A Fair Criticism of Jim Benning

[ForsbergTheGreat]

 

Quote

Why would the Panthers give a bottom pair guy the most minutes in the playoffs? Even with one injured d-man how does that make sense? one would think at least one of the three remaining top four would have more minutes. 

Why would canucks give a non top pairing D like Hutton the second highest TOI for D last year?  Do the team that signs Hutton this summer, do it under the impression that they are getting a top pairing D?  

 

It’s called Context. Gudbranson is a shut down D. Mitchell, their top shutdown D was injured,  thus he was forced to take on that match up role and in the end wasn’t good enough. 

 

Campbell is a pure offensive D. Ekblad was 19. Matheson had a career 3 nhl games under his belt. Who were the panthers supposed to use for match ups? Guddy only having 27% Ozone starts clearly explains how they were using him. They went with what they had and got bounced in 6 games.

 

Seriously if truly are naive enough to thing 6 games defines a players role then how do you justify signing Myers to a 5 year $6 million cap. Your dumb logic would state he s a bottom pairing D since giving bottom pairing minutes. Why didn’t chairot get that kind of money. He played more minutes????

 

Your problem is your lack of understanding and are too simplistic in your approach with things. Context helps explains why you can’t just use top 4 TOI = top 4 D. 

 

Quote

Grow up.

Learn something about hockey. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by ForsbergTheGreat

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Why would canucks give a non top pairing D like Hutton the second highest TOI for D last year?  Do the team that signs Hutton this summer, do it under the impression that they are getting a top pairing D?  

 

It’s called Context. Gudbranson is a shut down D. Mitchell, their top shutdown D was injured,  thus he was forced to take on that match up role and in the end wasn’t good enough. 

 

Campbell is a pure offensive D. Ekblad was 19. Matheson had a career 3 nhl games under his belt. Who were the panthers supposed to use for match ups? Guddy only having 27% Ozone starts clearly explains how they were using him. They went with what they had and got bounced in 6 games.

 

Seriously if truly are naive enough to thing 6 games defines a players role then how do you justify signing Myers to a 5 year $6 million cap. Your dumb logic would state he s a bottom pairing D since giving bottom pairing minutes. Why didn’t chairot get that kind of money. He played more minutes????

 

Your problem is your lack of understanding of and are too simplistic in your approach with things. Context helps explains why you can’t just use top 4 TOI = top 4 D. 

 

Learn something about hockey. 

Guddy was not very good here.  I was really excited when we got him, especially after reading the Luongo and Mitchel “WTF” Tweets.  Then I saw him play and thought, “this guy cannot handle the puck”.  I almost always defend our players, and I did with Guddy.  I was excited to get him, but quite disappointed watching him.  I’m glad we got a 26 year old Pearson in trade for Guddy.  

[-DLC-]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Guddy was not very good here.  I was really excited when we got him, especially after reading the Luongo and Mitchel “WTF” Tweets.  Then I saw him play and thought, “this guy cannot handle the puck”.  I almost always defend our players, and I did with Guddy.  I was excited to get him, but quite disappointed watching him.  I’m glad we got a 26 year old Pearson in trade for Guddy.  

How many times, when we were scored on and the replay shown, was Guddy facing the wrong way?  (Answer:  most times)

 

Loved him, but he struggled here.  I really wanted him to be our tough guy and he showed glimpses but, beyond that, wasn't much to cheer about.

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, Bubble Man said:

Jim Benning has been trying to win since he got here and we have constantly been at the bottom as a result. We draft great, we have signed some good college FAs. Maybe if he intentionally tanked we’d finally make the playoffs. 

 

His pro scouting has been atrocious. I don’t even need to get into the details. 

 

I get that everyone wants to be optimistic but who’s statement has actual historical evidence to back it up? 

 

1. We are going to make the playoffs

 

or

 

2. Jim’s pro scouting isn’t very good and the only thing that has bailed him out now, is the only thing that is going to bail him out in the future. Drafting. 

I don't really see how either of those questions provide any accurate representation of what's going on.

 

1. "We are going to make the playoffs". It's kind of hard to ask for historical evidence on this when it's a totally new group of players. A lot of Canuck fans look to the past and I think that's why a lot of Canuck fans get depressed. However, Pittsburgh was bad until Lemieux showed up. If they based everything on the past there, they probably wouldn't even make it to the playoffs with Lemieux (especially when he didn't even shake hands at the deadline). St. Louis, if based on the past, wouldn't have won a cup this year. I could come up with countless examples, but I hope you understand the point.

 

So with "we are going to make the playoffs". How do we even provide historical evidence when history doesn't actually repeat itself. It may seem like it at times, but it doesn't.

 

2. Jim's pro scouting: what exactly are we supposed to define here? Do players like Goldobin fall into this list? Are we talking about Leivo? If you give a list of all of the players that have been unsuccessful in trades you could be depressed. If you give a list of all of the players that have been successful, you could be happy. If you change the boundaries even slightly of what is successful and what isn't, you could make it look good or bad.

 

So the truth is: he's going to make mistakes. He's also going to have success. If you look at just one or the other, you aren't exactly giving a realistic approach. So you say his pro scouting is atrocious, but then I wonder what you looked at to come up with that result. Did you look at every player acquired? Have you looked at other teams to compare with, both good and bad? It's easy to make claims, but it's a lot harder to actually give an educated claim.

 

That's how I look at things anyway. There are things I know we could have done better, but I've also seen good things happen from the pro scouting, etc. I think one issue that is often failed to look at is our actual situation. If we don't have a lot of assets we can sell, we can't exactly get a lot back.

 

 

[Bubble Man]

5 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

At some point, you have to let it go.

 

Things change over time.  He may have been trying to do something, and then Plan B went into place.

 

I am excited about this team and there's a reason for that.  We have some great young players in the line up.  Our goaltending is looking pretty damn solid (even if we may have to address it at some point).

 

I am SO tired of naysayers and the never happy's.  We have so much negativity that surrounds the team and I really don't think it's warranted at this point. 

 

If you're not optimistic, you're pessimistic - and that's a choice.  

 

No one has "historical" evidence on a team that isn't out of the gates yet.  Maybe place your bet then complain if it doesn't come in AFTER the finish line.  

Why do you bother?  If it's so bleak?

I am extremely optimistic, I just have a different timeline. I think MacEwen is going to be a top 6 forward within 2 years. I think Gaudette is ready. Quinn Hughes is looking like everything I’ve been praying for since the Hoff left. Pety is going to be a Art Ross candidate in the next 5. Bo Horvat is making huge leaps. Boeser is the finisher we’ve been lacking for years. Goaltending is a huge organizational strength.

 

IMO, we cut the cord too soon. Trading that 1st may be a huge mistake. Again, if history repeats itself the pro scouts will let us down again. I’m not a fan of FA, I never have been. If you keep paying the premium for players on July 1st you end up with a team full of unmovable contracts. His biggest strength is drafting. He should be trying to acquire 1st round picks not moving them for complementary pieces.    

[oldnews]

24 minutes ago, Bubble Man said:

Jim Benning has been trying to win since he got here and we have constantly been at the bottom as a result. We draft great, we have signed some good college FAs. Maybe if he intentionally tanked we’d finally make the playoffs. 

 

His pro scouting has been atrocious. I don’t even need to get into the details. 

 

I get that everyone wants to be optimistic but who’s statement has actual historical evidence to back it up? 

 

1. We are going to make the playoffs

 

or

 

2. Jim’s pro scouting isn’t very good and the only thing that has bailed him out now, is the only thing that is going to bail him out in the future. Drafting. 

yeah, details aren't your strong suit - that would be your ambling narratives with grandiose claims and no substance/grounding.

[kingofsurrey]

Really sometimes i think CDC posters live in a fantasy world....]

 

Benning has really hurt our club with our cap space.....

 

Loui E - 6 mil

Sutter - 4.3 mil

Beagle 3 mil

Schaller 2 mil

 

Over 15 million for these 4 players   Are you kidding me ?  Thats alot of money for four . 4th line players  - dusters.  

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

How many times, when we were scored on and the replay shown, was Guddy facing the wrong way?  (Answer:  most times)

 

Loved him, but he struggled here.  I really wanted him to be our tough guy and he showed glimpses but, beyond that, wasn't much to cheer about.

Mrs. Alf loved Guddy.  What’s not to like, right:  6’5”, tough as nails guy, who stands up for his teammates?  It didn’t take long for her to realize Guddy struggled with the speed of play though.  

ps: she also really like Taylor Pyatt.  And Marcus Naslund, and Ivan Bolderev.  Okay she’s a bit too influenced by certain players.  

[-DLC-]

Guddy and Dors were special guests/speakers at the Ice Guardians showing in Van.  I loved what they had to say and was fully on board.  Injuries are a b.  

[kingofsurrey]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

Guddy and Dors were special guests/speakers at the Ice Guardians showing in Van.  I loved what they had to say and was fully on board.  Injuries are a b.  

Canucks failed to provide Dorset with more help in his role with the club.  It was too much to ask of him to be the only guy on the club willing to put in that kind of work so often.

[-DLC-]

7 minutes ago, Bubble Man said:

I am extremely optimistic, I just have a different timeline. I think MacEwen is going to be a top 6 forward within 2 years. I think Gaudette is ready. Quinn Hughes is looking like everything I’ve been praying for since the Hoff left. Pety is going to be a Art Ross candidate in the next 5. Bo Horvat is making huge leaps. Boeser is the finisher we’ve been lacking for years. Goaltending is a huge organizational strength.

 

IMO, we cut the cord too soon. Trading that 1st may be a huge mistake. Again, if history repeats itself the pro scouts will let us down again. I’m not a fan of FA, I never have been. If you keep paying the premium for players on July 1st you end up with a team full of unmovable contracts. His biggest strength is drafting. He should be trying to acquire 1st round picks not moving them for complementary pieces.    

It's all projection and I'm projecting these guys are good to go sooner than 5 years.  So you haven't addressed the concerns I have with focusing too much on "the future" and not enough in the here and now.

 

It's not cutting the cord as much as it is realizing how competitive Petey is and nurturing and supporting that.

 

 

[-DLC-]

1 minute ago, kingofsurrey said:

Canucks failed to provide Dorset with more help in his role with the club.  It was too much to ask of him to be the only guy on the club willing to put in that kind of work so often.

He thrived on it though.  

[The Lock]

I think, at the end of the day, I just want a good team. I don't care if it's all from the draft, or partially pro scouting, or if it's random people picked up off the streets. I don't expect every transaction to be perfect. I don't expect every draft prospect to make it. I don't expect even all of our 1st rounders to make it.

 

If we have a good team in the end, then we are successful. That's it.

[BlastPast]

The team could have made life easier for itself if they were just more humbled coming out of the 13-14 season. Talking of being a 100 point team ( even though it was accomplished) was a little ambitious imo.

[IBatch]

24 minutes ago, oldnews said:

hollow chirp chirps

Gudbranson plays hockey vs hockey players - there is no such thing as Gudbranson vs analytics.

but just quote something - like I said fill your boots - not going to bother with your weak paraphase/straw games....

 

and whoever you used to be on these boards....my guess would be a 'Baumermann' type "lol".

you better not be LaBamba, baiting me into ripping you (I always liked that guy and couldn't care less if we disagreed) - but you don't seem to have the 'tact' of a LaBamba wadr.

Tomatoes duplicate?  Or at least a clone.  It’s so obviously similar and the timing of (joined June 28th) it with a Benning support over 10-1 on one of the recent threads, I called it at the time that the few that keep hammering the CDC with anti-Benning sentiment would make more handles just to vote against him so they could agree with more then a few people (themselves apparently). Plus bubbles are round and so are tomatoes ha ha. 

 

These guys I actually don’t mind too much, but wish they’d step their game up a bit and not be so obvious like the Gaurdian before them (where the heck did he go anyways sometimes his stuff was insightful).   “Keep all draft picks we are in a rebuild “ is tomatoes on endless repeat.    Sound familiar?

[Ghostsof1915]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Tomatoes duplicate?  Or at least a clone.  It’s so obviously similar and the timing of (joined June 28th) it with a Benning support over 10-1 on one of the recent threads, I called it at the time that the few that keep hammering the CDC with anti-Benning sentiment would make more handles just to vote against him so they could agree with more then a few people (themselves apparently). Plus bubbles are round and so are tomatoes ha ha. 

 

These guys I actually don’t mind too much, but wish they’d step their game up a bit and not be so obvious like the Gaurdian before them (where the heck did he go anyways sometimes his stuff was insightful).   “Keep all draft picks we are in a rebuild “ is tomatoes on endless repeat.    Sound familiar?

Are we sure it’s NOT the guardian? 

[Alflives]

35 minutes ago, oldnews said:

hollow chirp chirps

Gudbranson plays hockey vs hockey players - there is no such thing as Gudbranson vs analytics.

but just quote something - like I said fill your boots - not going to bother with your weak paraphase/straw games....

 

and whoever you used to be on these boards....my guess would be a 'Baumermann' type "lol".

you better not be LaBamba, baiting me into ripping you (I always liked that guy and couldn't care less if we disagreed) - but you don't seem to have the 'tact' of a LaBamba wadr.

I miss Guardian, and Labamba, the banana.  I like reading opposing views.  

Guddy was a good trade.  I was way up for it.  He just didn’t live up to what was expected.  

[SealTheDeal]

4 hours ago, DS4quality said:

2 things that are factually wrong with this statement:

1. Benning has been President for 1 season, Linden presided 3 years earlier

2. Unless you just forget the 1980's and 90's, and most of 00's -this is not the worst 4 seasons in franchise history.

These past 4 years are nothing wait until you hit the playoffs 1 in 10-12 years Like Tampa. If you like Tampa's model so much you'd need to be at least 5 or 6 years of being a basement dweller to get more picks and better  lottery luck to land Stamkos/Hedman. Tampa Actually didn't make the playoffs in 5 of the past 10 seasons.

While your criticisms may be factually true, they are at most trivially true.

 

Regarding 1. - If you conclude from my use of the word "preside" that I was indicating that Benning was titled president of hockey operations rather than general manager, you are correct. If you are implying that someone other than Benning had greater authority over the management of the club and thus he holds no responsibility for the performance of the club since May 2014, I both disagree and propose that you hold an extreme minority position.

 

Regarding 2. - it is technically true that the Canucks have had other regimes of comparably poor performance, by which I mean (as I indicated previously) playoff appearances and success. At the time of expansion, when the club did not benefit from the favorable rules of the current expansion era, the club missed the playoffs for four straight seasons. During this time they had two general managers (Poile and Layco) neither of whom led a team to playoff hockey. Given what they had to work with (far less than what Benning inherited) I think this barely counts, but neither lasted as GM for more than three seasons, and so technically neither could be accused of being in authority over four missed playoff seasons. The second era during which the Canucks missed the playoffs for four consecutive years was between 1996 and 2000. However, again, this was split between a few general managers, notably Pat Quinn (who led the team to 7 playoff appearances and a game 7 final over 10 years), Keenan (who was an interim and missed the playoffs in his only season as manager) and Burke. Burke, after missing the playoffs for two seasons, amassed the WCE and major supporting pieces such as Jovanovski and Ohlund, and had drafted the Sedins. He then went on to lead the team to four consecutive playoff appearances where they were heavily favored and underperformed. He was fired leaving Nonis plenty of assets to work with. Tell me then, which of these general managers has been in authority over a worse stretch of poor performance than Benning, who has seen the Canucks play one playoff series in five seasons when he has been manager, and that was his first, with a team consisting almost totally of veterans he inherited? Has he used four seasons of missed playoffs to accumulate the kind of assets Burke had by the end of 2000? 

 

Not only has Benning's time as manager been characterized by worse playoff qualification and performance than any other GM outside of the original expansion years, his teams have typically not been that entertaining to watch. 2015/2016 was the lowest scoring full season in franchise history, until it was beaten by the even more horrible 2016/2017 season. What hope Benning has provided largely comes down to one name at this point - Petterson. Had he not become the best of his draft class, the remainder of the first overall picks chosen by Benning prior to this year would be Virtanen, Boeser, Joulevi, and Hughes. Even with the Canucks second best player added (Horvat - a Gillis pick), that is not a core that fills opponents with terror. Even so, we are not better poised than the 2000 Canucks under Burke, who carried arguably the hottest top line in the league and two stud defensemen. For the player age inclined, how old was that core at the time? Naslund was the oldest at 27. Morrison and Bertuzzi 25. Ohlund and Jovo 24. The Sedins were 20, and both would go on to become Hart Trophy winners.  

 

Tell me, with confidence, that the Canucks are better poised now than in 2001. Naslund, Morrison and Bertuzzi accounted for 99 goals and 143 assists that year, in what was considered to be the tail end of the "dead puck era". Last year Horvat, Boeser and Petterson combined for 81 goals and 102 assists. Jovanovski and Ohlund combined for 27 goals and 57 assists. Edler and Stecher were our highest scoring D last season, with 12 goals and 45 assists between them. But the 2001 Canucks had help on the way - the Sedins were 30+ point players that year (again, at age 20), with every sign that they were going to improve. Cassels was a 50 point player. Salo would be added to the D core shortly therafter. The only Canuck player from last season to score more than 30 points aside from the core three and aging Edler? Roussel with 31. Are the young guys the answer? Virtanen's 15 goals and 25 points are the most help offered last season, and he is 22. Goldobin is also 22, should I be excited by what he can bring? He is a defensive liability who scored a whopping 7 goals last season in 60+ games. I know, I know. It is unfair to compare any young player to future potential HoF players. But seriously, is there a single 20 year old in the organization that could conceivably make the team and add 30 points? Am I supposed to get excited for Kole Lind?

 

I don't want to be overly negative. Hughes could show up and blow away my expectations, just like Boeser and Petterson have. But that is the sad thing about the Canucks right now. A new core is shaping up, sure. But if Horvat, Boeser and Petterson hadn't exceeded all expectations, the Canucks wouldn't even have a core. And this has been my point in my numerous previous posts. That core has to be locked up to reasonable long-term contracts, and further help drafted to augment that core 3-5 years from now for the Canucks to become a perennial threat.

 

To bring the conversation back to the parting shot Tampa Bay comparison - I never would advocate that an organization that drafts well (even if only in the first round) should tank for top pics. I proposed Tampa as being in an enviable position because they have a competitive roster, and they are now in a position where they can remain competitive and trade out valuable players for good return without destroying their core. They can trade away a Drouin and still win a presidents trophy. They can trade away a JT Miller to free up space to re-sign Point, and get a mid-level 1st. They have re-signed core players to good-value contracts. All of their most expensive contracts are still tradeable (assuming players waived NTCs). Stamkos, Hedman, Kucherov would all still bring a boat load in return if it became desirable to trade them, and will be for years to come. Likewise Killorn, Palat, and soon Point again. 

 

And, if we are going to point out things that are "factually wrong", the Lightning made the playoff 6 of the last 10 seasons, and had only 1 stretch in franchise history where they made the playoffs only once in 10 years, not 12 (the period immediately following expansion). Two years later they won a cup. Following that they made the playoffs twice more before a 1 playoff in 6 year stretch, which was largely the result of them rewarding their Champions with oversized contracts. During that time, you are right, they accumulated the high pics (Stamkos, Hedman) that would form key components of their current core. In the last 6 years they have missed the playoffs once, and played a total of 12 playoff series, including a final (very comperable to the Canucks under Gillis). Can the Canucks honestly say that they use their stretches of team weakness to rebuild as effectively as Tampa? Benning has now been general manager for 5 seasons, with one playoff appearance. If we miss the playoffs this year, we will have had exactly as long a playoff break as Tampa.

 

Are we, like the Lightning of 2013, poised to make the playoffs 5 out of the next 6 years? Will we see a cup final? I hope so. But to do that, we need to maintain excellent first round drafting, we have to maintain good value signings of our top players (like Horvats current contract) and we have to have the players we trade for and sign in FA show up and contribute in a much more significant way than Eriksson or Gudbranson. We also can't be afraid to trade out players to maximize value. The one good thing about relying on a core that is 19-22 years old is that you can potentially keep it together for a decade. Use that to build! Too often this franchise has misidentified complimentary players as core players, and failed to move them at opportune times, or lost them to FA for nothing. Great franchises avoid that. Chicago continually traded out supporting players over the course of their dynasty for high return, extending their window tremendously. They weren't afraid to shed a Byfuglien, or a Shaw, or a Panarin. Tampa traded out Drouin, St. Louis, Conacher (when he overperformed for a season and looked great). 

 

Benning has presided over the worst performing era of any GM in franchise history, excepting only the three years of Poile when the team joined the league. No other GM has seen less playoff hockey during their time as manager. Will Benning's strong drafting somehow be converted into franchise success? Or will this core descend into mediocrity over the next few years, with another GM left to regroup and rebuild for another half decade? If Benning has success he can improve his averages and history will view him more favourably. If he brings a cup, there will be a statue raised in his honour. If things don't go so well, he may well be remembered as the most ineffective GM that Vancouver has ever seen.

 

 

 

 

    

Edited July 7, 2019 by SealTheDeal

[Ghostsof1915]

So basically Seal your argument is:

 

All cat's have four legs.

My dog has four legs.

Therefore my dog is a cat.

 

In your wall of text you didn't say anything about Gillis' drafting (or lack of success thereof), and his handing out multiple NMC's and NTC's which severely limited to what Benning could or could not do. Edler refused to waive his no trade. The Sedin's were a package deal with $14 million in salary so even if they agreed to move, who could afford that kind of cap hit? Kesler only would play for Anaheim. 

 

If your prospect pool is empty, and you had no pieces to trade. How are you supposed to get a rebuild done? 

 

I'm surprised you didn't say Jack Gordon was a fantastic GM because he made the playoffs once in two years....Oh yeah there was that Neely trade including a first rounder.

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Ghostsof1915

[kingofsurrey]

37 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

He thrived on it though.  

Yes , he did.  So much character in the guy.  A true warrior.