of the Sedin era, but were reasonable moves in order to accumulate picks from developing and moving short term rental assets (although this failed to happen).

 

The trade for Gudbranson, the signing of Eriksson, and pretty much all of the FA signings of the last off-season failed to contribute in any meaningful way to opening a window of competitiveness, and have served to make us less competitive for this season and likely the next two as well (if Eriksson Beagle or Schaller bounce back significantly, or can be moved for assets that make the team competitive now than they would have been had the cap space been available to spend on available agents. I concede that Gudbranson netted us Pearson, and if he contributes in a more meaningful way than McCann and the other assets moved in that trade, in may not be a major net loss). The net result is that we could be more competitive now than we are, at a time when we have the greatest possible benefit from our most valuable core player (Pettersson on ELC)

 

The future window duration of this team will be dependant on signing core players to reasonable contracts, and supplementing with players in reasonable contracts. Our ability to acquire supplementary assets has been diminished by recent past mistakes which have nothing to do with Sedin era loyalty or failure to recognize the necessity of a rebuild. 

 

What I do not claim:

 

That Benning should be fired now, or that all of his decisions have been bad. 

 

That he could have predicted the emergence of Pettersson. 

 

That this team will not have a competitive window. 

 

My concern is:

 

The competitive window may end up shorter and weaker than it could have been, due to bad supplementary FA signings in previous years, difficulty in reasonably signing our core, and lack of marketable assets to trade to increase our competitiveness. 

 

 

Reasoned defense for sounds better and more accurate of where I'm coming from in terms of acknowledging certain conditions that informed decision making. When it comes to fair criticism, I often find it lacks that acknowledgement.

 

In clarifying things, my approach is to call attention to the context or conditions under which certain decisions were made that informed why those decisions were made. My position is rooted more in a defense of those conditions because certain dynamics dictated what was possible ... ie: upwards of 10 ntc/nmcs informing the direction taken.

 

So, for me, that's where it begins, an understanding (and acknowledgement) of what was possible and what wasn't because of the amount of immovable contracts. To me, it's unreasonable to think that we could simply break those contracts or get all of them to waive.

 

So, the fact that we ultimately had to keep Hank, Danny, Higgins, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, and Hamhuis - seven players on the roster after the departures of Garrison, Bieksa, and Kesler - meant we still had a high degree of compete on the team. That's almost two lines and a defensive pairing that we couldn't move. All who we (recently at the time) signed longer term to still compete, and who had more competitiveness left in them. 

 

Keep in mind the conditions ... we just lost Luongo and were coming off our best era in net. With that higher degree of compete still on the roster, which we couldn't move, Benning brought in Miller who could match that remaining level of compete.

 

The term of Miller's contract also afforded stability in net and a window to make further change, namely an eventual successor to Miller. That's how I've always seen Miller's time here. So, I disagree that he didn't extend the window of competitiveness. I think he's evidence of that window.

 

I do agree with you on the rental aspects of Vrbata and Vanek but I also see them both as indicative of that decision to compete or compliment the closing window of the Sedins. We all know how horrible our scoring was. Both Vrbata and Vanek were goal scorers and were brought in to improve scoring in order to better compete. So, I see both of our points at play here.

 

Guddy and Eriksson, there was no way of forseeing those results. I understood why Benning signed Guddy at the time. We needed a grittier, stable, more physical D-man and he was a former #3 pick. And he was young. Keep in mind the external conditions from the fanbase who were demanding we get younger, more physical, and get deeper on defense. Benning brought in Guddy to fill that need.

 

Like you said, Guddy netted us Pearson. That's just how some things work out. The loss gives us a gain in the long run that improves the team. Hopefully Pearson flourishes here. I'm more hopeful on Pearson than Guddy.

 

Eriksson was coming off a 30 goal season and was the higher end free agent at the time, who also played with the Sedins. Again, I understand why Benning signed him (don't like the contract one bit) but no one could have predicted how poor Eriksson's results would be. I've always seen this signing as that one final move to give the Sedins a final push. Good intentions gone bad, made even worse by the contract. Benning and the organization bet big on Eriksson and lost. A failure that deserves criticism. At this point, I remain open to see if Eriksson can either bounce back and contribute or if we can turn him into a longer term positive that's a better fit for the now.

 

I do believe Beagle and Roussel have made us better and harder to play against. 

 

The thing is, you can't have success without failures as well. We've had many of both. I'm looking more at the macro of all of this rather than being mired in micro. 

 

Ultimately, though, Benning is at a place where it's his team and the future is emerging from his decisions. I believe his time her should be looked at in multiple phases - post Gillis/Tortorella and what he inherited, the limitations of the ntc/nmcs and competing with the Sedins, the transiton to youth, and the post-Sedin era from his changes. 

 

 

[Dr. Crossbar]

15 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

I disagree with a couple of your points.

 

1. I don't think all the NTC's were unmovable or prevented a rebuild.  Other than Edler, every player waived their clause when asked to.  Even Garrison who really didn't want to.  They (and some guys without a NTC) were kept because they still had skill.  A lot of players wasted away or left for no return.  For example, Santorelli was let go for nothing after having 28 points in 49 games.  Next year he and Franson were traded for a 1st & Leipsic by Toronto.

 

2. He didn't have to trade prospects & picks for NHL ready players.  He could have signed them, like he's done last couple of seasons.  You don't waste draft picks on rentals when you're taking a nosedive to the bottom of the standings for 4 years. People say, well that's hindsight but those same people will defend Benning by saying well of course we took a nosedive.  We had no prospects thanks to Gillis.  Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  Either we were doomed to suck (and should have added picks) or we weren't doomed to suck and the 4 terrible seasons are on Benning.

Well, this was pretty much the state of immovable contracts when Benning was hired ...

 

Garrison, Bieksa, Kesler, Henrik, Daniel, Burrows, Hansen, Higgins (limited, I think), Edler, and Hamhuis.

 

10 players, two full forward lines, and two D pairings. Half the roster.

 

So, imagine if you're Linden and Benning in the very first meeting to assess what you've got and what you're dealing with. You've literally got half the roster tied up for several years. 

 

Keep in mind, a few weeks earlier, the former coach went public, saying the old core is stale, it needs to change, and the team needs to get younger. Also, the organization was promising that change is coming after the shock of Torts. At the same time, the fanbase drumbeat of frustration to get younger was getting louder and louder. 

 

But if you factor in ownership, we had just invested a tonne of money in the Sedins, Edler, Hansen and the others to stay competitive. So we were already locked in the competitive pipeline by the amount of contracts.

 

So, to me, based on that first year, they knew only so much change could occur because of the contracts. Imo, this was the very first part of the plan. It made more sense to move what they could, make change where they could, and peel another year off the contracts before making significant change.

 

And to satisfy frustrations of not getting younger, Virtanen and McCann could be added to the lineup while surrounded by veterans. 

 

Major change could only be held off for a year under the narrative of one last shot with the old core. At least there was a new President, new GM, new coach, Garrison's ntc waived, Kesler gone, Virtanen and McCann in the lineup, plus Sbisa on D. 

 

End change for Year 1. 

 

Then we get bounced by Calgary in round one. The drumbeat and outcry for change gets even louder. The roster MUST change. But we still have 8 ntc/nmcs to deal with and players who will still be here.

 

So, the issues becomes, you MUST make change, and you have prospects and picks to make the change, but you only have half the roster. If you hold out for the perfect deals, you prevent change from happening. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

You have to work with what you have to make change because it had to start to start somewhere even though it wasn't the best of circumstances. I don't see how he had any other option because major change is what fans wanted and were screaming for after Calgary AND after the Torts season.

 

[ItTakesAnArmy]

2 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

On 7/4/2019 at 6:49 PM, SealTheDeal said:

By apologetics I meant “to make a reasoned defence for”. 

 

I must still respectfully disagree, in the sense that an explanation is not equivalent to an excuse. 

 

Perhaps we need to clarify our positions. I claim that:

 

The acquisition of Miller, Vrbata, Vanek etc did not extend the window of competitiveness of the Sedin era, but were reasonable moves in order to accumulate picks from developing and moving short term rental assets (although this failed to happen).

 

The trade for Gudbranson, the signing of Eriksson, and pretty much all of the FA signings of the last off-season failed to contribute in any meaningful way to opening a window of competitiveness, and have served to make us less competitive for this season and likely the next two as well (if Eriksson Beagle or Schaller bounce back significantly, or can be moved for assets that make the team competitive now than they would have been had the cap space been available to spend on available agents. I concede that Gudbranson netted us Pearson, and if he contributes in a more meaningful way than McCann and the other assets moved in that trade, in may not be a major net loss). The net result is that we could be more competitive now than we are, at a time when we have the greatest possible benefit from our most valuable core player (Pettersson on ELC)

 

The future window duration of this team will be dependant on signing core players to reasonable contracts, and supplementing with players in reasonable contracts. Our ability to acquire supplementary assets has been diminished by recent past mistakes which have nothing to do with Sedin era loyalty or failure to recognize the necessity of a rebuild. 

 

What I do not claim:

 

That Benning should be fired now, or that all of his decisions have been bad. 

 

That he could have predicted the emergence of Pettersson. 

 

That this team will not have a competitive window. 

 

My concern is:

 

The competitive window may end up shorter and weaker than it could have been, due to bad supplementary FA signings in previous years, difficulty in reasonably signing our core, and lack of marketable assets to trade to increase our competitiveness. 

 

 

Reasoned defense for sounds better and more accurate of where I'm coming from in terms of acknowledging certain conditions that informed decision making. When it comes to fair criticism, I often find it lacks that acknowledgement.

 

In clarifying things, my approach is to call attention to the context or conditions under which certain decisions were made that informed why those decisions were made. My position is rooted more in a defense of those conditions because certain dynamics dictated what was possible ... ie: upwards of 10 ntc/nmcs informing the direction taken.

 

So, for me, that's where it begins, an understanding (and acknowledgement) of what was possible and what wasn't because of the amount of immovable contracts. To me, it's unreasonable to think that we could simply break those contracts or get all of them to waive.

 

So, the fact that we ultimately had to keep Hank, Danny, Higgins, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, and Hamhuis - seven players on the roster after the departures of Garrison, Bieksa, and Kesler - meant we still had a high degree of compete on the team. That's almost two lines and a defensive pairing that we couldn't move. All who we (recently at the time) signed longer term to still compete, and who had more competitiveness left in them. 

 

Keep in mind the conditions ... we just lost Luongo and were coming off our best era in net. With that higher degree of compete still on the roster, which we couldn't move, Benning brought in Miller who could match that remaining level of compete.

 

The term of Miller's contract also afforded stability in net and a window to make further change, namely an eventual successor to Miller. That's how I've always seen Miller's time here. So, I disagree that he didn't extend the window of competitiveness. I think he's evidence of that window.

 

I do agree with you on the rental aspects of Vrbata and Vanek but I also see them both as indicative of that decision to compete or compliment the closing window of the Sedins. We all know how horrible our scoring was. Both Vrbata and Vanek were goal scorers and were brought in to improve scoring in order to better compete. So, I see both of our points at play here.

 

Guddy and Eriksson, there was no way of forseeing those results. I understood why Benning signed Guddy at the time. We needed a grittier, stable, more physical D-man and he was a former #3 pick. And he was young. Keep in mind the external conditions from the fanbase who were demanding we get younger, more physical, and get deeper on defense. Benning brought in Guddy to fill that need.

 

Like you said, Guddy netted us Pearson. That's just how some things work out. The loss gives us a gain in the long run that improves the team. Hopefully Pearson flourishes here. I'm more hopeful on Pearson than Guddy.

 

Eriksson was coming off a 30 goal season and was the higher end free agent at the time, who also played with the Sedins. Again, I understand why Benning signed him (don't like the contract one bit) but no one could have predicted how poor Eriksson's results would be. I've always seen this signing as that one final move to give the Sedins a final push. Good intentions gone bad, made even worse by the contract. Benning and the organization bet big on Eriksson and lost. A failure that deserves criticism. At this point, I remain open to see if Eriksson can either bounce back and contribute or if we can turn him into a longer term positive that's a better fit for the now.

 

I do believe Beagle and Roussel have made us better and harder to play against. 

 

The thing is, you can't have success without failures as well. We've had many of both. I'm looking more at the macro of all of this rather than being mired in micro. 

 

Ultimately, though, Benning is at a place where it's his team and the future is emerging from his decisions. I believe his time her should be looked at in multiple phases - post Gillis/Tortorella and what he inherited, the limitations of the ntc/nmcs and competing with the Sedins, the transiton to youth, and the post-Sedin era from his changes. 

One thing, Benning is the boss.

He is the one responsible for the team's performance.

He was hired to be good.

Why did he trade Kesler? What rule said he had to? Why didn't he make a better deal? Why not a different team? This is crud that he had no options, sure he did, don't trade him and let him languish in the Vancouver media market frying his arse for requesting a trade.

Why has every player dictated the team's moves? The GM's job is to bring in people to the arena and create a good team, team. Not just please a NHL player or two.

The Eriksson contract is a good example of what not to do, so far. The Edler refusal could have easily been dealt with, Edler's main reason was not moving from Vancouver for a few weeks, he could have done an "or else" position, agree or get demoted him down to Utica for the remainder of the season, or work with us to get a best offer deal that you can live with for a few weeks or just state that he is moving for sure at the end of the contract unless he agrees.

GM's and bosses are not buddies, they have to ba able to make the tough decisions, the nasty one's and sometimes unpopular if they improve the team. How bad would it have been to get something for Edler then sign both Gardiner and Myers and save a buck or two? Or even better wait until cap crunched teams (not a state secret who they are) and make a deal, player and sweetner to help that team open up cap space. Was this impossible to forsee, the cap crunch?

 

Particular player signings, Eriksson - simple look into his career would show his best years, both 30 goal efforts, came in contract years AND when he was playing with the best younger players on that team, Gudbranson - A career minus player with onlly one good series of games, the playoffs where Mitchell was injured and he was forced into action, one decent 20 game stretch over a 5 year career. Benning gave up essentially a 1rst, 2nd and 4th for him and 5th. Benning then gets so much praise for getting rid of Gudbranson. So he creates a big problem and then gets praised because he corrects it? Sutter - again a 3rd line center playing behind two really good centers but on a Stanley cup champion team so every player looks great on that team, over rated possibly. Now he cannot be moved.

 

A lot of poster's here are stretching to find excuses for incompetence, to find forgiveness for failure, they blame players, coaches, GM's from 7 or 8 years ago, contracts that have clauses but not this GM's contracts, no cap space, excuses for losing like something that never happens in the NHL, injuries, some obscure reasoning for trading away draft picks on a rebuilding team, reasons that make no sense now for signing all the old vets, reason like sheltering the young players so they can develop without added pressure, now that is a good one, who is the team depending upon to win games now, you guessed right, the very players they use as an excuse that need sheltering, isn't that contradictory? 

 

Posters want the owners to sell the team to someone that will never be around like McCaw or some pension entity like Toronto had for a few decades, this forum blames the owners. In a way so do I, they let this gong show go on too long.

 

These aren't hindsight items, they are items that most people can see for themselves. Sven is not going to become concussion proof and score 40 goals or even 20, Sutter could come back and get 15 or so, Pettersson isn't putting on 40lbs, Horvat has just about done as much as he can, Tanev and Edler won't be bulletproof and Benn isn't noted for being fleet of foot. The team won't even have enough money to sign Boeser if holds out for 6 mil a season.

 

Watch teams around the league, to some posters they are cheating and scamming the system, but they are all taking big steps forward while many here makes excuses to blame anyone except the boss.

 

So circumstances created by this boss may dictate decisions, all of them but they are not his fault.

Edited July 5, 2019 by ItTakesAnArmy

[spur1]

Another Trumpian post. Full of bluster and false statements. 

[ItTakesAnArmy]

24 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Well, this was pretty much the state of immovable contracts when Benning was hired ...

 

Garrison, Bieksa, Kesler, Henrik, Daniel, Burrows, Hansen, Higgins (limited, I think), Edler, and Hamhuis.

 

10 players, two full forward lines, and two D pairings. Half the roster.

Kesler was still a very good player and he didn't HAVE to trade him at all.

When he approached the rest of the Gillis clause contract players they all agreed to move, Higgins agreed but there were not takers, just like Eriksson, Sutter and Bealge now.

 

They never asked the Sedins so those two don't count

Edler he could have traded before the clause kicked in and he only had a NTC not a NMC according to cap friendly so they might have been able to move him anyway.

 

You have to name the clause contracts that refused to move or waive, Miller, Vrbata, Eriksson, Edler, all contracts that Benning had control of before they were evoked.

 

If he had decided then to start a rebuild many of these players still had value. Even years later Burrows, Bieska, Hansen all had minimum value returns. Garrison got a 2nd.

Hamhuis was a late ask, he had three days to accept or deny, he accepted Dallas after Chicago moved on but Benning reused the trade if you remember, Hamhuis left for nothing later. Hamhuis signed with Dallas in the off season.

39 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

So, imagine if you're Linden and Benning in the very first meeting to assess what you've got and what you're dealing with. You've literally got half the roster tied up for several years.

Yes imagine you're the new GM of this team. Loaded down with clause contracts, overpaid vets and forced to rely on 3 20-22 year olds.  A missing 1rst and 3rd round pick in the next two years, capped out and only two or three prospects in the AHL but can't put them on the team because there is no room.

Benning had players other team wanted, there are no clause contract players any other team want in the NHL

Benning had 12 million in cap space, the next guy has none.

Benning had a team that had missed the playoffs for the first time in years, the next guy has the worst losing team in Canuck history to fix.

 

This team would have to beat out 4 to 5 other teams and improve more that 12 points to get a sniff at the last wild card spot.

No the next guy will be looking at another rebuild at least.

Aquilini has to hire a GM respected in the league. Even if it is Chiarelli, a rehire of Gills or Gilman, Nonis, Hextall, Lombardi, my hope would be for Gilman.

 

[Nucker 67]

What's to complain about? Canucks went to Game 7 of the SCF 8 years ago. They played their last playoff game 4 years ago, and are already set to take another run this coming year. I feel good about where they're at, espeially seeing what's happening to some other teams (EDM, CBJ, WPG, etc). Canucks have added some real good, key players in Miller, Hughes, Myers and Benn. They had good goaltebnding last year from Makrstrom, and now have a good backup in Demko. Who knows what they can do this year. I'm confident they won't get pushed around like previous years.

 

So, Canucks took 4 years off without playoffs to rebuild, and theyr'e ready to have at 'er again - all without getting a Top 3 pick. To put that into perspective, the Oilers made the playoffs once in the last 13 years, and they got how many 1sts?

 

Great job Benning.  

[CanadianRugby]

On 7/4/2019 at 11:19 PM, Gollumpus said:

a.) Picks traded during the 4 "terrible seasons" (I'm assuming 2014 to 2017(?). There were more out than in, but the value of the picks seems to favour the in side:

 

Picks out: 2nd - 4  3rd - 3  4th - 1  5th - 2  6th - 1  7th - 1  (12)

 

Picks in: 1st - 1  2nd - 2  3rd - 3  4th - 1  5th - 1  7th - 2   (10)

 

b.) On trades involving players with NTCs, you do have to include the injury issues related to some of these trades that didn't happen. *Foggy memory here*: Hamhuis and Vrbata (others?) were both injured prior to the TDL as I recall which made them less attractive to other teams. Hamhuis was also reluctant the first time he was asked to waive, but agreed to do so the following season (and was then injured). Tanev also had injury issues that may have prevented a trade.

 

c.) Destination of where the player was to be traded also was a factor, no? If TB decided they didn't want Garrison then what? What about Kesler? Having a very short list of destinations hampered the return on any deal, including the one with Anaheim.

 

d.) Another thing about keeping these older players who were already on the team (or brought in via trades or signings) was that posters here complained about "not letting the young guys play!". So, aside from a few dollars that didn't really have an effect on the team (yes, people here will start screaming about weaponizing the cap space and getting additional picks), the young guys still wouldn't be getting the ice time.And really, what guys are we talking about here who were NHL ready during this time period? 

 

In addition, just because you call up another GM and offer to take a bad contract off of his hands in return for a high pick and/or prospect doesn't mean that he will gladly take you up on your generosity. And the same applies to you if you were trying to unload a cap dump contract.

 

                                                                         regards,  G.

Apparently you didn't agree with anything I said, and I don't agree with what you said so no point in going back and forth too much on this issue.  I see what you're saying.  I just see other teams loading up on picks as they rebuild and IMO we could/should have and didn't.  I guess we'll see this/next season how it all pans out.  Even if most of those picks didn't pan out, prospects and picks have value.  The Canucks after years of sucking have no extra picks/prospects to trade away which to me is amazing. 

[oldnews]

Off the top of my head, the Canucks got....

 

Gaudette by dealing Rafael Diaz for the 5th they used to take AG

Goldobin via Hansen

Motte via Vanek

Dahlen/Karlsson via Burrows

Brisebois via the 3rd for Eddie Lack

McCann/Gud/Pearson via Kesler

 

not to mention

 

Stecher for 'free' as an FA

MacEwen for 'free' ditto.

 

Etc

If you dwell on the 'losses' alone, you paint a distorted picture.

[Baggins]

On 7/4/2019 at 9:14 PM, canuck73_3 said:

Santorelli was “let go for nothing” because he was injured and on an expiring contract. His injury occured in January and he was to be out 5-6 months, revisionist history is fun.

Benning offered him a one year deal but he was holding out for two years. So Benning traded for 23 year old Vey to replace him. Santorelli discovered in free agency that nobody was willing to offer him two years and ended up with one anyway. 

[Bubble Man]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

Off the top of my head, the Canucks got....

 

Gaudette by dealing Rafael Diaz for the 5th they used to take AG

Goldobin via Hansen

Motte via Vanek

Dahlen/Karlsson via Burrows

Brisebois via the 3rd for Eddie Lack

McCann/Gud/Pearson via Kesler

 

not to mention

 

Stecher for 'free' as an FA

MacEwen for 'free' ditto.

 

Etc

If you dwell on the 'losses' alone, you paint a distorted picture.

That’s a 2 way street. I try to give credit where credit is due. I went from full Benning hatred to coming around with players like MacEwen emerging. I was starting to see a plan. Then he takes a steaming, triple coiler on the draft floor. Got violated by a cap strapped GM. It made me more angry this time because I finally started coming around. Even if you are a Benning supporter. You cannot possibly rationalize that price for J.T. Miller. I don’t care what he becomes. 

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, Bubble Man said:

That’s a 2 way street. I try to give credit where credit is due. I went from full Benning hatred to coming around with players like MacEwen emerging. I was starting to see a plan. Then he takes a steaming, triple coiler on the draft floor. Got violated by a cap strapped GM. It made me more angry this time because I finally started coming around. Even if you are a Benning supporter. You cannot possibly rationalize that price for J.T. Miller. I don’t care what he becomes. 

kudos on the litterbox drama -  mindless one-liners - lack of any analysis - presumption of correctness - and hard-headed determination to prejudge and hate the deal forever - regardless of "what he becomes".

 

'I will never rethink this deal no matter what MIller does, no matter what becomes of the pick spent!!'

 

You sure make a reasoned case.  Cool "2 way street" story.

Edited July 7, 2019 by oldnews

[kanucks25]

On 7/4/2019 at 10:14 PM, canuck73_3 said:

Santorelli was “let go for nothing” because he was injured and on an expiring contract. His injury occured in January and he was to be out 5-6 months, revisionist history is fun.

Try this one:

 

Letting Richardson and Matthias walk for nothing (quality vets that could have "sheltered" the kids) and then McCann is thrust into an NHL centre role he's not ready for because we have no depth.

 

Management turns on McCann, leaks to the media that he has "attitude issues" when he inevitably struggles, and trades him along with a high 2nd round pick for a bottom-pairing D-man that they thought (for some reason, hard to say why, really makes you question what the hell their pro scouts are watching) was a top-4 guy.

 

Before being given up on, McCann was touted as a steal by the "draft guru" Benning. Fast-forward a few years later and he's a potential winger for Sidney Crosby.

 

Funny how things change.

[higgyfan]

This thread should be closed.  It's pretty obvious there is no such thing as a fair criticism of Jim Benning.  Everyone swings one way or t'other. 

Each and everyone of us has our own bias.

[canuck73_3]

5 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Try this one:

 

Letting Richardson and Matthias walk for nothing (quality vets that could have "sheltered" the kids) and then McCann is thrust into an NHL centre role he's not ready for because we have no depth.

 

Management turns on McCann, leaks to the media that he has "attitude issues" when he inevitably struggles, and trades him along with a high 2nd round pick for a bottom-pairing D-man that they thought (for some reason, hard to say why, really makes you question what the hell their pro scouts are watching) was a top-4 guy.

 

Before being given up on, McCann was touted as a steal by the "draft guru" Benning. Fast-forward a few years later and he's a potential winger for Sidney Crosby.

 

Funny how things change.

Richardson was offered a deal but wanted term, Matthias was the softest 6’4 player in the NHL and failed to score more than 10 goals again after his 18 goal season here.

 

Beth Bartkowski said the 19 year old kid was the only player she didn't like. Benning didn't “leak” anything. 0-3