A Fair Criticism of Jim Benning

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

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.

 

Yeah I sort of skimmed over his walls of text but saw it was a whole lot of nothing so I just was like "not worth my time". He can type paragraphs at least. I can give him that.

 

Perhaps if he spent as much time doing research as he did typing he'd actually have something? 

[Dr. Crossbar]

People either get it or they don't. That much has become obvious in this thread. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Dr. Crossbar
.

[Ghostsof1915]

One other point. The Atlanta Thrashers never once made the playoffs. 

When they moved to Winnipeg. Up until 2016-17 season they made the playoffs. ONCE. 

 

The next season in 2017-18 in the first time back in the playoffs they made it to the conference finals. 

I'm not saying that it's going to happen here. But there is examples of teams that have struggled to build a good club and it sometimes takes time. 

It's just kinda sad that the Jets have had to partially dismantle itself. 

[Bubble Man]

57 minutes ago, oldnews said:

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

Can’t believe you made me do this. I just looked around to see what our pro scouts have yielded and it’s pretty underwhelming. Some of these players cost us nothing, some assets regardless it’s pro scouts crapping. 

 

The bad.

Vey

Pedan

Clendening

Prust 

Sutter

Etem 

Granlund

Larsen

Barkowski

Cracknell

Pouliot

Gagner 

Dahlen 

Schaller

Beagle

Eriksson 

Dowd 

Nilsson

Megna 

Dorsett 

Gudbranson

 

The good. 

Miller

Vanek

Bonino>Sutter 

McCann>Gudbranson 

Pizza

Baertschi 

Pearson

Leivo 

Goldy 

Roussel

 

Out of all that hot mess we have 5 good players. Not one of those players can’t be replaced by Jim’s groups ability to draft. I probably missed some on both sides but I think I have some substance to my claims. 

 

If I look at this history, how can I put my faith in JT Miller, Myers, and Benn? It’s not always about the player either. It’s how the player fits. 

[The Lock]

Just now, Bubble Man said:

Can’t believe you made me do this. I just looked around to see what our pro scouts have yielded and it’s pretty underwhelming. Some of these players cost us nothing, some assets regardless it’s pro scouts crapping. 

 

The bad.

Vey

Pedan

Clendening

Prust 

Sutter

Etem 

Granlund

Larsen

Barkowski

Cracknell

Pouliot

Gagner 

Dahlen 

Schaller

Beagle

Eriksson 

Dowd 

Nilsson

Megna 

Dorsett 

Gudbranson

 

The good. 

Miller

Vanek

Bonino>Sutter 

McCann>Gudbranson 

Pizza

Baertschi 

Pearson

Leivo 

Goldy 

Roussel

 

Out of all that hot mess we have 5 good players. Not one of those players can’t be replaced by Jim’s groups ability to draft. I probably missed some on both sides but I think I have some substance to my claims. 

 

If I look at this history, how can I put my faith in JT Miller, Myers, and Benn? It’s not always about the player either. It’s how the player fits. 

Now compare with other teams. Good and bad. Wouldn't it make more sense to see how we compare with everyone else? Otherwise, how do we know if our success rate is good or bad?

 

Perhaps I might do something like this in a couple of days out of curiousity. No promises though. I hope you get my point at least.

[Clock Tower Prison]

48 minutes ago, SealTheDeal said:

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.

 

Great post. 

 

Also just to bolster your arguement, that one time Tampa missed the playoffs was when Stamkos was out indefinitely after 17 games. 

[ItTakesAnArmy]

35 minutes ago, SealTheDeal said:

5 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.

The L&B show have been around since 2014 to now, 6 drafts and 5 years.

 

Even if you take into account the franchise beginnings this is the worst this franchise has ever been, not just making the playoffs or not but in winning and losing.

There have been worse seasons but never a four year period this bad. Average win % = .387 wins vs losses over four years. 127 wins out of 328 games.

 

The invention of the loser point created a false stat in the points, losses can equal a point, but they are still a loss and for some reason are not included in the loss column creating a false data line. Maybe to create the illusion that makes teams look more competitive. Vegas odds makers are not perfect but they are not 100% wrong either. Two years ago the furor raised when media types predicted the Canucks would finish near the bottom of the league, the backlash was intense but the team finished right where most of them figured, even last year nobody expected LA and Anaheim to tank so much or the other two teams that packed in in over the last three weeks of the season catapulting the Canucks up the standings to 24th from 29th.

 

The Canucks really only needed this year and next for a final bottom visit, this years draft will be two deep in picks if near the bottom and next years might be because of the labor stoppage where they use the last few years to determine the odds of picking in the first round and the standings for the rest.

 

Yes if the Canucks are a lottery team this year and there is a labor stoppage then Tampa gets a lottery pick guaranteed. Of course Benning may/will not be here anyway, Seattle needs a scout.

[The Lock]

3 minutes ago, ItTakesAnArmy said:

The L&B show have been around since 2014 to now, 6 drafts and 5 years.

 

Even if you take into account the franchise beginnings this is the worst this franchise has ever been, not just making the playoffs or not but in winning and losing.

There have been worse seasons but never a four year period this bad. Average win % = .387 wins vs losses over four years. 127 wins out of 328 games.

 

The invention of the loser point created a false stat in the points, losses can equal a point, but they are still a loss and for some reason are not included in the loss column creating a false data line. Maybe to create the illusion that makes teams look more competitive. Vegas odds makers are not perfect but they are not 100% wrong either. Two years ago the furor raised when media types predicted the Canucks would finish near the bottom of the league, the backlash was intense but the team finished right where most of them figured, even last year nobody expected LA and Anaheim to tank so much or the other two teams that packed in in over the last three weeks of the season catapulting the Canucks up the standings to 24th from 29th.

 

The Canucks really only needed this year and next for a final bottom visit, this years draft will be two deep in picks if near the bottom and next years might be because of the labor stoppage where they use the last few years to determine the odds of picking in the first round and the standings for the rest.

 

Yes if the Canucks are a lottery team this year and there is a labor stoppage then Tampa gets a lottery pick guaranteed. Of course Benning may/will not be here anyway, Seattle needs a scout.

[Bubble Man]

9 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Now compare with other teams. Good and bad. Wouldn't it make more sense to see how we compare with everyone else? Otherwise, how do we know if our success rate is good or bad?

 

Perhaps I might do something like this in a couple of days out of curiousity. No promises though. I hope you get my point at least.

I do, you’re the most rational and polite person that’s ever replied to me and I appreciate it.

 

To be honest I don’t really pay attention. To other teams. But what I do know is that almost all of our core pieces are drafted or discovered by amateur scouts. The point I’m trying to make is that our success is built in the draft. Trading away picks is like throwing away our best weapons. Especially a 1st. 

[xereau]

The only criticism I have of Jim Benning is his seriously inappropriate use of Just For Men.

 

Going grey is dignified Mr. Benning. Go with it.

 

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Make music, not war. 

[Alflives]

Just now, xereau said:

The only criticism I have of Jim Benning is his seriously inappropriate use of Just For Men.

 

Going grey is dignified Mr. Benning. Go with it.

 

The Vampire look is in for 2019. 

[The Lock]

Just now, Bubble Man said:

I do, you’re the most rational and polite person that’s ever replied to me and I appreciate it.

 

To be honest I don’t really pay attention. To other teams. But what I do know is that almost all of our core pieces are drafted or discovered by amateur scouts. The point I’m trying to make is that our success is built in the draft. Trading away picks is like throwing away our best weapons. Especially a 1st. 

First of all, thanks. I'm trying to get a little more less "vindictive" and just say what I think. It's not always easy (as probably evidenced by other posts of mine) but I'm trying. Thanks for noticing. 

 

Well, I guess my reply to that would be that's generally the case in a rebuild. I'll give a bit of a quickfire response of how I see it:

 

1) Rebuilding teams don't generally have assets to trade for other good assets. Therefore, taking chances on players that might not make it is likely the next best option until the team develops enough. This also means the likelihood of failure is going to be higher among the players.

 

2) This also means that, since failure is going to be higher among players, drafting is generally the most sought after option. Do the number of picks affect our chances? Maybe a little, but if we know who we want to draft at certain times, perhaps quality's going to be better than quantity. Also, we can only have so many contracts, which we are already seeing happening by not signing players like Brassard who played quite well last year and was a 7th round pick.

 

So, let's look at Miller for a moment. This was perhaps our boldest move in a long time; however, that also means we have developed. We see things happening on the ice. We see some drafted players exceeding expectations (and some not, it's going to happen). Most importantly, we're seeing a compete level that we don't even see on other teams. We are at that point now where we can compete, or at least try to. If we don't take these kinds of actions, who's to say we won't be bottom feeders for the next 5 years?

 

So the way I see it, we need to take the next steps. If that means a 1st round pick (in which we have 2 years to make it not a lottery pick) then I say let it be so. We can't live outside of the playoffs forever. Perhaps some people are scared that we're actually making moves, which is kind of funny because I'm almost like "it's about time we have a chance to get out of this". lol

[Johnny Torts]

26 minutes ago, Bubble Man said:

Can’t believe you made me do this. I just looked around to see what our pro scouts have yielded and it’s pretty underwhelming. Some of these players cost us nothing, some assets regardless it’s pro scouts crapping. 

 

The bad.

Vey

Pedan

Clendening

Prust 

Sutter

Etem 

Granlund

Larsen

Barkowski

Cracknell

Pouliot

Gagner 

Dahlen 

Schaller

Beagle

Eriksson 

Dowd 

Nilsson

Megna 

Dorsett 

Gudbranson

  

The good. 

Miller

Vanek

Bonino>Sutter 

McCann>Gudbranson 

Pizza

Baertschi 

Pearson

Leivo 

Goldy 

Roussel

 

Out of all that hot mess we have 5 good players. Not one of those players can’t be replaced by Jim’s groups ability to draft. I probably missed some on both sides but I think I have some substance to my claims. 

 

If I look at this history, how can I put my faith in JT Miller, Myers, and Benn? It’s not always about the player either. It’s how the player fits. 

I do not agree with Sutter, Granlund, Dahlen, Nilsson, Beagle, Dorsett? Really? There were teams bidding on Eriksson, not just us. Gudbranson was the second coming of Ekblad out of FLA when that trade went down. Beagle is a beast. Sutter is a good 3C issue is health and hes been playing on a rebuilding team for the past 3 seasons. Dahlen was a great win for Burrows, he lost patience, screw it. Lets see how linus pans out.We got games out of Granlund. Wheres Shinkaruk?

 

I think a player in his prime in JT Miller is a safe bet. He plays fast and the right way. Hard to the net, stick down, ready for a shot, head up, squares up to the net. And hes hit constant 50 plus point seasons.

 

So get this, the year before last, when he was traded to tampa, was the year he had 58 points. 40 of those were in NYR before he was traded so I don't think in this case his points were really inflated in tampa. Last year he missed 7 games, still had a decent 47 points.

 

Myers, cmon. Kid won the Calder. He has hands, big body, if his defensive game is an issue, I am 100% confident in Nolan Baumgartner. He was lost behind Buff and Trouba, plain and simple. 

 

Benn is a solid 3rd pairing D man no way around it. Beast.

[smithers joe]

the only thing that interests me is how this team plays in october. living in the past as if it can be changed makes no sense. personally, i take the bad with the good. if being a gm was easy, everyone would do it. 

[xereau]

1 minute ago, smithers joe said:

the only thing that interests me is how this team plays in october. living in the past as if it can be changed makes no sense. personally, i take the bad with the good. if being a gm was easy, everyone would do it. 

I am the GM of the big bowl of chili in front of me. I scouted and drafted the six bean mix myself and know its going to be amazing, especially after its signed its bridge deal.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, xereau said:

I am the GM of the big bowl of chili in front of me. I scouted and drafted the six bean mix myself and know its going to be amazing, especially after its signed its bridge deal.

Oh yeah, it's supper time..... now I want chili.... 

[Alflives]

Just now, xereau said:

I am the GM of the big bowl of chili in front of me. I scouted and drafted the six bean mix myself and know its going to be amazing, especially after its signed its bridge deal.

That signing might really stink come tomorrow though.  

[Bubble Man]

12 minutes ago, The Lock said:

First of all, thanks. I'm trying to get a little more less "vindictive" and just say what I think. It's not always easy (as probably evidenced by other posts of mine) but I'm trying. Thanks for noticing. 

 

Well, I guess my reply to that would be that's generally the case in a rebuild. I'll give a bit of a quickfire response of how I see it:

 

1) Rebuilding teams don't generally have assets to trade for other good assets. Therefore, taking chances on players that might not make it is likely the next best option until the team develops enough. This also means the likelihood of failure is going to be higher among the players.

 

2) This also means that, since failure is going to be higher among players, drafting is generally the most sought after option. Do the number of picks affect our chances? Maybe a little, but if we know who we want to draft at certain times, perhaps quality's going to be better than quantity. Also, we can only have so many contracts, which we are already seeing happening by not signing players like Brassard who played quite well last year and was a 7th round pick.

 

So, let's look at Miller for a moment. This was perhaps our boldest move in a long time; however, that also means we have developed. We see things happening on the ice. We see some drafted players exceeding expectations (and some not, it's going to happen). Most importantly, we're seeing a compete level that we don't even see on other teams. We are at that point now where we can compete, or at least try to. If we don't take these kinds of actions, who's to say we won't be bottom feeders for the next 5 years?

 

So the way I see it, we need to take the next steps. If that means a 1st round pick (in which we have 2 years to make it not a lottery pick) then I say let it be so. We can't live outside of the playoffs forever. Perhaps some people are scared that we're actually making moves, which is kind of funny because I'm almost like "it's about time we have a chance to get out of this". lol

I’m being pretty black and white. At times I look at things at face value and judge them the same. If I look at all of the avenues Benning has used to improve our team over the past 5 years. Trades, and FA don't even come remotely close to the Draft. I have never looked at a Jim Benning pick and said WTF?!? To myself. That includes JV and OJ.

 

This team, seems to work in +/- 10 year cycles, 82, 94, WCE, 2011, we have at least 5 more years to synchronize with our boom and bust cycle. 2024-25 is where I see us being a 2011 caliber team. 

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

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.  

that's a b.s. category you created there.