[Discussion] Moving on from Jim Benning

[Dazzle]

14 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

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.

I remember bashing the trade and the return, so yes saying that "nobody bashed Ballard" is 100 percent revisionism. Also, this trade was quite poorly received by a lot of the fanbase, with some justifying this trade because of Grabner's low value and trying to get something back of value, except we didn't.

[Dazzle]

14 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

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

He said Gillis inherited these players. I chose the very first season that Gillis stepped into the GM position. So yes, he misrepresented his argument.

[AV.]

Just now, Dazzle said:

He said Gillis inherited these players. I chose the very first season that Gillis stepped into the GM position. So yes, he misrepresented his argument.

Lol no, that's not how it works.

 

If Benning and Green are fired today and replaced with new guys, do the new guys inherit the Pettersson coming off a 70 pt season or the Pettersson with 0 pts to date because the new season hasn't started.

 

Mike Gillis was hired in April of 2008.  He inherited guys with 2008 stats, not 2009 stats.

[JeremyCuddles]

Just now, Dazzle said:

He said Gillis inherited these players. I chose the very first season that Gillis stepped into the GM position. So yes, he misrepresented his argument.

My bad, my bad. Gillis did inherit a lot of the better players though. His real strength was surrounding them with talented bottom 6 players like Higgins and Manny. And adding Hamhuis and Ehrhoff to the blueline. 

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Lol no, that's not how it works.

 

If Benning and Green are fired today and replaced with new guys, do the new guys inherit the Pettersson coming off a 70 pt season or the Pettersson with 0 pts to date because the new season hasn't started.

 

Mike Gillis was hired in April of 2008.  He inherited guys with 2008 stats, not 2009 stats.

That actually shows how good the players were that year. You can't therefore use the declining argument because you can see the team was under two different circumstances. Most notably, Benning inherited a pair of exhausted Sedins, as opposed to Gillis.

[AV.]

Just now, Dazzle said:

That actually shows how good the players were that year. You can't therefore use the declining argument because you can see the team was under two different circumstances. Most notably, Benning inherited a pair of exhausted Sedins, as opposed to Gillis.

I have to be honest, and I'll try to respectful, but I have no idea what the &^@# you're talking about.

 

In the 2007/08 season, Kesler and Burrows hit 30 pts.  The Canucks were not a playoff team

In the 2008/09 season (the first season of Mike Gillis), Kesler and Burrows hit higher pt totals.  The Canucks made the second round.

 

Gillis didn't make the players better nor did he inherit a group of players that were on the cusp of breaking out.  Coaching decisions and team decisions (such as bringing in Ryan Johnson, signing Pavol Demitra and Mats Sundin) made the team better and got more out of the existing Canuck players.

 

To demonstrate how foolish what you're saying is would be like saying Benning inherited a playoff team because in 2014/15 (his first season), the Canucks made the playoffs.  You see how that doesn't make sense?  The Canucks were a bottom six team the year before in 2013/14 and it was when they added Miller, Vrbata, Bonino that they made the playoffs again the next season.

 

I'm not saying Benning didn't inherit an older or an exhausted team.  I'm saying that (1) Gillis didn't inherit a Stanley Cup contender when he was hired nor did (2) Benning inherit a total mess when he was hired.

[Dazzle]

Just now, Alain Vigneault said:

I have to be honest, and I'll try to respectful, but I have no idea what the &^@# you're talking about.

 

In the 2007/08 season, Kesler and Burrows hit 30 pts.  The Canucks were not a playoff team

In the 2008/09 season (the first season of Mike Gillis), Kesler and Burrows hit higher pt totals.  The Canucks made the second round.

 

Gillis didn't make the players better nor did he inherit a group of players that were on the cusp of breaking out.  Coaching decisions and team decisions (such as bringing in Ryan Johnson, signing Pavol Demitra and Mats Sundin) made the team better and got more out of the existing Canuck players.

 

To demonstrate how foolish what you're saying is would be like saying Benning inherited a playoff team because in 2014/15 (his first season), the Canucks made the playoffs.  You see how that doesn't make sense?  The Canucks were a bottom six team the year before in 2013/14 and it was when they added Miller, Vrbata, Bonino that they made the playoffs again the next season.

 

I'm not saying Benning didn't inherit an older or an exhausted team.  I'm saying that (1) Gillis didn't inherit a Stanley Cup contender when he was hired nor did (2) Benning inherit a total mess when he was hired.

Actually he had the core pieces that Benning did not really have, as highlighted by the severe decline of the Sedins.

 

The most dishonest thing you've done through this to portray Gillis and Benning as having the same equal opportunities as each other, when that was most definitely not the case.

 

[ShawnAntoski]

39 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Benning supporters are as foolish as he is 

The OP, has chosen a side - fire JB and the only solution it seems is to hire him as GM (re hire - is that you MG, LOL !).  Regardless, I am enjoying the back and forth between Canuck fans of both eras.

Edited October 18, 2020 by ShawnAntoski

[ShawnAntoski]

Duplicate post

Edited October 18, 2020 by ShawnAntoski

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Actually he had the core pieces that Benning did not really have, as highlighted by the severe decline of the Sedins.

 

The most dishonest thing you've done through this to portray Gillis and Benning as having the same equal opportunities as each other, when that was most definitely not the case.

 

I'm not arguing they had the same opportunity.  I'm arguing that their situations were not so far apart.  

 

Gillis did not walk into a Stanley Cup contender waiting to break out and Benning didn't walk into a dumpster fire.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Alain Vigneault

[ShawnAntoski]

Anyone willing to bring in the Burke, Quinn, Nonis and etc tenures as part of this conversation ???

Edited October 18, 2020 by ShawnAntoski

[Dazzle]

2 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I'm not arguing they had the same opportunity.  I'm arguing that their situations were not so far apart.  

 

Gillis did not walk into a Stanley Cup contender waiting to break out and Benning didn't walk into a dumpster fire.

This point is very easy to refute.

 

If their situations were not so far apart, how do you explain the point totals of Sedins (the core of the team) during each of the GM'S tenure? You can clearly see a severe decline during Benning's time as he inherited the team. Don't play dumb.

 

Next, you have refused to address my points about player development. The prospect pool that Benning had was really bad for rebuilding. You can pretend that they have value, but their values were not the same return as you had when they were drafted. I'm talking about players like Schroder and Shinkaruk. It's also dishonest to say that Benning didn't have a huge impact in this area, and also disingenuous to take away Petterson and Hughes as accomplishments by Benning.

 

In short, you choose to ignore evidence to repeat your stance.

[AV.]

7 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Anyone willing to bring in the Burke, Quinn, Nonis and etc tenures as part of this conversation ???

Sure.

 

All but arguably Nonis were better than Benning, despite getting equal or less time in the job.  Quinn may had the most time out of all GMs in the last 30 years but I wasn't around for those days to analyze how he did.

[Dazzle]

Just now, Alain Vigneault said:

Sure.

 

All but arguably Nonis were better than Benning, despite getting equal or less time in the job.  Quinn may had the most time out of all GMs in the last 30 years but I wasn't around for those days to analyze how he did.

You really have lost your mind, @Alain Vigneault. Your argument just gets weaker and weaker. Nonis by comparison to all the other GMs, including Burke, was pretty average. He had one good trade for Luongo, and that was it during his tenure. And I say this having enjoyed Nonis' tenure on this team. He drafted Grabner, one of the more exciting Canuck prospects we've had in a long time up until that point. There was some hope. But he threw away 2nd round picks just as much as Gillis did.

[bree2]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I'm not arguing they had the same opportunity.  I'm arguing that their situations were not so far apart.  

 

Gillis did not walk into a Stanley Cup contender waiting to break out and Benning didn't walk into a dumpster fire.

Gillis was given the players that were waiting to break out, you said so yourself earlier. Benning came in with next to no prospects, everyone basically had ntc, because of what the Sedins meant to this team, Benning respectively waited until they retired to really get  this team going in the right direction he has done a great job in filling the cupboards with prospects , our team surprised the hockey world, meaning the media and other GMS. on how well our team was progressing, this team actually played for each other and it was well noticed. that is on Jim Benning and Green think they are more qualified than you, wouldn't you agree!

[Gurn]

8 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Sure.

 

All but arguably Nonis were better than Benning, despite getting equal or less time in the job.  Quinn may had the most time out of all GMs in the last 30 years but I wasn't around for those days to analyze how he did.

This really shows bias.

you say they were all better, but admit you were not around to analyze how Quinn did. So just how do you make that determination?

 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

This point is very easy to refute.

 

If their situations were not so far apart, how do you explain the point totals of Sedins (the core of the team) during each of the GM'S tenure? You can clearly see a severe decline during Benning's time as he inherited the team. Don't play dumb.

 

Next, you have refused to address my points about player development. The prospect pool that Benning had was really bad for rebuilding. You can pretend that they have value, but their values were not the same return as you had when they were drafted. I'm talking about players like Schroder and Shinkaruk. It's also dishonest to say that Benning didn't have a huge impact in this area, and also disingenuous to take away Petterson and Hughes as accomplishments by Benning.

 

In short, you choose to ignore evidence to repeat your stance.

Sedins weren't surrounded, nor replaced, by good enough players from 2015-2018 by Benning.  Yes, they got older and naturally declined but Benning insisted that the team just needed a retool.

 

I've said player development has been good and improved.  But let's be honest, player development ultimately takes the backseat to winning (remember, teams compete to win the Stanley Cup, not most successful draft) and it's bound to be better or improved when your team is drafting in the top 10 every season.  I've also already said that its easier to implement young players when your team sucks than when your team is expected to win every night.

[AV.]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

This really shows bias.

you say they were all better, but admit you were not around to analyze how Quinn did. So just how do you make that determination?

 

They made a Stanley Cup finals in 94.  Fairly simple.

[AV.]

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You really have lost your mind, @Alain Vigneault. Your argument just gets weaker and weaker. Nonis by comparison to all the other GMs, including Burke, was pretty average. He had one good trade for Luongo, and that was it during his tenure. And I say this having enjoyed Nonis' tenure on this team. He drafted Grabner, one of the more exciting Canuck prospects we've had in a long time up until that point. There was some hope. But he threw away 2nd round picks just as much as Gillis did.

It's really not that outrageous to suggest that Burke, Quinn, Gillis are better than Benning.

 

Nonis wasn't that good so maybe Benning is better than him.

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Sedins weren't surrounded, nor replaced, by good enough players from 2015-2018 by Benning.  Yes, they got older and naturally declined but Benning insisted that the team just needed a retool.

 

I've said player development has been good and improved.  But let's be honest, player development ultimately takes the backseat to winning (remember, teams compete to win the Stanley Cup, not most successful draft) and it's bound to be better or improved when your team is drafting in the top 10 every season.  I've also already said that its easier to implement young players when your team sucks than when your team is expected to win every night.

Proof?

 

I actually made the argument that both Gillis AND Benning were handcuffed by ownership decisions. You've gone from trying to make a logical argument to forcing an argument to pin it solely on one GM. The reason I even brought up the criticisms of Gillis was to underscore your revisionism of the situation. Gillis aside from the couple of Stanley Cup playoffs left the team in shambles on the prospect front.

 

So you admit it then that Gillis was loose with his trades, and neglected his prospect pool in favour of competing. How is this any different than Benning who tried to do the same thing? You have to remember that both GMs did NOT start off on equal levels. Not even close. Gillis had many more assets to work with to shape his core, including some elite level Sedins.

 

I didn't say Benning was successful at his retool period, but he ultimately faced a lot of pressure from management and fans to try to make the Canucks competitive, despite having little to work with. The prospect pool that Benning had was, quite frankly, subpar. We had a bunch of average/above average prospects that were supposed to somehow replace the Sedins. Or at the very least, produce at a high level to off set their losses? Gillis provided no such environment.

 

You've just made the argument that Gillis was a poor manager of assets, an essential part of GMing, and also exonerated Benning's faults at the same time.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Dazzle