Jim Benning's mid-season press conference

[WeneedLumme]

There sure seem to be a lot of people here who have a very weak understanding of the difference between excuses and reasons. Hint: one has to do with rationalizing something that should not have happened, the other has to do with easily forseeable consequences.

 

Anybody using the word "excuse" to describe Benning's honest statements would be well advised to google the difference between the two words.

 

Anybody insisting that JB should be dumping bodies immediately for draft picks, and who choose to assume that JB's honest accurate description of the market conditions is an "excuse", need to open their eyes. 

 

This year, due to the cap and the upcoming ED, the trade market has been devastated. So far this season, there have been a total of four trades in the NHL, and ZERO of them have been bodies for picks. Think about that.

 

Anybody who thinks a team should be a cup winner, or even contender, within a few years of starting a rebuild, needs to think a bit about the math. With 31, soon to be 32 teams, on average each team will win the cup 3 times per century.

 

But since cup winners tend to win more than one cup before their windows close, 50 year gaps between cup wins are going to be very common. If the only thing that matters to you is winning a cup, you are pretty much guaranteeing that you will be miserable. The product here is entertainment, not cups.

[10pavelbure96]

9 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

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.

I agree with you there, Gillis was terrible at drafting. Absolutely terrible and his PR surrounding the goalies was terrible too. Basically ran luongo out of town where Schneider should have been traded long before any controversy could develop. 

 

They all have their faults but it's time for a change.

[Dazzle]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

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

Maybe it's not luck after all that Benning acquired Schmidt for a third round pick. Maybe Benning was not lucky to get Hoglander in the 2nd round. Maybe Benning wasn't lucky to acquire Boeser. Maybe... Just maybe...

 

Horvat could've gone the way of Hodgson. Maybe Markstrom could've regressed. There's so many moving parts.

 

Risk management has never seemingly been on Gillis' mind. That much is clear. That or he was blackballed by the league. Gillis' trades are no better than Benning's.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

6 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Burrows had 15 pts in 2014/15.

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.

 

That core was built largely over the 9 years that preceded Gillis - the idea that the team miraculously broke into contention because of Gillis - is a complete misread. 

 

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

Three different GMs during those nine years.  Though I suppose since Nonis  was Burke's right hand man, you might consider them as one.

 

Edit: stupid phone autocorrect lol

Edited March 6, 2021 by NewbieCanuckFan

[kanucks25]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Burrows had 15 pts in 2014/15.

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.

Just because Benning didn't get good value in his trades doesn't mean the assets weren't good (the ones he actually traded, not the ones he let walk for nothing, to be clear).

 

We've witnessed his UFA negotiations. I imagine his trade negotiations are about the same.

[Patel Bure]

8 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

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 the doctor, but I do have the patience to see a good plan through. First we need a GM with a good plan.

So you don’t think it’s coincidence at all that all of our bad/transitional contracts will come off the books this year and next?  Or that guys like Horvat, Miller, and Schmidt will still be on relatively cap friendly deals when the 22-23 season starts?   
 

Teams don’t have to choose between “going with the youth” and “bringing in now” players. It’s possible to do both and still have both a short term and long term plan.  Sounds to me like you’ve been listening to Sportsnet 650 a little too much......or have been spending too much time at HF Canucks.   Leave it up to those two places in which 20 something/early 30’s kids are “smarter” than NHL GM’s, owners, and managers.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

Risk management has never seemingly been on Gillis' mind. That much is clear. That or he was blackballed by the league. Gillis' trades are no better than Benning's.

Benning never had the two free reset buttons Gillis had (buyout with no cap hit).

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Three different GMs during those nine years.  Though I suppose since Nonis  was Burke's right hand man, you might consider them as one.

 

Edit: stupid phone autocorrect lol

exactly.

All those GMs deserve credit in building that contending team - they all brought in or drafted key pieces.

That team took over a decade to build.

[kanucks25]

1 minute ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Three different GMs during those nine years.  Though I suppose since Bonus was Burke's right hand man, you might consider them as one.

Even still, he kind of proved the point he's arguing against lol.

[oldnews]

7 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Just because Benning didn't get good value in his trades doesn't mean the assets weren't good (the ones he actually traded, not the ones he let walk for nothing, to be clear).

 

Yawn.  Player values are relative to their cap hit, their remaining term, their limiting clauses, and where their performance was....

You are rose-goggling what was a gong show post-Tortorella.

Regardless of whether they eeked out some returns on some of those players - Kesler's was the only real significant, non-longshot return - the reality remained that they were still starting from relative ground zero - so the entire point about the context of timelines - is something you evidently refuse to gain a concept of.

 

Have a nice day though - that's enough wasted time on your fantasy delusions about the state of the franchise in 2015.

Edited March 6, 2021 by oldnews

[kanucks25]

3 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

So you don’t think it’s coincidence at all that all of our bad/transitional contracts will come off the books this year and next?  Or that guys like Horvat, Miller, and Schmidt will still be on relatively cap friendly deals when the 22-23 season starts?  

No I don't believe it was always a 9 year plan.

 

4 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Teams don’t have to choose between “going with the youth” and “bringing in now” players. It’s possible to do both and still have both a short term and long term plan.  Sounds to me like you’ve been listening to Sportsnet 650 a little too much......or have been spending too much time at HF Canucks.   Leave it up to those two places in which 20 something/early 30’s kids are “smarter” than NHL GM’s, owners, and managers.

I can make my own opinions, thanks. And just because they don't align with yours doesn't mean they're wrong, and even if they did come from "those" places, what makes "those" places wrong? Because you said so? Got any credentials yourself?

 

 

[Dazzle]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

No I don't believe it was always a 9 year plan.

 

I can make my own opinions, thanks. And just because they don't align with yours doesn't mean they're wrong, and even if they did come from "those" places, what makes "those" places wrong? Because you said so? Got any credentials yourself?

 

 

They're wrong because you've ignored inconvenient evidence that has constantly come up as criticism of Gillis. All you've been able to do is throw stones at people you deem to be Benning's lackies. You haven't been able to argue against Gillis' poor prospect pool, namely no replacements. You've even laughably spun the Canucks poor year as some kind of 'gift' from Gillis, as if it would make up for the number of lost draft picks over the years, with poor drafting from the picks he did have. Laughable.

[Silky mitts]

21 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

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?

Never said once they should retain markstrom for what he got . Toffoli at his hit we hundred percent could have used , and if we didn’t have so many terrible contracts we could’ve used tanev, maybe help with Hughes albatross defensive play this year .

[kanucks25]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

They're wrong because you've ignored inconvenient evidence that has constantly come up as criticism of Gillis. All you've been able to do is throw stones at people you deem to be Benning's lackies. You haven't been able to argue against Gillis' poor prospect pool, namely no replacements. You've even laughably spun the Canucks poor year as some kind of 'gift' from Gillis, as if it would make up for the number of lost draft picks over the years, with poor drafting from the picks he did have. Laughable.

Like @Alain Vigneault says, you have a weird obsession with Gillis. 

 

Benning has made enough bad non-Gillis related moves/non-moves to warrant his firing.

 

It really has nothing to do with Gillis.

Edited March 6, 2021 by kanucks25

[Patel Bure]

4 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

No I don't believe it was always a 9 year plan.

 

I can make my own opinions, thanks. And just because they don't align with yours doesn't mean they're wrong, and even if they did come from "those" places, what makes "those" places wrong? Because you said so? Got any credentials yourself?

 

 

No one ever wants a 9 year plan but it does take a substantially long time to build a consistently elite team.   The problem that I’m having with posters like you is that you assume that the Canucks are one of the only teams in the league that have taken this long to rebuild.  
 

Again,

-Look at the teams in our division and their paths over the last 20 years.  

-Look at teams like Dallas, Colorado, Carolina, Florida, New York Islanders, etc, etc., and how many years they missed the playoffs for and how long they took to become good.

-Look at Colorado from 2008, Tampa Bay from 2004, etc.  

 

Building a consistently elite team takes time.  Our 2nd round appearance last season was an important step forward last year.  Progression isn’t always linear.   Remember the Canucks 2007-2008 season?   How did they do the year before?  What happened between 2008-2013?   

Edited March 7, 2021 by DarkIndianRises

[RU SERIOUS]

12 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

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.

Maybe you have a point, but it still makes me laugh when I hear of these "pampered pussycat" players nowadays.  Especially when for 75 years "the old" method of coaches pushing players hard and without mercy proved successful in winning cups.  I just think there needs to be a limit to how much you babysit and handhold these players - but I guess that's the NEW way of the Millennial generation who needed to get trophy's for participation!  

 

This is what I mean when I say things are out of balance...................

 

 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

Maybe it's not luck after all that Benning acquired Schmidt for a third round pick. Maybe Benning was not lucky to get Hoglander in the 2nd round. Maybe Benning wasn't lucky to acquire Boeser. Maybe... Just maybe...

 

Horvat could've gone the way of Hodgson. Maybe Markstrom could've regressed. There's so many moving parts.

 

Risk management has never seemingly been on Gillis' mind. That much is clear. That or he was blackballed by the league. Gillis' trades are no better than Benning's.

What is the point of this response?  It has offered nothing insightful and its just a classic example of you defending Benning via cheap, tired, Gillis slander.

 

Benning didn't get Schmidt for a 3rd because he did his due diligence on the market.  Vegas signed a superior defenceman (one that, had we managed our cap properly, we could have potentially been in on as a partner for Hughes) and circled around to us because we were desperate after missing out on...Tyson Barrie (LOL).  Besides, it's well rumoured he turned down Winnipeg and Florida backed out of their deal with Vegas, so we were third choice in this deal.  Hardly impressive if you ask me.

 

As for drafting, you keep talking like Hoglander is some legit NHLer.  He's been good in the 25 games he's played in but so were Schroeder, Kassian, Gaudette, Corrado, etc., in their initial spells.  Give him a few years to solidify himself, and more importantly, the other picks around him to see if we actually drafted a stud.  Not sure how you think drafting Boeser is good drafting.  He was BPA at that spot lol.  I guess its better than, uhh, Juulsen or G. Carlsson..lol?

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

Like @Alain Vigneault says, you have a weird obsession with Gillis. 

 

Benning has made enough bad non-Gillis related moves/non-moves to warrant his firing.

 

It really has nothing to do with Gillis.

To say it has nothing to do with Gillis is a lie. At least part of our issues is the lack of depth, particularly in the 20-25 age gap, which not so mysteriously was absent during the takeover.

 

The biggest issue about 2016 was that there were no replacements for several years of draft mismanagement. One high draft isn't gonna cut it. The team has to balance between icing a roster and rebuilding a nonexistent prospect pool.

 

My biggest gripe about Benning is not re-evaluating the coaches. We've only had WD and TG, both of whom have identical win/losses, despite the latter having the most talented and young roster by far. I am most disappointed in Benning that he said he was going to extend him. For that decision, I think Benning should be removed. Green is not irreplaceable.

[kanucks25]

3 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

No one ever wants a 9 year plan but it does take a substantially long time to build a consistently elite team.   The problem that I’m having with posters like you is that you assume that the Canucks are one of the only teams in the league that have taken this long to rebuild.  
 

Again,

-Look at the teams in our division and their paths over the last 20 years.  

-Look at teams like Dallas, Colorado, Carolina, Florida, New York Islanders, etc, etc., and how many years they missed the playoffs for and how long they took to become good.

-Look at Colorado from 2008, Tampa Bay from 2004, etc.  

 

Building a consistently elite team takes time.  Our 2nd round appearance last season was an important step forward last year.  Profession isn’t always linear.   Remember the Canucks 2007-2008 season?   How did they do the year before?  What happened between 2008-2013?   

32 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

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.

[coolboarder]

After reading pages of the threads, I have an opinion of Benning.  Benning has to answer to the owner, not to the fans.  All Benning has to be honest with the ownership and not giving his hands to fans because other teams would read of his plan and try to sabotage and it's dog eat dog world in the NHL.  The owner has to sign on with Benning's plan and it's very fluid.  It's a Covid-19 year and whatever this plan pre-Covid-19 that Benning had has changed drastically and it's not of Benning's fault.  The owner knows that and it is up to Benning to make the adjustment and present this plan adjustments to the owner.   You have to keep in mind that Benning knows that he was not out of woods and he was doing well with his plan before pandemic hit the world.   

 

The playoffs has exposed the team so bad that Benning probably went to the owner and explain that it takes time and take a step back and let them develop as a core.  Perhaps, the owner agreed.  For as long as Benning is honest with the owner, his job is secure regardless of what he is telling the public recent.  You do not ever tell your grand plan to the world, not in the press, ever.   If Benning is telling us that it would take two years, he is more likely being honest and the team knows that they are not good enough just yet.  For as long as they continue to develop and work on their crafts, their stock will only go up.  Maybe Benning explained that you do not want to overreliance on the goaltender and allow the team to get away with defensive breakdown from off-season meeting with the owner.  You want to develop a good habit of a strong defensive team with goaltending.  This is the reason why they had to let go Markstrom after Demko proved that he could become a #1 star in the league.   The moves from off-season implies that the owner and the GMJB had their strategy set forward and focus on 2021-22 season instead.   Also Benning wanted to play different teams and he didn't get the opportunity to see what kind of team he has when the schedule is all divisional based.   

 

When you do not have a practice time, you are exposed and you have a bad habit from last season still carrying over and when you have some practice time, the bad habit will shed and good habit will become stick. I'm sure that the coach and the management team pointed this thing out to the public and it's difficult to develop your team when you don't have any practice time.   You still need some rest otherwise you burn our the players quickly by schedule more practice time and games without any rest with crazy first month of schedule.    The area I'm most interested is, can the practice time change the team quickly at this point to the end of season with 2nd half of the schedule, I think we'll see how much affect on this team.   Hold your horse when it comes to criticizing GMJB.