Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

sorry, doesn't work that way.

 

Hey officer why are you arresting me? I put out that fire!!! I'm a hero!

 

Hey Gillis. we got evidence of you starting the fire, and now there is a whole bunch of upset fans in 7 years

To be a jester on a hockey forum can't be easy.

DO you find it rewarding?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You lost me the moment you start complaining about the Bonino trade, op. 

 

That said, let's just say I will not be jury and executioner for this management group or ownership (mostly Francesco).

But I won't shed a tear when the blade eventually falls.

Edited by 24K PureCool
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

What?

 

The dude clearly didn't read the article at all and just started making incorrect statements.

 

I merely corrected the guy? Gadj, Lind and Woo were mentioned in the post, but they weren't called out because they didn't apply to the topic at hand.

 

EDIT: Btw, I do want to have an honest and genuine conversation with Benning supporters. It has been met with nothing but either trolls (Alflives), people with no productive conversation, or those who can only say "Benning drafts well lolol".  Name one person with a reasonable, well constructed response to my post and I'm happy to respectfully engage in discussion.

 

Most are trolls or people that are too far deep as a Benning shill and will die defending him. 

 

7 hours ago, joe-max said:

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny how the OP claims to be interested in an open and honest discussion, but has barely anything to offer but one liners, insults and moaning. A little substance wouldn't hurt.

 

He might also consider that there is not only black and white in the world and in this instance. One can criticize management and still like the overall direction. Or dislike the direction, but still support certains actions. Overgeneralizing and calling everybody who dares to say something positive about management a troll and/or blind Benning shill does not contribute to the discourse.

 

Trying to go back to topic : I like the overall direction of the team and disagree that JB has no plan. His drafting has been very good (not excellent), for most of his trades I understand why he made them and can get behind. I'm not as critical of his FA signings as the majority. Several injuries make deals look bad (Ferland, Sutter, OJ, Roussell, Baertschi), it is debatable to what extent he could have known, Ferland was certainly a big risk. His

college signings have been good. He could be a bit more creative.

 

I like that he is not afraid to take risks (e.g. Miller, EP, Markström), that he is rather patient with prospects but values two way play and lets go of players who don't get it (Goldobin, Gaudette). He doesn't seem to care much about public opinion, which is a plus imo.

 

Negotiating in trades and free agency doesn't seem to be his strongest suit, it feels like he needs to pay the extra dollar or draft pick to get deals done. In general better internal communication may have saved him assets or staff. Tryamkin, Dahlen, Brackett, Tanev, Toffoli, Malhotra, Stecher, Gaudette, Clark - we cannot be sure to what extent (lack of) communication led to people leaving the organisation and if JB wanted to reatain them anyway, but that's an area where I see deficits. 

 

I'm undecided about player development. There are bright spots on forward and in goal, but especially on defence or on the defensive side there players have not progressed as much as I would like. I'm also not sold on the playing style. It is effective and successful when everybody is on, but it seems to be rather taxing physically and posibbly not sustainable for a long playoff run. For both aspects I'd first have to blame coaching, but JB is ultimately responsible for choosing the guys.

 

Does he speak up against the owner for the good of the team or is he a yes-man mainly trying to please his bosses to save his own backside? I don't know. Hopefully the former, but certain leads point to the latter.

 

Is he the bestest GM that every wandered the seven seas? Probably not. Is he the most worthless piece of hedgehog dung? I guess not. In my opinion he is a solid GM that has managed to give the franchise a very talented young core and should get one more (full) season.


Here’s your opportunity. This is an example of a reasonable, well-thought out and respectful response. You may disagree with some or all of it but this poster has taken the time and effort to respond to your thread so treat him/her with respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IBatch said:

That's funny.   Buttons final list June 26 and his mock draft had Boeser getting drafting at well, 26....you have to go back to Febraury to find Boeser in the top 20.  

 

In EP's draft he also had Necas and 

Valardi ahead of EP, but at least he had him in the top ten.  

 

He also had Caufield at 4, and Seider at 26 so why don't we wait to see how 2019 comes out before judging it.   Button has his fair share of misses too, if you compare his first round list to any sort of re-draft.   I've pumped his tires a lot on here as well, Rafferty  supposedly "is ready for top four NHL duty now " last January 2020 too (Button) 

 

But the picture your trying to paint isn't entirely accurate either. 

 

 

I was just going by Button’s prospect rankings on the mynhldraft website. He had Boeser ranked at #9 overall on that. And I did say it’s too early to judge the 2019 draft re Caulfield vs Podkolzin if you read my original post.

 

I’m not saying Button is anywhere near perfect just that there are others out there that would have drafted at least as well as Benning.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Schmautzie said:

I was just going by Button’s prospect rankings on the mynhldraft website. He had Boeser ranked at #9 overall on that. And I did say it’s too early to judge the 2019 draft re Caulfield vs Podkolzin if you read my original post.

 

I’m not saying Button is anywhere near perfect just that there are others out there that would have drafted at least as well as Benning.

Yeah Button is hilarious as a draft ranker. He's got some guys in great positions that I completely agree with and then a whole bunch of super overrated prospects in other positions. I have no idea what this guy looks for when he does his analysis.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways back to the thread, I have a much bigger issue with coaching than I do Benning. I think on paper this team should be competitive but they don't nearly play to the potential they're capable of achieving. I also believe we don't play the right players. I think our depth that Green chooses to play have some anchor contracts and anchor playstyles that don't help the team as much as many suggest. I think we actually could have a decent bottom six but we haven't played guys like Mac, Bailey, Graovac, etc. all year. I think we haven't been given games to some kids that need it in Dipietro and Rafferty (for context, Rafferty and Rathbone looked extremely similar in the AHL if comparing last year and this year's seasons, yet we only gave Rafferty one game in which he clearly showed nerves and was afraid of playing his game and then we put him on taxi all year). 

I don't like the defensive structure of this team, I don't like the ice time for a few players, I don't like the way the team forecheck, the way they create rushes and enter the zone is sad, etc.

I think a good coach alleviates the GM woes in his poor trading and signings. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours 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?  

Following this thread closer than the actual post discussion. Hope we get to the bottom of this. :canucks:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, joe-max said:

  Funny how the OP claims to be interested in an open and honest discussion, but has barely anything to offer but one liners, insults and moaning. A little substance wouldn't hurt.

 

He might also consider that there is not only black and white in the world and in this instance. One can criticize management and still like the overall direction. Or dislike the direction, but still support certains actions. Overgeneralizing and calling everybody who dares to say something positive about management a troll and/or blind Benning shill does not contribute to the discourse.

 

Trying to go back to topic : I like the overall direction of the team and disagree that JB has no plan. His drafting has been very good (not excellent), for most of his trades I understand why he made them and can get behind. I'm not as critical of his FA signings as the majority. Several injuries make deals look bad (Ferland, Sutter, OJ, Roussell, Baertschi), it is debatable to what extent he could have known, Ferland was certainly a big risk. His

college signings have been good. He could be a bit more creative.

 

I like that he is not afraid to take risks (e.g. Miller, EP, Markström), that he is rather patient with prospects but values two way play and lets go of players who don't get it (Goldobin, Gaudette). He doesn't seem to care much about public opinion, which is a plus imo.

 

Negotiating in trades and free agency doesn't seem to be his strongest suit, it feels like he needs to pay the extra dollar or draft pick to get deals done. In general better internal communication may have saved him assets or staff. Tryamkin, Dahlen, Brackett, Tanev, Toffoli, Malhotra, Stecher, Gaudette, Clark - we cannot be sure to what extent (lack of) communication led to people leaving the organisation and if JB wanted to reatain them anyway, but that's an area where I see deficits. 

 

I'm undecided about player development. There are bright spots on forward and in goal, but especially on defence or on the defensive side there players have not progressed as much as I would like. I'm also not sold on the playing style. It is effective and successful when everybody is on, but it seems to be rather taxing physically and posibbly not sustainable for a long playoff run. For both aspects I'd first have to blame coaching, but JB is ultimately responsible for choosing the guys.

 

Does he speak up against the owner for the good of the team or is he a yes-man mainly trying to please his bosses to save his own backside? I don't know. Hopefully the former, but certain leads point to the latter.

 

Is he the bestest GM that every wandered the seven seas? Probably not. Is he the most worthless piece of hedgehog dung? I guess not. In my opinion he is a solid GM that has managed to give the franchise a very talented young core and should get one more (full) season.

 

I'm not saying the OP couldn't be a little more open to discussion, after starting it.

But its also an interesting angle.  A lot of pro-Benning folks only like to swoop into threads to attack the critics.  Here's a thread you'all can make your lists as to all the great things JB has done. And no one is answering that well.  What does that tell you? 

 

Even yourself:

 

Negotiating in trades and free agency doesn't seem to be his strongest suit, it feels like he needs to pay the extra dollar or draft pick to get deals done

 

it is debatable to what extent he could have known, Ferland was certainly a big risk.

 

He could be a bit more creative.

 

better internal communication may have saved him assets or staff.

 

especially on defence or on the defensive side there players have not progressed as much as I would like.

 

I'm also not sold on the playing style.

 

Does he speak up against the owner for the good of the team or is he a yes-man mainly trying to please his bosses to save his own backside? I don't know. Hopefully the former, but certain leads point to the latter.

 

 

 

But in spite of that you also say you "like the overall direction of the team" and "for most of his trades I understand why he made them and can get behind"   :mellow:

 

See, to me that does not compute. If your post is the pinnacle of Benning's defence team's case, you've got a long way to go.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14.5m coming off between Sutter, Edler, Vesey, Baer, Spooner. Enough for the Hughes/Petterson bridge deals

If Seattle takes Holtby we could be in good shape. Add in JV and LE buyouts and that's 8m+ room to get a quality shutdown defenseman & a 3C.

Pettersson back + Hoglander taking the next step should help Line 1/2 scoring. 
Better 3C (or Sutter coming back healthy for a lot less $) + Beagle returning from injury, combined with a top shutdown defenseman should help our goals against. Not to mention Demko taking the next step. 

I think we'll be pleasantly surprised by next year assuming the above happens. 

Another 10m+ opens up for 2022, at least 2 of which goes to BBs new contract. Bad contracts will be gone, great young players on ELCs, franchise players will still be on their bridge contracts. Thats when we mortgage the future and trade picks & prospects to contend. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Schmautzie said:

I was just going by Button’s prospect rankings on the mynhldraft website. He had Boeser ranked at #9 overall on that. And I did say it’s too early to judge the 2019 draft re Caulfield vs Podkolzin if you read my original post.

 

I’m not saying Button is anywhere near perfect just that there are others out there that would have drafted at least as well as Benning.

No worries i found that too.  His May ranking was actually 15th, no idea why he went to 26 a month later - but your right if GMs just followed his list more often then not they'd do better then they normally do during the draft.  JB (so far) has done modestly better then Button with his first rounders.    Pas the first round it's anyone's guess - comes down to who scouted better or who was luckier.   As far as quantity goes JB is hitting on par or slightly above par.  As far as quality goes he's actually doing a lot better then his peers.  IF the quantity starts  creep up then his legacy gets better, if not it's still pretty darn good.  People need to temper expectations as far as the draft goes.   Seems to me a lot of folks think a second is an automatic NHL ..50/50 to play 100 games doesn't say that at all - and 50/50 that ONE player, past the second round will play 100 games too. 

 

Personally i don't give two sh!ts about anyone who doesn't play 3-400 games.  But the scouts do.   A second rounder that plays at all is really not a bust.   So welcome to the NHL Gads.   According to what scouts expect.  

 

1-3 700 games bust limit.   4-6 500 games (JV could still make that) 7-10 400 games.   Past that anyone who plays 200 in the first round.  GMs expect ONE player a draft - if they get two they are batting better then average (around 1.5) ... three is truly exceptional.   

 

Personally I don't agree that JB is the best drafter we've ever had.   That honour will go with Milford for at least another 10 years.   Because we don't truly know what we have yet in any of these guys just a ton of potential.   But do say he's already surpassed Quin, and most likely Burke.   Milford had 10,000 games played out of four years of drafting, and also drafted close to around the same as JB has (ADP or average draft position).   Two of his four drafts are top five all-time. 

 

The worst JB will do is rank third (after Milford and Burke) the best number one.   Given it's what we need, and after 9 years of a total wasteland .... can see what some see JB as a drafting god.   And he does deserve the credit given how much more involved he is given his background.    And is much more respected and liked by his peers then MG ever was.    Sure a lot of the shine has rubbed off, and a lot of the patience has run thin.   Done enough to keep it like it is for one more year....but do  think it's time for some oversight and that adding a president is wise. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Anyways back to the thread, I have a much bigger issue with coaching than I do Benning. I think on paper this team should be competitive but they don't nearly play to the potential they're capable of achieving. I also believe we don't play the right players. I think our depth that Green chooses to play have some anchor contracts and anchor playstyles that don't help the team as much as many suggest. I think we actually could have a decent bottom six but we haven't played guys like Mac, Bailey, Graovac, etc. all year. I think we haven't been given games to some kids that need it in Dipietro and Rafferty (for context, Rafferty and Rathbone looked extremely similar in the AHL if comparing last year and this year's seasons, yet we only gave Rafferty one game in which he clearly showed nerves and was afraid of playing his game and then we put him on taxi all year). 

I don't like the defensive structure of this team, I don't like the ice time for a few players, I don't like the way the team forecheck, the way they create rushes and enter the zone is sad, etc.

I think a good coach alleviates the GM woes in his poor trading and signings. 

I totally disagree. Our players are not good enough. 

 

What D structure would you play with this lackluster group?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

I'm not saying the OP couldn't be a little more open to discussion, after starting it.

But its also an interesting angle.  A lot of pro-Benning folks only like to swoop into threads to attack the critics.  Here's a thread you'all can make your lists as to all the great things JB has done. And no one is answering that well.  What does that tell you? 

 

Even yourself:

 

Negotiating in trades and free agency doesn't seem to be his strongest suit, it feels like he needs to pay the extra dollar or draft pick to get deals done

 

it is debatable to what extent he could have known, Ferland was certainly a big risk.

 

He could be a bit more creative.

 

better internal communication may have saved him assets or staff.

 

especially on defence or on the defensive side there players have not progressed as much as I would like.

 

I'm also not sold on the playing style.

 

Does he speak up against the owner for the good of the team or is he a yes-man mainly trying to please his bosses to save his own backside? I don't know. Hopefully the former, but certain leads point to the latter.

 

 

 

But in spite of that you also say you "like the overall direction of the team" and "for most of his trades I understand why he made them and can get behind"   :mellow:

 

See, to me that does not compute. If your post is the pinnacle of Benning's defence team's case, you've got a long way to go.  

 

 

 

How about this.   Seems like each fan has their own viewpoint on the subject but many fans are completely out to lunch given how black and white they analyze each move.  

 

Bargaining from a position of strength matters - of course JB (and Yzerman, Holland especially too but he got it started, and Sakic and Dorian et al)  is going to pay a premium for bottom six and top six players that's only interest is the size of their pay-cheques and how long they have them - not winning a cup from a position of strength that contenders get to enjoy - like we did with MG ... talking about 4-4.5 is the new 6 million so Hamhuis, Ballard and Booth didn't take any "discounts" but sure got the royal treatment didn't they. 

 

I hate revisionist history that doesn't include context.   

 

Oh Burke saved the day way back when he found out Bure had played enough games to draft him .... " that's a small body Pat, don't draft him please don't draft him, total waste of a pick "  Orca origins too.   Sure they made "promo" video with Linden .... but talk about being branded by a new owner ... disgusting part of our history and guess what karma is a b!tch ... we might never win a cup with these uniforms.   Ok now you've got me going crazy too lol! 

 

LE was inexcusable.  The rest "meh".   

 

Change is ok and i'm ok with change, but from where i'm sitting it looks a lot like when Luongo came and the team showed a lot of promise.    Demko is the very first number one goalie the teams ever drafted.   EVER.   
 

JB and the fan base TOGETHER suffered through the stupid 9 years of awful drafting.   But now a bunch of the mob wants to hang him out to dry.   I say shame ... shame on you all.   Yes his placeholders were one year too long.   No they weren't "the worst contracts ever signed".   Anyone who pays any attention to the rest of the league wouldn't be saying that.    The ONLY terrible contract he's signed is LE.   A few fair, a few below average and a few average or fair market value despite being a crap team (UFAs only - his RFAs aside from bad luck with Bear and can't keep it in his pants JV )  ... who the heck is complaining about BB still (yes a few are but they are not paying attention) or Horvat et al. 

 

The CDC is suffering i guess and making crap up out of nothing.   I like posters who apply humour they get a by - but i do have to wonder how many long term fans are actually ready and willing to give him the axe - not the ones that only follow the Canucks but the ones that follow the rest of the league too...  Reality check being a long time fan includes a lot of suffering.   Canuck luck.  But i see the pendulum swinging and don't think it's even close to as bad as some think it is. 

 

Both JB and TG won't have to wait long to get a job offer if they do get the axe and want to keep working.   

 

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, rychicken said:

I totally disagree. Our players are not good enough. 

 

What D structure would you play with this lackluster group?

I definitely would avoid the collapse with a ten foot pole like we play now. Our defense has a lot of two-way aspects and is teetered towards offensive, so to play extremely passive and to not use any of the offensive capabilities seems silly to me. We have quite a few good puck moving defensemen, yet we play a constant up and out game and our forwards don't play high enough to counter (which is odd considering that's our only hope on offense because we play so passively). 

I'd prefer a tighter checking defensive set up because that's what our team is largely consisted of. Our whole bottom six for most of the year was mainly checking forwards so to have them play away when off the puck seems really dumb to me. We also need a much better forecheck, and we have some phenomenal forecheckers on this team, we just don't utilize them for that role. 

This team should be heavy, but they never play that way. On the back end we have some big bodies that can throw weight around, but we only park them in front of the net. 

This team does well when they apply pressure, it's the reason why we win games. When we don't we get outshot 2-1 and rely far too much on our goaltending. Our players tire out from being on the ice too long and then we don't have enough energy to counter. If we pressed the action a bit and took away the offense's defense, we'd be far more successful. When you have guys who are great on a forecheck like Motte, Bailey, Macewan, Hogs, Miller, Petey, etc. and you have guys who are good checking players like Bo, Sutter, Beagle, etc. you're underutilizing their talents by making them play a rigorous structure of a collapse that pretty much removes any talent in those areas because there isn't much application. Too often we focus on chipping the puck in but because the legs are done from defending we aren't retrieving it, we're changing lines. 

Offensively our defense don't activate nearly enough. Again, this could be due to our defensive structure. We have some fantastic offensive defensemen and oddly enough, they're rarely the guys that pinch. 

Our team just isn't utilizing anything they're good at aside from goaltending. There's a reason why guys like Schmidt aren't adapting to our game. There's a reason why these unbelievably gifted offensive defensemen aren't coming up and being dynamic like they were in the AHL. Our team game just isn't structured for them to be as successful as they were before. When's the last time you've seen a defenseman even rush the puck out of our own end? Has that happened more than a handful of times this entire season? 

Can't win many games waiting for the puck to come to you. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IBatch said:

How about this.   Seems like each fan has their own viewpoint on the subject but many fans are completely out to lunch given how black and white they analyze each move.  

 

Bargaining from a position of strength matters - of course JB (and Yzerman, Holland especially too but he got it started, and Sakic and Dorian et al)  is going to pay a premium for bottom six and top six players that's only interest is the size of their pay-cheques and how long they have them - not winning a cup from a position of strength that contenders get to enjoy - like we did with MG ... talking about 4-4.5 is the new 6 million so Hamhuis, Ballard and Booth didn't take any "discounts" but sure got the royal treatment didn't they. 

 

I hate revisionist history that doesn't include context.   

 

Oh Burke saved the day way back when he found out Bure had played enough games to draft him .... " that's a small body Pat, don't draft him please don't draft him, total waste of a pick "  Orca origins too.   Sure they made "promo" video with Linden .... but talk about being branded by a new owner ... disgusting part of our history and guess what karma is a b!tch ... we might never win a cup with these uniforms.   Ok now you've got me going crazy too lol! 

 

LE was inexcusable.  The rest "meh".   

 

Change is ok and i'm ok with change, but from where i'm sitting it looks a lot like when Luongo came and the team showed a lot of promise.    Demko is the very first number one goalie the teams ever drafted.   EVER.   
 

JB and the fan base TOGETHER suffered through the stupid 9 years of awful drafting.   But now a bunch of the mob wants to hang him out to dry.   I say shame ... shame on you all.   Yes his placeholders were one year too long.   No they weren't "the worst contracts ever signed".   Anyone who pays any attention to the rest of the league wouldn't be saying that.    The ONLY terrible contract he's signed is LE.   A few fair, a few below average and a few average or fair market value despite being a crap team (UFAs only - his RFAs aside from bad luck with Bear and can't keep it in his pants JV )  ... who the heck is complaining about BB still (yes a few are but they are not paying attention) or Horvat et al. 

 

The CDC is suffering i guess and making crap up out of nothing.   I like posters who apply humour they get a by - but i do have to wonder how many long term fans are actually ready and willing to give him the axe - not the ones that only follow the Canucks but the ones that follow the rest of the league too...  Reality check being a long time fan includes a lot of suffering.   Canuck luck.  But i see the pendulum swinging and don't think it's even close to as bad as some think it is. 

 

Both JB and TG won't have to wait long to get a job offer if they do get the axe and want to keep working.   

 

 

 

Maybe its just a case of hearing too many excuses for JB.  At some point one has to admit that where there's smoke there's fire.

 

Bargaining from a position of strength matters - of course JB (and Yzerman, Holland especially too but he got it started, and Sakic and Dorian et al)  is going to pay a premium for bottom six and top six players

 

I get the logic.  Players want to play for a winner. And if not that, then they better get paid well.   I just think that there are other factors at play. Including how well that player judges the GM and owner's plans. They may see an increase in ice time, a second chance.  Some even love the idea of playing back in their home province.  And lets face it, Vancouver is not the worst place in the world to live despite the taxes.  Its not that black and white, to use a phrase.  A lot has to do with how the GM runs the business and who he hires.  (Ask Gretzky if management behaviour makes a difference - ie. Canucks late night demand of his answer)


I too see great hope in the future for this team.  But that is not enough to drag out JB's contract IMO.  All teams have great hopes, and their GMs are all working to improve their teams.  To me, its more about trust.  Slowly but surely, JB has chipped away at that trust for me as a fan. Basic stuff like proper communication with players....too many times a day late and a dollar short in player dealings.  I knew he'd let Tryamkin die on the vine. I could see that coming a mile away.  If he can't even communicate with Leivo, Stecher, Tanev, or Toffoli, a prospect half ways around the world? Good luck.

 

Its cumulative. Not just the big mistakes.  Based on your logic, why did he have to sign Pearson to what was regarded around the league as yet another overpayment?  Even if only half a mill over, or one year too many?  Why?  This is a team on the upswing. Players would want to play here now wouldn't they?  Especially someone who has a home here now, and played here the last 3 years.

 

Again, its about trust, as a fan.  Not about how good the future COULD be based on JB 's accidental rebuild, but how good the future could be with the right manager at the helm.  Especially dealing with the flat cap. Its going to take a more careful, adept, and hooked up GM for the final build.

 

I'm just worried that the owner just can't seem to hand over control of hockey decisions.  And that they will still be adversarial towards hiring what is needed, an established, old boys club if you like, manager, and actually commit to listening to him, and not the rainbows and unicorns in their heads.

 

 

 

 

 

-

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IBatch said:

No worries i found that too.  His May ranking was actually 15th, no idea why he went to 26 a month later - but your right if GMs just followed his list more often then not they'd do better then they normally do during the draft.  JB (so far) has done modestly better then Button with his first rounders.    Pas the first round it's anyone's guess - comes down to who scouted better or who was luckier.   As far as quantity goes JB is hitting on par or slightly above par.  As far as quality goes he's actually doing a lot better then his peers.  IF the quantity starts  creep up then his legacy gets better, if not it's still pretty darn good.  People need to temper expectations as far as the draft goes.   Seems to me a lot of folks think a second is an automatic NHL ..50/50 to play 100 games doesn't say that at all - and 50/50 that ONE player, past the second round will play 100 games too. 

 

Personally i don't give two sh!ts about anyone who doesn't play 3-400 games.  But the scouts do.   A second rounder that plays at all is really not a bust.   So welcome to the NHL Gads.   According to what scouts expect.  

 

1-3 700 games bust limit.   4-6 500 games (JV could still make that) 7-10 400 games.   Past that anyone who plays 200 in the first round.  GMs expect ONE player a draft - if they get two they are batting better then average (around 1.5) ... three is truly exceptional.   

 

Personally I don't agree that JB is the best drafter we've ever had.   That honour will go with Milford for at least another 10 years.   Because we don't truly know what we have yet in any of these guys just a ton of potential.   But do say he's already surpassed Quin, and most likely Burke.   Milford had 10,000 games played out of four years of drafting, and also drafted close to around the same as JB has (ADP or average draft position).   Two of his four drafts are top five all-time. 

 

The worst JB will do is rank third (after Milford and Burke) the best number one.   Given it's what we need, and after 9 years of a total wasteland .... can see what some see JB as a drafting god.   And he does deserve the credit given how much more involved he is given his background.    And is much more respected and liked by his peers then MG ever was.    Sure a lot of the shine has rubbed off, and a lot of the patience has run thin.   Done enough to keep it like it is for one more year....but do  think it's time for some oversight and that adding a president is wise. 

 

I think we’re mostly in agreement on Benning and I think he deserves at least one more season to see how the kids work out. My main concern is that many fans defend Benning by saying without him we wouldn’t have drafted all these great kids on our roster. They think his drafting skills make up for his bad trades and questionable free agent signings. My point is that he was often just taking the best player left available in each draft as detailed in the prospect rankings still available for us to see on sites like mynhldraft.com.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Josepho said:

The website literally calculated the average rankings of 10 different popular draft ranking sources, you can literally calculate these things yourself to reach the same conclusion if you don't believe the website.

 

You said Juolevi's poor development was "completely injury related", I responded by saying that his development in his +1 was looking rough before his injuries hit. I think that's a relevant point when people say "but injuries" in response to the Juolevi pick.

I’m perfectly ok with this comment as long as people aren’t completely writing Juolevi off.  Like I said, he’s only 6 months older than Makar, and his two major injuries in two separate seasons should negate all talks of D + 5.  In reality, he’s closer to a D + 3 and while Juolevi did struggle in his D+1 year, he has shown consistent signs of improvement even if those gains have been small.  
 

Late bloomers are thing.  We can’t just hate on Juolevi and show negative bias because he was a Benning pick.  Wanting a Canucks prospect to fail so that you can be “proven right” is the most ridiculous and immature way of thinking that I’ve ever come across.  Thank god I’m not at HF anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kilgore said:

 

I'm not saying the OP couldn't be a little more open to discussion, after starting it.

But its also an interesting angle.  A lot of pro-Benning folks only like to swoop into threads to attack the critics.  Here's a thread you'all can make your lists as to all the great things JB has done. And no one is answering that well.  What does that tell you? 

 

Even yourself:

 

Negotiating in trades and free agency doesn't seem to be his strongest suit, it feels like he needs to pay the extra dollar or draft pick to get deals done

 

it is debatable to what extent he could have known, Ferland was certainly a big risk.

 

He could be a bit more creative.

 

better internal communication may have saved him assets or staff.

 

especially on defence or on the defensive side there players have not progressed as much as I would like.

 

I'm also not sold on the playing style.

 

Does he speak up against the owner for the good of the team or is he a yes-man mainly trying to please his bosses to save his own backside? I don't know. Hopefully the former, but certain leads point to the latter.

 

But in spite of that you also say you "like the overall direction of the team" and "for most of his trades I understand why he made them and can get behind"   :mellow:

 

See, to me that does not compute. If your post is the pinnacle of Benning's defence team's case, you've got a long way to go. 

 

I do not see myself as JB's defence team. Wasn't this thread to be supposed an honest discussion? In my understanding this requires a fair and differentiated approach, both sides of the coin. Can I not see deficits and still be content with the overall picture? Talking about ambiguity tolerance. People who call for the perfect GM without flaws that delivers from day one, will be in a tough spot - guy doesn't exist.

 

Going back to the OP's post, I do not see the result basis as a big issue as they meet my expectations, the process and transaction basis are portrayed much worse than they actually are (do I have to add "in my opinion" to every sentence to make clear it is my opinion and not the ultimate truth?), the relation management area looks to be the worst of the four, but this is really hard to judge without insider knowledge, so I'd be careful here.

 

So yes, I think JB deserves another year. I wouldn't necessarily mind a change, but I see the risks that inserting a new GM brings and often enough it has not helped much but just set back the team a few more years. Then again, I'm probably on the tentative and patient side. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows...

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...