Sign in to follow this  
fanfor42

Do Canuck fans think Benning is a great GM?

Rate this topic

Do Canucks fans vote Benning is a great GM  

257 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Seems to me that if there was two more categories- average, and good that a lot of votes would fall inbetween this poll.   No a great GM comes across as a bad GM, not average.   One thing I can say is this team should be judged based on the playoff success with the young core JB and co have created.   Not many teams get much action from their young stars still on their ELCs, so far for us we got 17 games out of them - looking forward to seeing what next year has in store for us and if we can add to it.   

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems very vague and incomplete (perhaps on purpose) cause it does NOT include compared to who ?

 

My answer: compared to other Canucks GM, I would say JB is the best Canuck GM cause despite not having a pick higher than 5th OA he was able to draft our two superstars instead of trading for them and he was also able to build ul our prospect list to a legit one.

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Primal Optimist said:

There is no digital effect when grading GM's and so he is not either Great or Bad. Every GM is instead some point on the line between Great and Bad. 

 

Benning just got us our first series win since 2011. For a decent Gm that is a good thing, even if he isn't great he has earned another year or more at the helm to show us what next season looks like. 

 

Two points I put forward in his favour are that no one could have expected Eriksson's offense to retreat to the old Bin Laden hideout cave in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Secondly: Lu's cap recapture was and is a huge mistake by the league. Punishing a few teams for contracts that were legal in one CBA and made illegal in the next one was BAD BUSINESS by the league exec and by the commish in particular. I feel the cap recapture for those over the top contracts from the old cba are just sour grapes and vengence from the league when it was their own fault for leaving those loopholes open in the first place. 

 

Anywho: between the two things there is over TEN million dollars we can't use on talent this coming season, and that is a big handcuff on our boy MB.

Add the Covid cap - and that makes things even tougher  - but at least in this regard all teams have to deal with it equally.   Pretty sure it equals 9 million in handcuff, minus LEs actual value, fair to say is around 2 ... still 7 is quite a lot of cap... ok then add Bear 2 so back to 9.   And maybe Ferland can be added based on what he does with the ELC bonuses money - carry the 9 x by 1.12 if he starts injured if he doesn’t and then goes back on it,  then apply a 1.07 - 1.04 rate to it but after you add 500 k for each of Roussel, and Beagle.    Then take that amount (around 10 again) and wait until JV is signed and plays 25% of this seasons game.   Divide or times but a multiplier depending on his contract over under in 2.5 million.   If he’s on pace for 35 points then a factor of 1.   If on pace for 50 then divide by .90 if  25 then times by 1.1.   Then apply the “Balls” factor - Sutters deal.   Start by adding 2 million to the wasted cap space.  Then subtract 250k each time he blocks a shot with his groin (pretty sure that’s in his fine print).    This should give us a total range of 10-12 in wasted cap.    Depending on shot blocks to the balls, which collectively as fans we are all currently enjoying - “but we could have afforded AP?!!”

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is how much is JB and how much is meddling ownership?

 

Was JB forced to sign players? And as a result of guys not wanting to go to a rebuilding a Canadian team had to pay a massive premium for guys? 
 

Linden wanted to commit to a full rebuild and got fired. 
 

Benning’s draft record is great - why did he have less picks during a rebuild? Pressure from ownership to trade picks?

 

His trades are mixed. A lot of blunders early on, the Toffoli trade was bad too. But full marks for getting Schmidt, Pearson, JT Miller, Leivo, Motte.

 

When you look at the core of the team from last year :

Drafted - 5 (EP, Hughes, Boeser, Virtanen, Gaudette)

 

Trades - 2 (JT Miller, Pearson)

 

Inherited - 4  (Horvat, Edler, Markstrom, Tanev)

 

Signed - 1 (Myers)

 

The rest of the roster is majority signings. The issue is the roster fillers take up a massive amount of the cap and are a collection of guys making good money who likely net out to being slightly above replacement level  

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's a decent GM, but his UFA signings and cap/asset management are his biggest weaknesses. When we were rebuilding it was fine,  in a flat cap world where our team is expected to compete, those weaknesses will be doubly exposed. 

 

Drafts, Trades no problem. UFA signings and cap/asset management, needs improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many seem to be judging the GM main role as drafting and rating them based on that alone for each of them ?

 

I showed an article before of other GM's stating them saying that they leave drafting to their scouting staff, that it is their job, and they don't have the time to do their job and see the players like they can

So if players take time to develop, (which has been a long wait already for JV and OJ) and a GM shelf is 4-8 years, how can anyone heap on praise or slam a GM when they haven't been given much time to evaluate if the scouting staff has been good at its job ?, Most likely why a GM will install the people he is familiar with, which is why I was surprised that when JB could See good results with the scouting staff he had, he chose to replace many of them anyways  

A General Manager is to manage the team overall and coordinate his staff and hire the players to work towards the same thing, while not being handcuffed with limiting his options, but put them in a position of strength, and how he assembles and uses his assets, picks, players, values/signs them, and the trades he will make

I won't judge a GM solely by the drafting, which is based on many people on staff relaying the information in a good way, plus not even mentioning where you drafted or the strength of the drafts etc

.

I think Aquaman has been patient for being at the bottom of the league for over 1/2 decade, and realizes it wasn't JB's fault that his team needed to get younger and replace the core and that just takes time, firing and hiring GM's at that point wouldn't change that, and would only cost him more money in salaries and maybe set back with different vision?

I also think the next 1-3 years of how well he is Managing this team with a core being established  will be important, he will then have had a longer leash than most to get it all together, and will based on that

I won't say he has been great, he has been bad with handcuffing a team with salary while being at the league bottom for so long

 

I can't say he is great based on that reasoning or the worse, the length of his leash and how well he grows, learns and is adaptable will determine in the end

 

It would be great if he was to be the greatest, because that would mean great things for the Canucks, but he isn't their yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, IBatch said:

I would say at this point it’s  safe to say that JB will probably end up the best drafting GM we’ve ever had.  

 

 

  It’s possible if we didn’t have a musical chair of GMs going on from the start until Quin arrived that one of Maloney, Milford or Neale could have accrued some comparable records.   Milford in particular- in 1981 draft he had 6 of 9 players make it 100 nhl games.  Fraser (second round) and Smyl (third round) were excellent picks.  Back to 1981, Butcher (first round), and The Streak (8th round) were the best of the bunch but we also got a back-up Caprice for five years out of it and another goalie Young who I think won cups with PIT.    Milford is for sure his stiffest competition over our 50 year history ... 

 

Nonis had a killer draft too.  In 2004 Schneider at 26 outplayed most of the guys picked ahead of him, then Edler in the third round self explanatory, all-time D leader, and Mike Brown a hard hitting journeyman in the 5th played 407 games, and of course 9th rounder Hansen...wow what a start.   Unfortunately he also had one of our worst drafts which evens things out a little striking out on all six picks in 2007.  
 

Gillis even with using picks to help us contend has most of the rest of our worst drafts, 2010 was a peach five picks 1 NHL game ha ha. 
 

As far as great GMs go JB is so far a great re-building GM - he’s proven that beyond a doubt for me at this point.   Post Sedin 1-2 and look where we are now.   17 playoff games is 4th in team history.   That said consider this:

 

Quin.  1987-1997.    Set team record at the time for points in a single season one that without OT losses would still stand up today as one of our best seasons ever in 1993.   Also set record for goals in one year - around 348 I think.  Also record for most playoff appearances at 7, most series wins - plus two division titles.

 

Milford 1977-1982

 

Five years at the helm.  4 playoff appearances, one conference title on cup appearance.  Not shabby at all.


Burke 1998-2004

 

6 years.  4 playoff appearances one division title.

 

Gillis


6 years.   5 playoff appearances, two presidents trophies, conference final title, cup final, GM of the year award, five division titles. 
 

Based on accolades alone Gillis is the greatest GM we’ve ever had.   Informed fans understand Burke and Nonis did all the heavy lifting and built the team he inherited- and it speaks volumes that not one team has hired him despite those accolades.   That said he did bring professionalism into the organization from top to bottom.   Definitely deserves to be on this list.

 

Oh and just for JB bashers here’s some ammo.

 

Jim Benning 2014-present.  2 playoff appearances six years ha ha ha 

 

Well said, Sir !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2020 at 2:37 PM, Lazurus said:

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.


 

If it happens, Benning will have its top pick and his prospect will be set for years to come with contract coming off from the books for next season.  I credit Benning for giving their young guys a playoff experience when they weren't even expecting for any experience at all at the start of last season.  With those loss from free agent, we are not expecting anything except being competitive each game and see what we'd have in OJ, Rafferty, Rathbone and his forward picks that might make the team out from the training camp out from the spot and could do well.  You never know and best of them all, it gives his prospect one more year of sheltering in the minors while majority of his veterans' contract coming off from the book and Petterson and Hughes deserve some of the highest paid contract for years to come.  This is all about giving guys some experience and protection for at least one more season. 

 

They are still young and I could see them not being ready just yet based on the playoff run vs. Wild, Blues,and VGK. .  Keeping in mind, defence will improve by subtraction by a loss of Tanev and potentially Edler and we won't lose anyone of importance because Hughes will be exempted from expansion draft.  If anyone is having a bad year, it's easier to expose them to expansion draft and keep our good ones and find someone with much better free agent market next season with lots of cap space room.  I'm sure that Benning and the ownership knows that for as long as Benning is being honest with the ownership and still keep the job for at least one more draft and one more season to prove his worth for next season.

 

His moves in the off-season showed me that he is not expected to do the noise and he probably convinced the ownership that they are not ready based on playoff games against the Blues/VGK where they could barely muster any offense and GMJB implore Aquaman to give the team more time to develop and perhaps that the owner agreed.  Just my guess and why else do you think Benning has been having a quiet off-season?  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, IBatch said:

Jim Benning 2014-present.  2 playoff appearances six years ha ha ha 

 

I'd say that's actually pretty good considering he took over an aging team on the decline with one player under 27 worth keeping and a prospect pool of two (Horvat and Markstrom). He got that aging team back into the playoffs one more time despite adding prospects to the roster, restocked the prospect pool (several actually worth being excited over) and back into the playoffs actually winning the play in and 1st round (against the previous years champs) with only two roster regulars he inherited and Gillis' only good draft pick (Horvat). Compare that to Gillis inheriting H & D Sedin, Kesler, Luongo. Schneider, Edler, Bieksa, Salo, Burrows, Raymond, and Hansen. 

 

I didn't like Nonis much as a GM but he did draft those four players outside the first round that played 400+ NHL games in his four drafts. Mike Brown (407), Mason Raymond (546), Jannik Hansen (626), and Alex Edler (873 and still counting). The only player Gillis drafted that has exceeded 400 NHL games is his top 10 pick Bo Horvat (446 and counting). Drafting was the Gillis downfall, and the teams as a result. You really need those hits, particularly outside the first round to help keep costs down and keep infusing youth into the lineup rather than turning to free agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Baggins said:

I'd say that's actually pretty good considering he took over an aging team on the decline with one player under 27 worth keeping and a prospect pool of two (Horvat and Markstrom). He got that aging team back into the playoffs one more time despite adding prospects to the roster, restocked the prospect pool (several actually worth being excited over) and back into the playoffs actually winning the play in and 1st round (against the previous years champs) with only two roster regulars he inherited and Gillis' only good draft pick (Horvat). Compare that to Gillis inheriting H & D Sedin, Kesler, Luongo. Schneider, Edler, Bieksa, Salo, Burrows, Raymond, and Hansen. 

 

I didn't like Nonis much as a GM but he did draft those four players outside the first round that played 400+ NHL games in his four drafts. Mike Brown (407), Mason Raymond (546), Jannik Hansen (626), and Alex Edler (873 and still counting). The only player Gillis drafted that has exceeded 400 NHL games is his top 10 pick Bo Horvat (446 and counting). Drafting was the Gillis downfall, and the teams as a result. You really need those hits, particularly outside the first round to help keep costs down and keep infusing youth into the lineup rather than turning to free agents.

Why are you and others crediting GM’s for their scouts hard work, and basing  if they are a good GM or not  based mostly on drafting? It should be who is the best head scout in the NHL then, it's obviously not the main department of a GM's job, they have a complete team to manage and coordinate departments and players, they watch some players at some degree, but GM's have no time at all to scout all year long, even in trades they discuss what the scouts think about certain player! At the end of the day they make the final decision, but their decision are almost every time based on trust of their scouting staff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty average GM really to me.

Did pretty well drafting, though some notable misses.  Virtanen and Juolevi at this point aren't picked nearly as high.  

UFA signings have been overall a pretty horrible.  Too much money and too much term on players who just didn't produce close to their contracts.

Trades are kind of mixed.  He has had a tendency to throw in a lot of high picks to get deals done, and that means he has less bullets in the tank for his drafting strength.

His organizational management has been pretty poor.  He has come into conflict with guys like Linden and Brackett... with them leaving the organization.  He has leaned on Weisbrod who has never shown much success in the league.  His role in Boston as Director of Collegiate Scouting starting in 2008 didn't seem to contribute much to their Stanley Cup win as his first draft would have been 2009.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Provost said:

Pretty average GM really to me.

Did pretty well drafting, though some notable misses.  Virtanen and Juolevi at this point aren't picked nearly as high.  

UFA signings have been overall a pretty horrible.  Too much money and too much term on players who just didn't produce close to their contracts.

Trades are kind of mixed.  He has had a tendency to throw in a lot of high picks to get deals done, and that means he has less bullets in the tank for his drafting strength.

His organizational management has been pretty poor.  He has come into conflict with guys like Linden and Brackett... with them leaving the organization.  He has leaned on Weisbrod who has never shown much success in the league.  His role in Boston as Director of Collegiate Scouting starting in 2008 didn't seem to contribute much to their Stanley Cup win as his first draft would have been 2009.

Insanity.

 

Not just 'pretty well drafting' - Benning has, so far, the best track record with regards to drafting. Far more than Nonis and Gillis combined.

 

Which UFA signings are horrible? Aside from Eriksson, the rest of the signings are generally done for their specified role (and not as a top six forward). Sutter is the only one that you could argue was a bit more overpaid because he's about 1 million overpaid. 3 million dollars is reasonable for Sutter's skillset.

 

Trades are kind of mixed? You've blatantly ignored the Miller trade, Pearson, etc

 

I would like to see some data here. Weisbrod likely had a huge role in choosing Hughes, as seen on his expression of seeing him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dazzle said:

Insanity.

 

Not just 'pretty well drafting' - Benning has, so far, the best track record with regards to drafting. Far more than Nonis and Gillis combined.

 

Which UFA signings are horrible? Aside from Eriksson, the rest of the signings are generally done for their specified role (and not as a top six forward). Sutter is the only one that you could argue was a bit more overpaid because he's about 1 million overpaid. 3 million dollars is reasonable for Sutter's skillset.

 

Trades are kind of mixed? You've blatantly ignored the Miller trade, Pearson, etc

 

I would like to see some data here. Weisbrod likely had a huge role in choosing Hughes, as seen on his expression of seeing him.

Literally everyone in the hockey world said that the signings of all those bottom 5 players to that money and term was a bad idea that was going to bite the team on the rear... and it has.  Ferland, Roussel, Sutter, Beagle, Gagner, Del Zotto, Benn.... none of them worked out to the value of their contracts.  None of those guys still on our roster would be taken on waivers right now.  Paying half a dozen players $1 million too much and 1-2 years too much term is a recipe for cap disaster.  I don't even put Eriksson in the bad signing category, at the time it seemed reasonable.  It turned out really badly and that is partly on Benning, but the other signings were considered not good even at the time of the signings.

As for drafting, you can't compare regimes that were drafting in the mid-20's with a team that is drafting consistently in the top 10.

2014, Virtanen is so far a miss for a 6th overall pick.  McCann was a good pick but got traded for a dud in Gudbranson to undo that good work.  Demko "should" be solid and is good for that pick.  You can't consider a draft where you whiff on a top pick as a huge success.
2015 - Boeser was a great pick at that spot.  Gaudette has played game for us which is great for where he was picked.  This was probably his best draft in terms of getting value for where he picked,.
2016 - Juolevi was a big miss at #5 overall... he may still become a player, but was the first D taken and probably the 5th best D if you re-did it.  Our team would sure look a lot better with Sergachev or McAvoy on it.  No one else has played games for us and "maybe" Lockwood does down the road.  This draft was just bad.
2017 - Petterson is a great pick.  Maybe he gets picked a couple of spots higher now, Benning gets credit for not passing on him for Glass (which many reports say he wanted to).  Heiskanen and Makar are right up there with him in value, and would go in the top 3 in some order in a re-draft
2018 - Hughes probably goes 2 instead of 7 if folks got to pick again, so that is a definite win.  He would have gone 7-8 with the rankings at the time, so the win was picking him over Boqvist.  Madden got flipped for basically nothing so no credit there since he didn't play for us or get trade value.  Woo's stock hasn't risen since his draft and may or may not pan out.  
2019 - Too recent to judge.

.... so... mixed results clearly.  No GM gets an A grade for drafting when they miss on two really high 1st round picks.  That isn't Benning hating, that is just reality.  You need to hit on top 10 picks.  If we had Sergachev/McAvoy and Nylander instead of Juolevi/Virtanen... then by all means laud Benning as a great drafting record.

We did draft poorly before Benning, but we also didn't have any top picks because we were a good team.  Not getting value from later rounds was bad, but them being bad doesn't magically erase Benning's mistakes.
Gillis did well when he actually picked above the 10th pick... Horvat is our captain and is great value at that draft spot.  In a redraft he probably jumps to the 4-6th pick which is pretty darn good.
Hodgson was our next highest pick at #10 and probably falls badly from that spot due to injury shortening his career.  Nobody was complaining about it at the time though, there were a lot of other big misses in the top 10 that year.  All the rankings had him going higher.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Provost said:

Literally everyone in the hockey world said that the signings of all those bottom 5 players to that money and term was a bad idea that was going to bite the team on the rear... and it has.  Ferland, Roussel, Sutter, Beagle, Gagner, Del Zotto, Benn.... none of them worked out to the value of their contracts.  None of those guys still on our roster would be taken on waivers right now.  Paying half a dozen players $1 million too much and 1-2 years too much term is a recipe for cap disaster.  I don't even put Eriksson in the bad signing category, at the time it seemed reasonable.  It turned out really badly and that is partly on Benning, but the other signings were considered not good even at the time of the signings.

As for drafting, you can't compare regimes that were drafting in the mid-20's with a team that is drafting consistently in the top 10.

2014, Virtanen is so far a miss for a 6th overall pick.  McCann was a good pick but got traded for a dud in Gudbranson to undo that good work.  Demko "should" be solid and is good for that pick.  You can't consider a draft where you whiff on a top pick as a huge success.
2015 - Boeser was a great pick at that spot.  Gaudette has played game for us which is great for where he was picked.  This was probably his best draft in terms of getting value for where he picked,.
2016 - Juolevi was a big miss at #5 overall... he may still become a player, but was the first D taken and probably the 5th best D if you re-did it.  Our team would sure look a lot better with Sergachev or McAvoy on it.  No one else has played games for us and "maybe" Lockwood does down the road.  This draft was just bad.
2017 - Petterson is a great pick.  Maybe he gets picked a couple of spots higher now, Benning gets credit for not passing on him for Glass (which many reports say he wanted to).  Heiskanen and Makar are right up there with him in value, and would go in the top 3 in some order in a re-draft
2018 - Hughes probably goes 2 instead of 7 if folks got to pick again, so that is a definite win.  He would have gone 7-8 with the rankings at the time, so the win was picking him over Boqvist.  Madden got flipped for basically nothing so no credit there since he didn't play for us or get trade value.  Woo's stock hasn't risen since his draft and may or may not pan out.  
2019 - Too recent to judge.

.... so... mixed results clearly.  No GM gets an A grade for drafting when they miss on two really high 1st round picks.  That isn't Benning hating, that is just reality.  You need to hit on top 10 picks.  If we had Sergachev/McAvoy and Nylander instead of Juolevi/Virtanen... then by all means laud Benning as a great drafting record.

We did draft poorly before Benning, but we also didn't have any top picks because we were a good team.  Not getting value from later rounds was bad, but them being bad doesn't magically erase Benning's mistakes.
Gillis did well when he actually picked above the 10th pick... Horvat is our captain and is great value at that draft spot.  In a redraft he probably jumps to the 4-6th pick which is pretty darn good.
Hodgson was our next highest pick at #10 and probably falls badly from that spot due to injury shortening his career.  Nobody was complaining about it at the time though, there were a lot of other big misses in the top 10 that year.  All the rankings had him going higher.
 

You can't really make this kind of broad statement without linking sources. It's the equivalent of saying "Everyone knows Pettersson was going to be good". This appeal to a phantom mass of "experts" can manipulate any argument towards a specific narrative, which may be revisionist or just flat out wrong. Fact: There was an abundance of people in the hockey world that didn't know much about Pettersson, and just thought he was going to bust because of his weight alone.

 

Ferland, Roussel, Sutter, Beagle, Gagner, Del Zotto, Benn.

 

We got rid of Gagner and Del Zotto already - it doesn't follow that they are some kind of anchor. If you're cherrypicking, a lot of teams didn't hit with their FA signings, in any particular year. This is hardly something that is exclusive to Benning.

 

I don't know what kind of production you're expecting with Roussell, Sutter, and Beagle. They are clearly not paid to be top line players. Beagle's only paid 3 million dollars. What are you expecting with that salary? He wins faceoffs and is a defensive minded forward who can occasionally chip in goals. All three of them have contributed in some way in the playoffs. Did they not do enough? It's debatable, but they're hardly FA fails like you're describing.

 

Ferland's the only one that's a bit more expensive, but he can play up and down the lineup. It was a gamble to sign him, particularly since he hasn't had any luck with injuries.

 

2014, Virtanen is so far a miss for a 6th overall pick.  McCann was a good pick but got traded for a dud in Gudbranson to undo that good work.  Demko "should" be solid and is good for that pick.  You can't consider a draft where you whiff on a top pick as a huge success.

 

Gudbranson ended up getting Pearson. There are a times that a team missed on their top pick, but hit on their other picks. 2015 Tampa Bay. Mitchell Stephens was the top pick that year for Tampa Bay. In the later rounds, Cirelli and Matthieu Joseph were picked, and they played huge roles in the Stanley Cup run this year. It should be mentioned that both of those players have individually played more games than the top pick.

 

In short, a draft success does NOT require you to hit on your top pick.

 

2015 - Boeser was a great pick at that spot.  Gaudette has played game for us which is great for where he was picked.  This was probably his best draft in terms of getting value for where he picked,.
2016 - Juolevi was a big miss at #5 overall... he may still become a player, but was the first D taken and probably the 5th best D if you re-did it.  Our team would sure look a lot better with Sergachev or McAvoy on it.  No one else has played games for us and "maybe" Lockwood does down the road.  This draft was just bad.
2017 - Petterson is a great pick.  Maybe he gets picked a couple of spots higher now, Benning gets credit for not passing on him for Glass (which many reports say he wanted to).  Heiskanen and Makar are right up there with him in value, and would go in the top 3 in some order in a re-draft
2018 - Hughes probably goes 2 instead of 7 if folks got to pick again, so that is a definite win.  He would have gone 7-8 with the rankings at the time, so the win was picking him over Boqvist.  Madden got flipped for basically nothing so no credit there since he didn't play for us or get trade value.  Woo's stock hasn't risen since his draft and may or may not pan out.  
 

Juolevi looks bad in llght of other picks, namely Sergachev, but there was no guarantee that Sergachev would have worked well on our team. Even though he's won a cup, there's questions about his defensive game, which may not necessarily have paved the way for success on a Canucks team.

 

Pettersson is not JUST a great pick. He is arguably THE top pick, with some considerations for Heiskanen and Makar, as you said. Hischier was an alright pick, and Patrick was just unfortunate. Vilardi and Glass - i think both of them are growing through injury problems, and they both dropped. This is a massive win. Home run pick.


Hughes was also a home run pick.

 

Based on the performances of past GMs, Benning has done more for the Canucks drafting wise than anyone else (at least in recent memory), thus making him the best so far. Additionally, he has drafted/scouted a number of promising players that will have a potential to join the Canucks team (namely Juolevi). You are not giving Benning enough credit.

Edited by Dazzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Why are you and others crediting GM’s for their scouts hard work, and basing  if they are a good GM or not  based mostly on drafting? It should be who is the best head scout in the NHL then, it's obviously not the main department of a GM's job, they have a complete team to manage and coordinate departments and players, they watch some players at some degree, but GM's have no time at all to scout all year long, even in trades they discuss what the scouts think about certain player! At the end of the day they make the final decision, but their decision are almost every time based on trust of their scouting staff

GM's do the hiring and have final say at the draft table don't they? Good GM's aren't just doing the hiring they're involved. I find it hilarious that bad picks are Benning's fault while good picks are are the scouts. Here's a tidbit for you. The scouting department was virtually the same from Nonis to Gills. So what changed? When Benning came in there was a shakeup in the scouting department in the summer. He also had a meeting with them telling what he wanted them to look for and how they should be assessing prospects. Suddenly the drafting improved. Kind of a head scratcher isn't it? Benning often does some scouting himself while travelling with team on road trips. Of course GM's listen to their scouts reports. Just as the head of the scouting department doesn't scout all the various leagues as much as the individual scouts and listens to their reports. That doesn't mean they're not involved or have any influence.

 

You have scouts assigned to each junior league plus Euro and college scouts. Each pitching the players they've scouted. How do you think their draft list gets put together at seasons end? You don't think the GM is involved in that process? Just the fact Benning spent years heading a scouting department tells me he would be very involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Baggins said:

GM's do the hiring and have final say at the draft table don't they? Good GM's aren't just doing the hiring they're involved. I find it hilarious that bad picks are Benning's fault while good picks are are the scouts. Here's a tidbit for you. The scouting department was virtually the same from Nonis to Gills. So what changed? When Benning came in there was a shakeup in the scouting department in the summer. He also had a meeting with them telling what he wanted them to look for and how they should be assessing prospects. Suddenly the drafting improved. Kind of a head scratcher isn't it? Benning often does some scouting himself while travelling with team on road trips. Of course GM's listen to their scouts reports. Just as the head of the scouting department doesn't scout all the various leagues as much as the individual scouts and listens to their reports. That doesn't mean they're not involved or have any influence.

 

You have scouts assigned to each junior league plus Euro and college scouts. Each pitching the players they've scouted. How do you think their draft list gets put together at seasons end? You don't think the GM is involved in that process? Just the fact Benning spent years heading a scouting department tells me he would be very involved.

Maybe re-read what i said, My post never made mention of JB, Not sure why you took offense and made it about him? .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Maybe re-read what i said, My post never made mention of JB, Not sure why you took offense and made it about him? .

 

 

You asked "Why are you and others crediting GM’s for their scouts hard work, and basing  if they are a good GM or not  based mostly on drafting?" You don't seem to think GM's are involved in the draft process. I disagree. In Benning's case I think he's very involved. But I also questioned the difference between the four years Nonis was involved compared to the six years Gillis was GM. The scouting department saw little change in that time yet the drafting between the two GM's had very different results. Nonis scoring several hits and Gillis a boatload of futility. Drafting and developing well can play a big role in keeping costs down. When you hire a GM to go into a rebuild how he does drafting will play a significant role in him keeping his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what makes a great gm? does he never make bad choices and wins every trade, only drafting the very best prospects who all make it to the nhl?  does he only make the moves the fans wants him to make? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.