Sign in to follow this  
Alain Vigneault

[Discussion] Moving on from Jim Benning

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

EhwKGl5WkAAlIjJ?format=png&name=small

Is this supposed to hold weight?  Out of curiosity where did Benning rank from 2015-2019?

 

Surely, it might be helpful to see where his mean ranking lies to see if we have a top/bottom 15 GM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

Two things with this.

 

Have the Lightning ever been bad during this time? From 2010 onwards?

 

Have the Canucks ever been bad during this time? From 2010 onwards? Funny you chose 2015, and not 2010. Since 2010, Lightning has switched management and coaches, especially during their first round sweep against CLB.

 

These two teams can't be compared at all.

Edited by Dazzle

Share this post


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

The 2010 Lightning also had Stamkos and Hedman already on the team.

 

For a more fair comparison, try judging Benning by starting after Petey and Hughes joined.

It doesn't matter where we start.  Lightning cleared out Lawton and co. when they realized they weren't good enough/could do better.

 

Virtanen and Juolevi were also top 5 picks in Benning's early tenure.  Why should we skip them just because he finally hit the jackpot in Pettersson and Hughes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Two things with this.

 

Have the Lightning ever been bad during this time? From 2010 onwards?

 

Have the Canucks ever been bad during this time? From 2010 onwards? Funny you chose 2015, and not 2010. Since 2010, Lightning has switched management and coaches, especially during their first round sweep against CLB.

 

These two teams can't be compared at all.

Why would I choose 2010 when, uhh, Benning wasn't running the team?  :picard:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Is this supposed to hold weight?  Out of curiosity where did Benning rank from 2015-2019?

 

Surely, it might be helpful to see where his mean ranking lies to see if we have a top/bottom 15 GM?

It means currently, his peers think he's doing a pretty good job.  Of course he's made some mistakes he'd like to have back, but he's learned from them and has improved in his performance.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

It means currently, his peers think he's doing a pretty good job.  Of course he's made some mistakes he'd like to have back, but he's learned from them and has improved in his performance.

It's not a good measure.

 

All of the GMs thought Don Sweeney was the best GM in 2019 and a year later, only one thought he was worthy of a vote.  His Bruins team was statistically higher in the standings during the regular season in 2020 than they were in 2019.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Why would I choose 2010 when, uhh, Benning wasn't running the team?  :picard:

That's exactly my point. From 2015, both teams were on opposite sides of the standings. (Canucks being at the bottom). Therefore a comparison between the two teams, by itself, would not be fair.

 

If you were going to make any kind of meaningful comparison, which you didn't, you would have compared BOTH teams from 2010 onwards.

 

 

4 Jay Feaster February 10, 2002 – July 11, 2008
  • Won Stanley Cup (2004)
  • 1 conference title, 2 division titles, and 4 playoff appearances
[8][9]
5 Brian Lawton October 22, 2008 – April 12, 2010
  • No playoff appearances
[10][11]
Tom Kurvers (Interim) April 12, 2010 – May 25, 2010   [11][4]
6 Steve Yzerman May 25, 2010 – September 11, 2018 [4][12]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Benning finishes in 6th place in the top GM rankings for the 2019-2020 season.  We beat the defending Stanley Cup champions in this year's playoffs.  

 

Benning decides to walk away from giving out long term contracts to our 30 year old UFA's because we are in the middle of a pandemic and money is tight and we don't even know for sure if there will be a season next year.  The cap will be flat for several more years adding to the logic that it makes no sense to give out long term deals to players who are getting past their best due dates.

 

Yet people still want Benning to be fired and give no alternatives as to who should replace him.  Unbelievable...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Jim Benning finishes in 6th place in the top GM rankings for the 2019-2020 season.  We beat the defending Stanley Cup champions in this year's playoffs.  

 

Benning decides to walk away from giving out long term contracts to our 30 year old UFA's because we are in the middle of a pandemic and money is tight and we don't even know for sure if there will be a season next year.  The cap will be flat for several more years adding to the logic that it makes no sense to give out long term deals to players who are getting past their best due dates.

 

Yet people still want Benning to be fired and give no alternatives as to who should replace him.  Unbelievable...

It's simple. This poster is trying to bash Benning and trying to disguise it as a "discussion" thread.

 

And any other charts that say Benning is good in some way is rejected evidence. See @Alain Vigneault's response above. This is so dishonest of a thread.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Hydration 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, KirkSave said:

Knee Jerk reactions...We just overahcieved and had a great playoffs which nobody would have forecasted, just as nobody saw covid coming. We have an awesome young core (Bo, Petey, Hughes, Boeser). The sky is not falling. We have the cornerstones at all key areas of the ice and as Demko continues to emerge, we will be happy not to have linked ourselves to Marky for 6 years, even though is a great goalie and will help Calgary there is no doubt.

 

Like many fans, I admit the deals he gave our bottom 6 player is hurting us now but in a couple season those players will be gone and the youth will start to take over just as Petey and Quinn start to hit that superstar status. We are arguably heading into the most exciting time in our history. All this doom and gloom is comical. JB has a long term plan and vision for this team and I for one am glad he is at the helm.

 

20 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Its only been 4 days into the offseason, relax, success is not built within a few days.  

 

There is still like 80 days left in the offseason, still lots of time to make moves and rectify whatever this situation is. If this team is still looking the same in 80 days then fine, its fair to criticize, but considering that we don't even know what the final product is of this team for the next season its kinda dumb to freak out.

It's not really a knee-jerk reaction.  I've stated that there's a pattern to these types of things.

 

Benning knew about what he would be dealing with in Pettersson and Hughes before last off-season.  He knew there was a chance for them to be elite performers that would need compensating.  His peers had to deal with Marner, Rantanen, Laine, Point, etc all ask for big, big money.  Benning himself had to give out 6M to Boeser.  Instead of planning for their contracts, he went out and handed big money and term to Myers (who I'm not even that displeased with) after already giving out money and term to Beagle and Roussel the previous year.  He followed up Myers by giving 3.5M for 4 years to an infirmary patient in Ferland.

 

To ensure that we will have a chance to re-sign Pettersson and Hughes, we had to walk away from a starting goalie, a decent top-4 defenceman, an exceptional bottom-pairing defenceman, and a top 6 forward (one that we gave away assets for, I might add).   We may still have to walk away from Edler and Pearson.

 

When given cap-space, the Benning management has been fairly irresponsible.  This isn't a case of the odd-mistake or an unlucky blunder.

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

It's simple. This poster is trying to bash Benning and trying to disguise it as a "discussion" thread.

 

And any other charts that say Benning is good in some way is rejected evidence. See @Alain Vigneault's response above. This is so dishonest of a thread.

Feel free to post the voting records from 2015 thru 2019 if you believe they may show Benning is better than what I'm giving credit for.

 

That's what discussions are for ;) 

Share this post


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

Feel free to post the voting records from 2015 thru 2019 if you believe they may show Benning is better than what I'm giving credit for.

 

That's what discussions are for ;) 

There we go. Now we see what your agenda was for making this thread. And I am calling you out for disguising this "discussion" as some unbiased talk.

  • Hydration 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

It doesn't matter where we start.  Lightning cleared out Lawton and co. when they realized they weren't good enough/could do better.

 

Virtanen and Juolevi were also top 5 picks in Benning's early tenure.  Why should we skip them just because he finally hit the jackpot in Pettersson and Hughes?

Virtanen was a no.6 pick. In addition, it's very obvious from history that a No. 1 and No. 2 pick is substantially more likely to turn into stars than a no. 5 pick like Pettersson or Juolevi. Despite both being high picks, history shows that there is a very big difference between top two and 5/6.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

There we go. Now we see what your agenda was for making this thread. And I am calling you out for disguising this "discussion" as some unbiased talk.

I'm pretty sure my "agenda" was on full force when I titled the thread "Moving on from Jim Benning"

 

Also, I don't know why you keeping going on with this idea that I'm trying to mask discussion when I started this discussion by clarifying my position in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Virtanen was a no.6 pick. In addition, it's very obvious from history that a No. 1 and No. 2 pick is substantially more likely to turn into stars than a no. 5 pick like Pettersson or Juolevi. Despite both being high picks, history shows that there is a very big difference between top two and 5/6.

And Pettersson was a 5 pick, Hughes a 7 pick.

 

You can't bring Pettersson/Hughes up as the barometer for Hedman/Stamkos and then dismiss Virtanen/Juolevi because they weren't 1 and 2 when the guys you're citing were also not 1 and 2.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


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

And Pettersson was a 5 pick, Hughes a 7 pick.

 

You can't bring Pettersson/Hughes up as the barometer for Hedman/Stamkos and then dismiss Virtanen/Juolevi because they weren't 1 and 2 when the guys you're citing were also not 1 and 2.

Just as you can't ignore the fact that Hedman and Stamkos are some very elite level players ranked at top two spots...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I'm pretty sure my "agenda" was on full force when I titled the thread "Moving on from Jim Benning"

 

Also, I don't know why you keeping going on with this idea that I'm trying to mask discussion when I started this discussion by clarifying my position in the first place.

There isn't a discussion then. All you're doing is rehashing the same arguments, which have already been talked about in the other threads. Did you not see the amount of whining in every single trade thread that had nothing to do with the Canucks?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Just as you can't ignore the fact that Hedman and Stamkos are some very elite level players ranked at top two spots...

And McDavid and Eichel, and Matthews and Laine, and MacKinnon and Barkov, and Hall and Segween 

 

Hedman and Stamkos are not unicorns to find at 1/2

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


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

And McDavid and Eichel, and Matthews and Laine, and MacKinnon and Barkov, and Hall and Segween 

 

Hedman and Stamkos are not unicorns to find at 1/2

So this underscores certain things.

 

Tanking doesn't necessarily guarantee you championships. But Tampa Bay definitely benefitted from having these players are the right time. They were lucky.

 

What do all those players have in common? Very high point totals usually attributed to them, none of which the Canucks had at any point in time, minus the Sedins.You could argue that the Canucks have been unlucky, and therefore, you can't really make a fair comparison with one of the most unluckiest teams in hockey with one of the luckiest ones in Tampa Bay. No matter how you slice it, this comparison is stupid.

  • Haha 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alain Vigneault said:

For last half decade or so, you can probably count one good thing for every 5 or 6 bad things when it comes to Jim Benning.  And sure, being a general manager is harder than looks.  Hindsight is 20/20 and things don't always go to plan the way you envisioned (looking at you, Jake Virtanen), but most of why we are in the mess we are in is due to decisions made by this management.  Numerous anchor contracts given to bottom six/bottom pairing players, shipping out assets for marginal improvements, countless examples of mismanagement when it comes to the asset value of players, handing out movement protection in virtually every deal, etc.

 

With this I ask:  what's stopping us from wanting to do better?  Why persist with somebody who gets praised once in a blue moon and usually for doing the bare minimum, such as not matching horrible contracts or saying no to a trade that would be a huge ripoff otherwise?

 

It doesn't matter if we pull out some rabbit from out of our hat (i.e Pietrangelo signing), this off-season is demonstrating -  now, more than ever - that there is a clear pattern when it comes to failures and steps backward.  After a pretty fortuitous playoff run in the first place, it doesn't look like that will be the case again for this year and maybe into next year.  A hockey team with 1 playoff appearance in 5 seasons shouldn't already be in a position where they may miss the playoffs because of reasons related to their front office's inability to build its team.

 

I think there are a lot of decent minds in hockey, both internal (Chris Gear) and external (you can do your own research).  I think it's time we remove ourselves from Mr. Benning and go into a different direction

 

But that's just my view.  For the Benning supporters and the "Benning bros", what does your saviour offer that other people in the NHL don't?

Dude Pat Quin is revered and for good reason - just for sh!ts and giggles go back and look at his draft picks and some of his trades.   Let Ronning go...Stajanov and Anoski... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.