Sign in to follow this  
Alain Vigneault

[Discussion] Moving on from Jim Benning

Recommended Posts

Mike Gillis was also a rookie and yet, we saw one of our most successful periods under him.  Being a "rookie" means nothing if you learn from your mistakes early on and importantly, make use of your staff.  Under this administration, we've seen a long-time AGM leave after one season, the team president "amicably" leave (he was fired), and the director of scouting leave (largely responsible for our best period of drafting ever).  What does that tell you about the front office?

 

I've stated many times that most of Benning's mistakes are not one-offs or unlucky; they are patterns and a result of being too stubborn and too late to change.

 

There are no perfect or ideal candidates.  Jim Benning once upon a time looked like a great candidate with his impressive scouting background and his work as an AGM on a team that won a Stanley Cup.  Paul Fenton was regarded as the next best thing for years and when finally given the chance, he was sacked in just over a year while being Minnesota's GM.  We can debate new candidates all we want but the assessment comes from doing the job.

 

My point is in all of this is that we've now seen 6 years of Benning be the GM and that gives us 6 years of sample size to assess him.  Throughout his tenure we've seen much of these setbacks and excuses given.  First, it was "team stuck with all these NTCs/NMCs" so we couldn't get good trade returns, then it was "can't rebuild with Sedins" as an excuse for not accumulating more picks and prospects, and now years later, when the Sedins are gone and all of the "bad" Gillis contracts are gone, we are left with...more bad contracts with NTCs/NMCs and heavy money that's now forced us to walk away from many of quality free-agents.  And sure, people will say "but he brought in Hughes/ Pettersson" and prospect development is better and all of that is true.  But here's the thing:  you don't get props for numerously picking talent in the top 10.  Picks are lottery-protected for a reason when they're traded and its because there's a higher guarantee for a great future NHL player in that range.  But even if you do want to say that he hit homeruns with that Pettersson (thanks to Linden and Brackett) pick and Hughes pick, you can't gloss over the fact that his administration passed up on Nylanders/Ehlers for Virtanen, Sergachev/Tkachuk for Juolevi.

 

Brian Burke was given 6 years (4 playoff appearances), Dave Nonis was given 4 years (1 playoff appearance), and Mike Gillis was given 6 years (5 playoff appearances, 1 SC appearance).  In 6 years, Benning has two playoff appearances, with this second playoff appearance being a huge *** since the Canucks weren't in a playoff spot at the time of the league shutting down in March.  He has an inferior resume to Burke and Gillis, and may only be marginally better than Nonis.

 

This isn't about hating Benning.  It's about realizing that he's just not that great and it would be worth exploring another name (Chris Gear for example).

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


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

Mike Gillis was also a rookie and yet, we saw one of our most successful periods under him.  Being a "rookie" means nothing if you learn from your mistakes early on and importantly, make use of your staff.  Under this administration, we've seen a long-time AGM leave after one season, the team president "amicably" leave (he was fired), and the director of scouting leave (largely responsible for our best period of drafting ever).  What does that tell you about the front office?

 

I've stated many times that most of Benning's mistakes are not one-offs or unlucky; they are patterns and a result of being too stubborn and too late to change.

 

There are no perfect or ideal candidates.  Jim Benning once upon a time looked like a great candidate with his impressive scouting background and his work as an AGM on a team that won a Stanley Cup.  Paul Fenton was regarded as the next best thing for years and when finally given the chance, he was sacked in just over a year while being Minnesota's GM.  We can debate new candidates all we want but the assessment comes from doing the job.

 

My point is in all of this is that we've now seen 6 years of Benning be the GM and that gives us 6 years of sample size to assess him.  Throughout his tenure we've seen much of these setbacks and excuses given.  First, it was "team stuck with all these NTCs/NMCs" so we couldn't get good trade returns, then it was "can't rebuild with Sedins" as an excuse for not accumulating more picks and prospects, and now years later, when the Sedins are gone and all of the "bad" Gillis contracts are gone, we are left with...more bad contracts with NTCs/NMCs and heavy money that's now forced us to walk away from many of quality free-agents.  And sure, people will say "but he brought in Hughes/ Pettersson" and prospect development is better and all of that is true.  But here's the thing:  you don't get props for numerously picking talent in the top 10.  Picks are lottery-protected for a reason when they're traded and its because there's a higher guarantee for a great future NHL player in that range.  But even if you do want to say that he hit homeruns with that Pettersson (thanks to Linden and Brackett) pick and Hughes pick, you can't gloss over the fact that his administration passed up on Nylanders/Ehlers for Virtanen, Sergachev/Tkachuk for Juolevi.

 

Brian Burke was given 6 years (4 playoff appearances), Dave Nonis was given 4 years (1 playoff appearance), and Mike Gillis was given 6 years (5 playoff appearances, 1 SC appearance).  In 6 years, Benning has two playoff appearances, with this second playoff appearance being a huge *** since the Canucks weren't in a playoff spot at the time of the league shutting down in March.  He has an inferior resume to Burke and Gillis, and may only be marginally better than Nonis.

 

This isn't about hating Benning.  It's about realizing that he's just not that great and it would be worth exploring another name (Chris Gear for example).

you do realize for most of those years we were rebuilding because of what Gillis did. Benning had to strip this team down and sure he might have overpaid on some contracts, but at the time nobody want to come to play for the Canucks. it is a different story now. Benning is our Gm, take a look around the league and you will not see one perfect GM. 

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I'm not a big Benning fan, and I even agree with a lot of what @Alain Vigneault said above.

 

That said, it's hard to argue with Benning's track record of identifying and developing young talent. Back-to-back-to-back Calder nominees don't just happen - especially with none of them being lottery picks. These players were groomed to be successful, and that involves management, coaching, and even the veterans contracted to play alongside them. It's obvious that guys like Beagle and Roussel are overpaid, but at the same time, their presence and the success of other players don't exist in a vacuum.

 

A lot of people say Hughes, Pettersson, and Boeser would be successful in any environment. Having been an impressionable young adult at one point myself, I disagree. 

 

However, there comes a point with a team where it goes from accumulating talent, to actually getting aggressive and winning. Is Benning the right GM for that? Before I'd say no. But now, I'm willing to wait and see. Because the Vegas series showed that as nice as our run was, we weren't nearly as good as the true contenders. And bringing back the same cast of 30 year-olds back to try to grow into a contender... while likely pleasing most of the fanbase, just want going to cut it. We actually needed to take a step back, and look for better players, both externally (Schmidt), and from letting the other young guys get a chance to make an impact. It was a tough decision, but a necessary one to get to the next level.

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bree2 said:

you do realize for most of those years we were rebuilding because of what Gillis did. Benning had to strip this team down and sure he might have overpaid on some contracts, but at the time nobody want to come to play for the Canucks. it is a different story now. Benning is our Gm, take a look around the league and you will not see one perfect GM. 

I don't know who you are but you've spent the last 48 hours confuse reacting all my posts and shadowing everything I do.  Seems like bullying behaviour to me, maybe @Robert Long could confirm...

 

Anyways, its common knowledge that Mike Gillis was fired (in addition to his mismanagement of the Schneider/Luongo situation) because he wanted to rebuild and ownership wouldn't allow it.  Why do you think Benning/Linden never used the word "rebuild" in the beginning and insisting on "retooling"?

 

Only in hindsight was the asset cupboard empty.  Horvat, Kassian, Schroeder, Shinkaruk, Jensen were five 1st round picks.  Other prospects like Subban, Cassels, and Rodin were also seen as good pieces at the time.  The NTCs/NMCs given out allowed us to retain many contributing pieces from our team for less money.  Consider Hansen and Higgins were 40 pt players and made only 2.5M because of movement protections, Edler a legitimate #2 and only making 5M, Sedins for 7M.  And yes, cap goes up, prices go up but in 2020, we have 10 pt Beagle making 3M with trade protection, ICU patient Ferland making 3.5M with trade protection, and character guy Sutter making 4.25M with trade protection.  To add to that, virtually the same team (subtract Kesler/Garrrison and add Bonino/Miller/Vrbata) comfortably made the playoffs the next season, and they did it by finishing ahead of the season prior President's trophy winning San Joe Sharks and season prior defending cup champs Los Angeles Kings.  So was there really a huge mess left behind?

 

If the problem is attracting free-agents, then sign free-agents who you want to play for a fair term and dollar amount.  Fans can forgive overpaying for 1 or 2 free-agents.  Doing it 5-6 times is egregious.  We may have found a way out of the Gagner/Del Zotto signings and perhaps managed to find solutionl with the Baerstchi/Gudbranson extensions, but we're suffering now because of the Beagle/Ferland/Roussel/Myers deals.

 

Nobody expects a perfect GM but it isn't outlandish to expect your GM to do better than what he has done.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Mike Gillis was also a rookie and yet, we saw one of our most successful periods under him.  Being a "rookie" means nothing if you learn from your mistakes early on and importantly, make use of your staff.  Under this administration, we've seen a long-time AGM leave after one season, the team president "amicably" leave (he was fired), and the director of scouting leave (largely responsible for our best period of drafting ever).  What does that tell you about the front office?

 

I've stated many times that most of Benning's mistakes are not one-offs or unlucky; they are patterns and a result of being too stubborn and too late to change.

 

There are no perfect or ideal candidates.  Jim Benning once upon a time looked like a great candidate with his impressive scouting background and his work as an AGM on a team that won a Stanley Cup.  Paul Fenton was regarded as the next best thing for years and when finally given the chance, he was sacked in just over a year while being Minnesota's GM.  We can debate new candidates all we want but the assessment comes from doing the job.

 

My point is in all of this is that we've now seen 6 years of Benning be the GM and that gives us 6 years of sample size to assess him.  Throughout his tenure we've seen much of these setbacks and excuses given.  First, it was "team stuck with all these NTCs/NMCs" so we couldn't get good trade returns, then it was "can't rebuild with Sedins" as an excuse for not accumulating more picks and prospects, and now years later, when the Sedins are gone and all of the "bad" Gillis contracts are gone, we are left with...more bad contracts with NTCs/NMCs and heavy money that's now forced us to walk away from many of quality free-agents.  And sure, people will say "but he brought in Hughes/ Pettersson" and prospect development is better and all of that is true.  But here's the thing:  you don't get props for numerously picking talent in the top 10.  Picks are lottery-protected for a reason when they're traded and its because there's a higher guarantee for a great future NHL player in that range.  But even if you do want to say that he hit homeruns with that Pettersson (thanks to Linden and Brackett) pick and Hughes pick, you can't gloss over the fact that his administration passed up on Nylanders/Ehlers for Virtanen, Sergachev/Tkachuk for Juolevi.

 

Brian Burke was given 6 years (4 playoff appearances), Dave Nonis was given 4 years (1 playoff appearance), and Mike Gillis was given 6 years (5 playoff appearances, 1 SC appearance).  In 6 years, Benning has two playoff appearances, with this second playoff appearance being a huge *** since the Canucks weren't in a playoff spot at the time of the league shutting down in March.  He has an inferior resume to Burke and Gillis, and may only be marginally better than Nonis.

 

This isn't about hating Benning.  It's about realizing that he's just not that great and it would be worth exploring another name (Chris Gear for example).

Although Gillis was a rookie, you refuse to acknowledge that he was gifted with elite-level Sedins (82+ points), Kesler, Burrows, Edler, Ohlund Salo, etc. Benning never had such a luxury for these players: Older but consistent Edler, Kesler, Noticeably declining Sedins,Taylor Pyatt, Kassian. In fact, Benning made a lot of additions (some worked, some didn't) to fill roster holes, as well as to replenish the drained prospect pool.

 

The time periods you talk about mean nothing when the team were at different circumstances. It takes longer to rebuild a team than the time it would take to continue a run with fresh players.

 

The point is that you remain biased even despite the evidence in front of you. As any GM has made bad trades, not a word about you is heard about Gillis' bad acquisitions. The Ballard trade likely tops the chart. For those unaware, this was what was used to acquire him.

 

Michael Grabner (1st rounder, 14th overall pick who disappointed at training camp) + 1st round pick (25th overall - eventually was Quinton Howden, who was a bust)

+ Steve Bernier (originally acquired by Gillis using a 2nd round pick and a 3rd round pick from different years).

 

So Ballard equally two first round picks, a 2nd rounder, and a 3rd? This is a laughably bad trade. Gillis years' was a gallery of mismanagement of picks. It's funny that Benning gets this same criticism but little is said about Gillis by current complainers.

Can you imagine if Schneider had turned into Brodeur, while we were stuck with "poor skating" Horvat, and missing the playoffs every year? I can't IMAGINE what the Canuck fans would be like. They'd be LIVID. Cam Neely 2.0.

 

For all the trades that Benning gets flack on, with Linden Vey being at the top of the list, Gillis has thrown far more 2nd round picks than Benning has. We also acquired players like Horvat (Good pick by GIllis, but horrible trade), Schroeder, Hodgson/Kassian, Shinkaruk, and virtually no defensive or goaltending prospects.

 

You could argue that the team was in a different state - cup contending - which is completely true, but this is also acknowledges that Benning was clearly not in the same state (why else would Gillis get fired? Think about it).

 

Therefore, Benning really doesn't deserve as much flack as he does, considering Gillis DID NOT do a good job with regards to player development/draft picks. This doesn't make me a Benning bro. I'll look at every situation fairly and make a comparison. By no means have I ever said Benning was perfect. But he gets unfair criticism that seems to be forgotten when compared to Gillis.


You CANNOT have an honest discussion without looking at the good and bad aspects of each GM.

 

10 minutes ago, bree2 said:

you do realize for most of those years we were rebuilding because of what Gillis did. Benning had to strip this team down and sure he might have overpaid on some contracts, but at the time nobody want to come to play for the Canucks. it is a different story now. Benning is our Gm, take a look around the league and you will not see one perfect GM. 

Canuck fans love to rewrite history, and this is what it is. People forgot what it was like under Gillis. There was no backup plan because the team was very close to winning the cup for several years. But in that process, Gillis developed few players as prospects, including defensive/goalie prospects (minus Tanev).

 

1 minute ago, D-Money said:

First off, I'm not a big Benning fan, and I even agree with a lot of what @Alain Vigneault said above.

 

That said, it's hard to argue with Benning's track record of identifying and developing young talent. Back-to-back-to-back Calder nominees don't just happen - especially with none of them being lottery picks. These players were groomed to be successful, and that involves management, coaching, and even the veterans contracted to play alongside them. It's obvious that guys like Beagle and Roussel are overpaid, but at the same time, their presence and the success of other players don't exist in a vacuum.

 

A lot of people say Hughes, Pettersson, and Boeser would be successful in any environment. Having been an impressionable young adult at one point myself, I disagree. 

 

However, there comes a point with a team where it goes from accumulating talent, to actually getting aggressive and winning. Is Benning the right GM for that? Before I'd say no. But now, I'm willing to wait and see. Because the Vegas series showed that as nice as our run was, we weren't nearly as good as the true contenders. And bringing back the same cast of 30 year-olds back to try to grow into a contender... while likely pleasing most of the fanbase, just want going to cut it. We actually needed to take a step back, and look for better players, both externally (Schmidt), and from letting the other young guys get a chance to make an impact. It was a tough decision, but a necessary one to get to the next level.

You missed the point. If you're not a big Benning fan, then it's not a surprise that you'll agree what @Alain Vigneault said. The issue is that he has given Gillis praise while excluding Benning of the same in his analysis.

There's a reason Gillis was fired, and Benning has miraculously lasted longer, despite Gillis pulling off that magical 2011 run. People like OP like to exclude the accomplishments of Benning for drafting because it would severely destroy their narrative.

 

In our discussions in the status update, this guy (and others) have tried to exclude Pettersson/Hughes as part of Benning's work. They're afraid to admit that Gillis has never produced results like that.

 

How can people have a legitimate discussion about the team if people choose to find evidence to support their biased narrative, rather than see the whole picture? This is just so irrational.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Mike Gillis was also a rookie and yet, we saw one of our most successful periods under him.  Being a "rookie" means nothing if you learn from your mistakes early on and importantly, make use of your staff.  Under this administration, we've seen a long-time AGM leave after one season, the team president "amicably" leave (he was fired), and the director of scouting leave (largely responsible for our best period of drafting ever).  What does that tell you about the front office?

 

I've stated many times that most of Benning's mistakes are not one-offs or unlucky; they are patterns and a result of being too stubborn and too late to change.

 

There are no perfect or ideal candidates.  Jim Benning once upon a time looked like a great candidate with his impressive scouting background and his work as an AGM on a team that won a Stanley Cup.  Paul Fenton was regarded as the next best thing for years and when finally given the chance, he was sacked in just over a year while being Minnesota's GM.  We can debate new candidates all we want but the assessment comes from doing the job.

 

My point is in all of this is that we've now seen 6 years of Benning be the GM and that gives us 6 years of sample size to assess him.  Throughout his tenure we've seen much of these setbacks and excuses given.  First, it was "team stuck with all these NTCs/NMCs" so we couldn't get good trade returns, then it was "can't rebuild with Sedins" as an excuse for not accumulating more picks and prospects, and now years later, when the Sedins are gone and all of the "bad" Gillis contracts are gone, we are left with...more bad contracts with NTCs/NMCs and heavy money that's now forced us to walk away from many of quality free-agents.  And sure, people will say "but he brought in Hughes/ Pettersson" and prospect development is better and all of that is true.  But here's the thing:  you don't get props for numerously picking talent in the top 10.  Picks are lottery-protected for a reason when they're traded and its because there's a higher guarantee for a great future NHL player in that range.  But even if you do want to say that he hit homeruns with that Pettersson (thanks to Linden and Brackett) pick and Hughes pick, you can't gloss over the fact that his administration passed up on Nylanders/Ehlers for Virtanen, Sergachev/Tkachuk for Juolevi.

 

Brian Burke was given 6 years (4 playoff appearances), Dave Nonis was given 4 years (1 playoff appearance), and Mike Gillis was given 6 years (5 playoff appearances, 1 SC appearance).  In 6 years, Benning has two playoff appearances, with this second playoff appearance being a huge *** since the Canucks weren't in a playoff spot at the time of the league shutting down in March.  He has an inferior resume to Burke and Gillis, and may only be marginally better than Nonis.

 

This isn't about hating Benning.  It's about realizing that he's just not that great and it would be worth exploring another name (Chris Gear for example).

I'm not a Gillis hater, and thoroughly enjoyed our time under Gillis, but there is a world of difference between, what Mike Gilles took over, and what Jim Benning took over...Starting with the young Sedins, as well as Kesler, Burrows, Hansen, Raymond, Rypien, Ohlund, Edler, Bieksa, Mitchell, Salo ( I may have few wrong, but think the picture is clear). 

Long contracts NMC/NTC galore was handed out by Gilles. When he was fired, the team was tied down and Benning handcuffed as a result.

And there plenty misses under Gilles as well...

Drafting wise there was Horvat and Hutten as well as my Cody, but in general a pretty poor haul (later draft picks of course).

 

In 2 years is the time we are starting to make noises for real, Benning deserves to get the first shot at it with the new core...

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 2

Share this post


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

Although Gillis was a rookie, you refuse to acknowledge that he was gifted with elite-level Sedins (82+ points), Kesler, Burrows, Edler, Ohlund Salo, etc. Benning never had such a luxury for these players: Older but consistent Edler, Kesler, Noticeably declining Sedins,Taylor Pyatt, Kassian. In fact, Benning made a lot of additions (some worked, some didn't) to fill roster holes, as well as to replenish the drained prospect pool.

 

The time periods you talk about mean nothing when the team were at different circumstances. It takes longer to rebuild a team than the time it would take to continue a run with fresh players.

 

The point is that you remain biased even despite the evidence in front of you. As any GM has made bad trades, not a word about you is heard about Gillis' bad acquisitions. The Ballard trade likely tops the chart. For those unaware, this was what was used to acquire him.

 

Michael Grabner (1st rounder, 14th overall pick who disappointed at training camp) + 1st round pick (25th overall - eventually was Quinton Howden, who was a bust)

+ Steve Bernier (originally acquired by Gillis using a 2nd round pick and a 3rd round pick from different years).

 

So Ballard equally two first round picks, a 2nd rounder, and a 3rd? This is a laughably bad trade. Gillis years' was a gallery of mismanagement of picks. It's funny that Benning gets this same criticism but little is said about Gillis by current complainers.

Can you imagine if Schneider had turned into Brodeur, while we were stuck with "poor skating" Horvat, and missing the playoffs every year? I can't IMAGINE what the Canuck fans would be like. They'd be LIVID. Cam Neely 2.0.

 

For all the trades that Benning gets flack on, with Linden Vey being at the top of the list, Gillis has thrown far more 2nd round picks than Benning has. We also acquired players like Horvat (Good pick by GIllis, but horrible trade), Schroeder, Hodgson/Kassian, Shinkaruk, and virtually no defensive or goaltending prospects.

 

You could argue that the team was in a different state - cup contending - which is completely true, but this is also acknowledges that Benning was clearly not in the same state (why else would Gillis get fired? Think about it).

 

Therefore, Benning really doesn't deserve as much flack as he does, considering Gillis DID NOT do a good job with regards to player development/draft picks. This doesn't make me a Benning bro. I'll look at every situation fairly and make a comparison. By no means have I ever said Benning was perfect. But he gets unfair criticism that seems to be forgotten when compared to Gillis.


You CANNOT have an honest discussion without looking at the good and bad aspects of each GM.

Lol that's a lot of revisionism.

 

Sedins, sure.  Keep in mind, players like Samuelsson and Ehrhoff (Gillis acquisitions) turned them into 100 pt players.

Kesler, no.  Him turning into a 70 pt player had nothing to do with his potential and everything to do with the coach's deployment and the addition of Mats Sundin (Gillis acquisition).

Burrows, hell no.  Again, coach deployment

Edler, yes

Ohlund, no.  Cut him loose after a year

Salo, sure.

 

You argument would have been better served if you used players like Schneider, Hansen, Bieksa or argued that he inherited a top coach in Alain Vigneault (I might be biased here)

--

The Bernier trade was a mistake.  It was also a mistake that Gillis never repeated again because he never traded picks for young talent in that vein ever again.  Benning tried this numerous times and debatably only hit with Baertschi.  If Benning is such a great developer of talent, imagine where we'd be with all the 2nds/3rds/4ths we kept.

 

The Ballard trade is only a mistake in hindsight.  O'Brien/Rome weren't good enough.  Mitchell was coming off a concussion.  There were rumours that Hamhuis was going to sign but if he didn't sign, where would that have left us on the LD side?  At the time, Ballard was stuck behind bad teams in Phoenix/Florida, but hit a ton, blocked a ton of shots, consistently put up 30 pts, was durable, and was signed to a very fair 6 x 4.25M contract.  The return was a top 9 RW, a skilled RW  prospect who wasn't going to play ahead of Burrows/Samuelsson on the RW side, and the 25th ovr.  We also got Victor Oreskovich who didn't really bring much to the table offensively but did do a more effective job than Bernier at being a physical player in the bottom six.  It's a shame it didn't work out but it certainly wasn't a bad trade.  If you're going to play that game, Benning moved Shinkaruk (1st) for Granlund (2nd), Kassian (1st) + 5th for Prust (4th),  Mallet (2nd) + 3rd for Pedan (3rd).  So much great pick management -_-

 

Neverthless, Gillis never made that type of trade again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bree2 said:

you do realize for most of those years we were rebuilding because of what Gillis did. Benning had to strip this team down and sure he might have overpaid on some contracts, but at the time nobody want to come to play for the Canucks. it is a different story now. Benning is our Gm, take a look around the league and you will not see one perfect GM. 

Ditto, some context: Gillis obviously was going all in and was perhaps planning a complete rebuild when that group wins the cup.  The Bruins winning the cup was probably not in Gillis' plan and when the 2011 finals went against him he seems to have no cheap succession plan due to a weak prospect list he has created. The author has clearly chosen a side - wants JB gone for past mistakes and quickly disregards Gillis mistakes that JB inherited; the biggest of which was leaving a prospect cupboard bare.  It took JB, awhile to fill that cupboard and to finally have a team filled with his players & prospects.  As stated the team is trending in the right direction and starting next year some of these bloated contract will be off the books.  Even with context some of these contracts can be justified in supporting the young & inexperienced core.  Iam much more interested, in the contracts that JB & "his cronies" (which includes AGM and head legal counsel - Chris Gear) will be able to negotiate with next years RFA's.

 

If the team is trending downward, the OP would probably have more merit.  I do agree that it can be frustrating with JB, when looking at his past moves but when you look at where the team is trending - it still seems to indicate a plan was actually in place with a solid succession plan through the draft & developement to support it (but who really knows what is going to happen in the future).  Of course, having a plan is very different to the actual execution of it cause no one has the benefit of a 'reset button' or hindsight.   Doing a quick google, it seems to indicate that our current owners had never had to go through a complete rebuilt during there tenure - 'this' was probably why there was resistance to doing a rebuild and instead comprised on a retool.  Also, inheriting a weak list of prospect(s) meant JB had to create succession plan by filling our team with talented & cheap prospect(s) in the short term to support the age group of Bo (the core at that time).

 

Imo, the author of this thread cannot be convinced to see it any other way and trying to do so will only lead to a discussion with no end  - 'this' perhaps is the real reason for this thread ?  At the very least, it is nice to see so many passionate Canuck fans still supporting the team - despite the bumbling GM & "his cronies".  GCG!

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillis inherited the Sedins and Luongo as legitimate players and that's it.  Kesler was a bottom six center, Burrows was a 4th liner, Bieksa a #4, Edler a sophomore with potential, Raymond a rookie, Schneider and Grabner as prospects.

 

This "amazing" team had missed the playoffs 2/3 seasons upon being taken over.

 

He may hot have been stuck with NTCs/NMCs when taking over, but please don't argue that Gillis was handed a Stanley Cup contender just to protect Jim Benning.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's hilarious about this is how much the narrative changes to protect Benning.

 

When probed about why his rebuild was suspect and unorthodox, the reason is that he was told to win from ownership or had to make do with the team he had

 

When asked why he didn't win then during the last five seasons, the reason is that he was rebuilding and had bad contracts that handicapped him.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Gillis inherited the Sedins and Luongo as legitimate players and that's it.  Kesler was a bottom six center, Burrows was a 4th liner, Bieksa a #4, Edler a sophomore with potential, Raymond a rookie, Schneider and Grabner as prospects.

 

This "amazing" team had missed the playoffs 2/3 seasons upon being taken over.

 

He may hot have been stuck with NTCs/NMCs when taking over, but please don't argue that Gillis was handed a Stanley Cup contender just to protect Jim Benning.

Kesler a bottom 6? Burrows a 4th liner? sounds like you never watched our team at that time!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2008, Kesler had 37 pts - middle six numbers

In 2008, Burrows had 31 pts - middle six numbers

 

At best, they were third-line players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fail merry go round GIF

 

Round and round we go !  Oh well, the doldrums of a quiet offseason.

Edited by ShawnAntoski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benning is the most exciting GM this team has ever had by miles.  He's just so ballsy and takes huge risks.  Some work out, some don't and yet here we are with a pretty damn good hockey team. 

 

For this season he decided last year's D just wasn't good enough.  Status quo GM brings back Tanev/Stetcher.  Not GMJB, he adds Schmidt instead who could be the JT MIller of the d corp of this hockey team. 


 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Lol that's a lot of revisionism.

 

Sedins, sure.  Keep in mind, players like Samuelsson and Ehrhoff (Gillis acquisitions) turned them into 100 pt players.

Kesler, no.  Him turning into a 70 pt player had nothing to do with his potential and everything to do with the coach's deployment and the addition of Mats Sundin (Gillis acquisition).

Burrows, hell no.  Again, coach deployment

Edler, yes

Ohlund, no.  Cut him loose after a year

Salo, sure.

 

You argument would have been better served if you used players like Schneider, Hansen, Bieksa or argued that he inherited a top coach in Alain Vigneault (I might be biased here)

--

The Bernier trade was a mistake.  It was also a mistake that Gillis never repeated again because he never traded picks for young talent in that vein ever again.  Benning tried this numerous times and debatably only hit with Baertschi.  If Benning is such a great developer of talent, imagine where we'd be with all the 2nds/3rds/4ths we kept.

 

The Ballard trade is only a mistake in hindsight.  O'Brien/Rome weren't good enough.  Mitchell was coming off a concussion.  There were rumours that Hamhuis was going to sign but if he didn't sign, where would that have left us on the LD side?  At the time, Ballard was stuck behind bad teams in Phoenix/Florida, but hit a ton, blocked a ton of shots, consistently put up 30 pts, was durable, and was signed to a very fair 6 x 4.25M contract.  The return was a top 9 RW, a skilled RW  prospect who wasn't going to play ahead of Burrows/Samuelsson on the RW side, and the 25th ovr.  We also got Victor Oreskovich who didn't really bring much to the table offensively but did do a more effective job than Bernier at being a physical player in the bottom six.  It's a shame it didn't work out but it certainly wasn't a bad trade.  If you're going to play that game, Benning moved Shinkaruk (1st) for Granlund (2nd), Kassian (1st) + 5th for Prust (4th),  Mallet (2nd) + 3rd for Pedan (3rd).  So much great pick management -_-

 

Neverthless, Gillis never made that type of trade again.

You really should fact check your stuff, especially when you're accusing people of revisionism.

 

Kesler in 2008 was third for most points, just under the Sedins at 82 points. Name a fourth line center, as you described Kesler, that scored 26 goals.

 

And Ballard was a horrible trade at the very start.

 

two first round picks, one second round pick, a third.

I do distinctly remember him getting blasted for this trade on CDC, and yet you are rewriting history as if it was a necessary one. Did you know that Ballard was overpaid for his production? Edler made 1 million less and had equal or better production. Once Ballard was here, he was a poor fit.

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


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

In 2008, Kesler had 37 pts - middle six numbers

In 2008, Burrows had 31 pts - middle six numbers

 

At best, they were third-line players.

2008-09 NHL Season stats. Are you so biased that you can't even read the stats sheets?

 

Player GP G A Pts +/- PIM
Daniel Sedin 82 31 51 82 +24 36
Henrik Sedin 82 22 60 82 +22 48
Ryan Kesler 82 26 33 59 +8 61

 

Name a middle six player that scores 26 goals. Kbai.

 

Burrows also got 28 goals playing with the Sedins. He wasn't really middle six.

Edited by Dazzle

Share this post


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

You really should fact check your stuff, especially when you're accusing people of revisionism.

 

Kesler in 2008 was third for most points, just under the Sedins at 82 points. Name a fourth line center, as you described Kesler, that scored 26 goals.

 

And Ballard was a horrible trade at the very start.

 

two first round picks, one second round pick, a third.

I do distinctly remember him getting blasted for this trade on CDC, and yet you are rewriting history as if it was a necessary one. Did you know that Ballard was overpaid for his production? Edler made 1 million less and had equal or better production. Once Ballard was here, he was a poor fit.

I said Kesler was a bottom-six center.  He scored 21 goals (fact-checked that a post ago) and was behind the Sedins and Naslund in points (from memory).  So, not 3rd in scoring and even if he was, 37 pts being 3rd best in a team just proves how bad the team really was and how much Gillis and AV did to turn it around quickly.

 

Burrows was a bit more productive than I remembered but again, he was a 3rd liner until AV put him with the twins.

 

Nobody bashed Ballard being brought in.  People may have been sour that we moved a 1st or "gave up"on Grabner but anybody that watched hockey knew that he was a legit top-4 defenceman.  Edler made 1M less because he was still in his sophomore contract.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

2008-09 NHL Season stats. Are you so biased that you can't even read the stats sheets?

 

Player GP G A Pts +/- PIM
Daniel Sedin 82 31 51 82 +24 36
Henrik Sedin 82 22 60 82 +22 48
Ryan Kesler 82 26 33 59 +8 61

 

Name a middle six player that scores 26 goals. Kbai.

 

Burrows also got 28 goals playing with the Sedins. He wasn't really middle six.

Until AV switched up his lines DURING the 2008/09 season, Burrows - Kesler - Hansen was the third line on the team.  They were not anywhere near those numbers as third liners.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

2008-09 NHL Season stats. Are you so biased that you can't even read the stats sheets?

 

Player GP G A Pts +/- PIM
Daniel Sedin 82 31 51 82 +24 36
Henrik Sedin 82 22 60 82 +22 48
Ryan Kesler 82 26 33 59 +8 61

 

Name a middle six player that scores 26 goals. Kbai.

 

Burrows also got 28 goals playing with the Sedins. He wasn't really middle six.

The numbers he posted were from the 08 season. These are stats from the 09 season. Not picking a side just clarifying.

  • Hydration 1

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.