[Discussion] Moving on from Jim Benning

[-DLC-]

13 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

They fired all their GMs...so thanks for proving my point?

So maybe it's not the GM's?  Sometimes it's the group in place and you also fail to factor that in?

 

If you have a bunch of individuals who aren't on the same page?  The room is important...JB has made sure to focus on that aspect of things. 

Funny how Edmonton still isn't there and firing GM's hasn't solved anything.  Hmmm.  Maybe that's not always the "go to".

[-DLC-]

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

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

 

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

 

17 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Deb brought him up.

 

 

Please read before you get your Benning knickers into a bunch.

Page one.  I jumped in here about page....7.  I brought him up as he just happened to tie in to your comparison with the Lightning.  And how you should start JB's assessment at the onset of Petey and Quinn if you're being fair.  And give him 10 years to get there (too).

 

And don't start with that knickers crap because it won't end well.  

 

 

[-DLC-]

22 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

 

The fact that you tried to pull Yzerman + Quinn into this discussion just shows how unreasonable you are.

Then blamed me.   

[IBatch]

At some point JB will either retire, go somewhere else  or be fired - like every GM.   Maybe it’s time to put a pin in these threads or make a new forum area just to slot them under.    You know under Canucks Talk (ha ha considering their frequency) add it as a new and exciting Forum.  Because really it’s tiresome.  I bet 80% of regulars and fans feel he’s not perfect, has made mistakes, is improving, and is at least an above average drafter, overall a B and getting better.   He’s had nothing to work with other then Horvat, created a pretty nice core - the media and experts at least thinks so - as do a lot of JB bashers.   At the very least he’s earned the right to see it through.   Nothing wrong with high expectations- I draw the line at unrealistic ones though,  and for me at least he’s dealt  the garbage bag he was given - told to add perfume and sell - all the while gone out and made something pretty special.    32 teams soon. That’s some stiff competition right there.   That said I don’t mind the criticisms, what the heck would we talk about anyway’s if we all agreed on everything.    So mods - maybe either start axing these threads when they start - or create a new discussion thread where all spam can go.   Maybe under white Noise?  

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

 

I think Stevie Y was good at his job and am showing that it takes patience.  Jim B deserves that same patience.  

When he (Stevie Y) came on board they had two key pieces already in place to work with.  Stamkos and Hedman.  He wasn't in the same situation as JB...with an aging core that was nearing their expiry date and a vision to retool that quickly proved to be the wrong focus.

 

We also made the playoffs with Petey and Quinn this year (and Demko) so let's use that as our starting point and disregard the old core that was part of the changing of the guard that Jim endured.

 

It took Stevie and his crew 10 years to "get there".  We can compare more fairly after Jim's had some of his "key pieces" in place for longer than a year or two and not really consider his "old team" as part of his history with this group.  Two separate deals and he deserves some credit in that.  You want him to be responsible for something that isn't an immediate deal...it takes time to rebuild a team.  So to compare teams they really have to have the same "starting point" and you've ignored that.

 

9 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Actually, since you were willing to engage in that discussion. What were the advantages that Steve Yzerman had when he took over Tampa Bay? What advantages did Benning have when he took over Vancouver?

 

The fact that you didn't even point out how unfair the comparison was for Benning shows how determined you are to have a fair discussion. (Not very). This isn't about having no negative talk. This is about a balanced discussion, with both pros and cons. You are focussing ENTIRELY on the negative for Benning, and understating the flaws of Gillis, which you have yet to address.

 

I'm not rattled, but I still find it humourous that you name called someone who disagreed with you. I smell blood and guess what I will do? I'm pouncing on that.

 

I am noticing how you're just ignoring the rebuttals and playing dumb now about not seeing any questions posed to you.They were sent to you twice, here, and everyone can see that you're avoiding them. It's totally fine.

 

I would say this is troll-like behaviour. Incite an argument, then scurry when you have no argument. Then pop back up somewhere else.

Stevie Y showed leaps and bounds more promise than Benning has, even in spite of inheriting Hedman and Stamkos.  He didn't delude himself in thinking that Lecavlier and St. Louis still ran the team, he didn't sign long-term deals or expensive deals that would prevent him from signing Stamkos, Hedman, or any of his core pieces he would bring into the team.  He signed numerous short-term deals and acquired players like Roloson, Clark, Gagne, etc that they could help them compete and provide them the option to trade them if they didn't work out (which they didn't in 2012).  He acquired numerous draft picks, consulted his scouting staff, and put together a pretty impressive team that made the playoffs once again in 2014 and was in the cup finals by 2015.

 

Yes, Benning didn't inherit two top 10 prospects but he also didn't inherit a complete mess that the 2014 Canucks are being made out to be.  Benning had Kesler, Edler, Burrows, Hansen, Hamhuis, Bieksa all at his disposal to move if he wanted to shake up the team.  He also inherited a top 6 entry draft selection where he could have taken somebody like Ehlers/Nylander (players that have, in hindsight, shown more than Jake) if he wanted. 

 

The reality is nobody put a gun to Benning's head and said he had to compete with the team he inherited either.  He may have been pressure by ownership but the choice was ultimately his.

[AV.]

11 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

 

Page one.  I jumped in here about page....7.  I brought him up as he just happened to tie in to your comparison with the Lightning.  And how you should start JB's assessment at the onset of Petey and Quinn if you're being fair.  And give him 10 years to get there (too).

 

And don't start with that knickers crap because it won't end well.  

 

 

Again, I didn't bring up Stevie Y at that time either.  Another user did.

 

Fair enough to the bolded.  That was an ill-thought out response and I rescind it.

[Dazzle]

22 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

How come you are so quick to judge the Toffoli trade as 'wasteful', but see it differently when it came to the Schneider trade? In both scenarios, we dealt from supposedly a position of strength, which is what you said in our status update discussions. For Benning, we had center depth, and Schneider was apparently one we could afford to trade away because we had Luongo. (For the purpose of this argument, we are going to completely ignore how badly handled the goalie situation was under Gillis)

 

Answer:  I didn't say it was wasteful.  There you go again twisting my words.  I said if Gillis was seen as wasteful for trading picks for Roy/Pahlsson, does that mean Benning is also wasteful for making a rental trade?  It's rhetorical.  In the other situation, it's completely different because Schneider and Luongo made 9M dollars in cap and we couldn't that at the time.  As a cup contender, it would have made no sense to have 9M in goaltending when half of that could address different areas.

 

"Easier conditions to play when they're not expected to win every night" - So why didn't Jensen, Schroeder, Kassian make it then? Keep revising your history, bud.

 

Answer:  There were better players ahead of them at the time/they weren't ready?  Schroeder was given two 20 game call-ups and wasn't qualified upon Benning taking over.  Schroeder basically carved out a similar career in Minnsota, getting games here and there.  Kassian was dumped with a 5th for Prust but he was a legitimate NHLer at the time of his trade.  Jensen was meh but did have a bit of a good call-up in the 2014 season.  I'm not really sure why Benning didn't like him but he was right to move on because Jensen never made it.

 

Apologies for missing these.  Real life still goes on, you know.

Playing dumb .

 

Answer:  I didn't say it was wasteful.  There you go again twisting my words.  I said if Gillis was seen as wasteful for trading picks for Roy/Pahlsson, does that mean Benning is also wasteful for making a rental trade?  It's rhetorical.  In the other situation, it's completely different because Schneider and Luongo made 9M dollars in cap and we couldn't that at the time.  As a cup contender, it would have made no sense to have 9M in goaltending when half of that could address different areas.

 

Toffoli, if he wasn't injured, would have played more than just 10 games in the season. In fact, he would end up playing 7 more games in the playoffs, although at a noticeably reduced level. He outproduced Roy badly.

 

Toffoli: Season

 

10 games, 6 goals, 4 assists, 10 points

Toffoli: Playoffs

 

7 games, 2 goals, 2 assists, 4 points.

 

Roy: Season

 

12 games, 3 goals, 3 assists, 6 points.

 

Roy: Playoffs:

 

4 games, 0 goals, 1 assist, 1 point

 

I lifted the stats from here: https://www.nhl.com/player/tyler-toffoli-8475726?stats=career-p-nhl&season=null

 

That means Roy played 16 games and Toffoli played 17 games. Almost identical, except Toffoli evidently had much more impact on the team he played versus Roy. Roy was not the best fit for the team, but Toffoli was.

 

Furthermore, Gillis was throwing away 2nd round picks when he didn't have a prospect pool to draw from. Benning did.

To further highlight your biased argument.

 

Trading from Schneider, in your opinion was a strength. We had two very capable goalies. So, to address your point about cap hit, we are trading away what is an almost certain product in Schneider for an UNKNOWN, but high draft pick.  This is apparently okay for you.

 

But we traded a player in Madden, who we probably would not have had space at center (redundant piece) and a 2nd round pick (also an unknown) for a known product.

 

The difference with Roy and Toffoli is Gillis being reckless with his trades. Benning, by contrast, had something to lean back on - his prospect pool which I should remind you was built from scratch BECAUSE of GIllis.

 

Answer:  There were better players ahead of them at the time/they weren't ready?  Schroeder was given two 20 game call-ups and wasn't qualified upon Benning taking over.  Schroeder basically carved out a similar career in Minnsota, getting games here and there.  Kassian was dumped with a 5th for Prust but he was a legitimate NHLer at the time of his trade.  Jensen was meh but did have a bit of a good call-up in the 2014 season.  I'm not really sure why Benning didn't like him but he was right to move on because Jensen never made it

 

You just proved my point. I'm sure I could have said it better, but I like the fact that you did it for me.

 

"Easier conditions to play when they're not expected to win every night" - your quote that I am bringing back here to recall what you said.

 

So why didn't they produce even when given the opportunity, like you said? Your logic is astounding.  Because somehow, according to you, Pettersson/Hughes had no pressure to produce in this environment (arguably, they had bigger pressure because Pettersson was basically called a bust by many people here, and Hughes was considered small).

 

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Dazzle

[smithers joe]

i don’t think the canucks have ever had a gm that someone didn’t want canned. even pat quinn had his detractors. 

with that in mind, it won’t matter who the gm is, some so called knowledgable fans will try push for a perfect gm. 

that means a gm that only makes the moves they want made. is there such thing as a perfect gm.?

[AV.]

Just now, Dazzle said:

Playing dumb .

 

Answer:  I didn't say it was wasteful.  There you go again twisting my words.  I said if Gillis was seen as wasteful for trading picks for Roy/Pahlsson, does that mean Benning is also wasteful for making a rental trade?  It's rhetorical.  In the other situation, it's completely different because Schneider and Luongo made 9M dollars in cap and we couldn't that at the time.  As a cup contender, it would have made no sense to have 9M in goaltending when half of that could address different areas.

 

Toffoli, if he wasn't injured, would have played more than just 10 games in the season. In fact, he would end up playing 7 more games in the playoffs, although at a noticeably reduced level. He outproduced Roy badly.

 

Toffoli: Season

 

10 games, 6 goals, 4 assists, 10 points

Toffoli: Playoffs

 

7 games, 2 goals, 2 assists, 4 points.

 

Roy: Season

 

12 games, 3 goals, 3 assists, 6 points.

 

Roy: Playoffs:

 

4 games, 0 goals, 1 assist, 1 point

 

I lifted the stats from here: https://www.nhl.com/player/tyler-toffoli-8475726?stats=career-p-nhl&season=null

 

That means Roy played 16 games and Toffoli played 17 games. Almost identical, except Toffoli evidently had much more impact on the team he played versus Roy. Roy was not the best fit for the team, but Toffoli was.

 

Furthermore, Gillis was throwing away 2nd round picks when he didn't have a prospect pool to draw from. Benning did.

To further highlight your biased argument.

 

Trading from Schneider, in your opinion was a strength. We had two very capable goalies. So, to address your point about cap hit, we are trading away what is an almost certain product in Schneider for an UNKNOWN, but high draft pick.  This is apparently okay for you.

 

But we traded a player in Madden, who we probably would not have had space at center (redundant piece) and a 2nd round pick (also an unknown) for a known product.

 

The difference with Roy and Toffoli is Gillis being reckless with his trades. Benning, by contrast, had something to lean back on - his prospect pool which I should remind you was built from scratch BECAUSE of GIllis.

 

Answer:  There were better players ahead of them at the time/they weren't ready?  Schroeder was given two 20 game call-ups and wasn't qualified upon Benning taking over.  Schroeder basically carved out a similar career in Minnsota, getting games here and there.  Kassian was dumped with a 5th for Prust but he was a legitimate NHLer at the time of his trade.  Jensen was meh but did have a bit of a good call-up in the 2014 season.  I'm not really sure why Benning didn't like him but he was right to move on because Jensen never made it

 

You just proved my point. I'm sure I could have said it better, but I like the fact that you did it for me.

 

"Easier conditions to play when they're not expected to win every night

 

So why didn't they produce even when given the opportunity, like you said? Your logic is astounding.  Because somehow, according to you, Pettersson/Hughes had no pressure to produce in this environment (arguably, they had bigger pressure because Pettersson was basically called a bust by many people here, and Hughes was considered small).

 

 

 

 

Look.

 

I'm doing my best in trying to articulate what I'm writing.

 

Gillis brought in Roy and Pahlsson as rentals for the playoffs.  They didn't work out as we didn't win the cup.

Benning brought in Toffoli as a rental for the playoffs.  He didn't work out either because we didn't win the cup (but yes, he was more positive than Roy/Pahlsson)

 

My point is that I just wasn't sure if you were trying to say that the Gillis rentals were "wasteful" when Benning's rental didn't achieve anything for the team either.

--

As for the second part, all three saw NHL time under Gillis's era.  We don't know if Gillis would have also cut Schroeder from his team, moved on from Kassian after a season, or outright not have given Jensen another NHL shot like Benning did.

 

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, Alain Vigneault said:

 

Stevie Y showed leaps and bounds more promise than Benning has, even in spite of inheriting Hedman and Stamkos.  He didn't delude himself in thinking that Lecavlier and St. Louis still ran the team, he didn't sign long-term deals or expensive deals that would prevent him from signing Stamkos, Hedman, or any of his core pieces he would bring into the team.  He signed numerous short-term deals and acquired players like Roloson, Clark, Gagne, etc that they could help them compete and provide them the option to trade them if they didn't work out (which they didn't in 2012).  He acquired numerous draft picks, consulted his scouting staff, and put together a pretty impressive team that made the playoffs once again in 2014 and was in the cup finals by 2015.

 

Yes, Benning didn't inherit two top 10 prospects but he also didn't inherit a complete mess that the 2014 Canucks are being made out to be.  Benning had Kesler, Edler, Burrows, Hansen, Hamhuis, Bieksa all at his disposal to move if he wanted to shake up the team.  He also inherited a top 6 entry draft selection where he could have taken somebody like Ehlers/Nylander (players that have, in hindsight, shown more than Jake) if he wanted. 

 

The reality is nobody put a gun to Benning's head and said he had to compete with the team he inherited either.  He may have been pressure by ownership but the choice was ultimately his.

False.

And false.

 

By this time at 2014, the Sedins were OBVIOUSLY declining. Trading them away would have netted you a poor return (Teams would have to fit one or both Sedins, which severely kill your value).

 

Burrows, Hansen, Hamhuis, Bieksa were all fan favourites. Hindsight is 20/20, remember you said that? It's easy for you to say, "well he could've done this".
 

Do you think there was no pressure for Benning at all to keep this core, especially as the first year ended up being a good one? Would it have been realistic, in other words, to sell these players at the deadline?

 

And lastly, there were plenty of rumours that Aquilini did not want a rebuild. This was probably one of the reasons why Linden left, among other factors. Can you really blame ownership though?
 

I wouldn't. As soon as the team did bad, look how quick the fanbase turned on the Canucks, despite the recent playoff success at that time? Meanwhile Leaf Nation remained loyal (to a fault).

 

So yes, there was most definitely pressure, and that is the reality, no matter how much you try to overlook it.

[Dazzle]

Just now, Alain Vigneault said:

Look.

 

I'm doing my best in trying to articulate what I'm writing.

 

Gillis brought in Roy and Pahlsson as rentals for the playoffs.  They didn't work out as we didn't win the cup.

Benning brought in Toffoli as a rental for the playoffs.  He didn't work out either because we didn't win the cup (but yes, he was more positive than Roy/Pahlsson)

 

My point is that I just wasn't sure if you were trying to say that the Gillis rentals were "wasteful" when Benning's rental didn't achieve anything for the team either.

--

As for the second part, all three saw NHL time under Gillis's era.  We don't know if Gillis would have also cut Schroeder from his team, moved on from Kassian after a season, or outright not have given Jensen another NHL shot like Benning did.

 

Was the goal to win the cup? Maybe something more of a wish rather than a goal. The goal was to play meaningful games in the playoffs, and to do the best they could do. Toffoli was an excellent add. The Canucks losing was hardly because of Toffoli. Meanwhile, Roy did next to nothing in the playoffs for his team.

 

I don't think it would've mattered. From what you said, if we were to assume that the Canucks would give players every opportunity to succeed, because there wasn't any competition, why didn't any of those players succeed?

 

It's simple. They weren't good enough. Not even good enough for a weakly constructed Canucks team (post 2011) to make it.

[-DLC-]

13 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

i don’t think the canucks have ever had a gm that someone didn’t want canned. even pat quinn had his detractors. 

with that in mind, it won’t matter who the gm is, some so called knowledgable fans will try push for a perfect gm. 

that means a gm that only makes the moves they want made. is there such thing as a perfect gm.?

That's sort of the point I'm trying to make, Joe.

 

All GM's will have hits and misses but they can't be graded "in the midst of" it all.  Halfway through a project.  Some GM's being referred to had 10 years to work with....JB started 6 years ago...but not with THIS team in its current state.  There were a whole lot of changes to be made and so you really have to allow for the dust to settle, then start looking at the next stage.  You can't really judge things until you've had an adequate sample size...which we really don't have yet at this point.   We're at the start of the assessment stage, not the "fire a guy" stage.

As we bring prospects up and let the young core really start to take over the team with a year or two of feelings things out under their belts.  They had training wheels on and that's ok.  Some of the overpayments were made to provide support and stability for them and so you can't just grade on just production...there is worth that goes beyond that.  We wanted to allow the young'uns to slide in without all the pressure of the deal being on them and with some veteran leadership in the room to help them.

 

How the young guys are developing matters as part of that grading process.   Look at what some of the "role players" mean to the young guns who've slid in nicely under their lead.  It's not wasted $$, there's value in that.

 

[Dazzle]

@Alain Vigneault It's good to have a full discussion of a GM, but we have to be fair to everyone, even the ones you don't like.

 

You say you're doing your best to articulate what you're writing. I'm telling you honestly that you aren't doing a good enough job. You are too biased in your own rhetoric, and you called me a white knight simply because I disagreed with you. I'm not hurt, I just think it's funny. It's funny that you were so emotional to resort to a personal attack.

 

And because you aren't in control of your emotions, it means your arguments aren't coherent. They are emotionally based.

 

It's clear that @Alain Vigneault isn't going to change how he thinks about something, no matter how flawed it is. This stubbornness and refusal to see evidence is exactly what flat earthers do.

[ShawnAntoski]

As stated before the OP, had already taken a side - fire JB and hire him as the GM with all the answers (oops, I meant anybody else that is not JB).  

 

JBs young core is trending to be very competitive in the next few years and in a couple of years the bad contracts will be gone.  Hopefully, by then all of the important RFA's are signed to long term team friendly contracts, current prospects had earned an NHL spot and the prospect cupboard is once again replenished for next competitve window.  Personally, I am looking forward to next years team to see how the young core will do with the new players or you can miserably/reluctantly cheer for any success cause it would make JB & "his cronies" look good.  

 

Round and round ..........

Edited October 18, 2020 by ShawnAntoski

[Dazzle]

Just now, ShawnAntoski said:

As stated before the OP, had already taken a side - fire JB and hire him as the GM with all the answer (oops, I meant anybody else that is not JB).  

 

JBs young core is trending to be very competitive in the next few years and in a couple of years the bad contracts will be gone.  Hopefully, by then all of the important RFA's are signed to team friendly contracts, some prospects are either gone or had earned a spot already and etc.   Personally, I am looking forward to next years team to see how the young core will do with the new players or you can miserably/reluctantly cheer for any success cause it would make JB & "his cronies" look good.

 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing people like @Alain Vigneault move on from the past and see the present and future. I think he is more interested in bashing current management more so than watching the games. I can't see him stomaching the idea of him being proven wrong over and over on these boards.

I'm just waiting for him to go back to playing dumb again when this thread goes onto the next page so he doesn't have to address the rebuttals.

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

False.

And false.

 

By this time at 2014, the Sedins were OBVIOUSLY declining. Trading them away would have netted you a poor return (Teams would have to fit one or both Sedins, which severely kill your value).

 

Burrows, Hansen, Hamhuis, Bieksa were all fan favourites. Hindsight is 20/20, remember you said that? It's easy for you to say, "well he could've done this".
 

Do you think there was no pressure for Benning at all to keep this core, especially as the first year ended up being a good one? Would it have been realistic, in other words, to sell these players at the deadline?

 

And lastly, there were plenty of rumours that Aquilini did not want a rebuild. This was probably one of the reasons why Linden left, among other factors. Can you really blame ownership though?
 

I wouldn't. As soon as the team did bad, look how quick the fanbase turned on the Canucks, despite the recent playoff success at that time? Meanwhile Leaf Nation remained loyal (to a fault).

 

So yes, there was most definitely pressure, and that is the reality, no matter how much you try to overlook it.

The Sedins returned to nearly PPG in Benning's first season.

 

Burrows, Higgins, Matthias, Bonino, Hansen all hit around 15 goals and had in between 30-40 pts IIRC

 

The team was not a SC contender, sure, but let's not act like they all fell off a cliff real fast.  Fans may not have wanted to a total rebuild but they were smart enough to know that the situation at hand was being mismanaged in tying to compete while not getting assets when it was failing.  Dan Hamhuis could have garnered a pick from Dallas but wasn't traded because the pick wasn't "high enough".  He ended up leaving us for Dallas in FA.  Likewise, Vrbata could have fetched a 5th or 6th but wasn't traded either and he left for Phoenix.  When Burrows and Hansen, two major fan favourites, were traded, I certainly don't remember angry fans.  Some may have been bummed to see them go but we got assets for them and people were happy to see us make those types of moves.  And wouldn't you know, those assets didn't even do anything for us in the end.  

 

The perception of trying to improve your team is what mattered and fans weren't given that.  Nobody was really upset with the Vey trade when it was first made but a lot more people grew tired of those types of trades once Benning was making those moves for Clendening/Pedan/Etem/Pouliot ad nauseum.  It was frustrating when we managed to get a 2nd for Bieksa and then threw in that 2nd with Bonino and Clendening to downgrade on getting Sutter and a 3rd

 

We could have been competitive by signing short-term deals for free agents and moving them for picks or prospects if it didn't work out.  We never did those things.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

The Sedins returned to nearly PPG in Benning's first season.

 

Burrows, Higgins, Matthias, Bonino, Hansen all hit around 15 goals and had in between 30-40 pts IIRC

 

The team was not a SC contender, sure, but let's not act like they all fell off a cliff real fast.  Fans may not have wanted to a total rebuild but they were smart enough to know that the situation at hand was being mismanaged in tying to compete while not getting assets when it was failing.  Dan Hamhuis could have garnered a pick from Dallas but wasn't traded because the pick wasn't "high enough".  He ended up leaving us for Dallas in FA.  Likewise, Vrbata could have fetched a 5th or 6th but wasn't traded either and he left for Phoenix.  When Burrows and Hansen, two major fan favourites, were traded, I certainly don't remember angry fans.  Some may have been bummed to see them go but we got assets for them and people were happy to see us make those types of moves.  And wouldn't you know, those assets didn't even do anything for us in the end.  

 

The perception of trying to improve your team is what mattered and fans weren't given that.  Nobody was really upset with the Vey trade when it was first made but a lot more people grew tired of those types of trades once Benning was making those moves for Clendening/Pedan/Etem/Pouliot ad nauseum.  It was frustrating when we managed to get a 2nd for Bieksa and then threw in that 2nd with Bonino and Clendening to downgrade on getting Sutter and a 3rd

 

We could have been competitive by signing short-term deals for free agents and moving them for picks or prospects if it didn't work out.  We never did those things.

um, so trade bad contracts for picks?  your real funny

Edited October 18, 2020 by Petey_BOI
didnt

[IBatch]

29 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

 

Stevie Y showed leaps and bounds more promise than Benning has, even in spite of inheriting Hedman and Stamkos.  He didn't delude himself in thinking that Lecavlier and St. Louis still ran the team, he didn't sign long-term deals or expensive deals that would prevent him from signing Stamkos, Hedman, or any of his core pieces he would bring into the team.  He signed numerous short-term deals and acquired players like Roloson, Clark, Gagne, etc that they could help them compete and provide them the option to trade them if they didn't work out (which they didn't in 2012).  He acquired numerous draft picks, consulted his scouting staff, and put together a pretty impressive team that made the playoffs once again in 2014 and was in the cup finals by 2015.

 

Yes, Benning didn't inherit two top 10 prospects but he also didn't inherit a complete mess that the 2014 Canucks are being made out to be.  Benning had Kesler, Edler, Burrows, Hansen, Hamhuis, Bieksa all at his disposal to move if he wanted to shake up the team.  He also inherited a top 6 entry draft selection where he could have taken somebody like Ehlers/Nylander (players that have, in hindsight, shown more than Jake) if he wanted. 

 

The reality is nobody put a gun to Benning's head and said he had to compete with the team he inherited either.  He may have been pressure by ownership but the choice was ultimately his.

Ha ha - not even close to the same thing but good try.   Why don’t we judge Yzerman after he’s had a few years in Detroit.   Larkin, Bertuzzi, Mantha, Zadina and his Seider pick are decent young guys to work with.   JB had Horvat and his first pick JV to work with.   All those guys you mentioned were claused up, and he did manage to trade Bieksa and Burrows despite that.   Kesler of course demanded a trade with two potential teams to work with...  why re-hash?  He’s drafted a great young core, added some key players to go with it and somehow bucked the decade ish long funk most teams suffer when they go from the top to the bottom (and a lot of middling teams too) - without any helpers other then Horvat.   Who he developed.   Wah f!cking wah.  But what about LE and all his wasted cap?  Ha ha ... let’s find out how Yzerman times his team.  Gagne, Staal, Stecher and co plus more to come ...

[ShawnAntoski]

13 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I'm looking forward to seeing people like @Alain Vigneault move on from the past and see the present and future. I think he is more interested in bashing current management more so than watching the games. I can't see him stomaching the idea of him being proven wrong over and over on these boards.

I'm just waiting for him to go back to playing dumb again when this thread goes onto the next page so he doesn't have to address the rebuttals.

Dont hold your breathe for that and instead just find a way to enjoy the finish the product on the ice that our current bumbling GM had created. 

 

Just wondering, where is the Green bashing - lol - cause isnt he an important part of the equation: JB acquires the players and he is in charge of how they are used/implemented..

Edited October 18, 2020 by ShawnAntoski

[smithers joe]

13 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

That's sort of the point I'm trying to make, Joe.

 

All GM's will have hits and misses but they can't be graded "in the midst of" it all.  Halfway through a project.  Some GM's being referred to had 10 years to work with....JB started 6 years ago...but not with THIS team in its current state.  There were a whole lot of changes to be made and so you really have to allow for the dust to settle, then start looking at the next stage.  You can't really judge things until you've had an adequate sample size...which we really have not at this point. 

This is really the start of the assessment stage...as we bring prospects up and let the young core really start to take over.  They had training wheels on and that's ok.  Some of the overpayments were stability for them and so you can't just grade on production...there is worth that goes beyond that.  How the young guys are developing matters as part of that.  Look at what some of the "role players" mean to the young guns who've slid in nicely under their lead.  It's not wasted $$, there's value in that.

 

i agree deb, and while not all his moves worked. i understood what he was trying to do with each move. he was forced to over pay to get some guys because this wasn’t the most desired place to play. now it is viewed a good place to come too. jimmy has done that. it took awhile to get to this point but now the future is looking brighter.