Do Canuck fans think Benning is a great GM?

[iceman64]

9 minutes ago, Jimbo786 said:

Iceman cometh! It's simple Jimbo chose smidt over an MVP goaltender Markie!! See the results next year, Holtby not a good replacement...do Jimbos math...he paid 4.5 for Holtby...he could have paid  4.5 for tanev and 6 for markie...he chose Smidt and Holtby...I say Jimbos math is off!

Did you forget the Seattle draft? Oh wait.. I'm the short sighted one here right? Smh..

[Jimbo786]

1 minute ago, iceman64 said:

Did you forget the Seattle draft? Oh wait.. I'm the short sighted one here right? Smh..

Iceman!! your right on on that, I did forget that one lol! 

[iinatcc]

1 hour ago, iceman64 said:

What? So your telling me YOU would sign Tanev to a 4 year contract with his injury record? And you call Jimbo  a dim wit? He signed Schmidt who is not only a very good Dman too but has an offensive side far better than Tanev, without the long history of injuries.. I suppose you think it was a bad idea by Jimbo too? 

It's not just Tanev though. It's the fact Toffoli couldn't be signed and Vancouver gave up one of their top prospects and a pick to get him. 

And it's not just maintainice it's also improvement. Replacing/keeping Tanev, Stecher, Toffoli, and Markstrom would mean Vancouver would be at where they at least season. It's also about improving adding a piece to make the team better. Like when Chicago had a young core and signing Hossa put them over the top. 

 

However Vancouver couldn't do that due to Benning's past signings and re signing. Like I said Vegas, Calgary, and Edmonton all got better in addition other teams around the league were all able to sign players to cheap low risk contracts that made most of them better than where are at last season. 

 

One example is Buffalo signing Taylor Hall. 1 year 8 Million is a steal for an elite scorer and former Hart Trophy winner. Even if Vancouver didn't resign Toffoli and didn't have one of their 4 or 5 bad contracts, Vancouver probably could sign Hall for that same amount (maybe lower).

 

Also going back to Buffalo, Vancouver barley squeaked out 2 pts in one their games against them. Now that Dahlin is year older and possible much better, and Olofsson is reaching his peak, and signing Hall. Do you think Vancouver can beat Buffalo next season?

 

Of course I am not a hockey expert or anything like that but I think my sentiments are similar to many Hockey analysts and experts I've been listening too. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by iinatcc

[Dazzle]

2 hours ago, iinatcc said:

I think even with the Schmidt signing the Canucks are still one of the bigger losers this off season. For a young core that needs good players to support them the lack of activity (either due to Cap issues, poor deals etc) is another year wasted. 

 

While Schmidt is an upgrade from Tanev, he still does not replace losing Toffoli, and, at the moment, Holtby is not better than Markstrom. So really a slight upgrade in D but taking a big hit in Forwards, and losing quite a bit in Goaltending is not good.

 

I mean The Canucks are probably the first team in history that got worse after establishing it's young core and a successful post season. 

 

To make things worse other teams around the Pacific Division in that playoff hunt all got better. Edmonton got a little better with Barrie, Calgary has Markstrom and Tanev, Vegas got a franchise Defenseman with Pietrangelo, Canucks were the only team that got worse (or stayed the same at best).

 

So which is it? On one line, you contend very clearly they are still the biggest losers. Then by the end of it, you somehow leave room of the possibility that they could be close, if not equal, to the standards of last season's roster. This is an example of how inane some of these posters are. They don't even make sense.

 

[iinatcc]

51 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

So which is it? On one line, you contend very clearly they are still the biggest losers. Then by the end of it, you somehow leave room of the possibility that they could be close, if not equal, to the standards of last season's roster. This is an example of how inane some of these posters are. They don't even make sense.

 

Well considering the landscape of so many teams signing quality players to relatively cheap and low risk contracts a lot of teams of consequence (meaning expected to complete for a playoff spot) got better and Vancouver was one of the few teams that actually got worse. So in that respect yes they are one of the bigger losers this off season add to the fact that they only had 5 picks in the draft. Even Detroit and New Jersey got better.

 

In short other teams took advantage of the situation of cheaper contracts but not the Canucks. Something that would have been beneficial to the team.

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by iinatcc

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, iinatcc said:

Well considering the landscape of so many teams signing quality players to relatively cheap and low risk contracts a lot of teams of consequence (meaning expected to complete for a playoff spot) got better and Vancouver was one of the few teams that actually got worse. So in that respect yes they are one of the bigger losers this off season add to the fact that they only had 5 picks in the draft. Even Detroit and New Jersey got better.

 

In short other teams took advantage of the situation of cheaper contracts but not the Canucks. Something that would have been beneficial to the team.

 

How are you gauging which teams did better than others? What teams are you comparing the Canucks to?  You named a couple of teams like Detroit and New Jersey, but which signings did you like?

 

It's easy to put an opinion without needing to verify how you came to those conclusions. I could just as easily state that the Canucks were big time improvers, and everyone else lost big time. See what I did there?

 

You mentioned that teams "took advantage of cheaper contracts", without really knowing whether or not those players would have expressed interest in signing in Vancouver or not. Some possibilities for signing elsewhere include: proximity to that player's hometown or residence, tax benefits, player familiarity, East Coast travel, etc. In other words, you cannot ensure that people who signed for 1 M at a certain location would have signed 1 M at another spot. And as a result, you cannot truly say Benning "lost out".

Without you elaborating on your answers, I see bias.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Dazzle

[iceman64]

9 hours ago, Dazzle said:

So which is it? On one line, you contend very clearly they are still the biggest losers. Then by the end of it, you somehow leave room of the possibility that they could be close, if not equal, to the standards of last season's roster. This is an example of how inane some of these posters are. They don't even make sense.

 

Well in reality, we didn't have to do a whole lot of signings in the first place except for the 2 he did, I can see the term on Markstroms contract for 4 years would have made me hesitant signing him then the money after next season when we have to sign Demko who obviously will be needing a good raise so I can see why JB let him walk, and past that, Petey and Hughes, and JB won't gamble on the cap going up.

 If I was JB in this situation, I'd do exactly the same thing and start using the farm despite anyone's idiocy of trying to do it any other way especially since the cap will probably remain flat and we have guys ready to step in under ECL's so we can keep having enough to spend on top players already here. I still can't get why people can't figure this out...

Edited October 13, 2020 by iceman64

[Dazzle]

Just now, iceman64 said:

Well in reality, we didn't have to do a whole lot of signings in the first place except for the 2 he did, I can see the term on Markstroms contract for 4 years would have made hesitant signing him then the money after next season when we have to sign Demko who obviously will be needing a good raise so I can see why JB let him walk, and past that, Petey and Hughes, and JB won't gamble on the cap going up.

 If I was JB in this situation, I'd do exactly the same thing and start using the farm despite anyone's idiocy of trying to do it any other way especially since the cap will probably remain flat and we have guys ready to step in under ECL's so we can keep having enough to spend on top players already here. I still can't get why people can't figure this out...

Because it seems a lot of people have some pent up hate that usually gets directed at someone, whether this be Eriksson, JB, or even freaking Boeser.

[Baggins]

On 10/11/2020 at 3:48 PM, kanucks25 said:

No, but it's his fault he caved to Kesler's demands. We had the same situation but flipped with OEL this time around, why didn't we get him for pennies on the dollar?

So just don't trade the player? We didn't get OEL for pennies because Arizona wasn't going to give him away. OEL didn't demand a trade as Kesler did. He didn't want to leave. Btw, we didn't get what we could have for Kesler had there been more trade options but we got far from pennies for him.

 

On 10/11/2020 at 3:48 PM, kanucks25 said:

When exactly were we competitive other than this past year (his 6th) and the first year (90% of the team was inherited, that "wasteland" that made the playoffs).

We were in the playoff hunt each year until midseason when the injuries seemed to pile up. It was pretty easy to predict a number of injuries would sink the ship with little to no quality in the way of callups from the farm team Gillis left. At least Benning set the team up to compete to start the season rather than setting it up to lose from day one. I wouldn't have bothered going to games had he done the latter. 

[iceman64]

10 hours ago, iinatcc said:

It's not just Tanev though. It's the fact Toffoli couldn't be signed and Vancouver gave up one of their top prospects and a pick to get him. 

And it's not just maintainice it's also improvement. Replacing/keeping Tanev, Stecher, Toffoli, and Markstrom would mean Vancouver would be at where they at least season. It's also about improving adding a piece to make the team better. Like when Chicago had a young core and signing Hossa put them over the top. 

 

However Vancouver couldn't do that due to Benning's past signings and re signing. Like I said Vegas, Calgary, and Edmonton all got better in addition other teams around the league were all able to sign players to cheap low risk contracts that made most of them better than where are at last season. 

 

One example is Buffalo signing Taylor Hall. 1 year 8 Million is a steal for an elite scorer and former Hart Trophy winner. Even if Vancouver didn't resign Toffoli and didn't have one of their 4 or 5 bad contracts, Vancouver probably could sign Hall for that same amount (maybe lower).

 

Also going back to Buffalo, Vancouver barley squeaked out 2 pts in one their games against them. Now that Dahlin is year older and possible much better, and Olofsson is reaching his peak, and signing Hall. Do you think Vancouver can beat Buffalo next season?

 

Of course I am not a hockey expert or anything like that but I think my sentiments are similar to many Hockey analysts and experts I've been listening too. 

 

 

 

 

First, had the cap risen the 5 to 8 million that was projected, Markstrom and Toffi would still be here..

 And 2nd more importantly, those so called experts, that's a joke, every last one of them

said the TJ Miller deal was a huge mistake by Benning, didn't that tell you something? 

 You know, when I have time I read and listen to the comments coming from the media and I agree with about 5-10% of it, the rest is pretty laughable. 

 Last week they said we were screwed, totally, because we lost Marky and Tanev, I commented on Marky, Tanev is the same, he's injury prone, and wanted a longer term but we definately don't want a guy his age with as many injuries as he's had, and again, more importantly, we need young guys stepping up instead of paying guys bigger money right now and for the next four years when we need to develop our picks anyway..

[Baggins]

On 10/11/2020 at 4:11 PM, Lazurus said:

I find the definition of competitive interesting, with who? How is competitive measured? What is a winning environment? I know I am older and we used get Blue, Red and White ribbons for first second and third, I always thought that getting the Blue ribbon was winning and getting the red or white competitive.

What did the Canucks get? A chartreuse ribbon?

 

I look at teams like the 94 team and they got to the final, was that competitive? I look at the 98 team and they were 7th of 7 teams, was that competitive? I ask because this team's win loss record is abysmal, is that competitive?

 

Every year Benning talked about being competitive,  I think he meant AHL player competing with each other to get a roster spot, maybe that why he tried to sell the naive fans on Sutter (core player) Roussel (leader), Beagle (playoff teacher) or Schaller (help the young guy get space, ya I say guy because they only had Boeser then) Maybe he referred to the contracts, ya they were competitive with money spent by contending teams. Or the clauses, yes he gave out as many clauses as some teams, more in some cases.

 

Still there is a chance that he could reverse a lot of this, but it is not in his nature, he is a nice guy and nice guys finish ________

The difference was what Benning set the team up for to start the season. Each year the team was "competing" for a playoff spot up until Xmas or well into January. Relatively healthy they could compete. But with little to nothing worth a damn on the farm team Gillis left behind meant a large number of injuries would sink the ship. Which is exactly what happened. I respect he at least set the team up to have a chance rather than setting it up to lose the day the season started. Teams "compete" for a playoff spot.

[Lazurus]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

The difference was what Benning set the team up for to start the season. Each year the team was "competing" for a playoff spot up until Xmas or well into January. Relatively healthy they could compete. But with little to nothing worth a damn on the farm team Gillis left behind meant a large number of injuries would sink the ship. Which is exactly what happened. I respect he at least set the team up to have a chance rather than setting it up to lose the day the season started. Teams "compete" for a playoff spot.

Every team in the league starts off close to first overall, as the season progresses the gap widens.

Gillis again? good lord man he hasn't drafted for 7 going on 8 years. Why not blame Nonis?

You are about to witness what is on the farm, the team will need 4 more defencemen and three more forwards for depth, 16 games a month for 5+ months, exhaustion, injuries, illness, family, mental fatigue, inexperience, pressure combined with travel. They will be lucky to have a .400 win/loss record. Other teams within the division with more and better players just got deeper and improved.

 

[Fred65]

On 10/1/2020 at 8:30 PM, kingofsurrey said:

Jim the scout/drafter -  10 out of 10

Jim the UFA/Trader -  4-10 

 

So that converts to 70 % - so close to a.  solid C +

 

Decent but room to improve. 

Hard to judge because it's uncertain how much the drafting was a product of Brackett and of course the Cap management is the reason we're in the current position. Why did they fire Gilman. Certainly if we look at the 1st round picks Virtanen, McCann, Boeser, Juolevi, Pettersson and Hughes the drafting is a mixed bag ( 50% ) The trading such as Gudbranson was no where near to proficient ( I understanding the thinking, Gudbranson has now been traded 3 times since Vcr) But on the other hand some trades have worked out.. To me it's a scatter gun and inconsistent. There's a lot of room for improvement and of late I think JB is acting out of fear of dismissal and pressure from above by ownership. Think of Boston post 2011, weren't they top of the league again while we were happy to just make the play-offs. What makes me wonder is without Pettersson where would we be? and that depended on 4 other teams passing on Pettersson. One player makes an incredible effect on judging JB

[McBackup]

I think Benning is a good GM, not a great one. He has his warts, but so does everyGM. He's a fantastic at the draft, hit and miss at trades and poor at signings, but his record in the latter two categories is improving.

 

The thing everyone in the 'Fire Benning' camp seems to neglect is that if you can him he does need to be replaced. And it seems nobody who wants to fire him has his next in line lined up, and you can't just get rid of him and watch the team magically win the cup without a GM. I'm convinced most people in that camp are just part of the vocal minority of canucks fans who look to complain about everything.

[Jimbo786]

18 hours ago, iceman64 said:

Did you forget the Seattle draft? Oh wait.. I'm the short sighted one here right? Smh..

Ice! Jimbo has to protect Demko, and if he looses Markie thats fine.  Here is my bottom line, Jimbo has made some horrendous decisions, horrible trades, signing foundation pieces like Sutter...what a joke, nobody was willing to step up and offer the contract Sutter got...good ol country bumpkin Jimbo did, when he signed the cavalcade of 4th liners to make this team hard to play against (I couldn't believe the contracts he was giving aways at that time) really didn't make one bit of difference in the standings.  His done well with the draft picks, the JT Miller trade was worth every bit he paid out, bringing in Ian Clarke, and ofcourse Markie carrying this team on his back night after night,  Yes, we did well in the bubble playoffs, but that's one of a lifetime, do you think this team makes the playoffs if we finished the season under normal circumstances, then goes on to have the success they did if they had to play in the normal NHL with fans? 

Ice, stop shaking your head ...lol... I am here having fun...and trying to make some points.....will see how the team does, they got my interest right now....but i have other sports that i love......But, you and all these diehard Canucks fan....will have to sweat it out the next season...but once those contracts come off the books look out...i think Jimbo has learned his lesson ....take it easy Iceman dont melt! hehe

[iceman64]

26 minutes ago, Jimbo786 said:

Ice! Jimbo has to protect Demko, and if he looses Markie thats fine.  Here is my bottom line, Jimbo has made some horrendous decisions, horrible trades, signing foundation pieces like Sutter...what a joke, nobody was willing to step up and offer the contract Sutter got...good ol country bumpkin Jimbo did, when he signed the cavalcade of 4th liners to make this team hard to play against (I couldn't believe the contracts he was giving aways at that time) really didn't make one bit of difference in the standings.  His done well with the draft picks, the JT Miller trade was worth every bit he paid out, bringing in Ian Clarke, and ofcourse Markie carrying this team on his back night after night,  Yes, we did well in the bubble playoffs, but that's one of a lifetime, do you think this team makes the playoffs if we finished the season under normal circumstances, then goes on to have the success they did if they had to play in the normal NHL with fans? 

Ice, stop shaking your head ...lol... I am here having fun...and trying to make some points.....will see how the team does, they got my interest right now....but i have other sports that i love......But, you and all these diehard Canucks fan....will have to sweat it out the next season...but once those contracts come off the books look out...i think Jimbo has learned his lesson ....take it easy Iceman dont melt! hehe

Lmao! Ummm I'm just pointing out that the trades that don't always produce in the points Dept but the value of bring taught the ropes by someone who knows is far more valuable than getting points if going to pay off long after the mentor is gone and we're getting to the end of needing it so much as we did when Sutter, Rousell, etc.. you just can't measure what the legacy that moves us further as a team together opposed to the EDM scenario with so much youth and not enough mentorship and look what happened there lol  Sure you can echo the same ole chit as some others have said but this time you can mark my words that we're going to win a lot more games this year AND less shots on goal and the year after, more of it... If it doesn't, I'll happily take back every word, however when our books are clear, especially of the recapture of RL and LE gone with a core that's been taught on ice through mentors will be very tough to win against, that's the day I'm looking forward to.

 Trust me lol I won't melt..  

[canucksnihilist]

Well he used to suck.   Completely.   Look at the contracts to the bottom 6.  U could get that with half the money.  This is the main reason the Canucks are not able to push through and win yet.   Can’t wait until a few years when we can jetisson the mistakes.

 

now he seems to have learned and his contracts are reasonable - more like an experienced GM.  Which isn’t surprising - he was a rookie GM when he started.

 

I like  what he is doing now - I’ll bet he wish he could redo some of those Old contracts - beagle. Sutter.  Rousel.   Erickson.   Just terrible contracts.  Not terrible players.

 

 

 

 

[canuck73_3]

On 10/12/2020 at 11:20 AM, Canuckfanforlife82 said:

No. He’s Mr. excuses. Benning needs to go. Now he’s going to overpay in a trade. Trade assets we can’t afford to trade. It’s a complete joke.

This aged terribly. 

[canuck73_3]

On 10/12/2020 at 12:02 PM, Zhukini said:

Why does it mean he has something up his sleeve? He might have just got beat and now he’s onto plan D

Schmidt deal starting before Tanev and Marky signing in Cowtown says otherwise. 

[iinatcc]

13 hours ago, iceman64 said:

First, had the cap risen the 5 to 8 million that was projected, Markstrom and Toffi would still be here..

Well circumstances are as such but it doesn't take away the contracts Benning gave out in the past. Even with the Luongo recapture and the flat cap (which to my understand could have only went up by 2.5 Million according to Dan Rosen) one or two of those bad contracts would been beneficial. 

 

I guess point is other teams feasted on Free Agents the flat cap and Vancouver only had a salad.