Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management

[JohnTavares]

I want to have a genuine and honest conversation with those who still support current management. I recognize there has been a major shift here on this forum with regards to supporting Jim Benning and co. After running off the highs of taking Vegas to Game 7, the majority of fans on this forum still heavily supported Jim and co. Jim Benning slander was usually downvoted to oblivion and met with confrontation and disgust up until the 2020 offseason. Several people were downvoted or confronted for suggesting that the Canucks could a step back with limited cap space and several key players needing new contracts.

 

The turning point for myself was when Jim traded Bonino for Sutter: gave up arguably the better player on a cheaper contract, lost value in the draft pick exchange, proceeded to call Sutter a "foundational" player, signed him to a major extension without Sutter ever playing a single game for us. This was 6 years ago in 2015. This series of transactions raised major red flags for me and the subsequent moves after really sealed the deal - Jim Benning is the not the right guy for the job.

After an abysmal year from the Canucks, a terrible cap sheet, and an average/below-average prospect pool to look forward to, many have shifted their opinions and want to clean house. For those who still support management, can I ask why?

 

On a results basis: The Canucks have one of the worst records in the league since Benning took over, while spending to the cap every year. The Canucks have had one playoff round win in seven years. The Canucks are about to finish as a bottom tier team despite having our "core" pieces in place. Even BEFORE the Covid outbreak, the Canucks were unlikely to make the playoffs. Yes, Petterson has missed a lot of games, but every team has injuries. If you want to build a winning team, you need depth, depth and more depth. For those who look to Covid and the Petterson injury as excuses, why? We were bad before Covid and if your team relies on ONE guy to keep your season afloat, then your team is not very good to begin with.

 

On a process basis: If results were poor, but the process was defined and executed, I wouldn't even be mad. Jim and co have proven time and time again, that their really is no clear direction. Seven years in and there has never been consistent messaging or moves that aligned. This management truly operates on a day-to-day basis. How can a management team running a near billion dollar business have no consistent plan or long-term outlook? Are we re-building? Are we trying to be competitive? Are we re-tooling? Why give up assets to acquire Toffoli and then not offer a contract? Why give another aging forward (who's having a bad season) a 3 year extension with a flat cap? If we are trying to compete, why did we not ship out Virtanen in the offseason and use that money to keep a Tanev or a Toffoli? Virtanen was abysmal in the playoffs and barely played - it was clear that the fit wasn't there anymore.

 

On a relationship management basis: Jim and management have proven time and time again, that they do not work well with others and have the thinnest front office in the league. They have outed several talented individuals in the organization (Brackett, Linden, Gillman etc.). It was recently reported that Jim and Weisbroad pushed back on Courtnall being in an advisory role. It's clear that Jim and co do not want voices in the room and clearly want yes-men supporting their operation. It's now looking like Ian Clark won't even be re-signed, one of the most important coaches will not be retained this year - another talented member of the organization looking to be on the way out. Jim has and co have not been able to maintain a good relationship with the fans because of the constant inconsistent messaging and the amateur quotes like "day-to-day" and "run out of time".

 

On a transactions basis: This has been beaten to death and there's really no need to go over every transaction. Jim has made some good moves, but his negative transactions FAR outweigh in substance and quantity than the positive transactions. Most Jim supporters resort to his drafting ability as a get-out-of-jail card. Jim has been an above-average drafter for sure - he still missed big time on the Virtanen and Juolevi picks, setting this franchise back for years. So I can't really give Jim and A or an A+ in drafting. Despite his "above-average" drafting, his contracts and trades have mostly been below average to downright terrible.

 

Can I ask the management supporters, are you OK with Jim's "above-average" drafting ability to compensate all the other negatives he brings to the table? What's still giving you faith that Jim can still run this team successfully after 7 years of mostly failure? Are you willing to give Jim his 2 more years, for a 9 year plan? Most GMs never see 9 years or more unless they have delivered exceptional results - which Jim has definitely not done. Why not look to someone new for change? Why after 7 years, do you still want to run with this guy?

 

TLDR: I want to know why you still support the current management group. Why the patience? It's been 7 years now, why do we need to give him 2 more? We have a very large sample size to work with already. Why not seek someone new for a change?

 

[Bad_BOI_pete]

i don't think we needed this thread

[Alflives]

Sorry but I hate the Leafs, so I gotta hate John Tavares, so I gotta hate ... 

[JohnTavares]

5 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

i don't think we needed this thread

Maybe, maybe not.

I want to directly open communication with those will still support management and try to understand their perspectives.

[73 Percent]

I support JB because hes the best drafting GM we've ever had. I'm a firm believer that that is how you build a team. Build through the draft and supplement through FA and trades. 

 

I want to make a couple comments I dont agree with in your original post (cor the record I think it's well thought out and reasonable, unlike the typical &^@# managment content). 

 

You go on to criticize Benning for letting toffoli walk, then criticize him for retaing Pearson. Textbook contradiction. JB has his flaws. This isnt one of them. He learned from his mistake. Toffoli isnt a PPG guy. Hes having a year he wont repeat ever again. BOOK IT. if JB doesnt sign pearson all his haters come back and say he lost an asset when we acquired him and let him walk for nothing if he has a decent year. Toffoli played here for a couple months. LET IT GO HE WAS A RENTAL.

 

As for not trading Virtanen he was coming of a year that he would have been a 20g20a forward. He was supposed to be our toffoli this year. That didnt pan out due to jake being jake. This has nothing to do with JB. Like the Pearson/toffoli thing if we traded virt to keep tanev, and virt goes off and tanev played his regular 50 games (in an 82 game season) you criticize JB for that too. 

 

Theres no winning against a monday morning QB. Which is what you and many of JBs critics do.

 

Bad GMs are good at nothing (snow). Good Gms are good at a couple things (benning). Great GMs are good at everything (yzerman).  I support JB because hes a good JB albeit not great one.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

2 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Maybe, maybe not.

I want to directly open communication with those will still support management and try to understand their perspectives.

i think there is one thread that is still very popular, 7 years no clear plan yada yada yada

[ShawnAntoski]

A scorched earth approach at this point would not be very prudent; preferably, I would like see this roster (minus the underperforming FA'S and they ALL walk) with a different staff and for Aquaman to hire a team president that can complement JB.

Edited May 16, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[King Heffy]

The vets were signed to avoid going full Edmonton and destroying prospects in roles they weren't able to handle.  The overpayments were necessary due to the team being bad, in a market with high taxes.  The success of the young players so early pulled the team back into contention quicker than expected, which made the contracts an issue. 

[Alflives]

15 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Maybe, maybe not.

I want to directly open communication with those will still support management and try to understand their perspectives.

I want to open communication to a Canuck’s fan who chooses a Leaf’s player for his poster name?  

 

[JohnTavares]

13 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

I support JB because hes the best drafting GM we've ever had. I'm a firm believer that that is how you build a team. Build through the draft and supplement through FA and trades. 

 

I want to make a couple comments I dont agree with in your original post (cor the record I think it's well thought out and reasonable, unlike the typical &^@# managment content). 

 

You go on to criticize Benning for letting toffoli walk, then criticize him for retaing Pearson. Textbook contradiction. JB has his flaws. This isnt one of them. He learned from his mistake. Toffoli isnt a PPG guy. Hes having a year he wont repeat ever again. BOOK IT. if JB doesnt sign pearson all his haters come back and say he lost an asset when we acquired him and let him walk for nothing if he has a decent year. Toffoli played here for a couple months. LET IT GO HE WAS A RENTAL.

 

As for not trading Virtanen he was coming of a year that he would have been a 20g20a forward. He was supposed to be our toffoli this year. That didnt pan out due to jake being jake. This has nothing to do with JB. Like the Pearson/toffoli thing if we traded virt to keep tanev, and virt goes off and tanev played his regular 50 games (in an 82 game season) you criticize JB for that too. 

 

Theres no winning against a monday morning QB. Which is what you and many of JBs critics do.

 

Bad GMs are good at nothing (snow). Good Gms are good at a couple things (benning). Great GMs are good at everything (yzerman).  I support JB because hes a good JB albeit not great one.

Here's the thing though... Toffoli is a clear-cut top six forward that had 10 points in 10 games in the regular season with us, as a rental acquisition.

 

Pearson was an expiring third liner that we could have gotten assets at the deadline for (likely a 3rd).

 

It's not really a one-to-one comparison. We gave up assets to get Tofu, and lost (opportunity cost) assets in order to retain Pearson.

 

Jake was putrid in the playoffs (3 points in 16 games) - even Jim attested to that. Jim had a chance to trade Virtanen at his peak value but decided to take a chance to retain him over Toffoli. This gamble obviously did not work out. If we were truly trying to compete, why would we not trade Virtanen for a pick and try to re-sign either Tanev or Toffoli? 

Benning's strength is drafting, but what about the other aspects? Trades? Contracts? I don't think it's fair to qualify Jim as a "Good GM" at this point. 

[JohnTavares]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I want to open communication to a Canuck’s fan who chooses a Leaf’s player for his poster name?  

 

I want to know why a random internet stranger's username bothers you? Go outside my friend.

[kanucks25]

For some, it's no longer about what's best for the franchise.

 

It's about not wanting to face the reality that you vehemently and emotionally defended something for 7 years and it ended up being wrong.

 

And that goes for both sides.

[Alflives]

Just now, JohnTavares said:

I want to know why a random internet stranger's username bothers you? Go outside my friend.

Well, considering this is a Canuck’s team forum, why would a fan of our team choose a player (for his poster name) from a team a lot Vancouver fans don’t care much for?  

[JohnTavares]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

For some, it's no longer about what's best for the franchise.

 

It's about not wanting to face the reality that you vehemently and emotionally defended something for 7 years and it ended up being wrong.

 

And that goes for both sides.

But why? Why can't we band together and evaluate this properly?

 

Even the biggest Jim Benning fans can't say it's been a good 7 years. We at the VERY least need a President of Hockey Operations to oversee his transactions. 

 

Some fans will defend him till he dies - I just don't understand the rationale?

 

 

[shiznak]

13 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

I support JB because hes the best drafting GM we've ever had. I'm a firm believer that that is how you build a team. Build through the draft and supplement through FA and trades. 

 

I want to make a couple comments I dont agree with in your original post (cor the record I think it's well thought out and reasonable, unlike the typical &^@# managment content). 

 

You go on to criticize Benning for letting toffoli walk, then criticize him for retaing Pearson. Textbook contradiction. JB has his flaws. This isnt one of them. He learned from his mistake. Toffoli isnt a PPG guy. Hes having a year he wont repeat ever again. BOOK IT. if JB doesnt sign pearson all his haters come back and say he lost an asset when we acquired him and let him walk for nothing if he has a decent year. Toffoli played here for a couple months. LET IT GO HE WAS A RENTAL.

 

As for not trading Virtanen he was coming of a year that he would have been a 20g20a forward. He was supposed to be our toffoli this year. That didnt pan out due to jake being jake. This has nothing to do with JB. Like the Pearson/toffoli thing if we traded virt to keep tanev, and virt goes off and tanev played his regular 50 games (in an 82 game season) you criticize JB for that too. 

 

Theres no winning against a monday morning QB. Which is what you and many of JBs critics do.

 

Bad GMs are good at nothing (snow). Good Gms are good at a couple things (benning). Great GMs are good at everything (yzerman).  I support JB because hes a good JB albeit not great one.

If Jim’s claim to fame as a GM is being a great talent evaluator then he should stick to being a scout or AGM. So far, his signings and trades have been mostly below passing grade.
 

Also, if making the playoffs twice in his 8 year tenure is a “good” GM. I think you should higher your standards, a bit.

[JohnTavares]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Well, considering this is a Canuck’s team forum, why would a fan of our team choose a player (for his poster name) from a team a lot Vancouver fans don’t care much for?  

I was JohnTavares when he was with the Islanders.

If my username is bothering you, I suggest you to go outside and enjoy the sun

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

24 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

The vets were signed to avoid going full Edmonton and destroying prospects in roles they weren't able to handle.  The overpayments were necessary due to the team being bad, in a market with high taxes.  The success of the young players so early pulled the team back into contention quicker than expected, which made the contracts an issue. 

Damn. Well said, Heff.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

I was JohnTavares when he was with the Islanders.

If my username is bothering you, I suggest you to go outside and enjoy the sun

So you’re an Islander’s fan?  ill go for a scooter ride, if you go to your team’s board.  Deal?  

[73 Percent]

12 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Here's the thing though... Toffoli is a clear-cut top six forward that had 10 points in 10 games in the regular season with us, as a rental acquisition.

 

Pearson was an expiring third liner that we could have gotten assets at the deadline for (likely a 3rd).

 

It's not really a one-to-one comparison. We gave up assets to get Tofu, and lost (opportunity cost) assets in order to retain Pearson.

 

Jake was putrid in the playoffs (3 points in 16 games) - even Jim attested to that. Jim had a chance to trade Virtanen at his peak value but decided to take a chance to retain him over Toffoli. This gamble obviously did not work out. If we were truly trying to compete, why would we not trade Virtanen for a pick and try to re-sign either Tanev or Toffoli? 

Benning's strength is drafting, but what about the other aspects? Trades? Contracts? I don't think it's fair to qualify Jim as a "Good GM" at this point. 

Back to toffoli K. Sweet we never talk about him.

 

Pearson-.460 ppg career translates to 37 pts av. 3.25 for 3 years

 

Toffoli-.596ppg career translates to 48 pts av. Makes 4.25 for 4 years 

 

The contract has virtually the same value. I'm sorry if you cant see that I don't want to continue this conversation anymore. I just laid out fact but you care to put your personal dislike for bennung above all else. 

 

Then you go on to say virtanen was "putrid in the playoffs" yet his "value was at an all time high". How exactly does that work? You think you're the only ones that watches these games? You dont think other GMs knew about Jake's playoff performance lol. K.

 

Yes bennings strength is drafting. Hes made some good trades. Some bad ones. Signed some good deals. Some bad ones. 

 

Hes a good GM not a great one.

 

Would you care to list your replacement GM?

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by 73 Percent

[Brad Marchand]

Without getting too much into the complex politics of the current management/ownership dynamic, I think the current state of the team hammers home the point that acquiring young talent is a distinct process from building a truly competitive team around that talent. JB and company have done a good job at the first thing, but haven't demonstrated quite yet that they're capable of doing the second.

 

Again without getting too much into detail, the current team is not good enough at consistenly carrying the play, often relying far too much on their goaltending to bail them out. There are good enough core pieces to build around, I just have doubts about whether the current management team is the one that can make the next step with this group of players.