A Fair Criticism of Jim Benning

[RowdyCanuck]

43 minutes ago, GoodCanadianKideh said:

How much further ahead would the Leafs have been if they’d held onto the 2 first-round picks and the 2nd rounder instead of trading them for a first line winger that was in his prime?  Their rebuild would have happened way faster than the way it dragged out for almost a decade.  Burke didn’t recognize where the team was at and traded away the future.  

 

My point is that Burke didn’t realize what state the team was at and sacrificed the future for a return that payed no dividends.  He traded away a first line centre and a top pairing D-man for a winger.  

ownership in TO wanted the playoffs too and Burke got them there but I agree with everything you've said....

Burke has showed he can draft and build a core or come in and add a acouple pieces...I'd be curious to know how many GMs have built/drafted two different teams that went to a cup final Canucks and Ducks...that's a pretty good track record

[189lb enforcers?]

15 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:

yes I would say it worked out cause Ufas weren't lining up to come to Van at the time and that's why Jim had to over pay players....Those place holders meant we didn't rush the kids like we did with Jake and McCann...

its also worth mention this is only the second season without the Sedins and their cap hit coming up and Van had to change leadership from gentleman to guys that will win at all cost....those guys don't come cheap or on the market very often...

 

No, I mean the age gap trades JB made for the Veys of the era, not UFAs. 

[RowdyCanuck]

12 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

No, I mean the age gap trades JB made for the Veys of the era, not UFAs. 

Well at the time the trade made sense Willie had a history with him and Vey put up good ahl numbers....Sven was a gamble that paid off....Gubby was a force with Florida but that guy never showed up in Van and I think Gubby realized he wasn't scary in the west like he was in east....pouilot was a gamble that didn't pan out but he was worth gamble at the time....DD was good in my books and Prust was Jim just getting rid of Kassin....

you want me to go on?

Those players bought guys like Jake time and didn't force them into top six spots....it all depends on how you look at it....

Edited June 30, 2019 by RowdyCanuck

[RowdyCanuck]

33 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

No, I mean the age gap trades JB made for the Veys of the era, not UFAs. 

I might add during that time they were trying to get the Sedins to the playoffs/ retool and it's only been acouple years since our rebuild has finally kicked off...

[ItTakesAnArmy]

11 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

#1. You say that the owners have had a huge role in the decisions being made...all of them? The one that went good? The ones that went bad? How do you know which ones? Personally, I would say that Aqualini had a lot to say when Benning first got here, and that is when the crux of the bad moves were made, IMO. I think they still are part of it but to a lesser degree......so I think you need to give Aqualini some of your hate.

This is  a false idea that has to be put to bed.

Aqulini's were immediately involved after being given ownership of the team by the courts and NHL, they fired Nonis and hired Gillis. Gillis restructured the team so the head coach was responsible for the one ice product, players called up and roster decisions as well as a bigger role in trades.

Aquilinis' were again involved after the Tortorella hiring. After AV was let go for many reasons, the media decided to fry Gillis and the Aquilinis', it got so bad that the owners had to hire guards for their kids and the Aquilinis' decided to step back. In brilliant PR move they hired Linden, Linden had demands such as free advertising for Club 16 his other business and free reign. The owners stayed out of the conversation until the kids completed school and the storm subsided somewhat only getting back involved last year. Linden decided to quit rather than be involved further. Linden quit, he wasn't fired.

So many fans seem to think that the Aquilini's are stupid and know nothing about hockey or are pushing for the playoffs for money, talk about putting on the blinders, if it was about money only then there would be someone else running the show last year, money wasted on old vets, loss of sales of club sweaters etc and devaluation of the team. These owners have lost over 250 million under Linden/Benning.

So few fans remember the "for a quarter" statement from Burke when the team lost money for it's second year under his watch, owners don't invest to lose money, the team is not a charity.

 

To Content;

13 hours ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

I will start by saying I am a JB fan. I am sure this thread will attract a lot of the JB haters but amongst those of us who appreciate what he’s done for the franchise given what he started with, I do think we need to address a major issue / weakness of his -signing and trading.

 

JB came in, had no prospects, had a team with the Twins that the powers that be felt were owed a chance to keep trying to win a cup, irrespective of their lineup. This was

 a set of handcuffs for Jim and we don’t know if it was ownership, him, or just simply that you can’t trade the twins and loyalty means something still. Regardless of the reason, not the point of this thread, it made the rebuild harder. 

I am not a fan of JB's work and am on the other side, critical of waste.

 

You contend he had nothing, from my side he/they was given a golden opportunity. Let's look at the reality of the situation.

Gillis leaves with 12+ million in available capspace for the team to use.

The team has no goaltenders of high quality.

The L/JB combination were handed a golden opportunity, both rookies at their jobs and the McDavid/Eichel draft coming up the next year was the last where finishing DFL guaranteed the 2nd pick.

The team had no bonafide star goalies but most of the cup team was still assembled and the team had Horvat as the Kesler replacement and extra pick (Gaudette) Gills had traded for.

Benning's first draft was a great one for the Canucks, the beneficiary of two scouting reports the team cleaned up on just about every pick. So for all the talk about lack of prospects that draft added or could have added 5 players to the roster and if they had taken advantage of "rookie mistakes" and not signed Miller (a bad contract because Miller had said he would play for any western team) or Vrbata the team would have finished worse than the year before and got 2 more prospects for a total of 7 prospects, 8 if Horvat was counted.The team would still have had vets with playoff experience for trading and mentor-ship needing to find a goalie while waiting for Demko.

So the 2014 draft should have provided Virtanen, Forsling, Tryamkin, Demko and McCann, plus Horvat that is 6 new prospects and another bad year for the Mathews/Laine draft. Potentially 8 or 9 prospects, easily 2 or 3 top line players in their first complete year ending in 2016.

Now even if the lottery went the way it did IF the team ended up DFL two years they would have got good players and the masses would have accepted the standings because Linden was such an icon.

Didn't happen, just a lost opportunity but the lack of prospects was addressed in the first two drafts, that 2014 draft had more prospects than the team could take.

13 hours ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

Once he he started to restock, he knew he had to bring in some younger but not rookie players to help avoid edmontonitis. He brought in players like Baer, Granlund, Sutter, etc. Some worked some didn’t but the strategy to insulate what little talent we had has actually worked. Now that some of our young players are getting up to speed, the gap fillers are becoming expendable. This is a good sign.

I really never saw the reason for replacing 26 year olds with 24 year olds.

The Edmontonitis you refer to was "they rushed their player", don't look now but who are the Canucks leaning and rushing? Not 26 to 30 year olds, Brock who hasn't 150 games yet, Pettersson who hasn't 80 games, Horvat, the old man at 24 and Virtanen the whipping boy, Hughes and Juloevi who don't have 25 games between them, Goldoblin or Gaudette. Who are the veteran core players? The mentors for goal scorers? Eriksson?

Just pointing out how much the same problem is here in Vancouver as Edmonton AND Buffalo. TO addressed this situation by bringing in Marleau and then signing Taveras two effective scoring veterans known to be good leaders as mentors.

13 hours ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

He has done a marvellous job drafting and has put together one of the best young prospect pools in the game. As a Canuck fan for 30 years, this young group is the best I’ve ever seen. He deserves credit for this, especially given what he started with and his constraints when he came in. 

The 2014 draft could go down as one of the best ever in Canuck's existence but they had two scouting reports to go by so Boston should get a little bit of a nod.

While he will get credit for the quality of prospects and the number of them, no Canuck GM has ever managed the team to having 6 drafts in the top ten. I am not sure that having a record of great prospects but still finishing in the bottom third of the league for half a decade is commendable.

It almost goes without saying a bad team will have good prospects, teh better the prospect pool, the worse the team. Where are all the draft picks from 2014?

13 hours ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

Now where I think JB really hasn’t done well and where we could use some senior oversight (maybe a Brian Burke) is with signings and trades. Why I bring this up, given the recent buyout, talk of ridding Erickson, I started to think of his track record here. It really is weak. It’s not killing us, but it hasn’t helped us, and maybe marginally hurt us

Definitely a major failing, it seems there is a lack of looking to the entire future and he has to be thinking about saving his job no matter what.

 

12 hours ago, appleboy said:

I would probably be classed as a Benning hater by many on this site. However I think you hit the nail on the head. This is pretty much what some of us so called haters have been saying. 

I think the owners have played a huge role in the decisions that have been made. The one thing that we might not fully agree on is the rebuild. I don't think he has ever done a rebuild . I think he ended up getting some high picks because the team was so bad. This was not planned but happened because of the poor deals that he made.

This is what scares me now. He is beginning to move first round picks. He has some money to spend. This could end up bad.

The man should be drafting and that is all.

Fans have to get hti sout of their heads, it has been a red flag to distract just how poorly the team does supplied by the media. Every owner gets involved with a business that is worth 3 or 4 hundred million dollars, the Canuck value should be over a billion now, do you hire some guy that hasn't graduated or has a GED to run it?

Any team that has multiple top ten picks should have a winner every year, stats show it is hard to miss on top ten picks really hard especially in the last 20 years.

 

Yes the mantra around the league to to get 1rst round or any picks, not trade them away.

Edited June 30, 2019 by ItTakesAnArmy

[Kevin Biestra]

50 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Each time we’ve made it to the the final, it was two cores away.   Also since expansion only one team has won cups with completely different teams and even them they had a rookie goalie that was part of two cores - Roy. Detroit managed cups with part of the same core...

 

Since the 60s/70s expansion?  1979?  I think you would have to say Pittsburgh won with the Mario core and the Crosby core.

 

And I guess if you mean the original (67?) expansion or 1970, you might have to include the Orr Bruins and the Rat Bruins.

 

Nitpicking though, I agree with the post in general.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Kevin Biestra

[18W-40C-6W]

8 minutes ago, ItTakesAnArmy said:

This is  a false idea that has to be put to bed.

Aqulini's were immediately involved after being given ownership of the team by the courts and NHL, they fired Nonis and hired Gillis. Gillis restructured the team so the head coach was responsible for the one ice product, players called up and roster decisions as well as a bigger role in trades.

Aquilinis' were again involved after the Tortorella hiring. After AV was let go for many reasons, the media decided to fry Gillis and the Aquilinis', it got so bad that the owners had to hire guards for their kids and the Aquilinis' decided to step back. In brilliant PR move they hired Linden, Linden had demands such as free advertising for Club 16 his other business and free reign. The owners stayed out of the conversation until the kids completed school and the storm subsided somewhat only getting back involved last year. Linden decided to quit rather than be involved further. Linden quit, he wasn't fired.

So many fans seem to think that the Aquilini's are stupid and know nothing about hockey or are pushing for the playoffs for money, talk about putting on the blinders, if it was about money only then there would be someone else running the show last year, money wasted on old vets, loss of sales of club sweaters etc and devaluation of the team. These owners have lost over 250 million under Linden/Benning.

So few fans remember the "for a quarter" statement from Burke when the team lost money for it's second year under his watch, owners don't invest to lose money, the team is not a charity.

 

To Content;

I am not a fan of JB's work and am on the other side, critical of waste.

 

You contend he had nothing, from my side he/they was given a golden opportunity. Let's look at the reality of the situation.

Gillis leaves with 12+ million in available capspace for the team to use.

The team has no goaltenders of high quality.

The L/JB combination were handed a golden opportunity, both rookies at their jobs and the McDavid/Eichel draft coming up the next year was the last where finishing DFL guaranteed the 2nd pick.

The team had no bonafide star goalies but most of the cup team was still assembled and the team had Horvat as the Kesler replacement and extra pick (Gaudette) Gills had traded for.

Benning's first draft was a great one for the Canucks, the beneficiary of two scouting reports the team cleaned up on just about every pick. So for all the talk about lack of prospects that draft added or could have added 5 players to the roster and if they had taken advantage of "rookie mistakes" and not signed Miller (a bad contract because Miller had said he would play for any western team) or Vrbata the team would have finished worse than the year before and got 2 more prospects for a total of 7 prospects, 8 if Horvat was counted.The team would still have had vets with playoff experience for trading and mentor-ship needing to find a goalie while waiting for Demko.

So the 2014 draft should have provided Virtanen, Forsling, Tryamkin, Demko and McCann, plus Horvat that is 6 new prospects and another bad year for the Mathews/Laine draft. Potentially 8 or 9 prospects, easily 2 or 3 top line players in their first complete year ending in 2016.

Now even if the lottery went the way it did IF the team ended up DFL two years they would have got good players and the masses would have accepted the standings because Linden was such an icon.

Didn't happen, just a lost opportunity but the lack of prospects was addressed in the first two drafts, that 2014 draft had more prospects than the team could take.

I really never saw the reason for replacing 26 year olds with 24 year olds.

The Edmontonitis you refer to was "they rushed their player", don't look now but who are the Canucks leaning and rushing? Not 26 to 30 year olds, Brock who hasn't 150 games yet, Pettersson who hasn't 80 games, Horvat, the old man at 24 and Virtanen the whipping boy, Hughes and Juloevi who don't have 25 games between them, Goldoblin or Gaudette. Who are the veteran core players? The mentors for goal scorers? Eriksson?

Just pointing out how much the same problem is here in Vancouver as Edmonton AND Buffalo. TO addressed this situation by bringing in Marleau and then signing Taveras two effective scoring veterans known to be good leaders as mentors.

The 2014 draft could go down as one of the best ever in Canuck's existence but they had two scouting reports to go by so Boston should get a little bit of a nod.

While he will get credit for the quality of prospects and the number of them, no Canuck GM has ever managed the team to having 6 drafts in the top ten. I am not sure that having a record of great prospects but still finishing in the bottom third of the league for half a decade is commendable.

It almost goes without saying a bad team will have good prospects, teh better the prospect pool, the worse the team. Where are all the draft picks from 2014?

Definitely a major failing, it seems there is a lack of looking to the entire future and he has to be thinking about saving his job no matter what.

 

Fans have to get hti sout of their heads, it has been a red flag to distract just how poorly the team does supplied by the media. Every owner gets involved with a business that is worth 3 or 4 hundred million dollars, the Canuck value should be over a billion now, do you hire some guy that hasn't graduated or has a GED to run it?

Any team that has multiple top ten picks should have a winner every year, stats show it is hard to miss on top ten picks really hard especially in the last 20 years.

 

Yes the mantra around the league to to get 1rst round or any picks, not trade them away.

Edmontonitis is playing all young players thinking you can recreate the Oilers of the 80s. While the approach wasn’t perfect, insulating young players has proven time and time again to be more effective than throwing them to the wolves. You need a mix of vets and young players and the players need to be ready to play in the NHL from a physical, skill, mental and importantly maturity perspective. It’s clear if you look at Virtanen and McCann that not being ready can lead to edmontonitis, and almost did. Thankfully they both seems to be back on track. I think you’ve over simplified issues

[189lb enforcers?]

28 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Well at the time the trade made sense Willie had a history with him and Vey put up good ahl numbers....Sven was a gamble that paid off....Gubby was a force with Florida but that guy never showed up in Van and I think Gubby realized he wasn't scary in the west like he was in east....pouilot was a gamble that didn't pan out but he was worth gamble at the time....DD was good in my books and Prust was Jim just getting rid of Kassin....

you want me to go on?

Those players bought guys like Jake time and didn't force them into top six spots....it all depends on how you look at it....

It does all depend on how you look at it, results-wise. 

The trades I understand. I just don’t understand why you’d need to fill a certain age gap, during a rebuild, especially to spend assets to do so. 

 

The whole supposed point was to fill an age gap, which to many, didn’t matter if it existed in the first place, considering the team’s projection.

 

Rebuild with some 22-25 year-olds or with some 26-30 year-olds, the common, serviceable UFA age. Those age-gap replacement parts are now the age of the UFA age guys, and for what? What service did that provide the franchise? 

 

The premise that those players of a certain age were needed here, at the expense of other assets, was flawed from the start. The results speak for themselves, as does the nature of the Gambler who made them. We ended up at exactly the same place were were expected to, minus a few picks. And for what? A few check-boxes of certain-aged players? You may find that to be solid management of a rebuild, I didn’t then or now. If we disagree, I hope at least we can agree that we are engaged in understanding each other's views on the rebuild. 

[ilduce39]

4 minutes ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

Edmontonitis is playing all young players thinking you can recreate the Oilers of the 80s. While the approach wasn’t perfect, insulating young players has proven time and time again to be more effective than throwing them to the wolves. You need a mix of vets and young players and the players need to be ready to play in the NHL from a physical, skill, mental and importantly maturity perspective. It’s clear if you look at Virtanen and McCann that not being ready can lead to edmontonitis, and almost did. Thankfully they both seems to be back on track. I think you’ve over simplified issues

They honestly think it's a video game and players are just numbers.  You can gripe away about "waste" but I've said it all along:  JB has kept the internal competition on the team at a high level and surrounded it with good leadership, guys who play the right way and kept the room a cohesive place.  

 

These guys are complaining about not picking up a nickel on the sidewalk while ignoring what actually makes teams win games.

[oldnews]

I don't think this gets discussed enough on these boards.

[189lb enforcers?]

48 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:

I might add during that time they were trying to get the Sedins to the playoffs/ retool and it's only been acouple years since our rebuild has finally kicked off...

Yes, that context helps.

 

FTR, I think I’m one of many who understand that JB was likely steered or used as a puppet during his first few seasons here and that his Vision or preference would have been secondary to the mandate of ownership’s. Essentially, he gets a free pass. 

 

Its likely that JB has been given a free pass on several questionable aspects of his oversight of this rebuild, which is why the whole notion that he is a victim is laughable.

 

He’s had the best gig in hockey if you ask me.

Execute expensive plan to hit playoffs, win because fans like playoffs. 

Fail to execute your plan, win because of a high pick. 

 

The man can do no wrong - because “it’s not you’re money”, or something like that. 

 

The victimhood culture of this fanbase and its conspiracies has now spilled over into assuming the role of the overprotective mother defending her idiot kid at all costs.

 

This site is overwhelmingly pro anything Canucks, let alone Benning. Casual posters and quasi fans of the sport are a vast majority of posters. There is a core group of posters possibly numbering in the hundreds who post beyond the Kesler is Hot threads and know the sport enough to discuss its management, let alone players. Of that group, I wager that it’s still a 10:1 ratio of Pro vs not-so-Pro Benning supporters.

 

Not every vote cast is from a disciple of the sport, nor is every post, which is difficult to discern in a poll. This makes the discussion concerning Benning’s tenure rather tedious, if not pretentious, at times, IMO. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by 189lb enforcers?

[IBatch]

12 minutes ago, ItTakesAnArmy said:

This is  a false idea that has to be put to bed.

Aqulini's were immediately involved after being given ownership of the team by the courts and NHL, they fired Nonis and hired Gillis. Gillis restructured the team so the head coach was responsible for the one ice product, players called up and roster decisions as well as a bigger role in trades.

Aquilinis' were again involved after the Tortorella hiring. After AV was let go for many reasons, the media decided to fry Gillis and the Aquilinis', it got so bad that the owners had to hire guards for their kids and the Aquilinis' decided to step back. In brilliant PR move they hired Linden, Linden had demands such as free advertising for Club 16 his other business and free reign. The owners stayed out of the conversation until the kids completed school and the storm subsided somewhat only getting back involved last year. Linden decided to quit rather than be involved further. Linden quit, he wasn't fired.

So many fans seem to think that the Aquilini's are stupid and know nothing about hockey or are pushing for the playoffs for money, talk about putting on the blinders, if it was about money only then there would be someone else running the show last year, money wasted on old vets, loss of sales of club sweaters etc and devaluation of the team. These owners have lost over 250 million under Linden/Benning.

So few fans remember the "for a quarter" statement from Burke when the team lost money for it's second year under his watch, owners don't invest to lose money, the team is not a charity.

 

To Content;

I am not a fan of JB's work and am on the other side, critical of waste.

 

You contend he had nothing, from my side he/they was given a golden opportunity. Let's look at the reality of the situation.

Gillis leaves with 12+ million in available capspace for the team to use.

The team has no goaltenders of high quality.

The L/JB combination were handed a golden opportunity, both rookies at their jobs and the McDavid/Eichel draft coming up the next year was the last where finishing DFL guaranteed the 2nd pick.

The team had no bonafide star goalies but most of the cup team was still assembled and the team had Horvat as the Kesler replacement and extra pick (Gaudette) Gills had traded for.

Benning's first draft was a great one for the Canucks, the beneficiary of two scouting reports the team cleaned up on just about every pick. So for all the talk about lack of prospects that draft added or could have added 5 players to the roster and if they had taken advantage of "rookie mistakes" and not signed Miller (a bad contract because Miller had said he would play for any western team) or Vrbata the team would have finished worse than the year before and got 2 more prospects for a total of 7 prospects, 8 if Horvat was counted.The team would still have had vets with playoff experience for trading and mentor-ship needing to find a goalie while waiting for Demko.

So the 2014 draft should have provided Virtanen, Forsling, Tryamkin, Demko and McCann, plus Horvat that is 6 new prospects and another bad year for the Mathews/Laine draft. Potentially 8 or 9 prospects, easily 2 or 3 top line players in their first complete year ending in 2016.

Now even if the lottery went the way it did IF the team ended up DFL two years they would have got good players and the masses would have accepted the standings because Linden was such an icon.

Didn't happen, just a lost opportunity but the lack of prospects was addressed in the first two drafts, that 2014 draft had more prospects than the team could take.

I really never saw the reason for replacing 26 year olds with 24 year olds.

The Edmontonitis you refer to was "they rushed their player", don't look now but who are the Canucks leaning and rushing? Not 26 to 30 year olds, Brock who hasn't 150 games yet, Pettersson who hasn't 80 games, Horvat, the old man at 24 and Virtanen the whipping boy, Hughes and Juloevi who don't have 25 games between them, Goldoblin or Gaudette. Who are the veteran core players? The mentors for goal scorers? Eriksson?

Just pointing out how much the same problem is here in Vancouver as Edmonton AND Buffalo. TO addressed this situation by bringing in Marleau and then signing Taveras two effective scoring veterans known to be good leaders as mentors.

The 2014 draft could go down as one of the best ever in Canuck's existence but they had two scouting reports to go by so Boston should get a little bit of a nod.

While he will get credit for the quality of prospects and the number of them, no Canuck GM has ever managed the team to having 6 drafts in the top ten. I am not sure that having a record of great prospects but still finishing in the bottom third of the league for half a decade is commendable.

It almost goes without saying a bad team will have good prospects, teh better the prospect pool, the worse the team. Where are all the draft picks from 2014?

Definitely a major failing, it seems there is a lack of looking to the entire future and he has to be thinking about saving his job no matter what.

 

Fans have to get hti sout of their heads, it has been a red flag to distract just how poorly the team does supplied by the media. Every owner gets involved with a business that is worth 3 or 4 hundred million dollars, the Canuck value should be over a billion now, do you hire some guy that hasn't graduated or has a GED to run it?

Any team that has multiple top ten picks should have a winner every year, stats show it is hard to miss on top ten picks really hard especially in the last 20 years.

 

Yes the mantra around the league to to get 1rst round or any picks, not trade them away.

The owners have trippled  their investment since they bought it and enjoyed 25-80 million dollars of profit each year they’ve owned it.   That’s the bottom line in just over 250 million in investment.  Spending to the cap each year is smart business for them, the better the product and the more hope it brings for the future the more bums in seats and merchandising.  Plus their actual business, real estate in Vancouver has gone bonkers during that time.

 

We are lucky to have them,  much worse owners around the league.   All they’ve done is make piles of money.   Sure the value of the overall org has stagnated, but the dividend each year on an investment of 250ish is staggeringly high.    Nobody makes 10-30% dividend on anything on the stock market ... or at least the average Joe.  He’s making piles and piles of cash with both businesses.  

 

Hes basically sold out the entire time he’s owned the Canucks (capacity of the arena).  

 

The peak value of the franchise never made it to 1 billion so your exaggerated the pretend loss.  He only loses 250 million if the value of the franchise reached close to zero.  In fact he’s made over 250 million in profits,  and he could sell right  now for 750 easily.  Or add a billion to his overall net worth.   Only three franchises have ever being reported as worth over 1 billion on the Forbes list and Vancouver has never being one of them.   Using facts would add some credibility to your dialogue.   

 

Factually the asset has depreciated around 100 million from the peak years. He knows during the next uptick with the current cycle he could easily recover that and more just by keeping it, and enjoy his 30-80 million dollar profit each year on his original investment too.  That’s why he won’t sell it.  Unless his other business is in trouble (which it isn’t) he will hold onto it for a very, very long time.  It’s just making his family richer and richer 

[189lb enforcers?]

20 minutes ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

Edmontonitis is playing all young players thinking you can recreate the Oilers of the 80s. While the approach wasn’t perfect, insulating young players has proven time and time again to be more effective than throwing them to the wolves. You need a mix of vets and young players and the players need to be ready to play in the NHL from a physical, skill, mental and importantly maturity perspective. It’s clear if you look at Virtanen and McCann that not being ready can lead to edmontonitis, and almost did. Thankfully they both seems to be back on track. I think you’ve over simplified issues

The Edmonton model is used in this forum as if it’s the only outcome possible to what might have been done differently by a team using its youth during a rebuild. 

[18W-40C-6W]

15 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

They honestly think it's a video game and players are just numbers.  You can gripe away about "waste" but I've said it all along:  JB has kept the internal competition on the team at a high level and surrounded it with good leadership, guys who play the right way and kept the room a cohesive place.  

 

These guys are complaining about not picking up a nickel on the sidewalk while ignoring what actually makes teams win games.

I agree you need a mix. It’s interesting to read posts from people who can see the positive and negative but are objective and those who have used this thread to just “pile on” JB 

[RowdyCanuck]

4 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

It does all depend on how you look at it, results-wise. 

The trades I understand. I just don’t understand why you’d need to fill a certain age gap, during a rebuild, especially to spend assets to do so. 

 

The whole supposed point was to fill an age gap, which to many, didn’t matter if it existed in the first place, considering the team’s projection.

 

Rebuild with some 22-25 year-olds or with some 26-30 year-olds, the common, serviceable UFA age. Those age-gap replacement parts are now the age of the UFA age guys, and for what? What service did that provide the franchise? 

 

The premise that those players of a certain age were needed here, at the expense of other assets, was flawed from the start. The results speak for themselves, as does the nature of the Gambler who made them. We ended up at exactly the same place were were expected to, minus a few picks. And for what? A few check-boxes of certain-aged players? You may find that to be solid management of a rebuild, I didn’t then or now. If we disagree, I hope at least we can agree that we are engaged in understanding each other's views on the rebuild. 

I agree Jim has wasted picks...I also see he was tryin to retool and the only thing he had of value was picks at the time...also those players were a better gamble to make the nhl and would be there sooner.....

I like to think I see both sides...I wish Jim would have traded the 2 seconds for someone that would be a core player in the future instead middle 6 wingers...

usually when a team retools they move assets but we had none other then picks. 

Also with the age gap....I've hung out with guys in their 30's and from different countries and not really have much in common. It's stuff we won't see but in the locker room it possibly it helped....but I agree it's fun to have debates like this...I agree with you opinion though....Jim is the best scout we've ever had though ha it's just I get the moves and I don't put all the blame on Jim but ownership that didn't want to blow up the team sooner....this rebuild/retool has been a mess at times but that's what happens when you serve two masters....it's also why I want Burke here....

[18W-40C-6W]

46 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

The Edmonton model is used in this forum as if it’s the only outcome possible to what might have been done differently by a team using its youth during a rebuild. 

The original post was that our process could have been improved. But to ignore edmontonitis like it’s only a risk to Edmonton without understanding why it’s not a good idea, shows a lack of hockey knowledge. Throwing kids to the wolves never works, it leads to a high probability of busts. Not every player is ready to step into a man’s eague at 19 years old (for reasons explained in the prior post). In fact, fee players actually are ready to step in, players like Bo are not the norm, they are the exception. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by 18W-40C-6W

[189lb enforcers?]

34 minutes ago, ItTakesAnArmy said:

This is  a false idea that has to be put to bed.

Aqulini's were immediately involved after being given ownership of the team by the courts and NHL, they fired Nonis and hired Gillis. Gillis restructured the team so the head coach was responsible for the one ice product, players called up and roster decisions as well as a bigger role in trades.

Aquilinis' were again involved after the Tortorella hiring. After AV was let go for many reasons, the media decided to fry Gillis and the Aquilinis', it got so bad that the owners had to hire guards for their kids and the Aquilinis' decided to step back. In brilliant PR move they hired Linden, Linden had demands such as free advertising for Club 16 his other business and free reign. The owners stayed out of the conversation until the kids completed school and the storm subsided somewhat only getting back involved last year. Linden decided to quit rather than be involved further. Linden quit, he wasn't fired.

So many fans seem to think that the Aquilini's are stupid and know nothing about hockey or are pushing for the playoffs for money, talk about putting on the blinders, if it was about money only then there would be someone else running the show last year, money wasted on old vets, loss of sales of club sweaters etc and devaluation of the team. These owners have lost over 250 million under Linden/Benning.

So few fans remember the "for a quarter" statement from Burke when the team lost money for it's second year under his watch, owners don't invest to lose money, the team is not a charity.

 

To Content;

I am not a fan of JB's work and am on the other side, critical of waste.

 

You contend he had nothing, from my side he/they was given a golden opportunity. Let's look at the reality of the situation.

Gillis leaves with 12+ million in available capspace for the team to use.

The team has no goaltenders of high quality.

The L/JB combination were handed a golden opportunity, both rookies at their jobs and the McDavid/Eichel draft coming up the next year was the last where finishing DFL guaranteed the 2nd pick.

The team had no bonafide star goalies but most of the cup team was still assembled and the team had Horvat as the Kesler replacement and extra pick (Gaudette) Gills had traded for.

Benning's first draft was a great one for the Canucks, the beneficiary of two scouting reports the team cleaned up on just about every pick. So for all the talk about lack of prospects that draft added or could have added 5 players to the roster and if they had taken advantage of "rookie mistakes" and not signed Miller (a bad contract because Miller had said he would play for any western team) or Vrbata the team would have finished worse than the year before and got 2 more prospects for a total of 7 prospects, 8 if Horvat was counted.The team would still have had vets with playoff experience for trading and mentor-ship needing to find a goalie while waiting for Demko.

So the 2014 draft should have provided Virtanen, Forsling, Tryamkin, Demko and McCann, plus Horvat that is 6 new prospects and another bad year for the Mathews/Laine draft. Potentially 8 or 9 prospects, easily 2 or 3 top line players in their first complete year ending in 2016.

Now even if the lottery went the way it did IF the team ended up DFL two years they would have got good players and the masses would have accepted the standings because Linden was such an icon.

Didn't happen, just a lost opportunity but the lack of prospects was addressed in the first two drafts, that 2014 draft had more prospects than the team could take.

I really never saw the reason for replacing 26 year olds with 24 year olds.

The Edmontonitis you refer to was "they rushed their player", don't look now but who are the Canucks leaning and rushing? Not 26 to 30 year olds, Brock who hasn't 150 games yet, Pettersson who hasn't 80 games, Horvat, the old man at 24 and Virtanen the whipping boy, Hughes and Juloevi who don't have 25 games between them, Goldoblin or Gaudette. Who are the veteran core players? The mentors for goal scorers? Eriksson?

Just pointing out how much the same problem is here in Vancouver as Edmonton AND Buffalo. TO addressed this situation by bringing in Marleau and then signing Taveras two effective scoring veterans known to be good leaders as mentors.

The 2014 draft could go down as one of the best ever in Canuck's existence but they had two scouting reports to go by so Boston should get a little bit of a nod.

While he will get credit for the quality of prospects and the number of them, no Canuck GM has ever managed the team to having 6 drafts in the top ten. I am not sure that having a record of great prospects but still finishing in the bottom third of the league for half a decade is commendable.

It almost goes without saying a bad team will have good prospects, teh better the prospect pool, the worse the team. Where are all the draft picks from 2014?

Definitely a major failing, it seems there is a lack of looking to the entire future and he has to be thinking about saving his job no matter what.

 

Fans have to get hti sout of their heads, it has been a red flag to distract just how poorly the team does supplied by the media. Every owner gets involved with a business that is worth 3 or 4 hundred million dollars, the Canuck value should be over a billion now, do you hire some guy that hasn't graduated or has a GED to run it?

Any team that has multiple top ten picks should have a winner every year, stats show it is hard to miss on top ten picks really hard especially in the last 20 years.

 

Yes the mantra around the league to to get 1rst round or any picks, not trade them away.

There’s lots you say that I agree with. I think most of us agree, in general with several aspects of your take on the past and future of the team.

 

If I’m being honest, I think the forum is devastatedly saturated from years and thousands of similar posts and thoughts like yours and just want to move on from what they are tired of hearing, true or not.

 

Hence, the tone of the responses you receive, at least this is part of why your views are categorically rejected. Fans have more a stake in this than a point in argumet, as is overwhelmingly evident by now in the Benning question. 

[189lb enforcers?]

5 minutes ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

The original post was that it could have been improved. But to ignored edmontonitis like it’s only a risk to Edmonton without understanding why it’s not a good idea, shows a lack of hockey knowledge. Throwing kids to the wolves never works, it leads to a high probability of busts. Not every player is ready to step into a mans league at 19 years old. Few actually are, players like Bo are not the norm, they are the exception. 

Sorry I had to hijack your post to get that across in here.

Agree. 

 

[Johnny Torts]

JT Miller is a 58point/season 26 year old winger that can play centre on your top 2 lines.

 

TP is a 20 goal scorer we just flipped for Gudbranson. 

 

When we traded for Guddy, he was the next big thing after Aaron, but it did not pan out.

 

Forsling was JUST on waivers or signed in Europe or something, I forget. Dud trade for both teams, at least we got a few games out of Adam.

 

When Eriksson was signed, there were more than a few teams after him. Who knew this is how bad he would become. Who knew.

 

Burrows for Dahlen at the time was a highway robbery. Dahlen got impatient here, and we flipped him again. Whatever.

 

Considering how many games Granlund has played for us, we received a lot of value for Hunter.

 

 

 

 

[Bubble Man]

I don’t understand how anyone can defend Jim Benning anymore. People worship him as this draft, prodigy, demigod with absolutely no justification. Bracket is head of amateur scouting, it’s sad that a complete fraud takes away most of his credit. Jim Benning has very little to do with the discovery of talent. The scouts give him their intel and he evaluates. The only thing he has direct control over is contract and trades/transactions. Pretty much everything that has held this franchise back. The only thing that shocked me more than giving up a 1st for J.T. Miller was people actually rationalizing it. I’m not going to beat a dead horse with the details that the Benning bros ignore, it’s been described in great detail. I just can’t understand how people are ok with this.

Benning reminds me of Donald Trump and his supporters remind me of the hardcore southern republicans. No matter how unbelievably ridiculous the actual act is, they come up with all kinds of statistics, memes, gifs and threats to defend him. In my opinion anyone who defends Benning’s transaction record is delusional and unwilling to adapt to life in general. I can’t wait for the calculated condescending one liner responses used to farm +1’s headed this way.