[Discussion] Moving on from Jim Benning

[-DLC-]

11 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

So let's quit crying over the past and spilled milk for a minute because what's done is done.

 

How do you feel about this team in the here and now?  How do you feel about the future of this team?  Are you excited about them?  More so than 6 years ago?  

 

Straight answers without a bunch of fluff thrown in as a smokescreen.

I'll wait for this response...it matters.

[-DLC-]

12 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

 

I think it's a matter of reading in between the lines.

 

 

I think it's a matter of YOU reading in between lines and extracting what you want and ignoring the rest.    Putting your spin on it but if you don't like JB, that's fine.   It's your deal.  But don't try to convince the rest of us because we see the whole picture, not the snippets and the stuff in between the lines (only).

 

He's been far from perfect but he's getting this team put together with limited resources to work with.  If you're not on board, not sure why you're so invested in arguing the point?  

 

Bottom line is, it's not a video game and deals aren't as easy to come by as "just do it".  Especially when everyone is after the same few pieces and they're trying to secure the best deals possible for themselves.  It's a give and take process and sometimes you do overpay but it's not isolated to one guy.  Many GM's will have deals that they'd preferred to get cheaper or foress term, but you risk them falling apart completely and being at square one.  It's a bit of a dance where you have to find the line between getting things done or not.

 

I don't know that you really do understand that process.  At all.

[Dazzle]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

I think it's a matter of YOU reading in between lines and extracting what you want and ignoring the rest.    Putting your spin on it but if you don't like JB, that's fine.   It's your deal.  But don't try to convince the rest of us because we see the whole picture, not the snippets and the stuff in between the lines (only).

 

He's been far from perfect but he's getting this team put together with limited resources to work with.  If you're not on board, not sure why you're so invested in arguing the point?  

 

Bottom line is, it's not a video game and deals aren't as easy to come by as "just do it".  Especially when everyone is after the same few pieces and they're trying to secure the best deals possible for themselves.  It's a give and take process and sometimes you do overpay but it's not isolated to one guy.  Many GM's will have deals that they'd preferred to get cheaper or foress term, but you risk them falling apart completely and being at square one.  It's a bit of a dance where you have to find the line between getting things done or not.

 

I don't know that you really do understand that process.  At all.

It's not a discussion if he refuses to see the other evidence that refutes his own claims. He should just talk to himself in a room - and he'll never get any disagreement.

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I'll wait for this response...it matters.

I'm assuming this is addressed to me?

 

(1) I think the team has good pieces.  This is something that I have never disputed.

 

(2) I'm honestly not sure how the future will turn out.  We project to have enough cap-space to retain Pettersson/Hughes (which are the biggest priorities) but we probably won't be able to bring back Pearson/Edler and that's another big cut to the depth that could have been avoided had we not committed big money to bottom-six players.  We might yet run into problems if Demko has a great season because that might lead to him getting a contract that costs 3-4M  The one positive thing is that we aren't projected to lose an important piece in the expansion draft.  Other than that, I can see us taking a step back that may last two seasons, maybe even three.  That's not a good thing for a team that just missed the playoffs in four of its last five seasons.

 

(3) I'm not sure how to answer these? We have a younger core which is "good" but if we miss the playoffs because of the guttting made to our team due to cap problems, we're back at where we were in 2014 - out of the playoffs.

[-DLC-]

And while we're at it...and because you ARE using Tampa as an example even though you are suggesting you don't.

 

Tampa had 5 first round picks in the top ten in a 6 year span (#1, #2, #3, #6, #10).  During that same span we had two...a #9 (Hodgson) and a #10 (Bo).

 

Things that matter.

 

So some GM's maybe get a bit more of a head start with things.  Get to pick rather than have to negotiate there way there.

 

You have to factor in more than what you look at .... it's not as easy when you're the guy having to work these deals.  Not just dream them.

[AV.]

11 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I think it's a matter of YOU reading in between lines and extracting what you want and ignoring the rest.    Putting your spin on it but if you don't like JB, that's fine.   It's your deal.  But don't try to convince the rest of us because we see the whole picture, not the snippets and the stuff in between the lines (only).

 

Bottom line is, it's not a video game and deals aren't as easy to come by as "just do it".  Especially when everyone is after the same few pieces and they're trying to secure the best deals possible for themselves.  It's a give and take process and sometimes you do overpay but it's not isolated to one guy.  Many GM's will have deals that they'd preferred to get cheaper or less term, but you risk them falling apart completely and being at square one.

 

I don't know that you really do understand that process.  At all.

What else can I read from those reports.  There either (a) true and did in fact happen, (b) false because its posturing on some level.

 

At no point have I implied that deals are easy to make.  There are a lot of factors (city, state/provincial taxes, state of team, money, term, spouse preference, kids, etc) but my point is that a GM isn't held to gunpoint when making these deals.  He can remove himself from a bidding war if the price is too high or importantly, the price may jeopardize the future of his team.  He can explore other options.  In fact, Benning just did that this off-season with getting Schmidt when he struck out on Barrie (thankfully).

 

Following hockey and looking at the deals that other GMs make is my point of reference.  And no, those GMs aren't perfect or infallible but my main argument is that I've noticed a trend with Benning and free-agency.  You don't (or shouldn't) just double-down because the options are scarce.  That's irresponsible, IMO.

[AV.]

6 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

And while we're at it...and because you ARE using Tampa as an example even though you are suggesting you don't.

 

Tampa had 5 first round picks in the top ten in a 6 year span (#1, #2, #3, #6, #10).  During that same span we had two...a #9 (Hodgson) and a #10 (Bo).

 

Things that matter.

 

So some GM's maybe get a bit more of a head start with things.  Get to pick rather than have to negotiate there way there.

 

You have to factor in more than what you look at .... it's not as easy when you're the guy having to work these deals.  Not just dream them.

Deb, do you mind quoting me where I used or implied Tampa again?  

 

I'm honestly not sure how you're concluding this lol.

Edited October 19, 2020 by Alain Vigneault

[-DLC-]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I'm assuming this is addressed to me?

 

(1) I think the team has good pieces.  This is something that I have never disputed.

But you also don't give credit where it's due.

 

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

 

(2) I'm honestly not sure how the future will turn out.  We project to have enough cap-space to retain Pettersson/Hughes (which are the biggest priorities) but we probably won't be able to bring back Pearson/Edler and that's another big cut to the depth that could have been avoided had we not committed big money to bottom-six players.  We might yet run into problems if Demko has a great season because that might lead to him getting a contract that costs 3-4M  The one positive thing is that we aren't projected to lose an important piece in the expansion draft.  Other than that, I can see us taking a step back that may last two seasons, maybe even three.  That's not a good thing for a team that just missed the playoffs in four of its last five seasons.

So this is good because it answers the question:   shouldn't we wait and see before we decide?  

 

There are a lot of "mights", "maybes" and taking a step back is a maybe too.  We were a step ahead this year....no one really expected us to compete as we did.  You keep putting emphasis on missing the playoffs but rebuilding teams do.  It's about making those sacrifices to implement changes and then you start looking back toward playoffs.  The past is just that...this year we WERE in the playoffs.  That is a good thing.  JB was at the helm.  But you're still dwelling on the past "has beens' and the future "may be's".  The present is that we had a pretty good run overall and saw some really positive things to build from.  I see us taking steps forward but that's just me and my half full glass.  Because it could go either way.

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

 

(3) I'm not sure how to answer these? We have a younger core which is "good" but if we miss the playoffs because of the guttting made to our team due to cap problems, we're back at where we were in 2014 - out of the playoffs.

You're so fixated on "if" we miss the playoffs and where we were in the past.  It's really preventing you from enjoying the here and now.....an important piece of this puzzle that you omit from your overall assessments.  

"Could have been avoided".  These sorts of statements keep you stuck in the past.  Time to move on and maybe shed some of the history because it's really not part of the future.  Things have a way of working themselves out (or not).  But we have a lot of really great pieces in place and your bleak forecast is really just your deal to work through.  Not ours.

[-DLC-]

On 10/12/2020 at 1:30 PM, Alain Vigneault said:

Since 2010, the Lightning have made the post-season 7 times, including 5 conference finals appearances and 2 Stanley Cup finals.

 

Since 2015 (Benning's first season), the Canucks have made the playoffs 2 times and have not progressed past the 2nd round.  In the next five years, Jim Benning-led teams will have to make the conference finals every season to even match this half this stat.

Quote

 

Deb, do you mind quoting me where I used or implied Tampa again?  

 

I'm honestly not sure how you're concluding this lol.

 

 

[Dazzle]

12 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Deb, do you mind quoting me where I used or implied Tampa again?  

 

I'm honestly not sure how you're concluding this lol.

There's lots of times in this thread where you've been hypocritical or contradictory.

[AV.]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

 

Ok thanks.

 

That was posted over a week ago and once again, I was either (a) responding to a user who was comparing Benning to Yzerman or (b) simply continuing a point albeit in a different post.  I probably did not quote whatever I was referencing, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from.

 

FWIW, I don't really think Yzerman and Benning are good comparisons for the reason that they were inheriting teams at different life cycle stages.  For some reason, people (yourself included) keep bringing him up as point about why Benning needs more time but upon beginning their tenures, Yzerman had to continue build a core, wheras Benning had to tear it down.

 

Better comparisons for Benning would be GMs that also had "nothing"(as many of you put) in the prospect cupboard+ ageing cores.  So maybe, Feaster in CGY, Tambellini in EDM, Shero in NJ.  If there's another example you can think of, by all means, add them to the list.

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

There's lots of times in this thread where you've been hypocritical or contradictory.

It helps when people properly contextualize my posts instead of isolating them, which is what you're very guilty of doing.

 

Whatever helps to "win" an "argument"...

[-DLC-]

4 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

That was posted over a week ago and once again, I was either (a) responding to a user who was comparing Benning to Yzerman or (b) simply continuing a point albeit in a different post.  I probably did not quote whatever I was referencing, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from.

Sorry, not going to follow you around in circles anymore.

 

You figure out your stuff then maybe you can move on to ours.  Right now, your opinion about JB is only that and it's not a very fair assessment.  It's one of being stuck in the past and giving no credit for the here and now or how the team is progressing.  And they are.  Even if you don't recognize it.

 

 

[Dazzle]

6 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

It helps when people properly contextualize my posts instead of isolating them, which is what you're very guilty of doing.

 

Whatever helps to "win" an "argument"...

3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Hamhuis and Malholtra got us to a Cup final.  Garrisons was bad, yes.

 

Benning's NTCs got us, at best, a 2nd round playoff appearance.  I have no idea why you say he only gave out one when Roussel, Beagle, Ferland, Holtby, Eriksson all got one.

3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Gillis handed out NTCs to keep money down and keep the core together.  That's what you do when you have a winning team.

 

Benning handed out NTCs to...attract free-agents?

 

I have not once ever mentioned Eriksson's name save for one post about Benning being unable to move his contracts  I've actually said in other threads that Eriksson was a great signing at the time because he was an elite two-way forward and had chemistry with the Sedins.

 

It sucks when you strike out on a free-agent of Eriksson's calibre because it is truly unlucky.  If you strike on out a free-agent of the Beagle/Roussel calibre, you have only yourself to blame.

3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Dazzle, give it a rest.  You keep purposefully twisting my words.

 

NTCs are a good incentive to give out when money is being forfeited or left on the table.  Hansen, Higgins at 2.5M is an example of this because they could have gotten more elsewhere.  Edler at 5M is another.  Garrison was bad but he did leave money on the table.

 

In Benning's case, he paid full dollar amount + gave trade protection to acquire players like Beagle/Roussel/Ferland/Myers in FA.  Those are not guys that anybody in the NH would be giving protection to.

 

 

2 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

So excuses pretty much.

 

Forgot that he "had" to overpay for Beagle/Roussel and couldn't have found cheaper alternatives, you know, like other GMs do.

[AV.]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

Sorry, not going to follow you around in circles anymore.

 

You figure out your stuff then maybe you can move on to ours.  Right now, your opinion about JB is only that and it's not a very fair assessment.  It's one of being stuck in the past and giving no credit for the here and now or how the team is progressing.  And they are.  Even if you don't recognize it.

 

 

Lol.

[AV.]

On 10/12/2020 at 4:21 PM, CallAfterLife said:

What can the Canucks learn from the 2020 Stanley Cup champion Lightning?

 

The makeup of the Lightning’s key decision makers has been relatively static, from Cooper to BriseBois — who has been with the team since 2010 — to BriseBois’ three assistant general managers, including amateur scouting guru Al Murray, who have all been with the organization in some capacity for a minimum of eight years. Through disappointment, through failure, they’ve had a plan and they’ve stuck with it.

 

On 10/12/2020 at 4:30 PM, Alain Vigneault said:

Since 2010, the Lightning have made the post-season 7 times, including 5 conference finals appearances and 2 Stanley Cup finals.

 

Since 2015 (Benning's first season), the Canucks have made the playoffs 2 times and have not progressed past the 2nd round.  In the next five years, Jim Benning-led teams will have to make the conference finals every season to even match this half this stat.

My original post actually quoted the above.  Nice baiting...

[AV.]

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

And then what did I say?  You know, about taking less money to play, and then the part about Benning's FAs not taking less money to play for his team?

[Dazzle]

Just now, Alain Vigneault said:

 

My original post actually quoted the above.  Nice baiting...

So, about that fairness thing with Benning? I don't think the comparison between the Lightning and the Canucks are very fair, and not worth doing. But it seems like you have a bone to pick with Benning, and you don't care about being "fair",

 

So which is it? Are you fair or not?

[AV.]

Deb is a homer so I can forgive that

 

Dazzle is deluded and manipulative.  Full stop.

 

I'm out.  Toxic bunch of people concerned with being right.

[Dazzle]

Just now, Alain Vigneault said:

Deb is a homer so I can forgive that

 

Dazzle is deluded and manipulative.  Full stop.

 

I'm out.  Toxic bunch of people concerned with being right.

No, I was never concerned about being right. I was watching this whole train wreck of a thread devolve with you contradicting yourself beyond oblivion.