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

[Report] Jim Benning to return for next season

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 5/25/2021 at 5:19 AM, IBatch said:

Yes like moving away from Tanev and Markstrom and going with Demko and Schmidt. 

13 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

Next. 

Schmidt was not a replacement for Tanev, or at least he shouldn't have been.

 

Schmidt should have been brought in, in addition to keeping Tanev. You know, so we can actually ice a good defense (not that our GM knows anything about that).

 

Cap situation didn't allow for that. We can agree to disagree on what caused that cap situation.

 

Edited by kanucks25
  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Schmidt was not a replacement for Tanev, or at least he shouldn't have been.

 

Schmidt should have been brought in, in addition to keeping Tanev. You know, so we can actually ice a good defense (not that our GM knows anything about that).

 

Cap situation didn't allow for that. We can agree to disagree on what caused that cap situation.

 

No doubt.   We actually agree on that point.   But given his actual cap - not the imaginary one,  he chose to go with Demko and Schmidt over Markstrom and Tanev.   Actually didn't - he offered Tanev a 4 x 2 deal, the one that would actually fit with the team.    I'm stoked he didn't ruin what's left of our pool and futures to cram in more of the same.    If TT was more patient he might have crammed him in as well. Can't blame either TT or Tanev for going with the better deals or not waiting for a compromise (counter-offers, negotians).   The team could have gone 10% over, signed both and made the trades required to fit them in.    Don't see the point in re-hashing it over and over again.  But here we are. 

Edited by IBatch
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I agree, I'm as tired of it as anyone.

 

But my curse here is to educate, so when someone says something so utterly incorrect, I have no choice.

ok fair enough :lol:

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, vannuck59 said:

Benning the great drafter , Cole Lind or Nicolas Hague  he was drafted one spot down after Lind , should have said why isnt any one drafting Hague instead of Lind.

He’s really fallen short when it comes to drafting D men.

 

Outside of Hughes, Rathbone, Juolevi, and Woo theres not much there for 7 drafts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, DeNiro said:

He’s really fallen short when it comes to drafting D men.

 

Outside of Hughes, Rathbone, Juolevi, and Woo theres not much there for 7 drafts.

 

2014

1 - Virtanen (F) (oh well...). Was there a d-man who could have been drafted 6th OA? And remember, we are discussing taking a d-man, not replacing a forward with a forward.

*** edit *** 1 - McCann (F)  I suspect that some would have preferred that he not be traded, I would have liked it if the Canucks had taken Pastrnak.

2 - Demko (G)

3 - Tryamkin (D)

 

2015

1 - Boeser (any takers on replacing him?)

2 - traded

3 - Briesbois (D)

 

2016

1 - Juolevi (D) Injury bug, but looks like he will be a solid d-man. Personally, I would have preferred Sergachev.

2 - traded

3 - Lockwood (F) (replaced with Fox?)

 

2017

1. - Pettersson (F) (any takers on replacing him?)

2 - Lind (F) (some suggest Hague should have been taken. Until very recently nobody was saying bupkiss about Hague.Will opinions change in a year or two?

3 - DiPietro (G) (any takers on a replacement?)

(4 - Rathbone (D). I know I said I was dealing only in the top-3 but a figure a lot of folks would mention this one)

 

2018

1 - Hughes (D) (I assume "everyone" is okay with this pick?)

2 - Woo (D)

3 - Madden (F) (traded) I can't say that I see any reasonable d-man prospect to replace Madden

 

2019

1 - Podkolzin (F) (anyone want to replace him?)

2 - Hoglander (F) (anyone want to replace him?)

3 - traded

 

2020

1 - traded

2 - traded

3 - Jurmo (D)

 

So of the 21 picks, 5 were traded, 2 were goalies, 8 were forwards and 6 were d-men. 

 

Folks can pick which forward they would like to kick off the list and insert a d-man to make Canucks fans cheer so as to make up for the shortfall of d-men prospects.  And I'm only dealing with the top three picks (except for one instance), but if anyone wants to do that slog through the later rounds, do go ahead.

 

                                                regards,  G.

Edited by Gollumpus
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

 

2014

1 - Virtanen (F) (oh well...). Was there a d-man who could have been drafted 6th OA? And remember, we are discussing taking a d-man, not replacing a forward with a forward.

2 - Demko (G)

3 - Tryamkin (D)

 

2015

1 - Boeser (any takers on replacing him?)

2 - traded

3 - Briesbois (D)

 

2016

1 - Juolevi (D) Injury bug, but looks like he will be a solid d-man. Personally, I would have preferred Sergachev.

2 - traded

3 - Lockwood (F) (replaced with Fox?)

 

2017

1. - Pettersson (F) (any takers on replacing him?)

2 - Lind (F) (some suggest Hague should have been taken. Until very recently nobody was saying bupkiss about Hague.Will opinions change in a year or two?

3 - DiPietro (G) (any takers on a replacement?)

(4 - Rathbone (D). I know I said I was dealing only in the top-3 but a figure a lot of folks would mention this one)

 

2018

1 - Hughes (D) (I assume "everyone" is okay with this pick?)

2 - Woo (D)

3 - Madden (F) (traded) I can't say that I see any reasonable d-man prospect to replace Madden

 

2019

1 - Podkolzin (F) (anyone want to replace him?)

2 - Hoglander (F) (anyone want to replace him?)

3 - traded

 

2020

1 - traded

2 - traded

3 - Jurmo (D)

 

So of the 21 picks, 5 were traded, 2 were goalies, 8 were forwards and 6 were d-men. 

 

Folks can pick which forward they would like to kick off the list and insert a d-man to make Canucks fans cheer so as to make up for the shortfall of d-men prospects.  And I'm only dealing with the top three picks (except for one instance), but if anyone wants to do that slog through the later rounds, do go ahead.

 

                                                regards,  G.

Is there a reason why you only chose the top 3 picks?

 

The point wasn’t to choose a D man instead of our other picks, it was just a comment on his overall body of work. There’s not a lot of quantity D talent from 7 drafts. Those are just facts.

 

Edited by DeNiro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, DeNiro said:

1.) Is there a reason why you only chose the top 3 picks?

 

2.) The point wasn’t to choose a D man instead of our other picks, it was just a comment on his overall body of work. There’s not a lot of quantity D talent from 7 drafts. Those are just facts.

 

1.) Am I being accused of "cherry picking"? :P 

 

The obvious reason(s) which I thought I had mentioned (or perhaps inferred), is that the number of guys who make it to the NHL, outside of the top three picks (at any position, for any team) is so very slim that I elected to not include those picks for guys who will likely top out at the AHL level. In the post to which I was responding, you yourself only noted guys who were top two selections (other than Rathbone, who I did include, and who is still not a sure bet IMO). If you believe that there is value in mentioning all the guys who were selected after the third round (eg. MacKenze Stewart), go ahead and start digging and add them to the list (It's something like 16 forwards, 10 d-men, 2 goalies).  :)  The complaint I'm hearing being voiced here is not one of, "Benning doesn't draft d-men", but rather that there aren't any guys being drafted in the 4th round or lower who are turning into Norris candidate players... as yet 

 

Further, I did include Tryamkin, Brisbois and Jurmo - why didn't you include them in your comments? Answer: is it that they are considered to have a low chance of making it to (or back to) the NHL (Tryamkin/Brisbois), or they are still an unknown quantity (Jurmo)? This leads us to the second point...

 

2.) The point is that the comments being made infer that Benning was letting the organization down by not having more quality d-men prospects in the pipeline

 

("He’s really fallen short when it comes to drafting D men.")

 

If one does not draft a d-man then a prospect at a different area is being chosen, right? If more (quality) d-man prospects is desirable, then the team would have to draft more of them, which means fewer guys selected at forward (or goal). I pulled up the selections for Benning's drafts, added up what was what (see above) and asked everyone (not just you, and thanks for responding :)) which forward prospect (or goalie) they would like to delete and replace with a d-man prospect who was selected after the Vancouver pick that year.

 

In my estimation, other than the obvious Virtanen de-select, there aren't a lot of top-3 forward prospects for whom you'd get a big, "Never should have drafted that guy!" type of comment. And for Virtanen, the complaints there were (to an extreme) that a different forward should have been selected, not a d-man.  As a point of information, in that draft there were only five d-men taken in the first round: Ekblad (1), Fleury (7), Honka (14), Sanheim (17), DeAngelo (19)........ 

 

Lockwood (and perhaps Madden, traded to LA) are the only picks that "some" people would like back, and mostly this is due to the unknown quantity aspect of these guys. Lockwood could still become a decent NHL player, but Adam Fox was drafted just after.

 

                                                                      regards,  G.

 

*** edit ***  added McCann to the 2014 list on my earlier post. There was only 11 picks between him and Demko, and only one d-man (Masin). If you wanted to swap him out for a d-man you'd have to go much lower, which suggests that trading the pick would have been a better option (assuming you didn't choose Pastrnak).

Edited by Gollumpus
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 6/2/2021 at 9:57 PM, DeNiro said:

He’s really fallen short when it comes to drafting D men.

 

Outside of Hughes, Rathbone, Juolevi, and Woo theres not much there for 7 drafts.

I think his blind spot is bigger d men. OJ instead of Sergachev (I called that one from my couch) and Lind instead of Hague. 

This year no big D taken, when that's what we need for the playoffs. 

I do like the defenseman he brought in. But none are terribly huge. I guess we're going to be tough by committee. 

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

3 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I think his blind spot is bigger d men. OJ instead of Sergachev (I called that one from my couch) and Lind instead of Hague. 

This year no big D taken, when that's what we need for the playoffs. 

I do like the defenseman he brought in. But none are terribly huge. I guess we're going to be tough by committee. 

Myers is fine.  Hamonic is fine.   Both big bodies for today's game.   Losing Edler sucks.   Rathbone .. well look at the guy looks like he's on the Juice for sure - a total gym rat, short but bulging and strong as an ox.   Unlike QHs who looks like a 15 year old still - growing his beard for 5 years lol and it's hilarious.    OJ has decent size - his frame is large enough to grow into it, flattening MT was great so not worried about him.    Facts are, the league has been getting smaller and smaller for years now.   We are right back to the late 80's, which really isn't much different then well the late 50's.   

 

Growing up in the 70-80's and really getting into the NHL in the latter part of the 80's, the size of players now has taken time to get used too.   Things went monster size in the 90's.   PHI Legion of Doom lol...imagine a line now with 750 lbs of muscle and gear coming down on QHs ... ouch.   

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Myers is fine.  Hamonic is fine.   Both big bodies for today's game.   Losing Edler sucks.   Rathbone .. well look at the guy looks like he's on the Juice for sure - a total gym rat, short but bulging and strong as an ox.   Unlike QHs who looks like a 15 year old still - growing his beard for 5 years lol and it's hilarious.    OJ has decent size - his frame is large enough to grow into it, flattening MT was great so not worried about him.    Facts are, the league has been getting smaller and smaller for years now.   We are right back to the late 80's, which really isn't much different then well the late 50's.   

 

Growing up in the 70-80's and really getting into the NHL in the latter part of the 80's, the size of players now has taken time to get used too.   Things went monster size in the 90's.   PHI Legion of Doom lol...imagine a line now with 750 lbs of muscle and gear coming down on QHs ... ouch.   

Woo is on his way.  OJ looks like a player for sure now.  Bone is clearly going to be a star.  And Hughes is a phenom.  Looks to me like Benning does well selecting D.  

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Woo is on his way.  OJ looks like a player for sure now.  Bone is clearly going to be a star.  And Hughes is a phenom.  Looks to me like Benning does well selecting D.  

Forsling is looking like a top 4 D on a NHL playoff team as well.  Another great find by our European scout Ron Delorme.:ph34r:

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Woo is on his way.  OJ looks like a player for sure now.  Bone is clearly going to be a star.  And Hughes is a phenom.  Looks to me like Benning does well selecting D.  

JB drafting as a whole, AFTER taking average draft position into consideration, we've managed to firmly stay in the top ten league wide.    Given our ADP overall is around 10-11 since he took over we've done incredibly well really, especially on high end talent - not as well with actual hits but still above average.    Woo might be a player he might not.    If Bone is clearly going to be a star then what should we do about OJ?   OJ Myers was the safest pair last season.   Limited sample size but it for sure worked out fine.   JB stated as long as he gets his weight back after Covid (which for sure he has by now) he's got a spot.    Rathbone we won't likely see him until an injury occurs.   Just a waiver thing - BUT if he beats OJ out in camp then OJ will be traded or waived.    I'm not as bullish on our d drafting as you are.   Brisebois also looked like a good pick but hasn't made it and likely never will.   OJ instead of so many other Ds in his draft was a mistake - BUT there is a but.  This is the but:

 

If he worked out... right away ... then no EP and for sure no QHs.    If we picked MT instead those extra goals would have moved us up a 3-4 spots.   The OJ pick in hindsight has to be weighed against that as well.   He could still end up playing 800-1000 games in this league, if he does then wow - JB is some sort of idiot-savant lol.  And speaking of buts..bending over family guy GIF

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2021 at 10:57 PM, DeNiro said:

He’s really fallen short when it comes to drafting D men.

 

Outside of Hughes, Rathbone, Juolevi, and Woo theres not much there for 7 drafts.

The interesting thing is that Nashville has not been able to keep up with their great record of drafting NHL caliber D men. 

Edited by Maddogy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2021 at 11:12 PM, Gollumpus said:

 

2014

1 - Virtanen (F) (oh well...). Was there a d-man who could have been drafted 6th OA? And remember, we are discussing taking a d-man, not replacing a forward with a forward.

*** edit *** 1 - McCann (F)  I suspect that some would have preferred that he not be traded, I would have liked it if the Canucks had taken Pastrnak.

2 - Demko (G)

3 - Tryamkin (D)

 

2015

1 - Boeser (any takers on replacing him?)

2 - traded

3 - Briesbois (D)

 

2016

1 - Juolevi (D) Injury bug, but looks like he will be a solid d-man. Personally, I would have preferred Sergachev.

2 - traded

3 - Lockwood (F) (replaced with Fox?)

 

2017

1. - Pettersson (F) (any takers on replacing him?)

2 - Lind (F) (some suggest Hague should have been taken. Until very recently nobody was saying bupkiss about Hague.Will opinions change in a year or two?

3 - DiPietro (G) (any takers on a replacement?)

(4 - Rathbone (D). I know I said I was dealing only in the top-3 but a figure a lot of folks would mention this one)

 

2018

1 - Hughes (D) (I assume "everyone" is okay with this pick?)

2 - Woo (D)

3 - Madden (F) (traded) I can't say that I see any reasonable d-man prospect to replace Madden

 

2019

1 - Podkolzin (F) (anyone want to replace him?)

2 - Hoglander (F) (anyone want to replace him?)

3 - traded

 

2020

1 - traded

2 - traded

3 - Jurmo (D)

 

So of the 21 picks, 5 were traded, 2 were goalies, 8 were forwards and 6 were d-men. 

 

Folks can pick which forward they would like to kick off the list and insert a d-man to make Canucks fans cheer so as to make up for the shortfall of d-men prospects.  And I'm only dealing with the top three picks (except for one instance), but if anyone wants to do that slog through the later rounds, do go ahead.

 

                                                regards,  G.

 

JB has improved, as he’s learned on the job. Maybe gotten more trust from the owners. That or they’ve finally realized they need to back off.

We can only move forward. But as long as he’s the GM, his earlier moves, or non moves, still affect what he can do today. And so should still be up for discussion IMO.


One point about drafting more D prospects is that, in hindsight perhaps, JB did not embrace the Rebuild label, soon enough.  Notably after his second year and he’d given the Sedins those seasons for two more runs.  After that, he should have seen a quick retool was not going to work. Maybe it was Aquilini, and JB had a gun to his head.  Who knows.

According to Cap Friendly, I went through it and only made note of 1, 2 , and 3 round picks.  Going away and coming in. You can review it, I think I got it right.

https://www.capfriendly.com/trades/staff/jim-benning

 

First rounders:
2 - out    1 - back   deficit of 1

Second rounders:
7 - out   3 - back   deficit of 4

Third rounders:
6 - out   4 back    deficit of 2


Then if I was really picky I would add an extra deficit in first rounders and a promising third rounder because we traded away McCann and Madden (both traded for players who only stayed for a cup of coffee).  Now for a team on the brink that history may make sense, but it just seems counter productive for a rebuilding team to not only NOT be stocking up, but to be in deficit of first - third round picks, almost every season.  Most of which were traded for players who did not work out as expected.

 

My point is…..how many young promising D prospects more could we have in our cupboards with those 7 - 9 picks?  JB ran the team like Money Mart for too long.  Drawing from your future paycheque to buy “sure bet” lotto tickets. When it would have been more prudent for long term success to have more patience, and bank his cheques, and let the interest grow.  Especially for a team that was trying to eventually build a contender.

 

Even the Tryamkin situation is puzzling. He may not have worked out. All the nay sayers may have been proven right. But why not at least try harder to get him over here and give him a full season to prove himself?  A brilliant, and literally a monster find from the 3rd round frittered away.  Still remember how he ragdolled Getzlaf. We could really use more size, especially on D.  If you believe his agent, he was offered such a low offer, he’d make more in Russia. Seems like JB made that offer only to cover his butt so he could say he tried.


Make no mistake, I’m stoked about this new season with the new additions / subtractions.  And I’ve snapped my blinders on so I can enjoy the ride. But the way he’s managed the team in the past, will come back to bite him (or the next GM), in the way he’s not topped up our pick/prospect pool, notably on D.  Sure there are some good pieces still. Every team has them. But we basically have to hope that those few good top D prospects all make it in the big league and can stick on the team, or good enough to add to a trade at least  (which I think Tryamkin could have been used for after showcasing him if nothing else). And we get some other kinds of luck in the next few years by taking advantage of other GMs problems and misjudgements etc.. I can look forward with optimism, but at the same time I can’t just whitewash the past, and how those decisions could affect the future.  For now I am trying to ignore that, and enjoy the moment.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

JB has improved, as he’s learned on the job. Maybe gotten more trust from the owners. That or they’ve finally realized they need to back off.

We can only move forward. But as long as he’s the GM, his earlier moves, or non moves, still affect what he can do today. And so should still be up for discussion IMO.


One point about drafting more D prospects is that, in hindsight perhaps, JB did not embrace the Rebuild label, soon enough.  Notably after his second year and he’d given the Sedins those seasons for two more runs.  After that, he should have seen a quick retool was not going to work. Maybe it was Aquilini, and JB had a gun to his head.  Who knows.

According to Cap Friendly, I went through it and only made note of 1, 2 , and 3 round picks.  Going away and coming in. You can review it, I think I got it right.

https://www.capfriendly.com/trades/staff/jim-benning

 

First rounders:
2 - out    1 - back   deficit of 1

Second rounders:
7 - out   3 - back   deficit of 4

Third rounders:
6 - out   4 back    deficit of 2


Then if I was really picky I would add an extra deficit in first rounders and a promising third rounder because we traded away McCann and Madden (both traded for players who only stayed for a cup of coffee).  Now for a team on the brink that history may make sense, but it just seems counter productive for a rebuilding team to not only NOT be stocking up, but to be in deficit of first - third round picks, almost every season.  Most of which were traded for players who did not work out as expected.

 

My point is…..how many young promising D prospects more could we have in our cupboards with those 7 - 9 picks?  JB ran the team like Money Mart for too long.  Drawing from your future paycheque to buy “sure bet” lotto tickets. When it would have been more prudent for long term success to have more patience, and bank his cheques, and let the interest grow.  Especially for a team that was trying to eventually build a contender.

 

Even the Tryamkin situation is puzzling. He may not have worked out. All the nay sayers may have been proven right. But why not at least try harder to get him over here and give him a full season to prove himself?  A brilliant, and literally a monster find from the 3rd round frittered away.  Still remember how he ragdolled Getzlaf. We could really use more size, especially on D.  If you believe his agent, he was offered such a low offer, he’d make more in Russia. Seems like JB made that offer only to cover his butt so he could say he tried.


Make no mistake, I’m stoked about this new season with the new additions / subtractions.  And I’ve snapped my blinders on so I can enjoy the ride. But the way he’s managed the team in the past, will come back to bite him (or the next GM), in the way he’s not topped up our pick/prospect pool, notably on D.  Sure there are some good pieces still. Every team has them. But we basically have to hope that those few good top D prospects all make it in the big league and can stick on the team, or good enough to add to a trade at least  (which I think Tryamkin could have been used for after showcasing him if nothing else). And we get some other kinds of luck in the next few years by taking advantage of other GMs problems and misjudgements etc.. I can look forward with optimism, but at the same time I can’t just whitewash the past, and how those decisions could affect the future.  For now I am trying to ignore that, and enjoy the moment.

that's a lot of typing in response to something that was posted months ago. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tas said:

that's a lot of typing in response to something that was posted months ago. 

:lol:   I didn't read the date it was posted! 

 

Maybe he's completely changed his mind by now, what a waste. :wacko:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

image.png.2d3db85b52e08b4ade5d9e19aae2b6e6.pngimage.png.d2a1203cc194f966b1dc05062dd2c656.png

 

 

Jim Benning and Lumby Fire Chief - separated at birth?  :bigblush:

I'm thinking this guy, might have had to do some explaining to his wife and daughter.

" Hey, gals, did I ever tell you about my two sons?"

Image result for Pic Pat Quinn. Size: 207 x 102. Source: www.huffingtonpost.ca

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
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...