Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management

[Patel Bure]

http://canuckscorner.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10892&start=1725

[quote]

Start dates alone shouldn't be used to judge a managers performance...you've got to look at what they inherited on their start dates...

Comparing what Gillis inherited on his first day to what Benning inherited is night and day different and to think how badly Gillis ran the organization into the ground in 6 short years is likely one of the reasons he remains unemployed...

For all of the bragging he and his supporters do about how progressive a manager he was doesn't equate to what happened to the organization in those 6 years... 

Many in the hockey world predicted that it would take Benning at least 7 years to rebuild the organization, and while they never put this condition on their time lines, I'm sure that they were expecting that the team would have at least 1 first overall pick in those 7 years...

And for sure none of them would have predicted that Gillis would haunt the organization one last time with the Luongo recapture penalty ...

Benning has put together his core group of players, before this season began it was being touted as one of the very best young core groups in the league and now there are major question marks ...

If it needs to be retooled then in my opinion Benning shouldn't be the one to do it...If ownership decides to give Benning a mulligan because it still believes in that young core and the core is what has let the team down this year, then I think they change the coaches and Benning stays on...

If they have an opportunity to hire a highly qualified, proven manager then all bets are off and I think they let the Benning go and allow the new manager to decide Greens fate...

btw, I wish the media would stop throwing around 8 years...Bennings first year produced a 101 point season and how many fans would have been on board with blowing it up after that season and beginning the rebuild?  

So the 8 years becomes 6 and then you had the bubble playoffs where the young core looked ready to take over the team which is what led to the decision to let some of the veterans go rather than get into long term deals...


Take care...

[/quote]

[wallstreetamigo]

Gillis was actually very good at building the organization, particularly the front office. Benning and Weisbrod have stripped it down to a skeleton crew (likely on orders from Aquilini to save money) but also partly because they do not seem to want any dissenting voices to upset their (often flawed) decision making.

 

Benning had a core group given to him that went to the SCF a few years previous and won a back to back Presidents Trophy.

 

The fact that Gillis was a terrible drafter and left not much in prospects had little to no bearing on Benning’s faulty annual retool strategy. Benning had assets to trade he just chose not to trade them while they still had value. Unless Benning was going to do a rebuild from the start (which was never going to happen, he thought the team could be turned around quickly) why would it matter if he had no prospects to work with? He wasn’t doing a rebuild with youth anyway.
 

Many wanted a full on rebuild after the Canucks core showed they would never get over being emotionally wrecked by the Bruins.

Edited December 1, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[Dazzle]

11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Gillis was actually very good at building the organization, particularly the front office. Benning and Weisbrod have stripped it down to a skeleton crew (likely on orders from Aquilini to save money) but also partly because they do not seem to want any dissenting voices to upset their (often flawed) decision making.

 

Benning had a core group given to him that went to the SCF a few years previous and won a back to back Presidents Trophy.

 

The fact that Gillis was a terrible drafter and left not much in prospects had little to no bearing on Benning’s faulty annual retool strategy. Benning had assets to trade he just chose not to trade them while they still had value. 
 

Many wanted a full on rebuild after the Canucks core showed they would never get over being emotionally wrecked by the Bruins.

This is a pretty revisionist way of looking at the situation. I do find it interesting that Benning was described by you as "given" his core, as opposed to Gillis who took his main pieces from previous regimes. What Gillis succeeded immensely in was hitting with his supplementary players. Benning could not, for the life of him, replicate that same level of success.

 

What Gillis inherited was the core in their prime, namely the Sedins, Kesler, Luongo, etc etc.

 

What Benning inherited was the core basically on its way into decline. Sedins/Kesler/Luongo getting older.

 

The fact that Gillis was a terrible drafter is worth expanding on.  There were no drafted replacements for goaltending (Schneider - aka the goalie of the future - was traded for Horvat). Also worth noting was that Horvat was JUST a prospect. Imagine the possibility if Horvat had busted. Let that sink in.

Essentially Schneider would've been traded for no replacement whatsoever. The fact that it didn't happen that way doesn't mean there wasn't a huge and unnecessary risk.

 

Although Gillis acquired Tanev, he did not draft a single defenseman worthy of being in the top four (or heck, even in the bottom six). Hutton was really the only one who played full time.

Then there was the goaltending. The trade for Schneider meant that Luongo was now the Canucks' only legit goaltender - and he had no replacement.

 

Gillis was absolutely reckless in how he managed his team.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Dazzle

[Patel Bure]

15 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Gillis was actually very good at building the organization, particularly the front office. Benning and Weisbrod have stripped it down to a skeleton crew (likely on orders from Aquilini to save money) but also partly because they do not seem to want any dissenting voices to upset their (often flawed) decision making.

 

Benning had a core group given to him that went to the SCF a few years previous and won a back to back Presidents Trophy.

 

The fact that Gillis was a terrible drafter and left not much in prospects had little to no bearing on Benning’s faulty annual retool strategy. Benning had assets to trade he just chose not to trade them while they still had value. Unless Benning was going to do a rebuild from the start (which was never going to happen, he thought the team could be turned around quickly) why would it matter if he had no prospects to work with? He wasn’t doing a rebuild with youth anyway.
 

Many wanted a full on rebuild after the Canucks core showed they would never get over being emotionally wrecked by the Bruins.

“The Canucks being emotionally wrecked by the Bruins”

 

How do you figure?   The Canucks defeated the Bruins on January 7th 2012 by a score of 4-3, and then proceeded to win the Presidents Trophy once again.  In the playoffs, they lost to what suddenly became the best team in the NHL in the LA Kings and that was also partly due to the fact that we didn’t have Daniel Sedin for the first three games (we won game 4 when he came back).  
 

In 2013, the Canucks as a team were in decline and this had nothing to do with Boston.  
 

Agreed with you that the Canucks should have started rebuilding after their loss to the Kings.  Gillis actually created a rebuilding proposal during the 2012 Summer and presented it to ownership and the Aqua’s basically told Gillis to go &^@# a goat.

[Master Mind]

15 hours ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

Some of us are just trying to be objective here against this hyperbolic nonsense. Because that's what it is.

 

14 hours ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

Almost forgot about Drew Doughty. 5 more years and 11 million per season. That's what a bloated contract in this league looks like.

 

https://hockeyroyalty.com/2021/08/12/la-kings-drew-doughtys-contract-ranked-worst-in-nhl-again/

 

Logan Counture. 6 more years, 8 million. 16 and 17 goal seasons previous to this season. What would a comparable player on our team be ? Its like paying Tanner Pearson 8 million on a max contract. That's what bloated contracts look like in this league.

Against hyperbolic nonsense, then compares Pearson to Couture and Doughty?

 

Oof.

[MaxVerstappen33]

9 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

“The Canucks being emotionally wrecked by the Bruins”

 

How do you figure?   The Canucks defeated the Bruins on January 7th 2012 by a score of 4-3, and then proceeded to win the Presidents Trophy once again.  In the playoffs, they lost to what suddenly became the best team in the NHL in the LA Kings and that was also partly due to the fact that we didn’t have Daniel Sedin for the first three games (we won game 4 when he came back).  
 

In 2013, the Canucks as a team were in decline and this had nothing to do with Boston.  
 

Agreed with you that the Canucks should have started rebuilding after their loss to the Kings.  Gillis actually created a rebuilding proposal during the 2012 Summer and presented it to ownership and the Aqua’s basically told Gillis to go &^@# a goat.

The question remains , does ownership still categorically oppose a rebuild ? 

 

How can they go against an industry norm for so long ? I think Benning took on the challenge of competing and rebuilding at the same time. It was arrogance. He thought he could do it. 

 

I'm unsure why fans are opposing a rebuild now too. This bombed season presents an opportunity. 

 

All they have to do is be sellers this season , and attack the draft next year. Then play next year as an underdog for 1 season and go from there. If we aren't sellers this year, then we will be stuck in this mediocrity loop.

[MaxVerstappen33]

1 minute ago, Master Mind said:

 

Against hyperbolic nonsense, then compares Pearson to Couture and Doughty?

 

Oof.

I was just showing what real boat anchor contracts look like. And it was just kinda funny to mention that Pearson had around the same goal total last year as Couture did the last 2 years. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

10 hours ago, Dazzle said:

This is a pretty revisionist way of looking at the situation. I do find it interesting that Benning was described by you as "given" his core, as opposed to Gillis who took his main pieces from previous regimes. What Gillis succeeded immensely in was hitting with his supplementary players. Benning could not, for the life of him, replicate that same level of success.

 

What Gillis inherited was the core in their prime, namely the Sedins, Kesler, Luongo, etc etc.

 

What Benning inherited was the core basically on its way into decline. Sedins/Kesler/Luongo getting older.

 

The fact that Gillis was a terrible drafter is worth expanding on.  There were no drafted replacements for goaltending (Schneider - aka the goalie of the future - was traded for Horvat). Also worth noting was that Horvat was JUST a prospect. Imagine the possibility if Horvat had busted. Let that sink in.

Essentially Schneider would've been traded for no replacement whatsoever. The fact that it didn't happen that way doesn't mean there wasn't a huge and unnecessary risk.

 

Although Gillis acquired Tanev, he did not draft a single defenseman worthy of being in the top four (or heck, even in the bottom six). Hutton was really the only one who played full time.

Then there was the goaltending. The trade for Schneider meant that Luongo was now the Canucks' only legit goaltender - and he had no replacement.

 

Gillis was absolutely reckless in how he managed his team.

Don’t need to draft a goalie prospect when he traded for a 24 year old one in Markstrom or rather he was  24 years old when Jim Benning was hired.

Edited December 1, 2021 by NewbieCanuckFan

[Master Mind]

2 minutes ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

I was just showing what real boat anchor contracts look like. And it was just kinda funny to mention that Pearson had around the same goal total last year as Couture did the last 2 years. 

Is anyone saying Pearson is a boat anchor contract?

 

I think the point being made is that he's overpaid a bit and/or for too long. The same feeling being applied to several of Benning's re-signings that aren't RFA's. It adds up over time.

[DSVII]

14 hours ago, aGENT said:

This. Or it at least this appears to be this (coaching) that is the cause of most of our woes from an outside the locker room-fan perspective. Should Benning be fired for extending him and/or not firing him by now? Perhaps. 

 

Does nitpicking about Poolman, OEL or Pearson's contracts (which are all pretty meh on the 'problem contract' scale) accomplish anything in fixing our current issues? Nope.

 

Wrong tree, barking up they are.

They also represent the opportunity cost of not extending Toffoli or Tanev. Spending $10 mil+ in 2021 didn't make up for failing to spend $8.5 mil to secure those two in 2020. Or in Tanev's case. Spending $5.5 mil (hamonic + poolman) a year later hasnt filled the void he left. Pearson was reported to have been done because the players would have revolted if he didn't stay after those two departures.

 

Timing is important here and management / ownership flubbed it.

 

The coaching definitely is mis-using the roster but the lack of direction from management and ownership when they refused to keep together the team that worked in the bubble also led to where we are today.

Edited December 1, 2021 by DSVII

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, DSVII said:

They also represent the opportunity cost of not extending Toffoli or Tanev. Spending $10 mil+ in 2021 didn't make up for failing to spend $8.5 mil to secure those two in 2020. Or in Tanev's case. Spending $5.5 mil (hamonic + poolman) a year later hasnt filled the void he left. Pearson was reported to have been done because the players would have revolted if he didn't stay after those two departures.

 

Timing is important here and management / ownership flubbed it.

 

The coaching definitely is mis-using the roster but the lack of direction from management and ownership when they refused to keep together the team that worked in the bubble also led to where we are today.

Toffoli I think gets made FAR too big a deal of personally but Tanev was certainly a loss.

 

That said, I don't fault Tanev for going for more term or money than he would have got here, nor do I fault management for not matching that. Either way Benning was going to get roasted for letting him walk or 'overpaying again'.

[aGENT]

4 hours ago, Master Mind said:

Is anyone saying Pearson is a boat anchor contract?

 

I think the point being made is that he's overpaid a bit and/or for too long. The same feeling being applied to several of Benning's re-signings that aren't RFA's. It adds up over time.

Other users have been describing Pearson and other contracts as untradeable, negative value, wouldn't get claimed on waivers etc, so yes, I think that qualifies as the same territory as 'boat anchor'.

Edited December 1, 2021 by aGENT

[alt kilgore]

13 hours ago, Dazzle said:

This is a pretty revisionist way of looking at the situation. I do find it interesting that Benning was described by you as "given" his core, as opposed to Gillis who took his main pieces from previous regimes. What Gillis succeeded immensely in was hitting with his supplementary players. Benning could not, for the life of him, replicate that same level of success.

 

What Gillis inherited was the core in their prime, namely the Sedins, Kesler, Luongo, etc etc.

 

What Benning inherited was the core basically on its way into decline. Sedins/Kesler/Luongo getting older.

 

The fact that Gillis was a terrible drafter is worth expanding on.  There were no drafted replacements for goaltending (Schneider - aka the goalie of the future - was traded for Horvat). Also worth noting was that Horvat was JUST a prospect. Imagine the possibility if Horvat had busted. Let that sink in.

Essentially Schneider would've been traded for no replacement whatsoever. The fact that it didn't happen that way doesn't mean there wasn't a huge and unnecessary risk.

 

Although Gillis acquired Tanev, he did not draft a single defenseman worthy of being in the top four (or heck, even in the bottom six). Hutton was really the only one who played full time.

Then there was the goaltending. The trade for Schneider meant that Luongo was now the Canucks' only legit goaltender - and he had no replacement.

 

Gillis was absolutely reckless in how he managed his team.

 

Still with the: Bennings failures were really Gillis's theory. Almost eight years in.  That takes a lot of fortitude, I'm impressed.

 

Gillis was facilitating a Presidents Trophy calibre team. Even then, he was cautious with trading high picks. He only traded away one first round pick. That's amazing to manage to keep 4 out of your 5 years of #1 picks while still building a contender that was one game away from winning it all. 

The problem was he had zero experience with amateur drafting and relied on the team already here.  So the first round picks were...

Cody Hodgson

Jordan Schroeder

Traded first...for our Cup run year for Ballard

Nicklas Jensen

Brendan Gaunce

 

Luck has always been a part of the draft, projecting how a young player will develop.  But what kind of GM is more to blame for a sparse top prospect corral?  One who delegated drafting responsibility to who he thought were experts? but knew the importance of keeping your top picks....or one who strides into town as the Drafting guru, picks Virtanen as his first big pick, and then proceeds to trade away other 1sts and 2nds and prospects more than any other GM?

 

Benning has traded away 2 first round picks and 4 or 5  2nd rounders.  He has been way more scorched earth in depleting the cupboards deliberately.   Gillis didn't give the team a lot of young pieces, but at least it was not directly a fault of his own.  Even though the buck stops with him. And he will get the blame. Which is fine.

 

Here's the kicker..

if Gillis was "absolutely reckless" in how he managed his team, and we had a depleted farm, shouldn't stocking up that farm be a top priority for the next GM? Especially one touted as a draft specialist?  Please explain that one.  How do you still defend a GM that thought riding the coattails of his predecessor's declining core, adding FA pieces with his new draft capital, and then that pro-scouting failed, season after season.  Forget about slaying the Dragon, he has been perpetually chasing the Dragon.  His management was (and is) so reckless that he stumbled into an accidental rebuild, no matter how much he tried not to, and was gifted high picks because of his failures on the ice, and we get Petey and Hughes.  But two budding, potential stars, is not enough to build a team, as we are witnessing.

 

If Gillis was "reckless", Benning has been a disaster.  Its about adding up (or subtracting) VALUE.   Gillis left Benning with value.  In still valuable veterans, and picks and prospects that his scouting staff had given him for what they were worth. Benning took whatever value, and frittered it away.  Whether it was the value in picks, or prospects, or the value in making smart deals with signings in your core, but also FAs and trade pieces who will play above their pay grade.  (As Gillis managed to do with the contracts for Burrows, Kesler, the Sedins even...).   Conversely, failing at your pro scouting so badly, year after year, where acquired players consistently play below their pay grade, is also losing VALUE.  You end up buying them out, and taking on risky contracts.  Chasing the Dragon, living day to day, is no way to run an NHL hockey team.

 

 

[stawns]

13 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

Still with the: Bennings failures were really Gillis's theory. Almost eight years in.  That takes a lot of fortitude, I'm impressed.

 

Gillis was facilitating a Presidents Trophy calibre team. Even then, he was cautious with trading high picks. He only traded away one first round pick. That's amazing to manage to keep 4 out of your 5 years of #1 picks while still building a contender that was one game away from winning it all. 

The problem was he had zero experience with amateur drafting and relied on the team already here.  So the first round picks were...

Cody Hodgson

Jordan Schroeder

Traded first...for our Cup run year for Ballard

Nicklas Jensen

Brendan Gaunce

 

Luck has always been a part of the draft, projecting how a young player will develop.  But what kind of GM is more to blame for a sparse top prospect corral?  One who delegated drafting responsibility to who he thought were experts? but knew the importance of keeping your top picks....or one who strides into town as the Drafting guru, picks Virtanen as his first big pick, and then proceeds to trade away other 1sts and 2nds and prospects more than any other GM?

 

Benning has traded away 2 first round picks and 4 or 5  2nd rounders.  He has been way more scorched earth in depleting the cupboards deliberately.   Gillis didn't give the team a lot of young pieces, but at least it was not directly a fault of his own.  Even though the buck stops with him. And he will get the blame. Which is fine.

 

Here's the kicker..

if Gillis was "absolutely reckless" in how he managed his team, and we had a depleted farm, shouldn't stocking up that farm be a top priority for the next GM? Especially one touted as a draft specialist?  Please explain that one.  How do you still defend a GM that thought riding the coattails of his predecessor's declining core, adding FA pieces with his new draft capital, and then that pro-scouting failed, season after season.  Forget about slaying the Dragon, he has been perpetually chasing the Dragon.  His management was (and is) so reckless that he stumbled into an accidental rebuild, no matter how much he tried not to, and was gifted high picks because of his failures on the ice, and we get Petey and Hughes.  But two budding, potential stars, is not enough to build a team, as we are witnessing.

 

If Gillis was "reckless", Benning has been a disaster.  Its about adding up (or subtracting) VALUE.   Gillis left Benning with value.  In still valuable veterans, and picks and prospects that his scouting staff had given him for what they were worth. Benning took whatever value, and frittered it away.  Whether it was the value in picks, or prospects, or the value in making smart deals with signings in your core, but also FAs and trade pieces who will play above their pay grade.  (As Gillis managed to do with the contracts for Burrows, Kesler, the Sedins even...).   Conversely, failing at your pro scouting so badly, year after year, where acquired players consistently play below their pay grade, is also losing VALUE.  You end up buying them out, and taking on risky contracts.  Chasing the Dragon, living day to day, is no way to run an NHL hockey team.

 

 

hard to "stock the cupboards" when the previous GM distributed NTC and NMC like a pez dispenser.  Hard to get good value when you have two teams to deal with

[Master Mind]

21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Other users have been describing Pearson and other contracts as untradeable, negative value, wouldn't get claimed on waivers etc, so yes, I think that qualifies as the same territory as 'boat anchor'.

I suppose we just have different definitions of a boat anchor contract. To me, that's something like Loui, Skinner, etc.

 

I agree with the idea that Pearson's contract gives him little to no value. If he were placed on waivers, I don't think he'd be claimed. Cap space is simply at a premium right now.

[MaxVerstappen33]

34 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

Still with the: Bennings failures were really Gillis's theory. Almost eight years in.  That takes a lot of fortitude, I'm impressed.

 

Gillis was facilitating a Presidents Trophy calibre team. Even then, he was cautious with trading high picks. He only traded away one first round pick. That's amazing to manage to keep 4 out of your 5 years of #1 picks while still building a contender that was one game away from winning it all. 

The problem was he had zero experience with amateur drafting and relied on the team already here.  So the first round picks were...

Cody Hodgson

Jordan Schroeder

Traded first...for our Cup run year for Ballard

Nicklas Jensen

Brendan Gaunce

 

Luck has always been a part of the draft, projecting how a young player will develop.  But what kind of GM is more to blame for a sparse top prospect corral?  One who delegated drafting responsibility to who he thought were experts? but knew the importance of keeping your top picks....or one who strides into town as the Drafting guru, picks Virtanen as his first big pick, and then proceeds to trade away other 1sts and 2nds and prospects more than any other GM?

 

Benning has traded away 2 first round picks and 4 or 5  2nd rounders.  He has been way more scorched earth in depleting the cupboards deliberately.   Gillis didn't give the team a lot of young pieces, but at least it was not directly a fault of his own.  Even though the buck stops with him. And he will get the blame. Which is fine.

 

Here's the kicker..

if Gillis was "absolutely reckless" in how he managed his team, and we had a depleted farm, shouldn't stocking up that farm be a top priority for the next GM? Especially one touted as a draft specialist?  Please explain that one.  How do you still defend a GM that thought riding the coattails of his predecessor's declining core, adding FA pieces with his new draft capital, and then that pro-scouting failed, season after season.  Forget about slaying the Dragon, he has been perpetually chasing the Dragon.  His management was (and is) so reckless that he stumbled into an accidental rebuild, no matter how much he tried not to, and was gifted high picks because of his failures on the ice, and we get Petey and Hughes.  But two budding, potential stars, is not enough to build a team, as we are witnessing.

 

If Gillis was "reckless", Benning has been a disaster.  Its about adding up (or subtracting) VALUE.   Gillis left Benning with value.  In still valuable veterans, and picks and prospects that his scouting staff had given him for what they were worth. Benning took whatever value, and frittered it away.  Whether it was the value in picks, or prospects, or the value in making smart deals with signings in your core, but also FAs and trade pieces who will play above their pay grade.  (As Gillis managed to do with the contracts for Burrows, Kesler, the Sedins even...).   Conversely, failing at your pro scouting so badly, year after year, where acquired players consistently play below their pay grade, is also losing VALUE.  You end up buying them out, and taking on risky contracts.  Chasing the Dragon, living day to day, is no way to run an NHL hockey team.

 

 

 But it seems chasing the dragon is what ownership wants him to do. He's been doing ok at chasing the dragon , hopeless that it is. It's not like John Ferguson Jr territory here. 

 

I wish ownership will wise TF up and do a rebuild. It's half done anyway 

[alt kilgore]

12 minutes ago, stawns said:

hard to "stock the cupboards" when the previous GM distributed NTC and NMC like a pez dispenser.  Hard to get good value when you have two teams to deal with

You've convinced me....its all Gillis's fault. 

 

Poor Jim.  Nothing he could do I guess. Like trading the ones he could, pressuring others in the core to consider waiving their clauses, or weaponizing the cap. or other creative ideas were just too radical to even consider. His hands have been tied for eight years now.  Poor guy, must be tough to live under such a big shadow as Gillis that all he can do is desperately trade picks, and make premature moves, and sign overvalued players on the hope and prayer of squeaking into the playoffs every season.  Dam you Mike!!!!!

 

 

 

[Baggins]

18 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

Still with the: Bennings failures were really Gillis's theory. Almost eight years in.  That takes a lot of fortitude, I'm impressed.

 

Gillis was facilitating a Presidents Trophy calibre team. Even then, he was cautious with trading high picks. He only traded away one first round pick. That's amazing to manage to keep 4 out of your 5 years of #1 picks while still building a contender that was one game away from winning it all. 

The problem was he had zero experience with amateur drafting and relied on the team already here.  So the first round picks were...

Cody Hodgson

Jordan Schroeder

Traded first...for our Cup run year for Ballard

Nicklas Jensen

Brendan Gaunce

 

Luck has always been a part of the draft, projecting how a young player will develop.  But what kind of GM is more to blame for a sparse top prospect corral?  One who delegated drafting responsibility to who he thought were experts? but knew the importance of keeping your top picks....or one who strides into town as the Drafting guru, picks Virtanen as his first big pick, and then proceeds to trade away other 1sts and 2nds and prospects more than any other GM?

 

Benning has traded away 2 first round picks and 4 or 5  2nd rounders.  He has been way more scorched earth in depleting the cupboards deliberately.   Gillis didn't give the team a lot of young pieces, but at least it was not directly a fault of his own.  Even though the buck stops with him. And he will get the blame. Which is fine.

 

Here's the kicker..

if Gillis was "absolutely reckless" in how he managed his team, and we had a depleted farm, shouldn't stocking up that farm be a top priority for the next GM? Especially one touted as a draft specialist?  Please explain that one.  How do you still defend a GM that thought riding the coattails of his predecessor's declining core, adding FA pieces with his new draft capital, and then that pro-scouting failed, season after season.  Forget about slaying the Dragon, he has been perpetually chasing the Dragon.  His management was (and is) so reckless that he stumbled into an accidental rebuild, no matter how much he tried not to, and was gifted high picks because of his failures on the ice, and we get Petey and Hughes.  But two budding, potential stars, is not enough to build a team, as we are witnessing.

 

If Gillis was "reckless", Benning has been a disaster.  Its about adding up (or subtracting) VALUE.   Gillis left Benning with value.  In still valuable veterans, and picks and prospects that his scouting staff had given him for what they were worth. Benning took whatever value, and frittered it away.  Whether it was the value in picks, or prospects, or the value in making smart deals with signings in your core, but also FAs and trade pieces who will play above their pay grade.  (As Gillis managed to do with the contracts for Burrows, Kesler, the Sedins even...).   Conversely, failing at your pro scouting so badly, year after year, where acquired players consistently play below their pay grade, is also losing VALUE.  You end up buying them out, and taking on risky contracts.  Chasing the Dragon, living day to day, is no way to run an NHL hockey team.

 

 

How often do 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round picks jump to the NHL without spending time in the AHL first? And the kicker - drafted at 18 they have to wait two years to be AHL eligible. Do you want AHL players or NHL players? To me it made sense to trade "some" picks for prospects that had gone through the process and had AHL success. Gillis left Benning nothing on the farm NHL worthy after all. The only real difference between trading for prospects with AHL success and drafting a junior prospect is time and not knowing if the pick will even have AHL success. Sure Benning could have played the waiting game and filled those roster spots with more Skille's, Megna's, and Chaput's but would fans have been any happier? In the end neither option comes with any guarantees as prospects are prospects after all. Then there's the irony of fans wanting Edler and Tanev gone (too expensive & too injury prone) then flip direction complaining that they are gone. These are things that just generally make me chuckle. It didn't matter what Benning did with what he inherited. With an entire team to replace, and a complete lack of existing prospects, this wasn't going to be a quick rebuild no matter how it was done.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

29 minutes ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

 But it seems chasing the dragon is what ownership wants him to do. He's been doing ok at chasing the dragon , hopeless that it is. It's not like John Ferguson Jr territory here. 

 

I wish ownership will wise TF up and do a rebuild. It's half done anyway 

I think I must have a very different understanding of the meaning of the phrase “chasing the dragon.” 

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Other users have been describing Pearson and other contracts as untradeable, negative value, wouldn't get claimed on waivers etc, so yes, I think that qualifies as the same territory as 'boat anchor'.

Are these the same users that panicked over Gaunce not being expansion protected and declared Shinkaruk our next top line winger? The truth is $3.25m isn't exactly a huge contract these days. Even if Pearson goes through a scoring drought he's a responsible two way forward that can play all situations and does a lot right. I think we all got a little spoiled by players signing under market value because they wanted to be here. I don't see Pearson's contract as outrageous or unmovable.