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

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?

 

Did you see a future before the Sedins retired?

Do you see a future after the Sedins retired?


I can see a future  now and its not too far away.

Petey, Boeser, Horvat, Miller, Hoglander, Hughes, Demko, Dipietro, Lind, Gadjovich, Lockwood, Woo, Rafferty, Podkolzin, Juolevi, Rathbone, another top 10 pick. And many more up and coming prospects with potential.

we are lightyears ahead of where we were 4 years ago.

  • Hydration 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 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-.

Juolevei was not  a miss, he has had injury issues and now seems to be fine and will be a top 4, JV is a bust but in JB defence no GM bats 100% and considering what he has done with our prospect pool I'll forgive him on the few picks he may have missed on

  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 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.

No way, OJ has been too limited on his ice time and when he has been in the lineup he has been good. He'll for sure be a top 4. I see you like to shout loudly about the misses that JB has had at the draft but what about his hits? Several home runs as I see it and the best GM at drafting in Canucks history

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours 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. 

1 hour ago, Brad Marchand said:

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 stuff. I've always had a nudge about JB not being the GM in place when this team is truly competitive. However, he will get a lot of the credit for bringing in the core pieces and rightfully so. If the time is now (this off-season) or next off-season time will tell. It's almost unfair to clean house this off-season due to the oddities of this year. 

 

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward. We are getting another great prospect in this draft. This off-season however, if I were owner, I am not signing off on any long-term deals in preparation for another GM to step in with a plethora of young NHLers that need a supporting cast. Considering that outlook, I am not convinced the current management group is the right one for the job. The contract situations after next season makes us one of the most exciting teams to take over as a GM. Lot's of cap space with a very good young core with all the core positions filled. Combine that with hiring a president of hockey ops to work a long side the management team I can see a bright future for this organization. 

 

We gotta be patient. Our time will come. I am 100% convinced. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 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 due.  However I can't disagree with the rest of your points here.

Just for fun I went to mynhldraft.com to see how other prognosticators would have chosen players based on the Canuck’s draft position in each of the drafts that Benning was our GM. I chose Craig Button as a respected evaluator of talent. Each pick was his highest rated player still available based on who other teams picked ahead of the Canucks,

 

Button’s picks would have been:

 

2014. Nik Ehlers (over Virtanen)

2015. Brock Boeser

2016. Matthew Tkachuk (over Juolevi)

2017. Cody Glass (over Pettersson)

2018. Quinn Hughes

2019. Cole Caulfield (over Podkolzin)

 

The Canucks would arguably be better with Button’s picks vs Benning’s. I’m really glad that we have Pettersson but Ehlers, Tkachuk and possibly Caulfield would have substantially increased our talent level. I understand that Vegas is happy with Cody Glass’s development as well.


I guess my point is that Benning’s drafting prowess may be a bit overrated. Someone like Craig Button as our GM could have drafted equally as well (or better) and probably avoided the disastrous free agent signings and bad trades that have been Benning’s real legacy.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said:

Did you see a future before the Sedins retired?

Do you see a future after the Sedins retired?


I can see a future  now and its not too far away.

Petey, Boeser, Horvat, Miller, Hoglander, Hughes, Demko, Dipietro, Lind, Gadjovich, Lockwood, Woo, Rafferty, Podkolzin, Juolevi, Rathbone, another top 10 pick. And many more up and coming prospects with potential.

we are lightyears ahead of where we were 4 years ago.

That makes too much sense for several people on here to understand....Cheers

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

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 $&!#.

That "prospect trending" has a whopping 4 points in 13 AHL games, so I wouldn't be too shaken up over that if I were you. 

 

Gaudette, I'm pretty sure it was previously stated in another thread, nobody had interest in, and after the Covid/girlfriend/social media fiasco it was probably the smart thing to do.

 

I'll agree that we should have cut ties with Jake. I was surprised how many chances management seemed to want to give when they should have just moved on.

As for someone that wants to have an honest discourse, they way you interact with anyone who disagrees seems confrontational. Maybe you're too emotionally invested and need to take your own advise and go outside?

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Disagree heavily on the Horvat/Landeskog comparison. Horvat's issue in the draft that caused him to drop was his skating. His work ethic ultimately helped him develop to who he is now. If Horvat turned into Hodgson (the injury aspect, not the other controversial parts), Gillis could have walked away from his tenure having drafted no player that has any particular NHL significance.

 

In short, the Landeskog and Horvat comparison is not realistically a one to one.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Schmautzie said:

Just for fun I went to mynhldraft.com to see how other prognosticators would have chosen players based on the Canuck’s draft position in each of the drafts that Benning was our GM. I chose Craig Button as a respected evaluator of talent. Each pick was his highest rated player still available based on who other teams picked ahead of the Canucks,

 

Button’s picks would have been:

 

2014. Nik Ehlers (over Virtanen)

2015. Brock Boeser

2016. Matthew Tkachuk (over Juolevi)

2017. Cody Glass (over Pettersson)

2018. Quinn Hughes

2019. Cole Caulfield (over Podkolzin)

 

The Canucks would arguably be better with Button’s picks vs Benning’s. I’m really glad that we have Pettersson but Ehlers, Tkachuk and possibly Caulfield would have substantially increased our talent level. I understand that Vegas is happy with Cody Glass’s development as well.


I guess my point is that Benning’s drafting prowess may be a bit overrated. Someone like Craig Button as our GM could have drafted equally as well (or better) and probably avoided the disastrous free agent signings and bad trades that have been Benning’s real legacy.

 

 

Legacy of the past maybe, I think Benning has had some good signings/trades lately ie Miller Schmidt Demko Hamonic Pearson. I think we have to remember that ownership hired rookie GM and President at the same time, that was the biggest mistake of all and even though Benning made some bad decision in his first few years I see him as improving and learning from his mistakes

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 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.

For that to be true, Tkachuk would need to have pushed Calgarys team forward by years. Which he hasn't. Calgary is as bad as we are this year with fewer excuses.

 

Yes Jake has turned out to be a disaster, but I wouldn't call it franchise killing. Just sucks to waste a 1st rounder. But that draft produced Demko, which turned out to be a fantastic pick. I'd say Boeser at 23 makes up a lot of Jakes miss as well. 

  • Vintage 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Schmautzie said:

Just for fun I went to mynhldraft.com to see how other prognosticators would have chosen players based on the Canuck’s draft position in each of the drafts that Benning was our GM. I chose Craig Button as a respected evaluator of talent. Each pick was his highest rated player still available based on who other teams picked ahead of the Canucks,

 

Button’s picks would have been:

 

2014. Nik Ehlers (over Virtanen)

2015. Brock Boeser

2016. Matthew Tkachuk (over Juolevi)

2017. Cody Glass (over Pettersson)

2018. Quinn Hughes

2019. Cole Caulfield (over Podkolzin)

 

The Canucks would arguably be better with Button’s picks vs Benning’s. I’m really glad that we have Pettersson but Ehlers, Tkachuk and possibly Caulfield would have substantially increased our talent level. I understand that Vegas is happy with Cody Glass’s development as well.


I guess my point is that Benning’s drafting prowess may be a bit overrated. Someone like Craig Button as our GM could have drafted equally as well (or better) and probably avoided the disastrous free agent signings and bad trades that have been Benning’s real legacy.

 

 

Funny you go with this narrative yet..

 

No mention of Demko, Rathbone, Brisebois, Hoglander, Lind, Jasek, Gadjovich, Woo.

 

Demko and Hoglander are two players that you completely ignored. Big miss in your analysis. Compare that to the previous GMs, namely Gillis. Both of which are not 'high draft picks' that detractors accuse Benning of being gifted.

 

The other players are close or very close to being NHLers. At no such point did we have any kind of depth like this in previous regimes.

 

Let's just say your analysis that Benning's drafting being overrated is so flawed that we can safely disregard your perspective.

 

Podkolzin is gonna be like Horvat also. A winger version. That's what his playing style is comparable to. Funny how you left out Podkolzin and went with the hindsight Cole Caufield who was quite small at the time of his draft.

 

Edited by Dazzle
  • Thanks 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patel Bure 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

Leafs haven’t won a playoff series since 2004.  So, if the Canucks are on “year 7,” then a team like Toronto is undoubtedly on “year 17” (although in their defense, that will likely change in a few weeks).

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

Original post was too long. 

I am a Benning supporter. The main reason is that the entire future core was his work and I love our young core and think this team has tremendous upside.  I actually think the future of this team is capable of a Stanley cup. 

This is the most optimistic I've been when looking at our team and think we have better pieces than our 2011 team. Our guys are still developing and not at Sedin level yet but I think they'll be better in a few years. 

Our top guys

Horvat, Boeser, Pettersson Miller, Hog, Podz are better than Sedin Sedin Burrows, Kesler, Higgins 

 

Our D of Hughes, Schmidt Myers Juolevi will be just as good or better and we have another high pick this draft. 

 

Demko is the real deal. 

 

These are all Benning guys so I support Benning. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 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?

 

I really have nothing to talk about with people who seem to have completely ignored the stupidity of this season, the team infection and conseqjence of that ordeal.  Last year is the year to look at it if you want a measuring stick.  The track they were on  then is pretty much where they were expected to be and it's a good spot.  They have some growing to do and pieces to add over the next couple years, but they are in good shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

For that to be true, Tkachuk would need to have pushed Calgarys team forward by years. Which he hasn't. Calgary is as bad as we are this year with fewer excuses.

 

Yes Jake has turned out to be a disaster, but I wouldn't call it franchise killing. Just sucks to waste a 1st rounder. But that draft produced Demko, which turned out to be a fantastic pick. I'd say Boeser at 23 makes up a lot of Jakes miss as well. 

the failure wasn't the pick, it was the complete mismanagement of Virtanen by Green.  

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stawns said:

the failure wasn't the pick, it was the complete mismanagement of Virtanen by Green.  

This is how I know you're trolling.


Virtanen was given every opportunity to play in the top six and completely flamed out this year.

 

Cmon man.

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

Just for fun I went to mynhldraft.com to see how other prognosticators would have chosen players based on the Canuck’s draft position in each of the drafts that Benning was our GM. I chose Craig Button as a respected evaluator of talent. Each pick was his highest rated player still available based on who other teams picked ahead of the Canucks,

 

Button’s picks would have been:

 

2014. Nik Ehlers (over Virtanen)

2015. Brock Boeser

2016. Matthew Tkachuk (over Juolevi)

2017. Cody Glass (over Pettersson)

2018. Quinn Hughes

2019. Cole Caulfield (over Podkolzin)

 

The Canucks would arguably be better with Button’s picks vs Benning’s. I’m really glad that we have Pettersson but Ehlers, Tkachuk and possibly Caulfield would have substantially increased our talent level. I understand that Vegas is happy with Cody Glass’s development as well.


I guess my point is that Benning’s drafting prowess may be a bit overrated. Someone like Craig Button as our GM could have drafted equally as well (or better) and probably avoided the disastrous free agent signings and bad trades that have been Benning’s real legacy.

 

 

Virtanen - cpmplete mismanagement of him'

Boes - no brainer

OJ - that is completely injury related, but actually turned out to be helpful in the context of the Cap.  Had they picked MT they'd struggle to keep him, EP, TD and QH.

Petey - all day everyday

Hughes - no brainer

Podz - again, all day, everyday

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

Just for fun I went to mynhldraft.com to see how other prognosticators would have chosen players based on the Canuck’s draft position in each of the drafts that Benning was our GM. I chose Craig Button as a respected evaluator of talent. Each pick was his highest rated player still available based on who other teams picked ahead of the Canucks,

 

Button’s picks would have been:

 

2014. Nik Ehlers (over Virtanen)

2015. Brock Boeser

2016. Matthew Tkachuk (over Juolevi)

2017. Cody Glass (over Pettersson)

2018. Quinn Hughes

2019. Cole Caulfield (over Podkolzin)

 

The Canucks would arguably be better with Button’s picks vs Benning’s. I’m really glad that we have Pettersson but Ehlers, Tkachuk and possibly Caulfield would have substantially increased our talent level. I understand that Vegas is happy with Cody Glass’s development as well.


I guess my point is that Benning’s drafting prowess may be a bit overrated. Someone like Craig Button as our GM could have drafted equally as well (or better) and probably avoided the disastrous free agent signings and bad trades that have been Benning’s real legacy.

 

 

I disagree in Caulfield for our team.  Podkolzin will be a better fit overall.  It's not always just about skill alone.  Why isn't button a GM anymore?  Why hasn't he been asked to join the ranks again... Like Burkie?

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stawns said:

I really have nothing to talk about with people who seem to have completely ignored the stupidity of this season, the team infection and conseqjence of that ordeal.  Last year is the year to look at it if you want a measuring stick.  The track they were on  then is pretty much where they were expected to be and it's a good spot.  They have some growing to do and pieces to add over the next couple years, but they are in good shape.

So when team is bad = disregard

 

team is good = regard

 

Wow. You do realize that COVID literally saved this team last year right? They were trending downwards and Markstrom and Boeser were hurt. They likely would have missed the playoffs last year. The Canucks won a couple games in the bubble due to Vezina level goaltending from Markstrom and Demko, and now suddenly that's the benchmark we are using?

 

Some of y'all are really smoking the good stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnTavares said:

This is how I know you're trolling.


Virtanen was given every opportunity to play in the top six and completely flamed out this year.

 

Cmon man.

this year is not a year to use as a standard for any player or the team.  Until this season his progress was steadily moving upward, with two 20 goal pace seasons, despite not getting time in the top 6 for more than a period or two at a time.  Just because you don't like a player, it doesn't change the numbers.

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...