Jim Benning's mid-season press conference

[alt kilgore]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think people call Benning dishonest, when they're just pissed off that he didn't say or do what they wanted them to. Nothing about Jim strikes me as dishonest. A good communicator, no, but he's not a liar. 

I don't think he is either.  Not competent enough for our team, yes.  But if anything JB is too honest for the job he has, and unknowingly blurts out things that only cause more grief for him later

 

. He's not a very good liar and he probably knows it.  The question is, how much of what he believes is true.........he's just convinced himself of?  From a track record of "turn it around quickly",  "a foundational player" etc.  That cognitive gap is what worries me about relying on Jim for any more future hockey decisions. 

 

I gave JB the benefit of the doubt for years.  In Benning We Trust.  It was only about a year ago, when I could see this cap crunch problem coming, that I started questioning him.  Letting Brackett get away didn't help.  And this past post season's decisions just put the nail in the coffin for me

Edited March 6, 2021 by kilgore

[billabong]

1 hour ago, BlastPast said:

Why do people take a comment like this and attach their own inferences to it? His comment does not imply they can't/couldn't be competitive tonight, or the last game, or a month from now, or next season, or last season, or five years from now. It's incredible how people, who I am sure consider themselves practitioners of logic and critical thinking, will immediately abandon the principle of charity when it suits them, in order to interpret things however they need to justify feeling however they want .

 

I also find it odd that there seems to be the sentiment among some of the more critical fans that there has been exactly nothing accomplished over the last years. As if the team is in the exact same position it was in five years ago, and not much, much better positioned for the future. Improvement has been incremental and not as quick as some would like but to suggest it has not occurred is just ignorant.

 

One thing these little flare ups in the fanbase highlight is just how stupid some fans are. Once again, certainty and ignorance is the busiest intersection in town.

 

 

Uhh what?

 

hes 100% referencing all the money he has tide up in his bottom 6 and dead money cause he needs that money to help build around the core. 
 

Go crunch the numbers on capfriendly and try to make this team a contender before summer of 2022 Without trading any salary or buyouts. It’s impossible 

[JM_]

36 minutes ago, kilgore said:

I don't think he is either.  Not competent enough for our team, yes.  But if anything JB is too honest for the job he has, and unknowingly blurts out things that only cause more grief for him later

 

. He's not a very good liar and he probably knows it.  The question is, how much of what he believes is true.........he's just convinced himself of?  From a track record of "turn it around quickly",  "a foundational player" etc.  That cognitive gap is what worries me about relying on Jim for any more future hockey decisions. 

 

I gave JB the benefit of the doubt for years.  In Benning We Trust.  It was only about a year ago, when I could see this cap crunch problem coming, that I started questioning him.  Letting Brackett get away didn't help.  And this past post season's decisions just put the nail in the coffin for me

I think its simpler than that, he's just very old school. He takes as much time as he's given to make decisions, which is OK sometimes, but also sometimes leaves you in the position of not moving UFA's e.g., or re-signing them like TT.

 

I also think he relies very much on a top down management style, which also rubs people the wrong way at times. 

 

But, if there's an improvement out there on him I'm OK with it too. It looks like we will be going into this UFA season with him at the helm, so I'm just hoping he can sharpen the pencil a bit better this time out, and maybe go for a year less term on some deals .

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[Dazzle]

37 minutes ago, kilgore said:

I don't think he is either.  Not competent enough for our team, yes.  But if anything JB is too honest for the job he has, and unknowingly blurts out things that only cause more grief for him later

 

. He's not a very good liar and he probably knows it.  The question is, how much of what he believes is true.........he's just convinced himself of?  From a track record of "turn it around quickly",  "a foundational player" etc.  That cognitive gap is what worries me about relying on Jim for any more future hockey decisions. 

 

I gave JB the benefit of the doubt for years.  In Benning We Trust.  It was only about a year ago, when I could see this cap crunch problem coming, that I started questioning him.  Letting Brackett get away didn't help.  And this past post season's decisions just put the nail in the coffin for me

I don't think he could have done much with this offseason. Not signing Markstrom is/was the right move. Paying for Toffoli the next year may or may not have been a safe move. Paying for Tanev likewise carries a significant risk, considering he had been fairly injury prone before.

 

People keep saying these non-signings were mistakes, but at the same time, look at the teams that acquired the players. Aside from Toffoli, they're only a few points ahead, granted they have some games in hand. Still, they are far from being cup contenders.

 

I'm not saying these players are bad, but I think the impact of these players have been overstated.

[Silky mitts]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

If you solely focus on when they were taken. Not sure why that’s relevant. Juolevi is very very good and Jake can be. 

OJ is not even a regular yet so let’s pump the breaks there . 

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, BlastPast said:

Why do people take a comment like this and attach their own inferences to it? His comment does not imply they can't/couldn't be competitive tonight, or the last game, or a month from now, or next season, or last season, or five years from now. It's incredible how people, who I am sure consider themselves practitioners of logic and critical thinking, will immediately abandon the principle of charity when it suits them, in order to interpret things however they need to justify feeling however they want .

 

I also find it odd that there seems to be the sentiment among some of the more critical fans that there has been exactly nothing accomplished over the last years. As if the team is in the exact same position it was in five years ago, and not much, much better positioned for the future. Improvement has been incremental and not as quick as some would like but to suggest it has not occurred is just ignorant.

 

One thing these little flare ups in the fanbase highlight is just how stupid some fans are. Once again, certainty and ignorance is the busiest intersection in town.

Most of your argument (bolded) is a strawman, which makes the rest of your post where you call those that have an opposing view to you stupid and ignorant completely baseless.

 

You need to consider what the actual root of the problem is: asset management.

 

[180sret]

3 hours 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.

Thanks for the spelling lesson lol. Where we differ is I see his plan and what he is trying to achieve. You and some others think you can make moves up and down your lineup and with other teams easily. You have your "narrative" hence all the bit#hing on nearly every thread. Tell me how would you build a team and in what time frame? It's easy to throw crap at the wall, truth is your ego can't take the team losing so you lash out. It doesn't matter, win or lose, the day's go on. You're free to cheer on whoever, I'm free to enjoy this build and what JB has planned. 

 

Relax, sports is a diversion from real life issues. The owners will make whatever decisions they make, whether you guys agree or not. I just get tired of having every thread bombarded with sh$t from people whose ego's can't take losing. I get P.O ed after losses too but I try to get over myself lol.

 

Let's hope for a well played game, Go Canucks Go!

[appleboy]

Jud Bracket.  I think Jonathan Wall has moved into some of the analytics. He took over some of Jud's job scope. 

 

Jim should have said that they clearly have never done a rebuild. He should have said that because of the twins they were not allowed to blow the club up and recoup assets. Instead they were trying, with the limited assets they had to surround the twins with enough to be competitive. This ownership is still 100% against going through anything that might be called a rebuild. They do not think that this fan base could cope with it. "THEY MAY BE RIGHT".  I mean look at the result from even suggesting that we are still two years away. 

A lot of the fans on this board pushed for a complete blow up and start the rebuild 7 years ago. Not only management said no but a huge group of fans reticuled us . They even went to the point of calling us losers. We said that it was the only way to turn this around quickly.  We warned that it would take 10 years or more if you don't.

This will take ten. OR MORE.

Hopefully we won't be watching Bo and Miller walk away in three without being competitive.

[kanucks25]

“We’re not looking to take on a contract like that [cap dump],” said Benning. “We want to try and field a competitive team and if we’re going to use that cap space, we’re going to use it to bring in a real player who can help us be competitive.

 

2016

[gameburn]

5 hours ago, 24K PureCool said:

Uh bud they have to sign Holtby for 2 years so we can actually expose him and he in theory provide mentorship to Demko and an insurance plan in case Demko falters. Two years ain't long contract wise.

Just take the L this season. We are probably a bubble team next year as well. It was obvious that we have to suffer through some short term pain for long term gain. 

 

5 hours ago, KirkSave said:

Bringing in Holtby for 2 years allows time for Demko to marinate and having a solid tandem was put in place specifically for this season and its condensed schedule. It was inteneded as a 1A 1B approach but for the current time, Demko has taken the reigns and played well the last few weeks whereas Holtby has struggled mightily. 2 years is not very much term, particularly for a SC winner and former Vezina winner not too far removed from those accomplishments. I'm just happy to see Demko continue to develop and "come into his own". When the best goal scorer in the league heaps praise on a goalie, it speaks volumes.

It would be a good plan if we didn't lose Stecher and Toffoli to pay for it.  

Seattle would never have picked up Holtby (Fleury he ain't) -- to me it's just more of the same thinking that got them into cap trouble in the first place.

 

But Cool is right: it does seem like the most upset of us should probably have a beer, take the L and move on.  

[Violator]

I'm thinking if your talking to the owner every day your job isn't very secure and your not the gm anymore.

[coolboarder]

8 minutes ago, Violator said:

I'm thinking if your talking to the owner every day your job isn't very secure and your not the gm anymore.

I would think that it's more important to have owner take a part of the day to day operation and keep the line of communication open.  If the owner doesn't know anything about the team, something is wrong with the owner's competent.  If I were the owner, I would want to know everything, good or bad.  For as long as they are honest with me, I'm ok with it unless the management disagree with me as the owner of the team, they're gone.  Simple as that.   I do not like the hand-off owner approach of the ownership style.  dIf I invest million of dollars business, I want to know and give advice to the management whether I'm knowledgeable or not.  It is the management's job to explain why this would not work.  If they lie to me that the team is ready to contend and they miss the playoffs, I'd fire them at the end of the season, simply as that.  

[Gurn]

17 minutes ago, Violator said:

I'm thinking if your talking to the owner every day your job isn't very secure and your not the gm anymore.

If I'm the owner of a billion dollar enterprise, I too would check in very often with my manager.

[Gurn]

30 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

“We’re not looking to take on a contract like that [cap dump],” said Benning. “We want to try and field a competitive team and if we’re going to use that cap space, we’re going to use it to bring in a real player who can help us be competitive.

 

2016

Cool.

how many games did the Canucks lose by 3 or more goals that year?

How many by 2 or 1?.

 

I'd guess having those numbers would be a way to see if the team was competitive that year.

[Patel Bure]

It’s Summer 2014 and you’re Jim Benning. You have just taken over the Canucks and are holding a press conference in which you are asked about the state of the team and goals for the coming years.
 

Why would it be prudent and even advisable to say, “I think we can turn this around pretty quickly” as opposed to saying, “We will be looking to rebuild our team in the coming years.”

 

If you (Benning) were to have said the latter, what kind of message would it have sent to guys like the Sedins’, Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, Higgins, and other players that had been a part of our successful core for so many years?   What kind of relationship and impression would you (Benning) have created had you said the latter?   Would you have ingratiated yourself to the new team and players?

 

Ps - When the Canucks lost to the Flames in 2015, did Benning give you the impression that he still thought he could win with the current core, or that changes intended for the future needed to be implemented?   

[Violator]

22 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

I would think that it's more important to have owner take a part of the day to day operation and keep the line of communication open.  If the owner doesn't know anything about the team, something is wrong with the owner's competent.  If I were the owner, I would want to know everything, good or bad.  For as long as they are honest with me, I'm ok with it unless the management disagree with me as the owner of the team, they're gone.  Simple as that.   I do not like the hand-off owner approach of the ownership style.  dIf I invest million of dollars business, I want to know and give advice to the management whether I'm knowledgeable or not.  It is the management's job to explain why this would not work.  If they lie to me that the team is ready to contend and they miss the playoffs, I'd fire them at the end of the season, simply as that.  

I'm more or less thinking if he's meddling it just means the gm will not be with the team for mug longer.

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, billabong said:

Uhh what?

 

hes 100% referencing all the money he has tide up in his bottom 6 and dead money cause he needs that money to help build around the core. 
 

Go crunch the numbers on capfriendly and try to make this team a contender before summer of 2022 Without trading any salary or buyouts. It’s impossible 

The Canucks could very easily clear cap space by ridding themselves of a bad contract with a high sweetener if they truly wanted to.  They could have done that this past off season as well.  
 

That’s why I find it funny when critics of Jim Benning accuse Benning of being short sighted and not caring about the future.  
 

Morons like Satiar Shah then accuse Benning of not having a consistent plan.

[AV.]

22 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

The Canucks could very easily clear cap space by ridding themselves of a bad contract with a high sweetener if they truly wanted to.  They could have done that this past off season as well.  
 

That’s why I find it funny when critics of Jim Benning accuse Benning of being short sighted and not caring about the future.  
 

Morons like Satiar Shah then accuse Benning of not having a consistent plan.

So why didn't they?

 

Why did Benning trade a 2nd and a prospect last year if the team was allegedly more than 2 years away from competing?

 

Seems like no plan and pretty short-sighted to me (and everybody else).

[PhillipBlunt]

1 hour ago, Silky mitts said:

OJ is not even a regular yet so let’s pump the breaks there . 

He has all the capabilities to be one, it’s just that he has Green as a coach. He’s an NHL player. How exactly does one pump a break anyway?

[Patel Bure]

4 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

 

-When Benning took over the team in 2014 and had his press conference, what do you think would have happened had he spoken honestly? (Ie we need to rebuild and bring in more youthful players).   As a new GM, do you think that would have been a smart way to ingratiate yourself to the core players that had been there for many years and had done so much for the city?  
 

-Given the contracts on our team (Sedins, Edler, etc., with NTC’s and NMC’s and with heavy cap hits), do YOU think we would have been able to move those players and get a fair  value in return?   
 

-Why do you think a guy like Bieksa was moved for a 2nd, or why Higgins was dropped in favor of Baertschi, or why guys like Burrows and Hansen were moved for prospects?    
 

-Ignoring any narratives about mentorship, etc. what happened to the kids on our team and in our system when we brought in guys like Ryan Miller, Sutter, Eriksson, Baertschi, Roussel, Beagle, Schaller, Myers, Ferland, etc.?    (and again, I am NOT talking about mentorship and intangibles here.....never mind that......what I’m asking you here, is where were the kids on our TEAM placed, and what kinds of players stayed on the farm as a result of these vets occupying spots).
 

 Good performance or sub par performance by the aforementioned players aside, how did the young players on our team and in our system benefits from the presence of those vets?.......and again, I’m NOT talking about mentorship here).  .   
 

-Related to the above point, do you think the Canucks have done better than most teams in the terms of converting draft pick selections into NHL roster players?   (Pettersson, Boeser, Hoglander, Gaudette, Virtanen, Juolevi, Hughes, Demko).   What about guys like Rathbone, Podkolzin, and Tryamkin that are slated to join us next season?