Jim Benning's mid-season press conference

[kanucks25]

40 minutes ago, oldnews said:

That's not a good or fair comparable imo.

 

Gillis adopted:

 

Two Sedins age 26

Edler age 22

Kesler age 23

Burrows age 26

Bieksa 26

Luongo 28

Ohlund age 30

Salo 32

Mitchell 30

Schneider 22

Hansen 22

Raymond 22

 

Wadr to Gillis - the vast majority of the work had been done.  He adopted more than a contending core - he adopted an entire secondary 'foundation' as well - two top 6 high end centers,  two top flight goaltenders, an outstanding top 4 D.....

He made some good complementary additions - but there is next to no point - or fairness - in comparing their timelines.

He had a wealth of core players drafted 4 years,  even 8/9 years before he arrived....

He was hired in 2008 - the Sedins, for example, were drafted in 1999.

 

Benning had:

Horvat 19

Markstrom 24

Kassian 23

Tanev 24

Edler 28

Hansen 28

Schroeder

Jensen

Corrado 

 

and a bunch of "stale, declining" vets that Tortorella had just put through the worst years of their career... as devalued as they ever were - a group of 30+ borderline unmoveable veterans / almost all with limiting clauses..

 

 

Kesler? Burrows? 6th overall pick?

 

Hamhuis? Garrison? Bieksa?

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by kanucks25

[Dazzle]

56 minutes ago, D-Money said:

He's had 7 years, including 4 top-10 draft choices! I sure hope he's assembled a young core by now.

 

Look at LA. They've been at their rebuild for less time, and they've already assembled a young core, surrounded them with quality veterans, and now they're ahead of us in the standings.

I've spoken at length about this; Gillis did a very poor job at planning for the future. Sure he may have had a President's Cup, most of which was from a core inherited from his predecessors, namely Edler. He made a number of good changes, like investing in sleep doctors, etc and helping to get a new locker room.

 

There were a number of trades he simply got lucky on, namely the Markstrom/Luongo one, and the Horvat/Schneider. Markstrom had a lot of raw potential, but he was not a starter, at least at the beginning. He had to work hard. Horvat was good, but he had skating issues. Then there was the Grabner plus 1st round pick for Ballard (who was eventually bought out). If Markstrom/Horvat didn't elevate their games after the acquisitions, we would have an even crappier prospect pool.

 

Make no mistake. Gillis brought the Canucks very close to the cup. He deserves credit for that. Yet to say Gillis was better than Benning is just flossing over Gillis' mistakes. His drafting/developing is indefensible. No good picks at all. We could write a paper on how Gillis' legacy continues to damage the Canucks today.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Dazzle

[10pavelbure96]

7 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Kesler? Burrows? 6th overall pick?

 

Hamhuis? Garrison? Bieksa?

 

No kidding.

 

Leave it to jimbo jockeys to leave out relevant information

 

I was a supporter of him for years cause I seen the core he was building. But it's clear as day that he's not the guy to take the next step. He did his job, now its time for some old boys club member to take the next step.

 

Rutherford or Lombardi please 

[kanucks25]

52 minutes ago, oldnews said:

and a bunch of "stale, declining" vets  - a group of 30+ borderline unmoveable veterans / almost all with limiting clauses..

Funny how we still have the same problem.

 

Here's a list of players currently on our roster with some sort of movement protection:

 

Sutter - bloated contract

Roussel - bloated contract

Beagle - bloated contract

Edler

Myers - bloated contract

Schmidt

Hamonic - NMC for a player barely hanging onto his career

Holtby - clearly was and is on the downside of his career

Ferland - well...

Eriksson - ...

 

When Gillis signed his NTC's, they were given to core roster players on a good team/contender to keep their AAV's down to extend a very legit window.

 

On the other hand, most of Benning's NTC have gone to replaceable level players and most of them are overpaid even though they were given some sort of clause.

 

edit: Another good opportunity to remind y'all that Brandon freaking Sutter was given an unprecedented retroactive NTC (because there's never really a bad time to bring it up).

Edited March 6, 2021 by kanucks25

[oldnews]

36 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

The rebuild only started in 2016. Don't kid yourself. 

And it is impressive where out prospect and young players are given that the only thing MG left him is Horvat.

LA has always dine well drafting and was not selling all of their future pieces during their last core. Also, they are in a really weak division. I would agree more if they are all playing in a regular regular season. 

 

Once again point is do you have trust that he has learned his lesson and will bring in the right guys to turn this core into a contender or not. Cause the timeline is 2 years with any new guy we bring in anyways. 

 

Now I can get behind saying we need someone new in the room to get the job done, but am not on board with people who just want to see him fired so we can bring in someone to turn us into a contender overnight cause that is just unrealistic.

LA's top 5 scorers...

 

1) Anje Kopitar

2) Dustin Brown

3) Drew Doughty

4) Jeff Carter

5) Alex Iafallo - who, at age 27 is 9 years younger than Brown and Carter, 6 years younger than Kopitar and 4 yr younger than Doughty.

 

These are the 2015/16 Canucks....when Desjardins took them to the playoffs with 101 pts.

 

See how fast Benning turned that team around?   Wasn't blowing smoke whatsoever - (just quotes taken out of context).

 

The reality is that the vast majority of the rething remained ahead of them.  As it does for L.A.

It takes L.A's top 3 young scorers - Kempe at 24 with 13 pts (drafted before Blake was GM), Vilardi with 10 pts (who also happens to be the leading Kings scorer among players drafted since 2017 - with 17 career NHL points), and Austin Wagner with 6 pts....combine these 3 and they outscore Boeser (29 - 25pts).....

[oldnews]

12 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Kesler? Burrows? 6th overall pick?

 

Hamhuis? Garrison? Bieksa?

 

what?

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

When Gillis signed his NTC's, they were given to core roster players on a good team/contender to keep their AAV's down to extend a very legit window.

 

everything aside from this admission = pointless post is pointless.

funny how all those contracts you complain about expire this offseason and next - none of them extend into this team's window. 

and of course, the subjective one-worders you use on half of them.

 

No one is criticizing Gillis for signing the alleged "stale, declining core" to those deals.

Gillis did a very good job of complementing a contending core and contending group of support players.

 

The point is - that unlike Gillis - Benning adopted a post-contention group -  a group with little youth and a lot of aging veterans coming off the worst season of their career.  If you can't see the fundamental difference there's not much point.   Making 'excuses' for Gillis, likewise.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by oldnews

[kanucks25]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

what?

Deliberately leave 6 assets with good-to-great value off your list or did you just forget?

[RU SERIOUS]

9 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

As great as it sounds to just shed all that weight, they do provide key services for this team.

 

Sutter - plays a good 15 minutes a night, 5-on-5 nothing exciting but he wins key faceoffs and is one of our best penalty killer. We'd need a 3rd line center to replace him and to play top PK minutes, not sure who's going to do that...

 

Beagle - as a 4C, he plays 12-15 minutes because again he's one of the best faceoff men in the league and plays hard PK minutes. Again, we don't have anyone in the organization to replace him.

Roussel - he can absolutely go, doesn't bring anything to this team, no grit really and while he's on the PK, just about anyone can do what he does, he's not fantastic defensively or skating-wise, I think Hoglander would do a brilliant job in his role but maybe even Jake or someone a bit more "expendable" who can skate well.

 

JV - tough one, I think JB is going to see what Virtanen brings over the next few games until the TD. If he scores more he'll stay, but if that 2 goal outing was a flash in the pan, I think he's gone to the Ducks and rightly so.

 

Pearson - tricky one again because he scores at a 15-goal, 40 point pace, plays 2nd unit PK minutes and occasionally PP minutes. Like Horvat he does it all, to a lesser extent. He fills a lot of this team's needs, fights hard along the boards and is a big veteran presence now for the younger guys (like a poor man's Miller). It's all well and good to say Podkolzin is going to come in next season and play 2nd line minutes, but can he defend as well, is he as strong along the boards and will he play 2nd unit PK minutes? I don't think so. Pearson brings a lot more to this team than just offence so will be another void to replace.

 

Eriksson - of course he brings nothing to the team but a big cap but I doubt JB will be able to move him yet again, he's tried for years.

 

Edler - I think the Canucks deserve it to Edler to do whatever he wants. If he wants to move to a contender, then trade him. If he wants to stay and retire a Canuck, re-sign him. Best defenceman this team has ever had, he's been through it all and is the Sedin-equivalent of a defenceman for this organization so they better do him right. Of course, we could get a juicy 1st round pick/decent prospect for him (maybe), and unlike the forwards, we have Juolevi waiting in the wings who could replace some of his minutes nicely, especially next season, but JB owes it to Edler to do whatever he wants.

 

So yes, it'd be lovely to free up some cap space and move Sutter, Pearson, Beagle, Roussel and maybe even Virtanen, but then that's our best faceoff men and penalty killers all gone in one fell swoop, and we have no good centers in our organization to replace the hard minutes Sutter and Beagle play. JB would have to look the UFAs to find someone and quite frankly there's not many great defensive centers out there.

 

If he's really smart, he'll trade Virtanen to someone (+/- a package) for a decent young 3rd line center. Tierny has come up time and time again as a perfect 3C for this team, and he might be impossible to pry, but someone like him would be a perfect replacement.

 

I'd be happy to keep one of Sutter or Pearson in that vein but really need to trade Roussel and Virtanen (if he continues to slump).

I generally agree with your reasoning and don't dispute the points you've made regarding the benefits of Sutter, Pearson and Edler and would possibly agree to re-signing all three BUT only if the terms were short (as in a year to year basis) and at reasonable cost.   My fear is that JB will re-sign them to long term contracts and ALL of them ARE OVER THE HILL (unfortunately) and WILL NOT GET ANY BETTER!      As for Roussel, Beagle and Lazy Jake - Hasta-la-Vista baby !

 

Therefore, in the best interest of continuing the rebuild - un hampered - there should be no capitulation and JB must continue what he started last year by letting Tanev and Marky going and continue "THE PURGE".  Not doing so will only extend and allow the continuation of the never ending agony of living through endless bad contract after contract.   ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !  

 

[Dazzle]

9 minutes ago, 10pavelbure96 said:

No kidding.

 

Leave it to jimbo jockeys to leave out relevant information

 

I was a supporter of him for years cause I seen the core he was building. But it's clear as day that he's not the guy to take the next step. He did his job, now its time for some old boys club member to take the next step.

 

Rutherford or Lombardi please 

Kesler had next to no value.

 

Burrows got Dahlen. A trade that was said to be pretty good. In the end, we received Linus Karlsson. He's developing in Sweden now. Meanwhile, Dahlen is toiling in Timra (still). Be hasn't advanced.

 

Edler wasn't even Gillis' pick. While we still have Edler, note how there were no replacements for him in terms of prospects. That is on Gillis.

 

Gillis left crap to Benning. Kanucks25 has constantly been ignoring evidence that doesn't support his points because all he cares about is bashing Benning at all costs, while glossing over Gillis' poor prospect pool.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Dazzle

[Silky mitts]

3 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

1) “and now we regressed big time.”

-You DO realize that Benning could have kept all of Markstrom, Toffoli and Tanev had he truly wanted to right? (Ie packaging sweeteners to get rid of bad contracts)   So why didn’t he?  

2) These bad/transitional contracts that Benning signed......what impact did it have on the kids in our system?   Did the presence of these bad contracts allow for kids to develop their games with lesser roles?   
 

3) Is progression always linear?

 

4) Name me one team that HASN”T struggled for 5-7 years during a developmental period.  Look at the rest of the teams in our division.  What has their journeys been like the past 20 years?   What about the top teams in the league right now?  What has their journeys been like over the past 20 years?   

What? You do realize he fumbled the bag so bad trying to acquire OEL that he failed to Retain any of those players . And yes he did try to resign them when it was too late , plus the lack of cap space for overpaid bums like beagle and Rousell. 
 

the lengths some of you go to defend jimbo is actually comical .

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, 180sret said:

Wow! Can't believe how toxic the Vancouver Media and some of the fanbase are. Haven't lived in BC for the last 35 years but can say the other NHL markets aren't near as toxic against their teams. There seems to be an unrealistic expectation that you should be good enough to challenge for the cup every year. A new coach will not get this team closer in the next 2 years, the young players are still learning what they can and can't do at this level. As far as JB is concerned, this is the best young talent on the team and in the pool that I've seen since the start of our last run.

 

Seems no one has the patients to see it thru. Building a team in real life ain't like a computer sim lol. Anyway, My thoughts.

Thanks for your thoughts but they revolve around a complete strawman argument (the bolded in the quote above).

 

The gripes against Benning have more to do with the individual moves he's made, or lack thereof, and his overall "plan", or lack thereof.

 

When he first took over, and he planned on the "quick retool", many of us were clamouring for the more long-term, slow-build approach.

 

I don't have any patients, as I'm not a doctor, but I do have the patience to see a good plan through. First we need a GM with a good plan.

Edited March 6, 2021 by kanucks25

[NewbieCanuckFan]

The important thing when Benning started the job, he had essentially the full allotment of Canucks picks to work with.  Gave him a better opportunity to work on his real skill (drafting)

Edited March 6, 2021 by NewbieCanuckFan

[Dazzle]

Just now, Silky mitts said:

What? You do realize he fumbled the bag so bad trying to acquire OEL that he failed to Retain any of those players . And yes he did try to resign them when it was too late , plus the lack of cap space for overpaid bums like beagle and Rousell. 
 

the lengths some of you go to defend jimbo is actually comical .

The fact that you wanted Benning to retain Markstrom and Tanev for those long contracts is laughable. Tanev's contract isn't terrible, but 6x6 Markstrom is cringe. A lot of the complaints about Benning has been that the contracts too long. So you want to get another one?

[AV.]

12 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I've spoken at length about this; Gillis did a very poor job at planning for the future. Sure he may have had a President's Cup, most of which was from a core inherited from his predecessors, namely Edler. He made a number of good changes, like investing in sleep doctors, etc and helping to get a new locker room.

 

There were a number of trades he simply got lucky on, namely the Markstrom/Luongo one, and the Horvat/Schneider. Markstrom had a lot of raw potential, but he was not a starter, at least at the beginning. He had to work hard. Horvat was good, but he had skating issues. Then there was the Grabner plus 1st round pick for Ballard (who was eventually bought out). If Markstrom/Horvat didn't elevate their games after the acquisitions, we would have an even crappier prospect pool.

 

Make no mistake. Gillis brought the Canucks very close to the cup. He deserves credit for that. Yet to say Gillis was better than Benning is just flossing over Gillis' mistakes. His drafting/developing is indefensible. No good picks at all. We could write a paper on how Gillis' legacy continues to damage the Canucks today.

 

 

Newsflash:  If a GM gets "lucky" on multiple deals...maybe it's not luck 

[Dazzle]

2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

The important thing when Henning started the job, he had essentially the full allotment of Canucks picks to work with.  Gave him a better opportunity to work on his real skill (drafting)

I'm laughing at how the 6th overall was considered a gift by Gillis supporters, rather than seeing it as his team was not as good as it was on paper. Sure, there was a 100 point year after, but that the fact remains about being no prospects coming up the system under Gillis. I'm sorry, being a fan of Shinkaruk, even I realized he wasn't the same after the injury. The mention about him as an asset is a joke.

[RU SERIOUS]

12 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I've spoken at length about this; Gillis did a very poor job at planning for the future. Sure he may have had a President's Cup, most of which was from a core inherited from his predecessors, namely Edler. He made a number of good changes, like investing in sleep doctors, etc and helping to get a new locker room.

 

There were a number of trades he simply got lucky on, namely the Markstrom/Luongo one, and the Horvat/Schneider. Markstrom had a lot of raw potential, but he was not a starter, at least at the beginning. He had to work hard. Horvat was good, but he had skating issues. Then there was the Grabner plus 1st round pick for Ballard (who was eventually bought out). If Markstrom/Horvat didn't elevate their games after the acquisitions, we would have an even crappier prospect pool.

 

Make no mistake. Gillis brought the Canucks very close to the cup. He deserves credit for that. Yet to say Gillis was better than Benning is just flossing over Gillis' mistakes. His drafting/developing is indefensible. No good picks at all. We could write a paper on how Gillis' legacy continues to damage the Canucks today.

 

 

LOL,  you made me LMAO when you reminded me of the olden days when the Canucks brought in  the sleep Doctors, foot massagers, hypnotist, crystal ball readers, Vegan-Yoga People and Tarot Card readers in an effort to enhance the "Swedish Country Club" atmosphere - that still lingers on today - to a lesser extent.    

 

Ahhhhhhh, "the good 'ol days" !       Weren't they something to behold !

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Deliberately leave 6 assets with good-to-great value off your list or did you just forget?

Burrows had 15 pts in 2014/15 and a huge contract with limiting clause....

As I've pointed out numerous times - virtually the entire roster's value had to be rebuilt before they could be sold/traded.

You've named a bunch of 30+ players - with large contracts, and limiting clauses - as if they were great rebuild assets.  That is laughable - particularly when you proceed to sandbag everyone on the current roster. 

Bottom line - once again - is that you are entirely whiffing on the point.

 

The idea that the team miraculously broke into contention because of Gillis - is a complete misread. 

 

It took them 9 years to assemble the core / the team Gillis inherited - and a few more for him to tweak them into contenders.

Edited March 6, 2021 by oldnews

[Patel Bure]

Just now, Silky mitts said:

What? You do realize he fumbled the bag so bad trying to acquire OEL that he failed to Retain any of those players . And yes he did try to resign them when it was too late , plus the lack of cap space for overpaid bums like beagle and Rousell. 
 

the lengths some of you go to defend jimbo is actually comical .

The Canucks biggest long term need is a viable Edler replacement (ie a top pairing all situations dman that can log big minutes).   That’s why Benning hyper focused on OEL.  Going after OEL would have also allowed Benning to move a bad contract (Eriksson).

 

Benning wouldn’t have minded keeping Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli for the right term, but they were expandable since we have players in the system that are younger and will replace them (Demko, Tryamkin, Hoglander, and Podkolzin).  
 

The reason why many media members and fans are confused is because they think you have to be doing “only one or the other” in terms of bringing in “now” players or running with the youth.   Any attempt at doing both is perceived as “changing direction” which is completely false thinking.

 

People think that we brought in Miller, Myers, Ferland, Beagle, and Roussel because we were “trying to win a cup,” but that isn’t the case at all.    Myers filled a hole in our weakest organizational position while taking pressure off of Tanev (while also allowing us to move on from Tanev).   Beagle and Roussel took defensive pressure and responsibilities off our top young guys.  
 

Contracts like Miller’s and Schmidt’s are going to look like gold in the 22-23 season with all of our bad contracts off the books.  
 

Forest.Trees.

[kanucks25]

1 minute ago, RU SERIOUS said:

LOL,  you made me LMAO when you reminded me of the olden days when the Canucks brought in  the sleep Doctors, foot massagers, hypnotist, crystal ball readers, Vegan-Yoga People and Tarot Card readers in an effort to enhance the "Swedish Country Club" atmosphere - that still lingers on today - to a lesser extent.    

 

Ahhhhhhh, "the good 'ol days" !       Weren't they something to behold !

Usually it's seen as a good thing when organizations are willing to be proactive, progressive and spend the necessary resources to reach success.

 

But whatever is required to fit the narrative, I guess.