Jim Benning Proved Me Wrong

[Honky Cat]

40 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

It's not a Benning vs. Gillis vs. Nonis issue; it's just a joke that people think that Benning was left with nothing when really he had a bunch of quality assets that could have been used to initiate the rebuild.

 

Either he inherited a terrible franchise or he shouldn't get much credit for the first year playoff run, it can't be both. Vrbata was a good signing and Miller was okay but they weren't the difference between a playoff team and a crap team. Bonino was good, I always liked him (and he's still a better/more valuable/more reliable player than Sutter) but at that point he wasn't an upgrade on Kesler... and don't even mention Sbisa.

 

And the timeline thing isn't the discussion here, especially since it's a mostly nonsensical discussion to have.

What rebuild..?..It was 'compete on the fly'.They were 'competing and rebuilding. for as long as the Sedins were under contract...Benning was working under those parameters.

 

A terrible franchise (no prospect pool, or players in their prime)..and he shouldn't get too much credit for the playoff run (he was salvaging the old core)..So I'd say a bit of both.

 

He wasn't left with' nothing'..but he didnt inherit impact players in their prime (it was a stale team), and he inherited an empty prospect pool...

 

I'll ask you again..How many years after 2015 did you expect the Canucks to be a playoff contender?

Edited September 14, 2020 by Honky Cat

[iceman64]

On 9/9/2020 at 9:17 PM, Petey40 said:

100% I would be on board with that, rumour that Vegas might already have a deal done with Lehner that is 5x5. I can’t imagine Markstrom would be worth more than Lehner so it’ll be interesting what Benning does and what Marky accepts. Guaranteed a lot of other teams will be chasing markstrom and willing to pay him.

Well the guy worked his ass off and with all he's been through he deserves a cup ring and if not with us then someone else.. not against us hopefully ever but I pray he gets one..  

Well even against us IF we've already won one that is! 

[HorvatToBaertschi]

On 9/13/2020 at 7:18 AM, kanucks25 said:

What a mess. He only inherited his best two d-men, his young top-6 center and future captain, and the goalie that carried him to a non-bottom-feeding record this year, the only year he's made the playoffs in the 6 he's been here. And solid veterans that were still valued around the league like Hamhuis, Bieksa, Kesler, Burrows & Garrison. And the Sedins who were the perfect people to mentor and pave the way for the next core. Not to mention the 6th overall pick.

 

What a mess, a complete wasteland.

 

Lawl.  Complete fallacy.

 

 

He inherited a clubhouse of professional players that didn't care about performing anymore. We were a joke, no matter who was on that team. Benning turned that CULTURE around and it shows. 

[CallAfterLife]

On 9/13/2020 at 9:48 PM, kanucks25 said:

It's not a Benning vs. Gillis vs. Nonis issue; it's just a joke that people think that Benning was left with nothing when really he had a bunch of quality assets that could have been used to initiate the rebuild.

 

Either he inherited a terrible franchise or he shouldn't get much credit for the first year playoff run, it can't be both. Vrbata was a good signing and Miller was okay but they weren't the difference between a playoff team and a crap team. Bonino was good, I always liked him (and he's still a better/more valuable/more reliable player than Sutter) but at that point he wasn't an upgrade on Kesler... and don't even mention Sbisa.

 

And the timeline thing isn't the discussion here, especially since it's a mostly nonsensical discussion to have.

Miller and Vrbata and Vanek etc were just meant to keep the Canucks competitive in every game. To give the team a chance at winning and having a sense of self respect as Canucks. To keep Vancouver becoming a joke like Edmonton and Buffalo. To keep prospects motivated to make a good team. 

 

The Kesler package to this day has never made any sense to me. I don't understand how Benning could look at Bonino and literally say something along the lines of "well last year he got more points than Kesler" as if that qualified Bonino to be a 2C in the NHL. I somewhat wish that Benning chose to resign Santorelli to gave him a shot at being a 2C and asked the Ducks for a different trade package. 

Edited September 18, 2020 by CallAfterLife

[oldnews]

14 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

It's not a Benning vs. Gillis vs. Nonis issue; it's just a joke that people think that Benning was left with nothing when really he had a bunch of quality assets that could have been used to initiate the rebuild.

 

Either he inherited a terrible franchise or he shouldn't get much credit for the first year playoff run, it can't be both. Vrbata was a good signing and Miller was okay but they weren't the difference between a playoff team and a crap team. Bonino was good, I always liked him (and he's still a better/more valuable/more reliable player than Sutter) but at that point he wasn't an upgrade on Kesler... and don't even mention Sbisa.

 

And the timeline thing isn't the discussion here, especially since it's a mostly nonsensical discussion to have.

Cool story/one-liner  -  but get real.  Save the fiction and look at the reality/context.

 

Benning inherited the 2014 Canucks.

 

They were lead by a pair of 33 year olds - who scored 50 and 47 pts - with $12 million cap hit

Kesler was 30 -  one of many (if not all) Canucks coming off career worst seasons -  who was in fact dealt in the rething - one of the few assets at that point that was going to bring any reasonable return at all.

Higgins was their 4th leading scorer - another 30+ player - one that suffered a career ending ailment a year after Benning arrived = unpredictable and became unmoveable.

Mike Fn Santorelli was a top 6 flavour of the week under Tortorella, who otherwise devalued virtually every asset the franchis had - both on the ice and with his damaging public chirping, which undermined Gillis and any trade value the "stale" declining core might have otherwise had.

Bieksa was the team's 8th leading scorer - with 24 points - he was dealt for a 2nd.  So was Garrison.

Brad Richardson was the team's principal shutdown guy - was the 9th leading scorer.

Edler was a rented mule under Tortorella.

Burrows, Hansen - went from among the best values in franchise history - to 20 and 15 point players that had to be rebuilt to be moved - which they eventually were for prospects/picks.

 

That was the story with virtually the entire roster.

I guess they coulda/shoulda got something for Top Sixtito.  Much ado about one Dan Hamhuis (who btw, like many of the other quality veterans, had a limiting clause that Benning inherited, further complicating efforts to move these quality veteran assets).

 

Wadr, aside from Edler or Tanev - who are still productive, vital players in the present - there is nothing to your claim.

That 2014 team was a tire fire lit by Tortorella - that needed to be rehabbed before it could be rethinged - with aging rething assets all coming off career worst years - another couple years lost in the process..

Cool story about a bunch of quality assets to rebuild with - but utter nonsense in context.

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by oldnews

[kanucks25]

11 hours ago, CallAfterLife said:

Miller and Vrbata and Vanek etc were just meant to keep the Canucks competitive in every game. To give the team a chance at winning and having a sense of self respect as Canucks. To keep Vancouver becoming a joke like Edmonton and Buffalo. To keep prospects motivated to make a good team. 

People keep saying this but if you look at the standings during Benning's tenure, we've been bottom feeders for the majority of it. The only exceptions are his first season (when most of the team was inherited) and the is past season (6th season on the job).

 

Those 4 years in between (2/3rds of Benning's tenure) we were the 2nd worst team in the league on aggregate, only beating the Buffalo Sabres by 1 point.

 

 

That's not competitiveness, that's a dumpster fire.

 

And no, I never expected us to be competitive during a rebuild/retool, but I don't see how anyone can claim we were competitive and had a positive environment during this period. Maybe that was management's plan, but obviously that didn't work. That's why I give more credit to guys like 22 and 33 when it comes to insulating the locker room during tough times.

Edited September 15, 2020 by kanucks25

[kanucks25]

17 hours ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

He inherited a clubhouse of professional players that didn't care about performing anymore. We were a joke, no matter who was on that team. Benning turned that CULTURE around and it shows. 

I don't disagree that the roster was "stale" (to quote Torts) but that doesn't change the fact that he had a bunch of valuable assets at his disposal (which I listed in a previous post here). The collective team he inherited obviously wasn't amazing but the individual pieces were enough to jump-start a rebuild.

[Toews]

5 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

People keep saying this but if you look at the standings during Benning's tenure, we've been bottom feeders for the majority of it. The only exceptions are his first season (when most of the team was inherited) and the is past season (6th season on the job).

 

Those 4 years in between (2/3rds of Benning's tenure) we were the 2nd worst team in the league on aggregate, only beating the Buffalo Sabres by 1 point.

 

 

That's not competitiveness, that's a dumpster fire.

 

And no, I never expected us to be competitive during a rebuild/retool, but I don't see how anyone can claim we were competitive and had a positive environment during this period. Maybe that was management's plan, but obviously that didn't work. That's why I give more credit to guys like 22 and 33 when it comes to insulating the locker room during tough times.

I do vaguely remember the phrase "winning/losing culture" being popular in CDC's lexicon pre-2016.  

Edited September 15, 2020 by Toews

[kanucks25]

8 hours ago, oldnews said:

Cool story/one-liner  -  but get real.  Save the fiction and look at the reality/context.

If my opinion is fiction then yours isn't anything different; neither of us can prove anything without knowing the inner workings/behind the scenes

 

It's just my opinion that Benning, on some fronts, could have done a better job than what he did. Some people here seem to think that whatever Benning did was the best-case scenario and that it cannot be questioned. I think if that was the case, we would have won a Championship by now. Benning said himself when he first got the job that he's not a patient man and he thinks he could turn the team around quicker than some would expect. I don't know if anybody thinks 6 years is a quick turnaround.

[CallAfterLife]

11 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

People keep saying this but if you look at the standings during Benning's tenure, we've been bottom feeders for the majority of it. The only exceptions are his first season (when most of the team was inherited) and the is past season (6th season on the job).

 

Those 4 years in between (2/3rds of Benning's tenure) we were the 2nd worst team in the league on aggregate, only beating the Buffalo Sabres by 1 point.

 

 

That's not competitiveness, that's a dumpster fire.

 

And no, I never expected us to be competitive during a rebuild/retool, but I don't see how anyone can claim we were competitive and had a positive environment during this period. Maybe that was management's plan, but obviously that didn't work. That's why I give more credit to guys like 22 and 33 when it comes to insulating the locker room during tough times.

I give a lot of credit to the Sedins as well but I do give credit to Benning for not forcing them to carry all of it alone. Miller was and Sutter has been a big leader on the team. 

 

8 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I don't disagree that the roster was "stale" (to quote Torts) but that doesn't change the fact that he had a bunch of valuable assets at his disposal (which I listed in a previous post here). The collective team he inherited obviously wasn't amazing but the individual pieces were enough to jump-start a rebuild.

Not unless Benning wanted to ice half a roster of AHL players. 

[kanucks25]

7 minutes ago, CallAfterLife said:

Not unless Benning wanted to ice half a roster of AHL players. 

In his first couple years, Benning let guys like Richardson, Matthias, Santorelli walk. Not world-beaters by any means, but guys that were proven vets that could fill roster spots at the very least. And those are just guys that were inherited, that's not including the dozens and dozens of similar vets around the league that could have been signed to fill holes and play roles that prospects weren't ready for (and we know that Benning is not shy when it comes to free-agent signings).

 

And even if he did ice an AHL roster, if you look at the graphic in my previous post, you'll see that the results couldn't have been much worse.

[Ballisticsports.]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

And even if he did ice an AHL roster, if you look at the graphic in my previous post, you'll see that the results couldn't have been much worse.

It needn't have been a AHL roster

Golden Knights built a top team without superstars and the only 3 - 1st round picks that were our Sbisa, Griffin Reinhart and M.A. Fleury

Putting the Right guys together even without superstars can get you to the top

That is why i am against signing or trading for overpriced free agents looking to jump ship and cash in, rarely do they pan out.

We have bigger stars than Vegas, we just need the lesser round picks to pan out for us, like they did for Vegas (Could you imagine a team like Vegas with our core)

[CallAfterLife]

On 9/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, kanucks25 said:

In his first couple years, Benning let guys like Richardson, Matthias, Santorelli walk. Not world-beaters by any means, but guys that were proven vets that could fill roster spots at the very least. And those are just guys that were inherited, that's not including the dozens and dozens of similar vets around the league that could have been signed to fill holes and play roles that prospects weren't ready for (and we know that Benning is not shy when it comes to free-agent signings).

 

And even if he did ice an AHL roster, if you look at the graphic in my previous post, you'll see that the results couldn't have been much worse.

The decisions on those guys never made any sense to me. Especially Santorelli since he was at least a fan favourite that produced. No one in the fanbase would have objected to seeing him signed to a 2 or 3 year contract. I thought those other guys could have been flipped for something at some point. It really just felt as though he was just concerned with trying to make the team young in those early days. 

 

My biggest critique of Benning was the lack of vision in his first two years. Not a hindsight thing but a general direction in terms of what kind of team he wanted to build. I never understood what he meant when he said he was trying to build "a hardworking team that competes every night." That sentiment felt entirely vague. The Canucks could have out worked their opponents in those days and still have lost because they didn't have the talent to compete. Plus I wanted something specific about the kind of hockey he imagined the team playing.

 

Now I understand that statement was simply a cultural thing. That's generally what I want to commend Benning on. Keeping the culture of the team from falling off a cliff and allowing new players to come in and cary it on. 

Edited September 16, 2020 by CallAfterLife

[HorvatToBaertschi]

5 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

I don't disagree that the roster was "stale" (to quote Torts) but that doesn't change the fact that he had a bunch of valuable assets at his disposal (which I listed in a previous post here). The collective team he inherited obviously wasn't amazing but the individual pieces were enough to jump-start a rebuild.

Heavily disagree. Even just the 2 pieces you mentionned, edler and tanev at that point were not good assets. Tanev was often injured and Edler was nowhere near his level of play pre-back injury.

 

Markstrom was far from being the goalie he would become. Benning miraculously getting him through waivers and putting him in utica actually jump started his career. 

 

after that, you had slow vets like kesler (who handcuffed benning), burrows, hansen, higgins, booth. They all mailed it in. Our top prospects After bo were Jensen Shinkaruk and Subban...

 

 

Benning saved the canucks, he just took slightly longer than some fans were ready for. I was always of the opinion that I’d rather wait a couple more years, if that meant making a better, more SC calibre team. He did that. 

[WeneedLumme]

These Benning threads sure attract the sleazy haters. Claiming that JB started with "a bunch of valuable assets at his disposal" or pretending that the assets JB started with were comparable to the assets Vegas was gifted with are so blatantly dishonest that it is evident that some posters just have no shame.

[CallAfterLife]

1 hour ago, WeneedLumme said:

These Benning threads sure attract the sleazy haters. Claiming that JB started with "a bunch of valuable assets at his disposal" or pretending that the assets JB started with were comparable to the assets Vegas was gifted with are so blatantly dishonest that it is evident that some posters just have no shame.

I tend to agree with the sleazy haters about a lot of things. I wanted Benning to do more with expiring assets. I wanted picks and prospects to be accumulated. But at the same time I give credit to Benning for building a good team regardless. 

 

The Canucks are finally a good team. How much does it matter that Higgins and Hamhuis etc walked for nothing?

 

Plus people are also forgetting that the Aquilini's never would have backed a management strategy that completely made the team a tire fire. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by CallAfterLife

[oldnews]

15 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

If my opinion is fiction then yours isn't anything different; neither of us can prove anything without knowing the inner workings/behind the scenes

 

 

Derp.  Player production is a fact.   Easy to look at - as I evidenced to you - a team full of players coming off career worst seasons.  Easy for anyone to assess relatively objectively.

But reasoning with kanucks25 might be a waste of time, right?

 

 

'some people here seem to think whatever Benning did..'    is a strawman - another waste of time, wadr.

 

If you expected a new core to be drafted and developed in 5 years or less, you're the impatient one.

Edited September 15, 2020 by oldnews

[kanucks25]

9 hours ago, CallAfterLife said:

The Canucks are finally a good team. How much does it matter that Higgins and Hamhuis etc walked for nothing?

I can't disagree here. If we win the cup in say, Benning's 8th year instead of like the 6th (which may have been the case if Benning was as perfect as his supporters claim him to be) it's essentially the same thing. Nobody is going to complain about a couple extra seasons when we've been desperately waiting for over half a century.

 

But, if that doesn't happen, these conversations will be very pertinent in a couple years' time. Everything he did from the beginning of his tenure would need to be weighed to make a decision on what to do going forward.

 

Granted Gillis inherited a better team and younger team, one that was younger and moving up instead of older and trending down, but he was let go after 6 seasons (the same amount of time Benning has been here now) despite putting together the best team in franchise history that was a single win away from the Stanley Cup (and would have run away with it had it not been for the injury discrepancy). Benning is being given a lot of praise right now for a 2nd round exit after 4 abyssal years... Gillis was let go because of one okay year and one bad year (with a coaching hire that wasn't his decision) after back-to-back President's Trophies. I see a major difference in leash there.

[kanucks25]

11 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

These Benning threads sure attract the sleazy haters. Claiming that JB started with "a bunch of valuable assets at his disposal" or pretending that the assets JB started with were comparable to the assets Vegas was gifted with are so blatantly dishonest that it is evident that some posters just have no shame.

So the people that have a different opinion than you are "sleazy haters [that] have no shame".

 

Quite Trumpian. 

[kanucks25]

9 hours ago, oldnews said:

Derp.  Player production is a fact.   Easy to look at - as I evidenced to you - a team full of players coming off career worst seasons.  Easy for anyone to assess relatively objectively.

But reasoning with kanucks25 might be a waste of time, right?

 

 

'some people here seem to think whatever Benning did..'    is a strawman - another waste of time, wadr.

 

If you expected a new core to be drafted and developed in 5 years or less, you're the impatient one.

No doubt it was a bad year for the team but not all the veterans were fried. Guys like Hamhuis and Bieksa were still considered top-4 D-men, Tanev had a great year under Torts, Kesler put up 45 points in a down year as a two-way C. If you want to believe that teams around the league thought all these guys were worthless after that year, we can agree to disagree. 

 

9 hours ago, oldnews said:

'some people here seem to think whatever Benning did..'    is a strawman - another waste of time, wadr.

Except it's not a strawman because there are people like that here. Like just the other day I read someone still defending Sbisa lol.

 

9 hours ago, oldnews said:

If you expected a new core to be drafted and developed in 5 years or less, you're the impatient one.

Wrong, because I was in favor of the scorched earth rebuild (or as close to as possible) which would have meant a longer turnaround time than the "retool".