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

The Defense of JB and co

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

Youre doing something right when your nickname is the honey badger, sign him with the Sedins to staff

 

Honey Badger GIF by Nat Geo Wild

Sedin's are executive material, Hansen is for the trenches. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

The intellect of Joe Sakic lol.

Before he was even hired as GM they had MacKinnon, O Reilly, Landeskog, Barrie,Duchene. There are elite young assets.A product of a decade of sucking.

'but only has one 1st OA' :lol: (who happened to be MacKinnon).How many top 4 picks have the Canucks had?

You have to admitt Sakic turned those players in to great assets. Duechene alone brought Sakic ... Girard and Bowen Byron. Both excellent D'men any team would want.

 

But here's a comparison where Vcr - Avs picked from when JB joined Vcr

 

Vcr                                Avs

2014/4th + 24               23rd O/A

2015 /24th                    10th Rantanen

2016 / 5th                     10th

2017 / 5th                      4th .. Makar

2018 /7th                       4th

2019 /10th                     4th + 16th  Byram

2020 / no 1st round       25th 

 

I take one look at the Avs defense and then think that teams going to be a top of the league team for a long time, it's stacked. Keep in mind Rantanen is 23 and McKinnon is 25, Makar is 21 and Girard 22 You can see a clear plan brought to Colorado by Burnaby Joe

 

Colorado Avalanche 2020-21 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

When Benning joined the Canucks, where was his expendable elite prime asset (Duchene)? Where was his elite young core of O'Reilly, MacKinnon,Barrie, and Landeskog ?

We had one young impact asset in Horvat. (and a barren prospect pool), and one impact player on the team entering his prime years (Tanev).

What Benning and Sakic inherited are night and day.

Sadly what Benning is remembered for is his failure to sign quality FA's and those he did sign being way over priced which means they're virtually impossible to trade, ie roster anchors. He painted himself into a corner with no outs. Do I need to make a list ... well lets start with Ericksson 6 years for $6 mill per, then you go to Beagle, Roussel, Ferland and Sutter ( if you include JV it comes to a cool $20 million ) and myself I'd add Pearson ( next couple of years ) the man just doesn't learn and I can't help but mention Taffoli for a 2nd + 4th plus Madden and then dismissed for nothing ... ..... C est la vie To be honest I j errors just do not see Sakic making those

Edited by Fred65
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Sadly what Benning is remembered for is his failure to sign quality FA's and those he did sign being way over priced which means they're virtually impossible to trade, ie roster anchors. He painted himself into a corner with no outs. Do I need to make a list ... well lets start with Ericksson 6 years for $6 mill per, then you go to Beagle, Roussel, Ferland and Sutter ( if you include JV it comes to a cool $20 million ) and myself I'd add Pearson ( next couple of years ) the man just doesn't learn and I can't help but mention Taffoli for a 2nd + 4th plus Madden and then dismissed for nothing ... ..... C est la vie To be honest I j errors just do not see Sakic making those

Nice deflect.

There's no argument Benning has done poorly managing the cap.

Point is though, he most likely wouldn't have had to of signed most of these UFA's ,if he was initially gifted a primary young elite core.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Sadly what Benning is remembered for is his failure to sign quality FA's and those he did sign being way over priced which means they're virtually impossible to trade, ie roster anchors. He painted himself into a corner with no outs. Do I need to make a list ... well lets start with Ericksson 6 years for $6 mill per, then you go to Beagle, Roussel, Ferland and Sutter ( if you include JV it comes to a cool $20 million ) and myself I'd add Pearson ( next couple of years ) the man just doesn't learn and I can't help but mention Taffoli for a 2nd + 4th plus Madden and then dismissed for nothing ... ..... C est la vie To be honest I j errors just do not see Sakic making those

So in your effort to disparage the GM you compare his picks to Colorados however when someone rightly points out they didnt start with the same asset base  you change the narrative to JBs free agent signings.Rebuilds take time. A lot more than 7 years. The Sedins were drafted in 99 and it took 12 years to get to the finals. Two GMs were fired between when Burke drafted them and they made the 2011 run. Benning has assembled the talent and seems to have a plan as to how the players will develop. One of the biggest failures of this franchiise ha been the inability to develop their own players.The signing of Eriksson seems like an ownership move given the state of the team at that time.

Losing Toffoli was a bad decision obviously especially since we were to lose Marky and Tanev also.Given the results Toffoli had this season as well it makes it look worse but who knows how this season would have gone had we kept him anyways. I will wait to see how this coming season goes before i jump on the bash Benning bandwagon.It was an awful year season and the team paid the price for a season that was crammed in to keep the money flowing. Too many games in a short period at the start of the season and then ridiculous pace of games after the covid outbreak made this season a write off.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2021 at 12:07 AM, Arrow 1983 said:

Disclaimer To me how you get there doesn't matter as long as you get there. Having the willingness to develop and play the youth when they are ready. 

 

There is an ongoing theme happening in post that I have notice rebuilds have taken a long time and no rebuild is the same. Yes Tor said they where going to tear it down and rebuild and they did. But then it begs the question was the Tavares signing counter productive to that method of rebuild. Sounds to me they said one thing and did the other. JB said they would retool on the fly and try to make the playoffs and they didn't change from that method

In the Canucks circumstances the method changed because of what actually happened. The signings and trades that JB did didn't workout. My point in my last thread  was that JB was able to fall back on what he knew best Drafting and has now drafted a team who I believe is a future Cup contender.

He was and still remains the best decision by FA for this team. Hire a experienced hockey guy who would try and make the playoffs but if it didn't work the organization would still have the right guy to be able to draft the right players which for the most part 80% I would argue has.

 

At no point did JB come into this team and say he was going to tear it down and rebuild. At no point did he tear it down and rebuild. More importantly the reality of the situation is that no GM could have come in to this organization and tear it down. JB was Handcuffed by all the NMC and NTC on the books. He had 2 guys that would have never excepted a trade the Sedins who could have brought the most value in return to the team. He was left with a team that had one prospect Horvat and no one else to take the place of any aging stars. He had Kesler a leader of the core at the time wanting out for no doings of JBs. On top of all else he had an owner who wanted to make the playoffs.

 

So he did what he had to do. He was forced to trade Kesler to Ana (there might have been one other team that Kesler allowed) and got a decent return on, considering the circumstances. That Kesler trade lead to Sutter who is still on this team (Kesler is retired) and Sutter at the time was an up and coming 2nd line center who just didn't for some reason fulfill his potential (check his Pitt stats from 2014-15 prior to coming here and his age when we acquired him) I think people forget that this trade on paper looked like a slam dunk for the Canucks. It looked like they were re-acquiring Kesler at a younger age.

 

He was Hired in 2014 and signed a starting goaltender in Ryan Miller. Brought in a top 6 winger in Vrbate brought in toughness with Dorsett and took a chance on a young guy in Linden Vey. They made the playoffs and lost in the first round. Miller worked out Vrbata as well and Dorsett well he was playing well till he got injured.

 

So he kept on trying to make the playoffs

 

He signed one of the best UFAs of his draft class at the time (Eriksson).

 

He signed a top 6 forward in Thomas Vanak.

 

Can JB be faulted for Dorsetts injury. Then he tried to replace him with Ferland and now he is injured. Can he be blamed for his injury. Some might say he was concussion prone to those I ask you, do you not think that JB and the organization didn't get clearance from Ferlands doctor and the team doctors. Is JB suppose to be a medical expert as well.

 

Can JB be blamed that Eriksson fell off a cliff. At the time of this signing, Eriksson was a top 6 forward and many call him one of the best 2 way wingers in the league at the time. Some said the contract might come back on them in the final year or 2 but nobody predicted what actually happen to Eriksson. The truth is nobody knows what happen to that whole class of UFAs. 

 

Can JB be faulted that Sutter who was 25 years old well playing with Pitt got 21g 12a and never realized his potential as a 2nd line center.

 

Can JB be faulted for Rousel who on most nights refuses to bring toughness and for great portions of games is invisible.

 

JB has always stuck to his plan to make the playoffs every year and circumstances has made him rely on his experience at the draft table. Moreover, it is the coaching and accountability in the dressing room that needed to be addressed. It is finally being addressed that those that don't produce don't dress and it is Green that is bringing that culture to the dressing room due in part the fact that the youth are ready to earn and take jobs from Vets who have let complacent set in and this is only able to happen because of how well JB has drafted.

 

I would also say that JB has down better than average in trades. He was able to pick up Miller and Schmidt who have both worked out. Traded what seem to be at the time an older Bonino for a younger up and coming 2nd line center who didn't work out as excepted but it is the risk you take when trading for younger developing prospects. Traded Erik Gubranson for Tanner Pearson. Traded Del-Zotto for Luke Schenn. Acquired Leivo for Carcone (who the heck is he) And Finally traded for a top 6 forward to help give them a push to the playoffs that everyone seems to love and wishes that JB could have re-signed in Toffoli. (that's right people everyone that wishes that he had re-signed has to give JB credit for that trade it has been one of the best trade deadline deals in Canucks history). He even managed to trade two players far pass their primes in Hansen and Burrows for a couple decent prospect that didn't pan out.

He has acquired all these players but is criticized for not being able to move players with NMC and NTC that he had nothing to do with.

 

Along the way, Benning has tried to fill the cupboards with prospects by trading lower round draft picks for guys who where a little more developed. We all know that a GM can't fill a whole roster with UFAs in the cap era so what was he suppose to do. There was no prospects in the system and the Canucks where required to ice a team. This fan base actually I correct myself this season ticket fan base those that actually matter to the business of the Canucks would have never excepted icing a AHL team of nobodies (don't believe me look back to the late 90s when the Canucks last truly stunk Vancouver if not for john McCaw would have lost this team and people wouldn't be able to complain about JB and co so thank you McCaw) I do mean nobodies as our AHL team was bad when JB took over. So he did what any GM would do he hedged his bets by trading lower round draft picks where he felt he might be able to get someone that could help the team. But during this time and not till the Miller trade did he trade a first round pick. JB understood the odds. The Odds are that most players drafted after the first round don't make the NHL and the ones that do most of those don't play more than 500 games. So JB made the bet and in the long run might have lost 1 guy that might play more than 500 games in the NHL.

 

Usually I have a conclusion to most of my posts but I feel this is long enough and lots to digest. So If you got to this point I thank you for reading the whole thing and i hope you enjoyed. cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

Me thinks thou dost protest waaaaay too much....

 

 

bRbH32h.jpg

Everything is going to plan!!!

 

 

 

Like clockwork, we get yet another OP trying to rewrite history, chalk full of excuses for JB's mismanagement.  The 20th time you make another excuses OP won't clear up any cap space or make Loui retire, or stock our cupboards, or get back Madden and the other draft picks thrown away. Frittering away value is much easier than building it back up.

 

I accepted the line that JB's expertise was his amateur drafting, when he was hired.  In fact I was stoked after decades of disappointment.  But the act of drafting, involves not only lucking out on your first pick.  It also, by my interpretation at least, involves how well you do with later rounds, and how well you build that draft pool in general.  And then develop them. How well you staff, or don't staff, your amateur draft department. You can never have too many picks as you rebuild a team. If you really get lucky and end up with a glut of NHL capable prospects, or extra picks, you can use them if the opportunity arises to find real gud support pieces, and still have enough left to have a deep team for the foreseeable future.  Where teams like the Avalanche can use extra 5th or 6th round picks to acquire veteran depth.

 

 

At no point did JB come into this team and say he was going to tear it down and rebuild. At no point did he tear it down and rebuild. More importantly the reality of the situation is that no GM could have come in to this organization and tear it down.

 

You are right there. JB didn't say when he came in, that he was going to do that.  At the risk of pointing out the obvious....That's the point.  "no GM could have...".   lol.  That is what Gillis wanted to do.  Linden seemed on board.  To say that because Jim couldn't do it, (or wasn't allowed to) no one could, is a tad presumptuous. 

 

And you may also be right if you were implying that it would have been not only difficult, but kinda dumb to tear it down in his first year.  We just won the Presidents Trophy again. Even though in hindsight, starting a real rebuild then may have been the correct move, I do not blame Aqualini or JB for believing they could just tweek the team to get them back to the dance.  I was all in!  Why wouldn't any fan initially trust this new shiny GM straight outa Boston who was promising a "quick turnaround" back to the heady days of our SCF run?  It was when after two years in, he was still banning the R word, and nonchalantly trading away more picks than he acquired, bad evaluation of pro players leading to signing LE and other declining vets, and not being able to read where the team was headed when it went sideways. 

 

In the Canucks circumstances the method changed because of what actually happened. The signings and trades that JB did didn't workout.

 

No kidding.  So you admit that JB is a reactive GM, not a proactive one?  And worse, his signings and trades didn't work out, and it was only then that you say he changed his methods?  And actually I'd like to see some evidence that "the method changed".  I really hope so.  He just inked Pearson, who was signed to a deal that was seen as over generous by many in the hockey community.  I like Pearson, but he wasn't worth that much cap or term on the flat cap market.  Its these cuts of a thousand knives, the drip drip of value loss vs. value gain, that is perpetrating this perpetual, future headache style management system. 

 

I just find it a little pathetic to still blame the previous GM, a full seven years on.  I also find it funny how people compare the success in the job a GM does with how well some random person on a hockey message board could do.  He is hired because he is supposedly talented at managing a professional NHL hockey team, and has inside knowledge, and contacts that we on this board do not. Creative moves that fans don't even see coming are what he is hired to do.  That's why he gets paid the big bucks. He damn well should be able to do better than any of us could do.  I have to keep zeroing out and starting over with JB, if we are stuck with him. So I wish him well, and his decisions blessed by the hockey gods. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Nice deflect.

There's no argument Benning has done poorly managing the cap.

Point is though, he most likely wouldn't have had to of signed most of these UFA's ,if he was initially gifted a primary young elite core.

So how do you acquire a young elite core?  For Benning, it should be through the draft, which has been his greatest strength.  One of his biggest weaknesses has been free agency.  Benning on July 1st has become a meme for neutral hockey fans.  It's wild how many draft picks have quickly turned into NHL-level players.  Of course, Benning has also traded away that talent at pretty low prices.  Another concern is the lack of player development from the AHL.  I thought Gaudette and Virtanen were going to be core players that learned a lot in Utica but they both regressed terribly this year.  The only player worth noting is Thatcher Demko, where most of the credit is given to Ian Clark (who Benning might lose in the offseason).

 

13 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said:

So in your effort to disparage the GM you compare his picks to Colorados however when someone rightly points out they didnt start with the same asset base  you change the narrative to JBs free agent signings.Rebuilds take time. A lot more than 7 years. The Sedins were drafted in 99 and it took 12 years to get to the finals. Two GMs were fired between when Burke drafted them and they made the 2011 run. Benning has assembled the talent and seems to have a plan as to how the players will develop. One of the biggest failures of this franchiise ha been the inability to develop their own players.The signing of Eriksson seems like an ownership move given the state of the team at that time.

Losing Toffoli was a bad decision obviously especially since we were to lose Marky and Tanev also.Given the results Toffoli had this season as well it makes it look worse but who knows how this season would have gone had we kept him anyways. I will wait to see how this coming season goes before i jump on the bash Benning bandwagon.It was an awful year season and the team paid the price for a season that was crammed in to keep the money flowing. Too many games in a short period at the start of the season and then ridiculous pace of games after the covid outbreak made this season a write off.

At some point you need to give Benning responsibility for more than just his successes.  Otherwise I'm just gonna chalk up his good moves as being lucky.  Drafting Pettersson, Hughes, and acquiring Miller?  "Who knows how it would've gone?"  Nobody has the great secret to winning infinite Stanley Cups.  But every GM has their definitive vision towards the same goal.  And they should be deservedly judged for every good or bad decision they make.  If the dog ate your homework, too bad.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

Me thinks thou dost protest waaaaay too much....

 

 

bRbH32h.jpg

Everything is going to plan!!!

 

 

 

Like clockwork, we get yet another OP trying to rewrite history, chalk full of excuses for JB's mismanagement.  The 20th time you make another excuses OP won't clear up any cap space or make Loui retire, or stock our cupboards, or get back Madden and the other draft picks thrown away. Frittering away value is much easier than building it back up.

 

I accepted the line that JB's expertise was his amateur drafting, when he was hired.  In fact I was stoked after decades of disappointment.  But the act of drafting, involves not only lucking out on your first pick.  It also, by my interpretation at least, involves how well you do with later rounds, and how well you build that draft pool in general.  And then develop them. How well you staff, or don't staff, your amateur draft department. You can never have too many picks as you rebuild a team. If you really get lucky and end up with a glut of NHL capable prospects, or extra picks, you can use them if the opportunity arises to find real gud support pieces, and still have enough left to have a deep team for the foreseeable future.  Where teams like the Avalanche can use extra 5th or 6th round picks to acquire veteran depth.

 

 

At no point did JB come into this team and say he was going to tear it down and rebuild. At no point did he tear it down and rebuild. More importantly the reality of the situation is that no GM could have come in to this organization and tear it down.

 

You are right there. JB didn't say when he came in, that he was going to do that.  At the risk of pointing out the obvious....That's the point.  "no GM could have...".   lol.  That is what Gillis wanted to do.  Linden seemed on board.  To say that because Jim couldn't do it, (or wasn't allowed to) no one could, is a tad presumptuous. 

 

And you may also be right if you were implying that it would have been not only difficult, but kinda dumb to tear it down in his first year.  We just won the Presidents Trophy again. Even though in hindsight, starting a real rebuild then may have been the correct move, I do not blame Aqualini or JB for believing they could just tweek the team to get them back to the dance.  I was all in!  Why wouldn't any fan initially trust this new shiny GM straight outa Boston who was promising a "quick turnaround" back to the heady days of our SCF run?  It was when after two years in, he was still banning the R word, and nonchalantly trading away more picks than he acquired, bad evaluation of pro players leading to signing LE and other declining vets, and not being able to read where the team was headed when it went sideways. 

 

In the Canucks circumstances the method changed because of what actually happened. The signings and trades that JB did didn't workout.

 

No kidding.  So you admit that JB is a reactive GM, not a proactive one?  And worse, his signings and trades didn't work out, and it was only then that you say he changed his methods?  And actually I'd like to see some evidence that "the method changed".  I really hope so.  He just inked Pearson, who was signed to a deal that was seen as over generous by many in the hockey community.  I like Pearson, but he wasn't worth that much cap or term on the flat cap market.  Its these cuts of a thousand knives, the drip drip of value loss vs. value gain, that is perpetrating this perpetual, future headache style management system. 

 

I just find it a little pathetic to still blame the previous GM, a full seven years on.  I also find it funny how people compare the success in the job a GM does with how well some random person on a hockey message board could do.  He is hired because he is supposedly talented at managing a professional NHL hockey team, and has inside knowledge, and contacts that we on this board do not. Creative moves that fans don't even see coming are what he is hired to do.  That's why he gets paid the big bucks. He damn well should be able to do better than any of us could do.  I have to keep zeroing out and starting over with JB, if we are stuck with him. So I wish him well, and his decisions blessed by the hockey gods. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You’ve got some of your facts twisted around.

The Canucks had just signed the Sedins to a big multi year contract in 2013.
Linden announced that the Canucks would be competing for a playoff spot (for the Sedins) before Benning was even hired.

It was Linden who refused to say the ‘R’ word.not Benning.

We didn’t win the Presidents Trophy in Bennings first year as GM.

Edited by Honky Cat
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

Nice deflect.

There's no argument Benning has done poorly managing the cap.

Point is though, he most likely wouldn't have had to of signed most of these UFA's ,if he was initially gifted a primary young elite core.

I find this embarrassing to remind fans that according to James Benning himself HE felt that this was a team that was easy and could be turned  around quick..... those words actually came out of the mans mouth and yet fans keep supporting the theory that in their minds that was not the case and they actually know better than James Benning himself. Talk about illusion This like 1984 where they rewrite history  :lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I find this embarrassing to remind fans that according to James Benning himself HE felt that this was a team that was easy and could be turned  around quick..... those words actually came out of the mans mouth and yet fans keep supporting the theory that in their minds that was not the case and they actually know better than James Benning himself. Talk about illusion This like 1984 where they rewrite history  :lol:

He did turn the team around in a hurry, his first season was a 101 point season.

 

if you think he was going to turn around an aged out team (that had only one impact prospect in the prospect pool,) and replace the aged out core with a new one in less than 4 years 

 

you’re delusional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

When Benning joined the Canucks, where was his expendable elite prime asset (Duchene)? Where was his elite young core of O'Reilly, MacKinnon,Barrie, and Landeskog ?

We had one young impact asset in Horvat. (and a barren prospect pool), and one impact player on the team entering his prime years (Tanev).

What Benning and Sakic inherited are night and day.

And the moves they have made since are night and day too, other than drafting high.

 

Which is why one is at the top of the NHL and the other is at the bottom.

 

7 years is long enough to turn any roster around. There is only one player left from Gillis time here so blaming him for anything at this point is not realistic. Outside of a few high draft picks gained because all of Bennings other moves failed spectacularly and a couple of trades out of many, our overall roster is basically below average at best to complete garbage at worst.

 

We have one impact player. EP. Thats it. Horvat is good but not elite level good. Same with Miller and Boeser. Hughes defensive game and his weak shot keeps him from being a top of the line impact player. Makar, by comparison, has significantly improved at both ends of the ice, not just offensively.

 

Benning had players that could have been traded when he took over. He did trade some actually. But he wasted the assets he got back. 

 

The difference with Sakic is he got max value from pretty much every move he made.

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

And the moves they have made since are night and day too, other than drafting high.

 

Which is why one is at the top of the NHL and the other is at the bottom.

 

7 years is long enough to turn any roster around. There is only one player left from Gillis time here so blaming him for anything at this point is not realistic. Outside of a few high draft picks gained because all of Bennings other moves failed spectacularly and a couple of trades out of many, our overall roster is basically below average at best to complete garbage at worst.

 

We have one impact player. EP. Thats it. Horvat is good but not elite level good. Same with Miller and Boeser. Hughes defensive game and his weak shot keeps him from being a top of the line impact player. Makar, by comparison, has significantly improved at both ends of the ice, not just offensively.

 

Benning had players that could have been traded when he took over. He did trade some actually. But he wasted the assets he got back. 

 

The difference with Sakic is he got max value from pretty much every move he made.

Agreed that 7 years is long enough to demonstrate yourself as GM,which gives Benning one last kick at the can

 

You obviously still cannot grasp that Sakic inherited a complete elite core group ..Mostly picked 1-4 OA (we never picked higher than 5th).
Your task as GM isn’t the same when you’re a bottom feeder with aged out players,as opposed to a GM that’s looking to compliment an elite young core (inherited).

I don’t agree that we only have one elite player either.

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

Agreed that 7 years is long enough to demonstrate yourself as GM,which gives Benning one last kick at the can

 

You obviously still cannot grasp that Sakic inherited a complete elite core group ..Mostly picked 1-4 OA (we never picked higher than 5th).
Your task as GM isn’t the same when you’re a bottom feeder with aged out players,as opposed to a GM that’s looking to compliment an elite young core (inherited).

I don’t agree that we only have one elite player either.

As many people have pointed out, the Canucks were not a bottom feeder when Benning took over. He himself said the team could be turned around quickly. 

 

The reason they didnt, and havent, lies at the feet of Benning himself. No one else. He could have drafted higher and more often several of those years if he had been able to recognize that having a slim playoff hope due to the loser point system is not a reason to continue playing a veteran group trying to win meaningless games at the end of lost regular seasons. And if he had not traded a bunch of picks and prospects for tweener garbage players.

 

Go ahead and try to prop Benning up by minimizing what Sakic has done. The argument holds no water. Sakic was successful at using what he had to build a powerhouse team. Drafting high is not all he did. He traded core, key players he didnt see them winning with for max value. He managed their cap very effectively. He added the right mix of vet and young guys to complement his core through trades and signings. He was patient but also decisive. He didnt cling to average players like Benning does. He incrementally improved on them every year.

 

Benning cant hold Sakic's jock as a GM.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

As many people have pointed out, the Canucks were not a bottom feeder when Benning took over. He himself said the team could be turned around quickly. 

 

The reason they didnt, and havent, lies at the feet of Benning himself. No one else. He could have drafted higher and more often several of those years if he had been able to recognize that having a slim playoff hope due to the loser point system is not a reason to continue playing a veteran group trying to win meaningless games at the end of lost regular seasons. And if he had not traded a bunch of picks and prospects for tweener garbage players.

 

Go ahead and try to prop Benning up by minimizing what Sakic has done. The argument holds no water. Sakic was successful at using what he had to build a powerhouse team. Drafting high is not all he did. He traded core, key players he didnt see them winning with for max value. He managed their cap very effectively. He added the right mix of vet and young guys to complement his core through trades and signings. He was patient but also decisive. He didnt cling to average players like Benning does. He incrementally improved on them every year.

 

Benning cant hold Sakic's jock as a GM.

 

 

Tell you the truth I just can't be bothered, your explantion is good and well founded, regretfully wasted

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

As many people have pointed out, the Canucks were not a bottom feeder when Benning took over. He himself said the team could be turned around quickly. 

 

The reason they didnt, and havent, lies at the feet of Benning himself. No one else. He could have drafted higher and more often several of those years if he had been able to recognize that having a slim playoff hope due to the loser point system is not a reason to continue playing a veteran group trying to win meaningless games at the end of lost regular seasons. And if he had not traded a bunch of picks and prospects for tweener garbage players.

 

Go ahead and try to prop Benning up by minimizing what Sakic has done. The argument holds no water. Sakic was successful at using what he had to build a powerhouse team. Drafting high is not all he did. He traded core, key players he didnt see them winning with for max value. He managed their cap very effectively. He added the right mix of vet and young guys to complement his core through trades and signings. He was patient but also decisive. He didnt cling to average players like Benning does. He incrementally improved on them every year.

 

Benning cant hold Sakic's jock as a GM.

 

 

So the Canucks management should have thrown games and tanked at the end of the year to get a better draft spot ? Culture building stuff.Didn’t the Sabres do that one year..?

 

Sakic didn’t build the team,he pretty much inherited the primary pieces.(Credit to him for the final touches ).Benning didn’t have that same luxury when he started his job..It wasn’t an even playing field..

 

it’s a lot easier to put the finishing touches on a team than build it.

 

Ask Gillis and Chiarelli.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Honky Cat
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

So the Canucks management should have thrown games and tanked at the end of the year to get a better draft spot ? Culture building stuff.Didn’t the Sabres do that one year..?

 

Sakic didn’t build the team,he pretty much inherited the primary pieces.(Credit to him for the final touches ).Benning didn’t have that same luxury when he started his job..It wasn’t an even playing field..

 

it’s a lot easier to put the finishing touches on a team than build it.

 

Ask Gillis and Chiarelli.

 

 

 

 

No they shouldnt have "tanked". They should have given young players expanded roles. See what they could do on the PP, orPK, or in a variety of roles. If they won then thats great. If they lost, who cares?

 

Its actually a lot easier to wreck a team than put the finishong touches on it. Just ask Benning. Isnt he the one who said it wouldnt take much to turn around the team he inherited?

 

Take a look again at what Sakic has actually done. Its far from putting the finishing touches on the team. Outside of a few players, he built the entire team. Part of that was from trading good core players for actual value. He turned those players into even better ones.

 

Now look over Bennings trade history. Which players has he traded that he has turned into better ones?

 

Thats the difference.

 

On another note, its never an even playing field. And that doesnt even matter. Its what you started with and what you have now that matters.

 

Benning had an aging core but he still had a core. And for several years - if you believe the man himself - he thought it was a good enough core to just tinker around the edges to get it back to the cup final. Not sure how people can say he had nothing to work with when he himself told everyone he did.

 

 

Edited by wallstreetamigo
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of simplicity, it should all be boiled down into one basic question question:

 

*****From where we were when JB started(2014) to where things stand today, are you satisfied? (& why?)******

 

A- Yes, is my answer. To expand on this...

 

How many players under 25 yrs(or 300 gp) do we have that we should legitimately be excited about?

I count about 7. EP, QH, BB, Thatcher, NH, VP & JR.

 

Then how many are in the next level? The fan is intrigued & curious, as there is potential for a decent career, or possibly, even more.

Figure we have about 8-10 young guys in this ballpark.

 

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

 

Just my honest opinion. Over 7 yrs this is enough progress to me. I don't recall our franchise ever having this much young potential, at one given time.

 

& who said WHAT, at any given moment along this way?(to media publicly)

 

Frankly I don't giva' smokin' cr*p! Hasn't anyone ever heard of the notion of maintaining a poker face?! If it pleases you, tell yerself it was this. Forget about it!(or whine, your option)..there are far bigger problems in this old, jaded & rigged world today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

For the sake of simplicity, it should all be boiled down into one basic question question:

 

*****From where we were when JB started(2014) to where things stand today, are you satisfied? (& why?)******

 

A- Yes, is my answer. To expand on this...

 

How many players under 25 yrs(or 300 gp) do we have that we should legitimately be excited about?

I count about 7. EP, QH, BB, Thatcher, NH, VP & JR.

 

Then how many are in the next level? The fan is intrigued & curious, as there is potential for a decent career, or possibly, even more.

Figure we have about 8-10 young guys in this ballpark.

 

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

 

Just my honest opinion. Over 7 yrs this is enough progress to me. I don't recall our franchise ever having this much young potential, at one given time.

 

& who said WHAT, at any given moment along this way?(to media publicly)

 

Frankly I don't giva' smokin' cr*p! Hasn't anyone ever heard of the notion of maintaining a poker face?! If it pleases you, tell yerself it was this. Forget about it!(or whine, your option)..there are far bigger problems in this old, jaded & rigged world today.

Context matters though.

 

Benning had a core group that a few years prior had gone to the SCF. And had several seasons of regular season success. 

 

He wasnt going to inherit a young core especially since Gillis was terroble at drafting. And the core he got wasnt actually "nothing" as people suggest. Do I think it should have started to be dismantled after the Bruins, Kings, and Sharks broke their spirit? Absolutely. But the main reason Benning got hired in the first place is because he did not want to do that. Gillis did (finally) and it got him fired.

 

Benning himself thought the core he inherited was good enough to get back to the mountaintop. Why the revisionist history now? Because he failed to turn over that core for anything of value? Because he has retooled every year and only drafted high because the retool moves have failed spectacularly? 

 

The guy himself thought he could turn the team around quickly. He started with a good if aging core. Now as a result of sucking for 7 years he has a young core. He still has added nothing outside of Miller to round out the core effectively though. Hopefully now he can. Its critical to whether this team becomes an actual contender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

So the Canucks management should have thrown games and tanked at the end of the year to get a better draft spot ? Culture building stuff.Didn’t the Sabres do that one year..?

Yes because tanking can not build a winning culture 

 

 

mario.jpg

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...