Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management

[ShawnAntoski]

28 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. 

I get it but based on the yearly record the team is not further along than Deadmonton;  with context JB can perhaps learn something, as to why Deadmonton (or even Buffalo as a more recent example), went the way they did for most of the last decade.  Imo, one of there main problem can probably be attributed to the way they were hiring there executives which (from the outside looking in) was based on cronyism.

[73 Percent]

3 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

I get it but based on the yearly record the team is not further along than Deadmonton;  with context JB can perhaps learn something, as to why Deadmonton (or even Buffalo as a more recent example), went the way they did for most of the last decade.  Imo, one of there main problem can probably be attributed to the way they were hiring there executives which (from the outside looking in) was based on cronyism.

One of the 3 teams you mentioned has a human chest code on the roster. I dont think you can include them as the typical rebuild team.

 

Let me ask you this. If mcdavid was just an average first overall, let's say another hall for example, would they be a team worth talking about?

 

No.

 

We've had $&!# luck.  No one wants to talk about us not winning the lottery and drafting Matthews over OJ. How different these conversations would be. I guess that's JBs fault too.

Edited May 16, 2021 by 73 Percent

[IBatch]

39 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.

Agreed.   He's a good JB, albeit not a great one.  (lol couldn't help but laugh).  Nice post. 

[Dazzle]

30 minutes ago, shiznak said:

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.

Ok, the story of Sakic needs to be set straight. He made a ton of mistakes during his tenure. Perhaps the romanticism surrounding this guy needs to be toned down.

 

In 2013, he was named GM. It's worth noting that before he became GM, Colorado had missed the playoffs for three consecutive years.

 

 

In 2010-2011, COL drafted in the 17th overall Joey Hishton.

The next year (2011-2012), COL drafted #2 Gabriel Landeskog

The year after that, they didn't draft anyone, and picked up Varlamov from Washington (COL receives a 2nd round pick in exchange). Varlamov is their starting goalie.

 

Following that, aside from a first round push, Sakic misses the playoffs for three more years.

 

2013–14	2013–14	Western	Central	1st	82	52	22	—	8	112	248	217	7	3	4	—	20	22	Lost in First Round, 3–4 (Wild)
2014–15	2014–15	Western	Central	7th	82	39	31	—	12	90	219	227	—	—	—	—	—	—	Did not qualify
2015–16	2015–16	Western	Central	6th	82	39	39	—	4	82	216	240	—	—	—	—	—	—	Did not qualify
2016–17	2016–17	Western	Central	7th	82	22	56	—	4	48	166	278	—	—	—	—	—	—	Did not qualify

 

The following players were obtained under Sakic through the draft, in the consecutive order of the missed years: Rantanen, Jost, Makar. All of them being high first round picks.

 

Safe to say, Sakic was in a better position than Benning was. Benning did not have anyone remotely close to Landeskog to start off.

 

Yzerman was initially on Tampa Bay, but then moved to Detroit. We're seeing a similar type of 'tanking' phase for Detroit.

The amount of romanticism of Yzerman/Sakic is actually disingenous for discussion. You are cherryingpicking the positive results of these two GMs while ignoring the down years they had. Not to mention, the teams were in better positions than the Canucks were, in terms of development.

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Dazzle

[JohnTavares]

12 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

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?

 

Using career stats to evaluate current contracts makes NO sense. I'm not going to get into that at all because that method of evaluation is just incredibly incorrect.

 

Signed some good deals. Some bad ones? I don't think you're being objective at this point. 

Benning's signings have been for the most part, horrendous. Especially the UFA deals. Even the biggest Jim Benning fans can admit to this fact.

[JohnTavares]

9 minutes ago, Brad Marchand said:

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.

That is exactly it. I couldn't have said it better.

 

Jim has done a good job acquiring young talent, but has failed miserably to build a competitive team around them. 

It is so hard to build a competitive team around young talent. It takes great pro scouting, great contracts, and great trades... nothing that Jim has shown he can deliver on a consistent basis.

[bigbadcanucks]

20 minutes ago, Alflives said:

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

There's the ol' Alflives that we've all been waiting for!!!  Welcome back.

[73 Percent]

7 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Using career stats to evaluate current contracts makes NO sense. I'm not going to get into that at all because that method of evaluation is just incredibly incorrect.

 

Signed some good deals. Some bad ones? I don't think you're being objective at this point. 

Benning's signings have been for the most part, horrendous. Especially the UFA deals. Even the biggest Jim Benning fans can admit to this fact.

Lol how exactly are you evaluating them? Wives? Are you brendan leipsic?

 

They're both good in their own end. One's played with better linemates throught his entire career. Very similar players.

Edited May 16, 2021 by 73 Percent

[ShawnAntoski]

16 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

One of the 3 teams you mentioned has a human chest code on the roster. I dont think you can include them as the typical rebuild team.

 

Let me ask you this. If mcdavid was just an average first overall, let's say another hall for example, would they be a team worth talking about?

 

No.

Imo, it will come down to the staff on there deployment and usage of the player - if they are not generational like Crosby & McD.

 

Agree to disagree cause as I stated each teams rebuilds are not entirely the same cause with some context like draft rules & the drafts top end/overall talent will also have to be considered when discussing these types of topic; and it is not a linear ascension but the trend will generally indicate an improving team.  I was mainly focusing on how those teams handled there respcetive rebuilds by trying to give themselves the best chance to always draft the best player they can in any particular draft.   Ofcourse, there are no guarantees when it comes to prospects but I would rather be drafting these types of player rather than overpaying for them in FA or trades.

 

It seems you had read my post in a different thread when you mentioned the 3 teams argument.   

Edited May 16, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[Dazzle]

2 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Imo, it will come down to the staff on there deployment and usage of the player - if they are not generational like Crosby & McD.

 

Agree to disagree cause as I stated each teams rebuilds are not entirely the same cause with some context like draft rules & the drafts top end/overall talent will also have to be considered when discussing these types of topic; and it is not a linear ascension but the trend will generally indicate an improving team.  I am was mainly focusing on how those teams handled there respcetive rebuilds by trying to give themselves the best chance to always draft the best player they can in any particular draft.   Ofcourse, there are no guarantees when it comes to prospects but I would rather be drafting these types of player rather than overpaying for them in FA or trades.

Then you run the risk of being like Buffalo or Edmonton. Both teams had perentially drafted players, yet never got anywhere. The Oilers haven't been good until recently. Their rebuild (or oil change if you look at it that way), has been basically 10 years. Edmonton has had a series of #1 overall picks, one of which was freaking McDavid.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, bigbadcanucks said:

There's the ol' Alflives that we've all been waiting for!!!  Welcome back.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Alf.  

[ShawnAntoski]

9 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Then you run the risk of being like Buffalo or Edmonton. Both teams had perentially drafted players, yet never got anywhere. The Oilers haven't been good until recently. Their rebuild (or oil change if you look at it that way), has been basically 10 years. Edmonton has had a series of #1 overall picks, one of which was freaking McDavid.

Imo, when discussing those team & there failures some context will have to be considered: who there executives are and how they are filling those positions.  It is not just about leadership on the ice (with players) but the off ice leadership is just or (perhaps) more important in the overall success of a team: Yzerman & Sakic two examples that are not flawless but good NHL executives cause they seem to be also be good students of the game.  

 

JB if he wants evolve as a GM,  will hopefully look & learn from those teams more recent history.  

Edited May 16, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[Darkstar]

Benning is the worst General Manager in the league when it comes to signing free agents. I've never seen a single general manager just throw out multi-year, high salary contracts to players that will not benefit the team in the long run. I feel as though some random fan off the street wouldn't have made some of the ridiculous free agent signings that Benning made. 

 

His ability to evaluate prospects has been great, but it's not like the Canucks were picking 31st in the draft every season as well. If you look at the Canucks' draft history in Benning's tenure, there's only 4 players outside of the first round that are NHL regulars (Forsling, Gaudette, Hoglander, Demko).  Benning completely whiffed on the Virtanen and Juolevi picks, but did great on the Pettersson and Boeser picks. I won't include Hughes as he was expected to go where he went. 

 

One of the key indicators that Benning will not improve or learn from his mistakes was his obsession with getting OEL (who is on an absolutely horrendous contract), instead of trying to re-sign some of his pending free agents. His quote on how he "ran out of time" is absolutely ridiculous, and fireable in itself. Once the Canucks get any cap space, Benning will just add another free agent to a ridiculous deal, or trade for a player on a bad contract. This team will not take the next step until Benning is fired. Until that happens, Canucks management will continue to be the laughingstock of the league. 

 

Another major concern is the brain drain that is happening on the Canucks. Losing Linden, Brackett, and likely losing Ian Clarke is a major notification that there is some major dissatisfaction with the direction of the team internally. This offseason is a major turning point in the organization. If Benning isn't let go, it's likely that the team will never take the next step in becoming a contender (see Calgary). If Benning is let go, and is replaced with a competent GM, this team still has a chance at turning the ship around. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Darkstar

[IBatch]

14 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Using career stats to evaluate current contracts makes NO sense. I'm not going to get into that at all because that method of evaluation is just incredibly incorrect.

 

Signed some good deals. Some bad ones? I don't think you're being objective at this point. 

Benning's signings have been for the most part, horrendous. Especially the UFA deals. Even the biggest Jim Benning fans can admit to this fact.

You want a "genuine and honest" discussion but call his contracts to be horrendous for the most part, especially the UFA deals.    

 

JV and Bear seemed like fair RFA deals at the time ... just like the rest of them.   That part shouldn't be included. 

 

UFA deals...when we were still a vet team both Miller and Vrbata worked out fine again fair market value - Miller the best goalie available, Vrbata the second best (and second choice) forward after Iginla.   LE was horrendous.   That's one horrendous contract.   Sutters wasn't good, but still within the ball-park compared to his peers.   Myers is fair too for RHDs.    Guddy for 4.5 with covid. 

 

The bottom six guys, well yes bad timing all a year late, and maybe a little overpaid, again the same thing Dorian and Yzerman now are dealing with but at least they know the cap isn't going up - that's not on JB, other then not planning well for when the core is ready to take another step.   

 

Sure thing could be better, but they aren't nearly as some seem to think either.   JB didn't commit to the 80 million in contracts he let go last summer because in his own words "it takes time to build a pool, some guys take 3-5 years to develop and we are entering a stage where we no longer have to rely on UFAs to fill spots" ... 

 

That's in Nonis and MG.   9 years.   Also why he risked a couple 2nds on tweeners because we had such an age gap when he took over. 

 

I can see progress.  And can also see a plan.   Maybe we need a new manager to come in and close things up and tidy it up in a bow, or to blow it up and trade Miller and Horvat to build around EP, Podz and QHs.    COL took time too.   Going UP and Down is part of the process too, it's how they got the team they have, plus he traded some key players from previous management.   And was seriously roasted by fans and the media when they were yo-yoing as well.  

 

Have an honest discussion about the price of middle six and bottom six forwards.   Deep teams have an expensive guy our two in their bottom six.   As in 5-6 million.  TB does and Vegas did before they traded Stastny.   

 

When JB was signing from a position of power, he did pretty good with his UFAs until LE, horrendous for sure.   Also helped us bottom out lol.   

 

Im also worried about what comes next, but when i look at other teams and see what their vets costs to fill out their bottom sixes and top four R sides, or L sides even .... it's not horrendous outside of LE.   Given some of the money i've seen on this site being thrown around for QHs and EP i'm sure glad JB is signing.   Tavares ... he signed for 5 or so and was a much better C sand higher touted player on his second deal, and cashed out his third contract, like thing should be.   Dubas almost ruined that for everyone.  There is a great example of a GM handing out horrendous contracts. 

[coolboarder]

I would want to keep him for one more year or two.  It's clearly that JB needs help with trading aspect and signings but he's the best drafting GM we ever had.  It's important to have a management team in term of teamwork.   Delegating the roles in term of negotiation for trades or FA signing to someone else but as long as the GM makes the final decision of what type of roster he wants to see for best value of assets we have.  If GM makes the list of players he wants, delegate someone else for negotiation and if the value is fair, the GM still have the final decision.   

 

I just do not think GM should be in negotiation role because his focus is on the team rather than taking much of his time negotiation when he could invest his energy on building this roster even 2 or 3 years ahead in term of planning their roster and make his top list for FA 2 or 3 years ahead and scout that players preparing for that signing and cap space to be able to offer him the contract.  If his primary desire of that contract with 2 years left and when it is time for a year remaining, if he feels that he wanted that player and be prepared.  It does not have to be acquiring them through trade because every player performance is different from season to season. If he still that way when it's come to signing a contract, he could then rely on the scouting report over 3 seasons, rather than relying on numbers.   

 

It's impossible to do that method that I mentioned above when his time is being taken too much on negotiation contracts over 50 slots limit.  An active GM needs to focus on overall roster and overall individual rather than focusing on contract numbers stealing his time.  An active GM needs much of his time analyzing the game and analyzing the players' performance on all level and planning ahead, rather than focusing his time on current events.   

 

I think that's Benning's specialty and is the reason why he's been successfully drafting during Buffalo, Boston and Canucks day..   He clearly needs help on crunching numbers for cap space so that he can slot them in with ease.  We need to keep him in some capacity.   Covid-19 has been ruining the world financially and the Canucks is not exempted from that and is the reason why he could not keep those players he wanted.  This summer will have lots of room and will afford Benning to make moves.

 

If Benning is being let go, I will not be surprised if he's being offered for a GM job right away by other team..  

[shiznak]

48 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Ok, the story of Sakic needs to be set straight. He made a ton of mistakes during his tenure. Perhaps the romanticism surrounding this guy needs to be toned down.

 

In 2013, he was named GM. It's worth noting that before he became GM, Colorado had missed the playoffs for three consecutive years.

 

 

In 2010-2011, COL drafted in the 17th overall Joey Hishton.

The next year (2011-2012), COL drafted #2 Gabriel Landeskog

The year after that, they didn't draft anyone, and picked up Varlamov from Washington (COL receives a 2nd round pick in exchange). Varlamov is their starting goalie.

 

Following that, aside from a first round push, Sakic misses the playoffs for three more years.

 

2013–14	2013–14	Western	Central	1st	82	52	22	—	8	112	248	217	7	3	4	—	20	22	Lost in First Round, 3–4 (Wild)
2014–15	2014–15	Western	Central	7th	82	39	31	—	12	90	219	227	—	—	—	—	—	—	Did not qualify
2015–16	2015–16	Western	Central	6th	82	39	39	—	4	82	216	240	—	—	—	—	—	—	Did not qualify
2016–17	2016–17	Western	Central	7th	82	22	56	—	4	48	166	278	—	—	—	—	—	—	Did not qualify

 

The following players were obtained under Sakic through the draft, in the consecutive order of the missed years: Rantanen, Jost, Makar. All of them being high first round picks.

 

Safe to say, Sakic was in a better position than Benning was. Benning did not have anyone remotely close to Landeskog to start off.

 

Yzerman was initially on Tampa Bay, but then moved to Detroit. We're seeing a similar type of 'tanking' phase for Detroit.

The amount of romanticism of Yzerman/Sakic is actually disingenous for discussion. You are cherryingpicking the positive results of these two GMs while ignoring the down years they had. Not to mention, the teams were in better positions than the Canucks were, in terms of development.

 

Look at the whole picture and not the results on he ice.

 

Sakic is beloved because he practically robbed other GMs blind of their players, while still maintaining his core. Grubauer, Burakovsky, Graves, Girard, and Toews are all key assets for his club and he gave up next to nothing for them. He isn’t afraid of trading his picks away, if it meant getting a player to help his team in the long run.

I’m not knock on Benning, I think he’s a great talent evaluator, but he far from a good GM with his trades and signings. That what separates him and Sakic.

 

Also, Benning inherited Horvat, which is pretty close to a player Landeskog is.

Edited May 16, 2021 by shiznak

[Nuxfanabroad]

How dire was the whole mess, back in May/June 2014? What part of barren shelves & dirt floor, in a dilapidated shed is confounding?

 

& as for stars to sell, almost all were trending downwards. Media slagged our vets at every turn. The twins didn't want to be part of a flea market-clearance; & let's all greatly appreciate that, & how classy they wrapped it all up. A fine, character-filled experience for all incoming youth to observe. Not that EVERY young player would fully learn.

 

We had ONE kid that was worthwhile to build around, & watch grow. Had we dumped it all into the Pacific & flipped 650 mill to Bettman/BOG cronies for a completely new outfit, we would've been light yrs ahead.

 

 **************************************************

 

We all know what happened. Next 7 PO's we made 2. Lousy, but not dire. Today we must have 10-12 young(or relatively young) pieces locked in, that a fanbase can eagerly anticipate to watch grow/arrive/flourish.

 

Study up on the 5 stages of grief. If you've experienced 5 decades of following this franchise, you'll have run the gamut. Then add the likely fact that this league appears as rigged as WWE. If you think this sham is run honestly(like Lou-penalty, for instance), such conversations get no lift-off, anyways.

 

Personally I've been at ACCEPTANCE for quite a while. I understand JB will move on(either soon, or within a couple yrs..prob max); but I also know it's quite likely we'll never land a 5, 6 yr stash of drafted youth like we have, ever again. It's the MOST important ingred in this big funky stew.

 

We are living in a period of time where it's become increasingly hard to appreciate anything. Then if you arrive at such a place, one must publicly justify, breaking it down into digestible chunks, so the rest of the hoi polloi can play noisy contrarians. F*** that! Sort it yerselves, & reach one's own conclusions, is the law of this current jungle. Learning to appreciate & accept some things, can go a longg way to a lil' peace of mind.

 

 

[Hogs & Podz]

56 minutes ago, Brad Marchand said:

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.

This is the answer to your question J.T.

[Hogs & Podz]

53 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

That is exactly it. I couldn't have said it better.

 

Jim has done a good job acquiring young talent, but has failed miserably to build a competitive team around them. 

It is so hard to build a competitive team around young talent. It takes great pro scouting, great contracts, and great trades... nothing that Jim has shown he can deliver on a consistent basis.

I agree with you overall here, except Jim has been great at drafting not just good.  Definitely top 5, maybe top 3 over his tenure.  Definitely best draft GM in canucks 50 year history.... So give credit where credit is due.  However I can't disagree with the rest of your points here.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Hogs & Podz

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, JohnTavares said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

RESPONSE:  At the time, the Canucks needed a center that would not look out of place in a 2nd line capacity + could take on defensive responsibilities.  Nick Bonino was playing extremely well in Anaheim and so this is why Benning targeted him during the forced Kesler trade.  The hope was that Bonino would thrive under a promotion from being a career third line center into a decent 2nd line center.  Unfortunately for Bonino, he wasn't up to the task of being a 2nd line center.  Nick Bonino is and was an excellent 3RD line center, but he was ill suited to being a 2nd line center.  

 

With Henrik and Bo as offensive-minded center-men, and with Horvat still more of a "2B" center at that time rather than a bona-fide 2nd line center, the Canucks needed another center that could not only take DEFENSIVE pressure off of both Henrik and Bo, and take on DEFENSIVE responsibilities, but they also needed a guy that was of a "2A" calibre so that the Canucks could consider themselves as being a team with three good centers (to respond to the trend in the NHL in which teams had three good centres down the middle).   The hope was that Sutter could be that '2A' center that could take on the tougher defensive match-ups so that Henrik and Bo could focus more on their strengths (offensive side).   The hope was that Sutter could also continue to produce offense.  Sutter was also known as being a natural leader in the dressing room, and was seen as the type of guy that would be a good role model for the kids.  Unfortunately for Brandon, he ran into consistent injury problems while here.......which was a contrast to his solid durability prior to coming here.  Sutter, when healthy, has been a good 3rd line center for us, but his biggest problem has been staying healthy.

 

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?

 

 We have a "terrible" prospect pool because many of our prospects have either graduated to the NHL level (where they can no longer be considered prospects), or are on the verge of making the NHL (and so they technically can't be considered prospects).  Have a look for yourself at the players that we've drafted and developed.   Pettersson, Boeser, Hoglander, Lind, Hughes, Rathbone, Juolevi, Demko, Podkolzin, Dipietro.  Chatield might factor in as well.  From the Thomas Vanek trade, the Canucks were able to acquire a solid young asset in Tyler Motte.   So - to answer your question, a LOT of our young picks and prospects have successfully converted to the NHL level.  

 

As far as a terrible cap sheet goes, the Canucks signed a lot of "transitional/overpriced" contracts between 2015-2019 because they were faced with two options:  

1) Push the kids in the system into roles that they may not be ready for and risk ruining their confidence/development.

2) Over pay for veteran leaders on money and term that have either been renowned lockerroom leaders throughout their entire careers, or were once formerly great players, so that they could not only help the young kids in the system comfortably develop in suitable roles, but also serve as terrific on-ice and off-ice examples for the kids.  Create an environment in which players come to compete every night regardless of where they are in the standings, while forming solid off-ice habits.  "The code."  Anyone not adhering to "the code" would be sent packing (i.e. Hutton, Gaudette, and soon-to-be Virtanen).   

 

While the Canucks' record during this time was not great, the Canucks developed a solid and tight knit core that were wedded to hard work.  Guys like Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser, Miller, Schmidt, Hughes, etc., are now the "culture carriers" of the team, and the team is now ready to take the next step.   As was originally planned, all of the 'overpriced/transitional' contracts will be off the books before October 1st 2022.   

 

"It's been 7 years":

 

No, it hasn't.  The Canucks made the playoff during Benning's first year here due to the additions of Vrbata, Miller, Bonino, etc., and then rebuilt from 15-19.  They made the 2nd round last season, and had a dip this year.   Progression isn't always a linear thing.   Remember when the Canucks made a fluke 2nd round appearance 2006-07 and then regressed the following year (i.e. missed playoffs in 2007-2008).  What followed after that?  Our greatest 5 year stretch in Canucks history.  

 

We can't just ignore our 2nd round appearance last year because it goes against "the narrative."    

 

On July 1st 2022, the Canucks will have the following set-up:

 

1) Pettersson and Hughes will likely be on shorter term cap friendly deals. (young franchise center and young franchise defensemen)

2) Boeser will still be a cost controlled asset (young top line winger)

3) Schmidt, Miller, and Horvat will still be on relatively low cap friendly deals (cost effective vets)

4) Rathbone, Podkolzin, and Hoglander will be on ELC’s.  

5) Juolevi will be on a cheap bridge deal

6) Our 2021 1st round pick In this coming draft *might* be a factor in our 22-23 line up and would be on an ELC if he is

7) All of our overpaid/transitional contracts will be off the books except for Tyler Myers.  

8) Demko will be a solid contract.  (young superstar goalie)     

 

In other words, the Canucks will be in a prime position where they'll be able to bring in some significant high ticket UFA's (1, maybe even 2) that see our core as being the 'next' big powerhouse.  Similar to how teams viewed Colorado after 16-17 ended for instance.   I am even of the opinion that the the Canucks could get the balling rolling a bit in THIS off-season if they can move one or all of Eriksson, Beagle, or Roussel.  Eriksson (pay under the table and get him to retire), or Beagle/Roussel (2nd rounder as a sweetener to move one / 3rd and 7th or 3rd + mid prospect to get rid of the other = we receive two 6th or 7th rounders in return).   

 

Aside from the fact that we made the playoffs in both 15' and 20', another reason why this whole, "it's been 7 years argument" is so stupidly biased, is because it implies that very few others teams go through a rebuild/formative stretch like ours.  Look at Winnipeg/Atlanta these past 10-15 years.  Look at the Oilers and Carolina since 2006, Colorado since 2008, Florida since........1996?, Tampa since 2004, Toronto since 2004, New York Islanders, etc., etc.   All teams go through a 6-9 year stretch where they struggle, make 1-2 sporadic playoff appearances, and then go back to struggling.....while their moving average continues to trend upwards.  The last part is the key.   Look at Tampa Bay since 2004 to get a good idea of what I mean by 'moving average'.    

 

Calgary seemed like 'the next big thing' in 2015 and yet haven't won a playoff series since.  Dallas and Philadelphia had very impressive years last year and yet fell flat this season.     Montreal has been up and down.   Boston and LA were largely irrelevant for much of the mid-late 90's and 00's.  Chicago from 1996-2008.   The almighty Detroit Redwings for the last four years and counting.   

 

So again, I ask:   In what world are the Canucks the exception here?    

 

Jim Benning is no Scotty Bowman, but he ain't no Mike Milbury either.   All signs point to the Canucks having a huge year in 22-23.  

 

Benning is a solid 'B' GM from what I see.  

 

@JohnTavares

Edited May 16, 2021 by Patel Bure