Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management

[JohnTavares]

3 minutes ago, Hogs & Podz said:

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 credit is due.  However I can't disagree with the rest of your points here.

I can't quite say great drafting with the Juolevi and Virtanen misses (two top six picks) Those two misses set the franchise back years.

 

I think his drafting is a solid B+. Everything else is a C/C-.

[King Heffy]

2 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

I can't quite say great drafting with the Juolevi and Virtanen misses (two top six picks) Those two misses set the franchise back years.

 

I think his drafting is a solid B+. Everything else is a C/C-.

I liked what I saw from OJ so far; don't be surprised to see him in the top 4.  As for Jake, most teams missed in that draft.  The only guy from 4-10 that turned out to be useful was Ehlers.

[JohnTavares]

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

I liked what I saw from OJ so far; don't be surprised to see him in the top 4.  As for Jake, most teams missed in that draft.  The only guy from 4-10 that turned out to be useful was Ehlers.

Cmon man. OJ is not even being trusted to play more than 13 minutes a game. The chances of him developing into a top 4 defenseman is the same as a scratch card at this point.

 

That's just being disingenuous. Like I don't understand why you feel the need to even defend the Virtanen pick?

 

Nylander went 8th overall, many including myself preferred Nylander because he had higher offensive upside and previously played center.

 

Many also liked Ehlers who went 9th overall because he had an amazing year at Halifax and seemingly had higher offensive upside.

 

Nick Ritchie, a far more useful and consistent player than Virtanen went at 10.

 

I like how you stop the range at 10, because Fiala went 11, Vrana went 13, Larkin went at 15, Sanheim at 17, and Tuch at 18 etc.

 

Virtanen was a massive swing-and-a-miss and it wasn't hindsight. Nylander and Ehlers had far better junior careers at that point.

[Hogs & Podz]

12 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

I can't quite say great drafting with the Juolevi and Virtanen misses (two top six picks) Those two misses set the franchise back years.

 

I think his drafting is a solid B+. Everything else is a C/C-.

You dismiss to much in order for this to be a level headed conversation.  You see to black and white here.  Obviously you're a hater... Fair enough but stop pretending your views aren't slanted.  

I myself am okay with JB being let go but I understand there is a lot if grey here to the story that you choose not to see.  Good luck trying to have a 'honest discussion'.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Hogs & Podz

[ilduce39]

41 minutes ago, Darkstar said:

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. 

I think he’s likely gone this offseason and I’m fine with it but some of this is silly.
 

As for “brain drain” - Benning’s biggest blunders came with Linden as Prez.  
 

Brackett - I guess we’ll see.  He just seems like the poster boy people prop up so they don’t have to give the rest of the team any credit.  He was here under Gillis and we know how atrocious that was.

 

Ian Clarke isn’t even gone and that’s likely an ownership delay more than anything.  Do goalie coaches routinely get extended beyond the head coach? - not super fair right there. 

 

[JohnTavares]

2 minutes ago, Hogs & Podz said:

You dismiss to much in order for this to be a level headed conversation.  You see to black and white here.  Obviously you're a hater... Fair enough but stop pretending your views aren't slanted.  

I myself am okay with JB being let go but I understand there is a lot if grey here to the story that you choose not to see.  Good luck trying to have a 'honest discussion'.

When did I say my views weren't slanted?

I am obviously in favour of firing JB and have been for years.

What I am trying to understand is, how can anyone still be supporting him at this point despite the mountain of evidence that points to complete ineptitude at his job?

[alt kilgore]

2 hours 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.

 

Best drafting we've ever had?  After decades of one of the worst, if not the worst, history of drafting in the league, it damn well better be.  And "best" drafting IMO also could include how MANY picks you have acquired, and thus how many prospects are pounding at the door.  And JB, in seven years, is at a net loss in even his allotted picks. On a re..... team!

 

Its pretty clear that when the team finally ditched Ron Delorme as head of amateur scouting, things improved dramatically.  One of Gillis's biggest regrets, he has stated, was not replacing Delorme and the rest of the amateur scouting department when he first was hired.  His biggest mistake, knowing his limitations, was trusting in and continuing to rely on a perennial losing amateur drafting department. Who knows how well Gillis would have done in the draft if he'd cleaned house right away? 

 

Benning's big unilateral picks were Virtanen and Joulevi.  Jake was before Brackett took the job, and Oli was a put-his-foot-down insistence, believing that we needed to shore up our defence as our priority. Not blaming him for the logic or the pick at the time.  But...

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canucks-mailbag-whats-going-gm-jim-benning-judd-brackett/

 

Ian MacIntyre: Juolevi was Benning’s choice back in 2016 because the GM wanted a defenceman and loved what he saw from the Finn at the world juniors. He could have chosen Mikhail Sergachev or Charlie McAvoy. Benning is believed to have gone with Brackett’s first-round recommendation ever since.

 

If you compare Bennings recommendations with when Brackett was in charge, and his recs were front and center (Boeser, Demko, Pettersson, Hughes... not to mention other picks from leagues he was more familair with....Adam Gaudette, Aidan McDonough, Kole Lind, Petrus Palmu, Tyler Madden) Basically Judd was batting close to 1.000.  Not saying the first round picks wouldn't all have been also picked solely by Jim anyways, but results are results.  But the two amigos, the Jim and Doug adventure, wanted to be the smartest men in the room again and turfed Brackett for no rational reason other than a power grab to totally control the amateur draft decisions again.  Just another insular move by those two peas in a pod that have too much on their plates already. 

 

All that to say....even if you hang all your hats on the amateur drafting, the circumstantial evidence at least, shows a little more mixed story of how that credit should be doled out. Obviously JB gets a lot of the credit just being the GM and putting his endorsement on the picks. There is credit in having the foresight, and trust in his own talented amateur scouting department in who they recomended. And he did let Brackett hire and work with who he thought would give the ASD the best chance find players like Quinn and Petey for a few years at least.  Its almost like he was TOO successful for his own good. Which is a bizarre reason, but I can't think of anything else. 

 

 

We had a well respected capologist.....who has gone on to help shape the Leafs into contenders.

We had a well respected President to help with communication and vision who may have tamped down or nixed a few of Jim's now more regrettable decisions...now ostracized by the current owners.

We had a talented amateur scouting leader......now working for a Western Conference rival team.

 

Its not only the on ice product that should have been rebuilt properly, its also the off ice crew.  And JB has regressed there spectacularly too as well. Which is often overshadowed by his mistakes with on ice decisions, but indirectly affects that on ice product in many ways.

 

And coming soon.....

We had a well respected coach....who, in my opinion, has done a good job with what he has been given.

We had a well respected goalie coach....now in Calgary with Marky?

.

.

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by kilgore

[ilduce39]

4 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Cmon man. OJ is not even being trusted to play more than 13 minutes a game. The chances of him developing into a top 4 defenseman is the same as a scratch card at this point.

 

That's just being disingenuous. Like I don't understand why you feel the need to even defend the Virtanen pick?

 

Nylander went 8th overall, many including myself preferred Nylander because he had higher offensive upside and previously played center.

 

Many also liked Ehlers who went 9th overall because he had an amazing year at Halifax and seemingly had higher offensive upside.

 

Nick Ritchie, a far more useful and consistent player than Virtanen went at 10.

 

I like how you stop the range at 10, because Fiala went 11, Vrana went 13, Larkin went at 15, Sanheim at 17, and Tuch at 18 etc.

 

Virtanen was a massive swing-and-a-miss and it wasn't hindsight. Nylander and Ehlers had far better junior careers at that point.

I love it when people bring back mistakes made during the first month on the job 7 years ago.  
 

Awesome talking point Johnny Pajamas.

[King Heffy]

3 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Cmon man. OJ is not even being trusted to play more than 13 minutes a game. The chances of him developing into a top 4 defenseman is the same as a scratch card at this point.

 

That's just being disingenuous. Like I don't understand why you feel the need to even defend the Virtanen pick?

 

Nylander went 8th overall, many including myself preferred Nylander because he had higher offensive upside and previously played center.

 

Many also liked Ehlers who went 9th overall because he had an amazing year at Halifax and seemingly had higher offensive upside.

 

Nick Ritchie, a far more useful and consistent player than Virtanen went at 10.

 

I like how you stop the range at 10, because Fiala went 11, Vrana went 13, Larkin went at 15, Sanheim at 17, and Tuch at 18 etc.

 

Virtanen was a massive swing-and-a-miss and it wasn't hindsight. Nylander and Ehlers had far better junior careers at that point.

Nylander's a notoriously lazy player and one of the worst contracts in the league. The guy refuses to backcheck and doesn't care about winning.  You don't want a floater like that around young players.  Ritchie is decent, but it's hard to argue he was worth his draft position.   OJ will be getting more minutes once Baumer is replaced with an actual coach; it is unreasonable to blame Juolvevi for the shortcomings of an incompetent assistant coach.

[Drewman]

1 hour 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.

OK, how about using last years stats as a comparison. Pearson played 69 games with 45 points, and Tofu played 68 games at 44 points. Playoffs? Pearson 17 games 8 points, Tofu 7 games at 4 points. They're almost identical. I'm betting you're making this judgement call on the fact Tofolli looks great this season, but hindsight is 20/20.

[Sbriggs]

2 hours ago, Petey_BOI said:

i don't think we needed this thread

I second that

[Alflives]

10 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Nylander's a notoriously lazy player and one of the worst contracts in the league. The guy refuses to backcheck and doesn't care about winning.  You don't want a floater like that around young players.  Ritchie is decent, but it's hard to argue he was worth his draft position.   OJ will be getting more minutes once Baumer is replaced with an actual coach; it is unreasonable to blame Juolvevi for the shortcomings of an incompetent assistant coach.

OJ will be a player for us.  I see him as taking much of Edler’s minutes.  Plus OJ passes fantastic.  Nylander is always going to be “Double Flamingo” boy.  

[JohnTavares]

Just now, Drewman said:

OK, how about using last years stats as a comparison. Pearson played 69 games with 45 points, and Tofu played 68 games at 44 points. Playoffs? Pearson 17 games 8 points, Tofu 7 games at 4 points. They're almost identical. I'm betting you're making this judgement call on the fact Tofolli looks great this season, but hindsight is 20/20.

You got to be kidding me.

Pearson signed his extension when? How many points did he have when he signed his extension this year?

[JohnTavares]

Just now, Alflives said:

OJ will be a player for us.  I see him as taking much of Edler’s minutes.  Plus OJ passes fantastic.  Nylander is always going to be “Double Flamingo” boy.  

And this is why I have so little faith for you guys.

 

You are expecting a guy who the coach won't trust to play more than 13 minutes game to take much of Edler's minutes?

 

You can't be for real. This has to be a masterful troll job.

[JohnTavares]

15 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Nylander's a notoriously lazy player and one of the worst contracts in the league. The guy refuses to backcheck and doesn't care about winning.  You don't want a floater like that around young players.  Ritchie is decent, but it's hard to argue he was worth his draft position.   OJ will be getting more minutes once Baumer is replaced with an actual coach; it is unreasonable to blame Juolvevi for the shortcomings of an incompetent assistant coach.

Thanks and Virtanen is what? A douchebag accused of sexual assault, who stinks on and off the ice is soooo much better?

[Sbriggs]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

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

And he's improving every year

[JohnTavares]

20 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

I love it when people bring back mistakes made during the first month on the job 7 years ago.  
 

Awesome talking point Johnny Pajamas.

Ok.

Let's talk about how he absolutely fumbled the bag by trading a second and a prospect trending up for Toffoli and didn't even give him an offer at UFA?

Or do you want to talk about how he overpaid a backup goalie in Holtby for 2 years?

Or do you want to talk about trading Gaudette at his lowest value, or re-signing Jake instead of shipping him off at his highest value?

Or do you want to talk about how he's running the organization on a day-to-day basis or runs out of time when negotiating with free agents?

 

Or do you want to talk about how his lack of communication with the league/fans when the Covid outbreak happened, or when Jake's allegations occured?

 

Or do you want to talk about how he re-signed Pearson 3 years x 3M despite Pearson having a down year and seems to be on the decline and not trying to trade him for a pick?

 

Which one ya want?

 

Is duce in the name meaning deuce? It's suitable because that post was akin to a $&!#.

Edited May 16, 2021 by JohnTavares

[ilduce39]

I can accept JB being fired this offseason - before the year started I said this team needed to at least be close to making the playoffs again to stay on despite losing some vets.
 

But the way this year went down has been ridiculous - a brutal Covid outbreak sandwiched between the worst schedule to begin and end the season.  This was always going to be the worst of the (self inflicted) cap crunch years... but then toss in an unexpectedly flattened cap and it gets worse.  
 

In all “fairness” this team (top-down) deserves a proper chance to see if they can build on last summer’s run - but I can see why change might happen anyways just to put some distance from this miserable year.

 

One thing I think everyone agrees on - there’s some good building blocks in place - they just need to be rearranged / supported better going forward.

Edited May 16, 2021 by ilduce39

[Dumb Nuck]

2 hours ago, JohnTavares said:

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Condensed version:

 

Fire Green!

[Sbriggs]

54 minutes ago, shiznak said:

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.

Wouldn't you say we stole Miller and Schmidt, my point is Benning is improving every year with his signings and trades