Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Discussion] Moving on from Jim Benning


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, 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...

(REPOSTED from Canucks message board)

Well, I certainly hope you're right because we just lost a Very Good D, a Top Goalie, and and sharp-shooter (that we traded a high draft pick for and a prospect) for nothing.  (Sorry Stech  - but you're not a factor in this conversation but appreciated your heart & soul).   

 

That is a noteworthy "BLACK MARK" on JB's resume to add to a few others made in the past and while I know no GM is perfect and makes some bad mistakes along with some good calls, what I do know is that we are now down 3 very good puzzle pieces than where we ended up at the end of the playoffs with only one marginally replaced with the addition of our new goalie.    So that equates to being down 2-1/4 to 2-1/2 pieces from seasons end and we are supposed to be getting better not going backwards.  

 

Hope Benning has some Rabbits in his hat !

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

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?

Except I'm more than happy to hear people come in and say "Actually, Alain Vigneault, I disagree that we should fire Benning and here's why..."

 

Nobody does that.  They just whine by saying "oh, it's another Benning thread" or "oh, knee-jerk szn" or some other mindless dribble, much like you're doing.

 

So, on this topic, why do you personally believe Benning should stay?  What does Jim Benning offer the Canucks that other potential GMs, be it experienced hockey guys, young up-and-comers, analytics gurus, etc don't/can't offer the Canucks?

 

I offered Chris Gear's name because he's rumoured to have an active hand in re-signings and internal negotiations.  If this is the truth, I think he's done well in getting players like Edler, MacEwan, Demko, Motte, etc to come back at team friendly deals while also maintaining judgment to know when to walk away from certain free-agents.  Of course, re-signing is a team affair so we shouldn't give him all the credit, much less remove any credit from Jim Benning, but I feel like somebody like Gear with more responsibility and more power can be a better overall manager of the cap, something the Benning regime hasn't been in the six or so years they've been here.

 

Please engage in discussion now and stop derailing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alain Vigneault said:

Except I'm more than happy to hear people come in and say "Actually, Alain Vigneault, I disagree that we should fire Benning and here's why..."

 

Nobody does that.  They just whine by saying "oh, it's another Benning thread" or "oh, knee-jerk szn" or some other mindless dribble, much like you're doing.

 

So, on this topic, why do you personally believe Benning should stay?  What does Jim Benning offer the Canucks that other potential GMs, be it experienced hockey guys, young up-and-comers, analytics gurus, etc don't/can't offer the Canucks?

 

I offered Chris Gear's name because he's rumoured to have an active hand in re-signings and internal negotiations.  If this is the truth, I think he's done well in getting players like Edler, MacEwan, Demko, Motte, etc to come back at team friendly deals while also maintaining judgment to know when to walk away from certain free-agents.  Of course, re-signing is a team affair so we shouldn't give him all the credit, much less remove any credit from Jim Benning, but I feel like somebody like Gear with more responsibility and more power can be a better overall manager of the cap, something the Benning regime hasn't been in the six or so years they've been here.

 

Please engage in discussion now and stop derailing.

Because you have nothing of substance to offer that isn't already discussed in the other threads.

 

Chris Gear has little to no experience with the GM position, let alone the AGM spot. And remember, a lot of fans had doubts about Benning being an AGM, despite being a well established scout. So as a discussion, I disagree with your suggestion because I believe he is too new and will be susceptible to making newbie mistakes. These are mistakes that you cannot make with this kind of a fanbase.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Because you have nothing of substance to offer that isn't already discussed in the other threads.

Neither do you then :lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ken kaniff said:

There’s no reasoning with the pro Benning crowd. Apparently this is exactly how you build a team by overpaying on borderline NHL players and letting our actual assets walk in FA with very reasonable contracts. 
 

This is the highest level hockey in the world, there is no room for “learning on the job”. He has made some good moves but overall I’d say the negatives outnumber (NOT OUTWEIGHT) the pros.
 

I don’t hate Benning, I feel he has made some good moves and certainly hasn’t been as bad as some other GMs but I don’t want a GM that just isn’t as bad as others. I want a GM that’s good and can build a team without the many, many setback JB has put upon himself. 
 

This is why I called Benning supporters just like Trump supporters. You won’t get any sort of coherent response from many of the Benning supporters. Just memes because it’s easy. I don’t think they’re stupid for supporting Benning, we’re definitely on the right track but I think we can get to the end goal a lot quicker and smoother with a better GM. 

This is well-stated.  I would also agree that outnumber rather outweigh is a good term to use when talking about Benning's positive to negative moves.

Edited by Alain Vigneault
Bolded for clarity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alain Vigneault said:

This is well-stated.  I would also agree that outnumber rather outweigh is a good term to use when talking about Benning's positive to negative moves.

Except he stated that a GM should not be "learning on the job". And you nominated Chris Gear, someone who ostensibly would have to learn on the job, as your number 1 pick.

 

What you have shown is that you agree with someone's position, rather then actual substance of what he said. He actually said some stuff that contradicts what you suggested in your own thread. I think you didn't actually read what he said, except the first part.

 

Little about your thread talks about what Benning did well. After all, that was not your purpose of this thread. It was to discuss a Benning successor, which you have incompetently named one. This is a useless discussion thread. It's so blatantly biased in one direction.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dazzle said:

Except he stated there is no "learning on the job".

 

And you nominated Chris Gear, someone who ostensibly would have to learn on the job, as your number 1 pick.

 

What you have shown is that you agree with someone's position, rather then actual substance of what he said. He actually said some stuff that contradicts what you suggested in your own thread.

 

Little about your thread talks about what Benning did well. After all, that was not your purpose of this thread. It was to discuss a Benning successor, which you have incompetently named one. This is a useless discussion thread.

I was talking about the positive vs negative moves and his use of the term "outnumber".

 

I wasn't talking about the entirety of the post.

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

I was talking about the positive vs negative moves and his use of the term "outnumber".

 

I wasn't talking about the entirety of the post.

Of course you weren't talking about the entirety of the post. His post attempted to be unbiased, saying that there were good points and bad points. You seemed to gloss over that and focus on the negative aspects he talked about Benning.

 

Nothing in this thread suggests you were going to add anything new because you are repeating the same sentiments about Benning being incompetent about managing the team, but you offer next to no REAL suggestion on how to fix it. Chris Gear? Are you kidding me?

Like I said, he said this team can't afford to have someone learn on the job - and you picked such a newbie to run the show. This just shows you want a change for the sake of making a change. You didn't even read his full post. You just chose the parts you wanted to agree with.

 

This thread is all about "Benning sucks - time to replace him. Any idea guys?" It's biased in one direction only. Did this thread really need to be made? I ask this again.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RU SERIOUS said:

(REPOSTED from Canucks message board)

Well, I certainly hope you're right because we just lost a Very Good D, a Top Goalie, and and sharp-shooter (that we traded a high draft pick for and a prospect) for nothing.  (Sorry Stech  - but you're not a factor in this conversation but appreciated your heart & soul).   

 

That is a noteworthy "BLACK MARK" on JB's resume to add to a few others made in the past and while I know no GM is perfect and makes some bad mistakes along with some good calls, what I do know is that we are now down 3 very good puzzle pieces than where we ended up at the end of the playoffs with only one marginally replaced with the addition of our new goalie.    So that equates to being down 2-1/4 to 2-1/2 pieces from seasons end and we are supposed to be getting better not going backwards.  

 

Hope Benning has some Rabbits in his hat !

We effectively replaced Markstrom with Demko and added a 1B in Holtby who is a Stanley Cup champion and has a much better resume than Markstrom.  I would say our goalie situation is just fine, might be even better than last year depending on if Holtby can bounce back from a down year and if Demko can take the next step and continue his form from the playoffs.

 

In terms of Toffoli he barely played the entire playoffs and we still beat the Stanley Cup champs and almost made it to the semi finals.  We have several young prospects that need to get into the lineup including Podkolzin, Hoglander and Lind, so Benning wasn't interested in locking up Toffoli to a 4 year deal to take a spot away from a young prospect who he drafted and who we are building this team around.  Toffoli was a luxury and was only acquired because Boeser was injured and Benning wanted a replacement to make a playoff push.  Obviously Benning couldn't predict the pandemic happening so in hindsight we didn't really need to make the trade as Toffoli didn't even play against Minnesota, but nobody could have predicted the events that happened.

 

In terms of Tanev, I am sure replacing him is Benning's top priority right now.  I would be shocked if he didn't acquire a top 4 Dman prior to the start of next season.  We all know he was working to get OEL so obviously he is trying to get a deal done.  Tanev was a 30 year old injury prone borderline top 4 guy who happened to have a career year playing with Hughes.  It was a big gamble to sign him to a 4 year extension so Benning didn't take the gamble.  He is most likely looking for a younger Dman to play with Hughes.

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

This thread really didn't age well. This is what happens when people like @Alain Vigneault  go on some knee jerk reaction to the situation that HARDLY was settled. It's like 4 days into FA. LOL.

 

Now these jokesters that want a "discussion" about Benning's succession plan disappear, except @Squamfan who will just end up repeating the anti-Benning narrative. The hilarious thing was that this guy approved the Pietrangelo trade for 8.8 M for 7 years, but thought the Schmidt trade had too much of a cap hit. Not surprisingly, Squamfan still doesn't approve this trade because Benning did it.

 

First the Miller trade, now this. It doesn't matter what Benning does to benefit the team - the same people I mentioned will only cherrypick stuff that suits their narrative/stance, not reality. Benning's made mistakes, but it would be extremely dishonest in your "discussion" not to include the positive contributions.

Hence, this thread is a display of embarassmeent. SHAME!

I must have really struck a nerve with this thread if you have to come out and write all this.

 

Anyways, Benning and his team did a really great job in this instance.  They replaced Tanev with a superior d-man and it was worth sacrificing Toffoli and Stetcher to finance this move.  Make no mistake, however, this deal doesn't happen if VGK doesn't get an even better player In Pietrangelo, and if I really want to nitpick, the price for dumping d-men was a 5th (see Murray, Gudbranson), not a 3rd. :P

 

Nevertheless, this is a shrewd move to wait out the market and pounce when a team HAD to move cap.  Let's hope this is the start of something new with this management group and not a once-in-a-blue moon type of thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 4:16 PM, Elias Pettersson said:

We effectively replaced Markstrom with Demko and added a 1B in Holtby who is a Stanley Cup champion and has a much better resume than Markstrom.  I would say our goalie situation is just fine, might be even better than last year depending on if Holtby can bounce back from a down year and if Demko can take the next step and continue his form from the playoffs.

 

In terms of Toffoli he barely played the entire playoffs and we still beat the Stanley Cup champs and almost made it to the semi finals.  We have several young prospects that need to get into the lineup including Podkolzin, Hoglander and Lind, so Benning wasn't interested in locking up Toffoli to a 4 year deal to take a spot away from a young prospect who he drafted and who we are building this team around.  Toffoli was a luxury and was only acquired because Boeser was injured and Benning wanted a replacement to make a playoff push.  Obviously Benning couldn't predict the pandemic happening so in hindsight we didn't really need to make the trade as Toffoli didn't even play against Minnesota, but nobody could have predicted the events that happened.

 

In terms of Tanev, I am sure replacing him is Benning's top priority right now.  I would be shocked if he didn't acquire a top 4 Dman prior to the start of next season.  We all know he was working to get OEL so obviously he is trying to get a deal done.  Tanev was a 30 year old injury prone borderline top 4 guy who happened to have a career year playing with Hughes.  It was a big gamble to sign him to a 4 year extension so Benning didn't take the gamble.  He is most likely looking for a younger Dman to play with Hughes.

I'll buy that-  good points!

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 12:30 PM, 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?

Despite the growing pains associated with our imperfect GM - hindsight - the team is still trending in the right direction and just like any journey there will be speed bumps or detours along the way.  With hindsight, JB does deserved the criticism but with some context some of the decision can also be defended.   Moving forward, I am more interested to see, if JB & "his cronies" are actually evolving into becoming better decision makers for the Canucks cause our young core are also evolving and they will require the right support to compete at a high level. Iam not really buying your grim outlook of the teams future cause there is still enough talent in the team to be competitive.  In a couple of years the bloated contract will be off the books and this roster will look very different; hopefully JB will be given a chance to win with his core.

 

Did a quick google on Chris Gear and his credentials are excellent.  Personally, I would still prefer our bumbling (first time) GM heading to the draft with his eye for talent cause a teams' superstar/core players should mainly be acquired in the draft (especially, in a cap world).  If CG becomes GM, (I would assume) his tenure would perhaps be more comparable to when we had Gillis: were trading and FA would be the main source of talent cause his drafting record was atrocious - hindsight. JBs' background is from being a scout and CG is more so from a lawyer & business perspective - like Gillis who was an agent/lawyer.  Perhaps he would be a better Team President rather than GM ?  

 

Just curious, you had mentioned Chris Gear as an internal option but you never mentioned any external option - any suggestion ? 

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Despite the growing pains associated with our imperfect GM - hindsight - the team is still trending in the right direction and just like any journey there will be speed bumps or detours along the way.  With hindsight, JB does deserved the criticism but with some context some of the decision can also be defended.   Moving forward, I am more interested to see, if JB & "his cronies" are actually evolving into becoming better decision makers for the Canucks cause our young core are also evolving and they will require the right support to compete at a high level. Iam not really buying your grim outlook of the teams future cause there is still enough talent in the team to be competitive.  In a couple of years the bloated contract will be off the books and this roster will look very different; hopefully JB will be given a chance to win with his core.

 

Did a quick google on Chris Gear and his credentials are excellent.  Personally, I would still prefer our bumbling (first time) GM heading to the draft with his eye for talent cause a teams' superstar/core players should mainly be acquired in the draft (especially, in a cap world).  If CG becomes GM, (I would assume) his tenure would perhaps be more comparable to when we had Gillis: were trading and FA would be the main source of talent cause his drafting record was atrocious - hindsight. JBs' background is from being a scout and CG is more so from a lawyer & business perspective - like Gillis who was an agent/lawyer.  Perhaps he would be a better Team President rather than GM ?  

 

Just curious, you had mentioned Chris Gear as an internal option but you never mentioned any external option - any suggestion ? 

CG was only recently promoted to AGM, and being promoted to GM in that short of a span is not strange at all? He's barely gotten his feet wet!

All the mistakes that Benning supposedly have made will likely be made by a completely green GM. Great suggestion of a replacement, eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 9:25 PM, ken kaniff said:

There’s no reasoning with the pro Benning crowd. Apparently this is exactly how you build a team by overpaying on borderline NHL players and letting our actual assets walk in FA with very reasonable contracts. 
 

This is the highest level hockey in the world, there is no room for “learning on the job”. He has made some good moves but overall I’d say the negatives outnumber (NOT OUTWEIGHT) the pros.
 

I don’t hate Benning, I feel he has made some good moves and certainly hasn’t been as bad as some other GMs but I don’t want a GM that just isn’t as bad as others. I want a GM that’s good and can build a team without the many, many setback JB has put upon himself. 
 

This is why I called Benning supporters just like Trump supporters. You won’t get any sort of coherent response from many of the Benning supporters. Just memes because it’s easy. I don’t think they’re stupid for supporting Benning, we’re definitely on the right track but I think we can get to the end goal a lot quicker and smoother with a better GM. 

Are you pro long contracts or against those?

And which GM is it you consider to be good.

 

By the way our core players are 19 and 20 years old... getting a new GM won't make them mature quicker.

Believe it was posted in another thread, that in the last 20 years only 2 teams achieved to win the SC with their superstars on ELC's, so if that is what is expected from our GM, the bar is perhaps slightly high?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 9:59 PM, -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.

Cheers AJ.... 

This point seems to be so easily forgotten in this discussion.

Never hear it said that Canucks haven't picked top 4 since the Sedins in 99....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • SNuck changed the title to [Discussion] Moving on from Jim Benning
4 hours ago, spook007 said:

Are you pro long contracts or against those?

And which GM is it you consider to be good.

 

By the way our core players are 19 and 20 years old... getting a new GM won't make them mature quicker.

Believe it was posted in another thread, that in the last 20 years only 2 teams achieved to win the SC with their superstars on ELC's, so if that is what is expected from our GM, the bar is perhaps slightly high?

Ditto, the creator of this thread seems to believe there is a manual on how to be a GM in the NHL.  Even the so called, "experienced" GM had to go through growing pains to evolve and these GM's are not readily made available by there respective teams for good reasons. 

 

Personally, the best approach (as fan) is to look at the general direction of the team rather than nitpick on past mistakes (using hindsight) to frame a narrative.  Atleast, name an alternative to support your argument - unless the alternative you are suggesting is yourself !?

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...