JB In Historical Context

[The Lock]

42 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I don't think this past off-season shows Benning has improved or learned from his mistakes; to me it's evidence of quite the opposite.

 

Or how about in 2017? When Benning traded away Hansen and Burrows at the deadline, some claimed that Benning had learned from his mistakes because those moves meant that he changed his philosophy from "quick retool" to "proper rebuild".

 

But then a few months later in that summer's free agency, he gave a combined cap-hit of over 6M to Gagner and MDZ, both multi-year contracts. MDZ was god awful (no surprise and another one of Benning's prized pro D targets) and we're still feeling the effect of the Gagner contract on our cap almost 4 years later.

 

The summer after that, he gave a combined 8M AAV to 4th liners in free agency, again all multi-year contracts. The two longer contracts got in the way this past off-season and will again this upcoming off-season.

 

Arizona was a mess before Chayka got there, still is a mess now that he's left, and will always be until something significant changes (like relocation). I'm not saying Chayka was great, but Arizona has an Arizona problem, not a Chayka problem.

 

My overall point is that competition is stiff and there are other teams out there reading every page, turning every rock, doing whatever is possible to get an advantage and we're staying course because we're afraid it could get worse.

 

I don't see that as a race we can win. We might get ahead of some teams that falter due to bad planning or execution, but we'll never be able to match the teams that do it right.

 

I'm actually quite risk-averse in general, so that should tell you how strongly I feel on this subject lol.

This past off season is a different mistake in my opinion. It's also questionable if it's even a mistake to begin with. In fact, I didn't want us to sign Markstrom or Toffoli. Tanev was up in there air a bit. I was more thinking about going to the free agency bargain bin, so more contracts like Hamonin instead of having to pay the extra for Markstrom or even Toffoli. The main mistake I possibly saw is only really speculation at the moment in how Benning really focused on OEL and ignored his own players potentially. However, he kind of did what I wanted him to do in terms of who he didn't sign. lol

 

In terms of learning, I'm talking specifically about the years after the Beagle the Roussel signings. MDZ and Gagner were a year before that. Even then, those MDZ and Gagner has less term with 2 and 3 years respectively, unlike the 4 years of Beagle and Roussel and the 6 years of Eriksson. If those contracts are bad in your books then you're going to be one tough cookie to please. lol

 

Anyway, you're focused a lot here on 2018 prior and that's my point. It's 2021 now. It's been 2-3 years without contracts like the ones you've mentioned. Of course it took a few years to not do it (and one could also argue that it's due to a lack of cap), but even in times since where he could have done another bad contract, he didn't.

 

I'm going to disagree on the Chayka front. Chayka could have done something about it. Instead he made it worse. He made a lot of bold trades that harmed the team (like Hall).

 

So here's the thing with "stiff competition". You can either stick to a plan with the ability to adapt, or you can "react" to that stiff competition and be steps behind everyone else since you're reacting. The people who succeed in life don't react, they set the tone. Those are the ones who will succeed. Now, you might ask, what does this mean with Benning? Well, a lot of teams are turning over every rock, perhaps sometimes in a panic. You see trades made like this all the time: Hall for Larsson, again Arizona trading Hall for future assets, Ottawa and Nashville trading their futures to Colorado. Except with all of these panicing teams, there's a more calm team on the other end monopolizing on those more "aggressive" teams. Sakic for example: he's a GM who had criticism early on, but now looks like a genious. Why? Because he was calmed and opportunistic.

 

So, in my opinion, that's what we need to be: calm and opportunistic, not aggressive, because all it takes, as evidenced by Colorado, is 1 trade. The right trade. Can Benning pull that off? I don't think either of us can say accurately one way or another, nor do I think either of us can say another GM who steps in afterwards will be able to either.

 

This is why I'm not panicking. This is also why I'm not worried if a bunch of people like you are angry at Benning. You have every right to be, but so did everyone have every right to be against Sakic. I don't claim to be an expert, but I know you're not an expert either. We're just 2 people having a hockey discussion as if we're at a sports pub. That's the way I see it.

 

It's good to bounce off ideas anyway. Different opinions are good.

 

But yeah, you talk about all these GM's "turning over every stone" and I look at that as an opportunity to take advantage of those GM's turning over every stone. lol Strike when the timing is right. It's much more effective.

Edited March 4, 2021 by The Lock

[Nuxfanabroad]

Standin by my guy, JB. We've NEVER had a young core like this. Every season new names are popping up of our recently drafted youth, who are diligently working their way to the bigs.

 

It's taken a while..sure.

But in 2014 it was a scorched graveyard, with fond memories. A decade of shyte drafting left remaining soil radiated.

 

Such things are conveniently forgotten by capricious, impatient 21st C, fair weather-fans.

[combover]

Only 4 teams have a worse point % in his 7 years here.

Historically speaking he’s one of the worst we’ve ever had. 
but atleast he thinks we’ll be good In two more years...

[IBatch]

On 3/6/2021 at 5:48 PM, combover said:

Only 4 teams have a worse point % in his 7 years here.

Historically speaking he’s one of the worst we’ve ever had. 
but atleast he thinks we’ll be good In two more years...

Sadly welcome to the "new and improved all vanilla cap world NHL"....

 

CAR won a cup off the hop, first team to win with a pair of future stars on their ELCs,  but mostly on the strength of a veteran core.   ANA did it a few years later with Getzlaf and Perry - again though on the strength of their veteran core.   CHI won their first cup after waiting some time for a good team again , 15 or so years really since 94-95, this time and the only time since the cap, with key core players on the last year of their elcs.

 

CAR, ARI, TO, BUFF, EDM...waited a long time .... all of them it took parts of two cores to be competitive again and or completely on their second rebuild.   ARI and BUFF are still waiting.   Detroit and Vancouver are the best comps given how good they were (with SJ, their time is coming though - re-tools re-tools only get you so far) and Larkin/Horvats age ...  pretty sure i'd take our team over theirs anyday.   

 

 

Point is these things take time.   Re-tool and rebuild are also two different things. 

 

We should have a top five team based on whom we've drafted in two-three years when they are all in their primes.    Some of those guys drafted during our "re-tool" phase....So yes a decade is now a reasonable expectation for a complete rebuild these days, and you won't get a top five core without paying the piper....highly unlikely unless your Vegas... Aside from Edler who's left from the last core?  Nobody.   We also saw playoffs twice during that time didn't we?   Missed the show 4 years in a row. CAR was almost a decade. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by IBatch

[Josepho]

On 3/3/2021 at 4:50 PM, The Lock said:

This past off season is a different mistake in my opinion. It's also questionable if it's even a mistake to begin with. In fact, I didn't want us to sign Markstrom or Toffoli. Tanev was up in there air a bit. I was more thinking about going to the free agency bargain bin, so more contracts like Hamonin instead of having to pay the extra for Markstrom or even Toffoli. The main mistake I possibly saw is only really speculation at the moment in how Benning really focused on OEL and ignored his own players potentially. However, he kind of did what I wanted him to do in terms of who he didn't sign. lol

 

In terms of learning, I'm talking specifically about the years after the Beagle the Roussel signings. MDZ and Gagner were a year before that. Even then, those MDZ and Gagner has less term with 2 and 3 years respectively, unlike the 4 years of Beagle and Roussel and the 6 years of Eriksson. If those contracts are bad in your books then you're going to be one tough cookie to please. lol

 

Anyway, you're focused a lot here on 2018 prior and that's my point. It's 2021 now. It's been 2-3 years without contracts like the ones you've mentioned. Of course it took a few years to not do it (and one could also argue that it's due to a lack of cap), but even in times since where he could have done another bad contract, he didn't.

 

I'm going to disagree on the Chayka front. Chayka could have done something about it. Instead he made it worse. He made a lot of bold trades that harmed the team (like Hall).

 

So here's the thing with "stiff competition". You can either stick to a plan with the ability to adapt, or you can "react" to that stiff competition and be steps behind everyone else since you're reacting. The people who succeed in life don't react, they set the tone. Those are the ones who will succeed. Now, you might ask, what does this mean with Benning? Well, a lot of teams are turning over every rock, perhaps sometimes in a panic. You see trades made like this all the time: Hall for Larsson, again Arizona trading Hall for future assets, Ottawa and Nashville trading their futures to Colorado. Except with all of these panicing teams, there's a more calm team on the other end monopolizing on those more "aggressive" teams. Sakic for example: he's a GM who had criticism early on, but now looks like a genious. Why? Because he was calmed and opportunistic.

 

So, in my opinion, that's what we need to be: calm and opportunistic, not aggressive, because all it takes, as evidenced by Colorado, is 1 trade. The right trade. Can Benning pull that off? I don't think either of us can say accurately one way or another, nor do I think either of us can say another GM who steps in afterwards will be able to either.

 

This is why I'm not panicking. This is also why I'm not worried if a bunch of people like you are angry at Benning. You have every right to be, but so did everyone have every right to be against Sakic. I don't claim to be an expert, but I know you're not an expert either. We're just 2 people having a hockey discussion as if we're at a sports pub. That's the way I see it.

 

It's good to bounce off ideas anyway. Different opinions are good.

 

But yeah, you talk about all these GM's "turning over every stone" and I look at that as an opportunity to take advantage of those GM's turning over every stone. lol Strike when the timing is right. It's much more effective.

He has signed Myers, Ferland and Holtby in the last 2 years. He's still absolutely signing bad contracts.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Josepho

[NewbieCanuckFan]

43 minutes ago, Josepho said:

He has signed Myers, Ferland and Holtby in the last 2 years. He's still absolutely signing bad contracts.

I wouldn't call Myers bad.  Just overpaid.  Still a #4D unlike the guy that cost us a 3rd line C/2nd line winger & a high 2nd round pick.  At least Myers was a free agent signing (cost us no assets).

Edited March 8, 2021 by NewbieCanuckFan

[Josepho]

6 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

I wouldn't call Myers bad.  Just overpaid.  Still a #4D unlike the guy that cost us a 3rd line C/2nd line winger & a high 2nd round pick.  At least Myers was a free agent signing (cost us no assets).

He might still be one now (even though I'd probably disagree with that), but the contract still has 3 more years after this one, and he's certainly going to decline as he dives further into his 30s. The term is a bigger deal than the AAV, and we will likely miss out on quality players because of the final 2 years of that deal.

[Timråfan]

52 minutes ago, Josepho said:

He has signed Myers, Ferland and Holtby in the last 2 years. He's still absolutely signing bad contracts.

Myers is slow but acceptable. 

But Ferland and Holtby isn’t...  With a cheap 2nd goalie they cost the team around 6 mill that could have been used to get a real 1st in defence(with the 6 mill for Schmidt).

12 mill in just three deals by Benning. 
 

I’ve said it before and I repeat. I believe certain agents, scouts, managers and coaches cooperate with ”rewards” towards each other. Those laughing at me when I say this should look at all the other corruption in society.

That is the only thing that can explain moronic contracts like Ferland. 
That contract is impossible to defend. He was broken before due to concussions and Benning knew he need all available cap space to use towards bonus money.  We got a lot of young players.
Ferland is totally useless.

Holtby is close due to Demko. 

 

 

 

[The Lock]

8 hours ago, Josepho said:

He has signed Myers, Ferland and Holtby in the last 2 years. He's still absolutely signing bad contracts.

Myers hasn't been bad for us. He's not the greatest defender out there or anything, but he's nothing to sneeze at either. Players like him are generally expensive to get.

Ferland's on LTIR so he's not even really part of the caphit to begin with. In theory, he was actually signed to a decent contract had he not been injured. But, again, it's not even counting so this is an irrelevant point.

Holtby's not playing that much worse than a Markstrom who's being paid 6mil by Calgary. Holtby could also be potentially cannon fodder for the Seattle expansion. Again, not a bad contract.

 

I think perhaps, you're just mad at the world and are desperate for anything that goes against Benning. At least that's what it sounds like given your "ideas" you've presented. I certainly think Benning's made mistakes, but these contracts you are mentioning are not part of those mistakes.

Edited March 8, 2021 by The Lock

[kanucks25]

39 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Myers hasn't been bad for us. He's not the greatest defender out there or anything, but he's nothing to sneeze at either. Players like him are generally expensive to get.

Myers is not a "top-half of the lineup" player (top-6 F / top-3 D / starting) and therefore a long-term, big-money contract for a player such as him is kind of intrinsically bad.

 

It just doesn't make sense to clog up your cap with a player who's playing a role that you'd ideally want a cheap, drafted player to fill (bottom-pairing and PK minutes). Or perhaps an acquired player but their AAV would look more like Benn's, not Myers. Now Myers is a better player and worth more, but Benning needs to do a better job of allocating his dollars; the amount of money Benning has spent on "bottom-half of the lineup" players has frankly been atrocious.

 

And I never really got the argument that claims it's okay we overpaid for UFA's because UFA's weren't going to come here unless we overpaid for them. "If we didn't give Myers that contract someone else would have." Yeah, so? Then let them eat the grenade. Someone probably would have given Eriksson the same deal we did if we didn't, would that have been such a bad thing? Not saying Myers worked out as bad as Eriksson but just because someone else is willing to do something stupid, doesn't mean you should, too.

 

If we're ready to push and a player like Marian Hossa in his prime is out there, you give him a monster deal. You don't lock up 6M of your cap for 6 years in a player you ideally will be using as a depth piece when you're good enough to truly contend.

[kingofsurrey]

They don't call him Generous Jim for nothing........

[Timråfan]

10 hours ago, The Lock said:

 

Ferland's on LTIR so he's not even really part of the caphit to begin with. In theory, he was actually signed to a decent contract had he not been injured. But, again, it's not even counting so this is an irrelevant point.

Exactly the opposite, Benning can only sign a player to cover for Ferlands ass when he's injured. 

Ferlands salary still counts against cap concerning bonus money for all of our youngsters. We have a few young players now...

The 3,5 mill can come back and haunt us when we like to sign Petey and Hughes. 

 

10 hours ago, The Lock said:

Holtby's not playing that much worse than a Markstrom who's being paid 6mil by Calgary. Holtby could also be potentially cannon fodder for the Seattle expansion. Again, not a bad contract.

Not exactly, til he got injured and played one game halfinjured he was their mvp as he was for us. 

 

10 hours ago, The Lock said:

I think perhaps, you're just mad at the world and are desperate for anything that goes against Benning. At least that's what it sounds like given your "ideas" you've presented. I certainly think Benning's made mistakes, but these contracts you are mentioning are not part of those mistakes.

Why reach the limit when it's not needed. That is  poor management. 

Keep a reserve if a player gets available. 

[Tre Mac]

Ah the talk with ownership on the reg just means the dysfunction is coming from the top, so even if JB gets hosed there is no guarantee things will get better and actually could be worse drafting wise.  That's just sad.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

On 3/8/2021 at 4:23 PM, kingofsurrey said:

They don't call him Generous Jim for nothing........

I was just looking at the roster earlier, and someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks as though every eligible player that Benning has signed a contract with has been given some form of no trade clause. At least that what it looks like to me. The only players without NTC/NMC were either signed by other GMs (and then acquired) or haven’t yet met the criteria to be eligible for trade protection.

 

Just a little tidbit I hadn’t noticed before.
 

And I wasn’t really looking to throw shade at Benning. Just came to mind when I read your “Generous Jim” comment.

 

But if I’m not missing something, that’s quite the record for JB. I didn’t think he’d done it with every eligible player he’s signed on the roster.
 

Even Gillis, who regularly gets dragged on here for “handing out NTCs like candy,” didn’t ever manage (at least to my knowledge) to put together a roster where every single one of his eligible signings carried an NTC (although he came close some years). And, I’d argue that, in Gillis’s case, at least the majority of the NTCs he actually gave out tended to be paired with below market value cap hits, so there was a clear strategic benefit, as it allowed him ice the best roster possible during a contending cycle.

 

With JB, I’m not sure the same argument can be made. In some of his signings, the NTC just looks like the cherry on top of a contract that’s already an overpayment in both cap hit and term. 

 

In Benning’s defence, it’s much harder to attract free agents to a team in a losing cycle, so some extra “generosity” might have been required, at least to get more sought-after UFAs to actually agree to sign here, versus with a contender. I’m just not sure it’s always been warranted, or necessary. And certainly, there are a few contracts on the books currently that seem pretty questionable.

[The Lock]

On 3/8/2021 at 4:19 PM, kanucks25 said:

Myers is not a "top-half of the lineup" player (top-6 F / top-3 D / starting) and therefore a long-term, big-money contract for a player such as him is kind of intrinsically bad.

 

It just doesn't make sense to clog up your cap with a player who's playing a role that you'd ideally want a cheap, drafted player to fill (bottom-pairing and PK minutes). Or perhaps an acquired player but their AAV would look more like Benn's, not Myers. Now Myers is a better player and worth more, but Benning needs to do a better job of allocating his dollars; the amount of money Benning has spent on "bottom-half of the lineup" players has frankly been atrocious.

 

And I never really got the argument that claims it's okay we overpaid for UFA's because UFA's weren't going to come here unless we overpaid for them. "If we didn't give Myers that contract someone else would have." Yeah, so? Then let them eat the grenade. Someone probably would have given Eriksson the same deal we did if we didn't, would that have been such a bad thing? Not saying Myers worked out as bad as Eriksson but just because someone else is willing to do something stupid, doesn't mean you should, too.

 

If we're ready to push and a player like Marian Hossa in his prime is out there, you give him a monster deal. You don't lock up 6M of your cap for 6 years in a player you ideally will be using as a depth piece when you're good enough to truly contend.

I think what is comes down to, a lot of the time anyway, is simply what's available. In the case of getting a good defender. They are hard to get and likely one of the biggest reasons why a lot of teams in this league have poor defense. Even in this division: Edmonton, Toronto, Winnipeg... those defensive lines don't exactly look the greatest on paper, and that's just this division.

 

This makes it even harder when you want a defender "in his prime". You know who also wants defenders in their prime? Everybody else. lol A Marian Hossa I'd argue would be much much easier to get in their prime simply because they are a forward and, in Hossa's case especially, a winger. A defender is different.

 

That's why Myers, while not necessarily worth 6mil on paper, is still kind of worth 6mil, because of demand. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more and more budgets around the league for defenders to be honest just in general. There's just not enough of them out there.

[The Lock]

On 3/9/2021 at 1:43 AM, Timråfan said:

Exactly the opposite, Benning can only sign a player to cover for Ferlands ass when he's injured. 

Ferlands salary still counts against cap concerning bonus money for all of our youngsters. We have a few young players now...

The 3,5 mill can come back and haunt us when we like to sign Petey and Hughes. 

 

Not exactly, til he got injured and played one game halfinjured he was their mvp as he was for us. 

 

Why reach the limit when it's not needed. That is  poor management. 

Keep a reserve if a player gets available. 

Can you give proof on how it's the "opposite"? Certainly, if what you say is the case, Tampa wouldn't have been able to take on a LTIR contract during the offseason.

 

Markstrom's had spurts of being good as he did for us. Don't forget that last year we also had games where we had 4 or more goals against, often 5 or 6 or more even. I don't know if he proved himself enough to make 6mil a season. I don't blame him for taking that contract but I think he cashed in while he was high at the end of the day. Don't get me wrong. I'd like him to prove me wrong, but I will say that there's nothing you can say that will make me think otherwise at the moment.

 

You reach the limit to assist your young players. That's at least how I see it. That being said, the term of some of the contracts Benning has made is too long. That's my biggest thing against him really. Eriksson at 6mil for 4 years for example would mean he would have been gone by now.

[Kootenay Gold]

6 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I was just looking at the roster earlier, and someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks as though every eligible player that Benning has signed a contract with has been given some form of no trade clause. At least that what it looks like to me. The only players without NTC/NMC were either signed by other GMs (and then acquired) or haven’t yet met the criteria to be eligible for trade protection.

 

Just a little tidbit I hadn’t noticed before.
 

And I wasn’t really looking to throw shade at Benning. Just came to mind when I read your “Generous Jim” comment.

 

But if I’m not missing something, that’s quite the record for JB. I didn’t think he’d done it with every eligible player he’s signed on the roster.
 

Even Gillis, who regularly gets dragged on here for “handing out NTCs like candy,” didn’t ever manage (at least to my knowledge) to put together a roster where every single one of his eligible signings carried an NTC (although he came close some years). And, I’d argue that, in Gillis’s case, at least the majority of the NTCs he actually gave out tended to be paired with below market value cap hits, so there was a clear strategic benefit, as it allowed him ice the best roster possible during a contending cycle.

 

With JB, I’m not sure the same argument can be made. In some of his signings, the NTC just looks like the cherry on top of a contract that’s already an overpayment in both cap hit and term. 

 

In Benning’s defence, it’s much harder to attract free agents to a team in a losing cycle, so some extra “generosity” might have been required, at least to get more sought-after UFAs to actually agree to sign here, versus with a contender. I’m just not sure it’s always been warranted, or necessary. And certainly, there are a few contracts on the books currently that seem pretty questionable.

I think you have to take a closer look at those NTC's  and NMC's to properly judge them Sid.

 

Sutter: modified NTC, 15 teams he can not be traded to and UFA at end of season. Roussel: also modified NTC, only 5 he can not be traded to. Beagle, in same situation as Roussel. Edler, NMC was probably a good thing to do (do not have to protect him) and he is a UFA at the end of the season and free to re-sign with the Canucks after the expansion draft which is very likely. Myers, 10 team no trade list (hardly much of a limiting factor). Schmidt, 10 team NT list. Benn 5 team NT list and UFA end of season (might be re-signed for 1 yr so they meet the requirements of exposure). Hamonic full NMC but is a UFA at end of season and possibly re-signed after the expansion draft. Holtby, 4 team NT list. Ferland,  full NMC (this was not a good signing or contract given his previous history with concussions). Eriksson, Another bad signing by Jim mainly because of the dwindling performance of the player and excessive cost of acquiring him which makes his contract impossible to move.

 

All in all I would say that the NTC's are really not much of an obstacle if JB wants to move some of them. Eriksson and Ferland are poor signings but one has to realize that they also were some of the 1st moves that JB did as a rookie GM. His performance in the last few years has been much better IMO. One could also argue that Roussel and Beagle were poor signings but at the time of their signings I think he was looking for some leadership and some grit to compliment a very young and inexperienced team.

[apollo]

Love this thread. Nice to see it back up! 

Long live The king of kings... The savior of this glorious franchise... 

 

Mr. Jim The King Benning 

 

 

Also I'm on mobile so can't photoshop but just imagine Jim's face on the below. Good stuff 

 

[Timråfan]

16 hours ago, The Lock said:

Can you give proof on how it's the "opposite"? Certainly, if what you say is the case, Tampa wouldn't have been able to take on a LTIR contract during the offseason.

 

Markstrom's had spurts of being good as he did for us. Don't forget that last year we also had games where we had 4 or more goals against, often 5 or 6 or more even. I don't know if he proved himself enough to make 6mil a season. I don't blame him for taking that contract but I think he cashed in while he was high at the end of the day. Don't get me wrong. I'd like him to prove me wrong, but I will say that there's nothing you can say that will make me think otherwise at the moment.

 

You reach the limit to assist your young players. That's at least how I see it. That being said, the term of some of the contracts Benning has made is too long. That's my biggest thing against him really. Eriksson at 6mil for 4 years for example would mean he would have been gone by now.

Too long and too much money... 

[The Lock]

3 hours ago, Timråfan said:

Too long and too much money... 

Okay? Still doesn't prove how it's the opposite.