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

For those who say it's been 8 years of Benning...

Rate this topic


dougieL

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

If I had to quickly encapsulate why Benning should go I would look at the D. After 8 years of draft and development our D 9 deep is:

 

Trade UFA

Draft UFA

UFA UFA

UFA, UFA, draft.

 

And the one Trade there, he traded three UFAs for. Bottom 6 has mostly been similarly filled. 

 

Amazing what a reputation will do for you.  One of the sole reasons he was picked as GM and hired here was, for everyone not named Aquilini I guess, it was assumed he was a draft and development guru. And finally the Canucks had a competent drafting specialist GM who would not cut corners, and build back up our prospect pool, after Gillis reign where we had depleted the farm because of not only bad drafting, but were so good in the standings we had not picked high for for awhile.

 

Instead, either because of wanting the job so badly that he bowed to ownership pressure, or he just got starry eyed, he completely flipped the script. And became the opposite of what he was billed as.  He was actually a gambler.  A serial gambler who needed help.  Linden tried to come in and give him counselling and reign him in, so Benning whined to the owner, and Doctor Linden was gone.

 

As a new GM, I can see how it would be a thrill to be given the challenge to get into the playoffs right away. (And every season after that).  How to do that. Vey for a second rounder to start. And on.  That would be a much funner directive to follow than plod along gathering picks and prospects, not getting much better in the standings. Shipping out fan favourites before they fall off a cliff, is never a popular option.  Just ask Wally Buono. 

 

He painted himself into a corner where this crop of players HAS to work.  I'm sure they too are in shock right now at just how much it has imploded.

 

The smart thing for the owner to do, would have been to let Jim go last Summer.  Hire a new GM, and then have him evaluate the team as they were, while Beagle, Rousell, and Player Name worked off their contracts this season.  He could keep Green or not for now. And make minor deals. Jim made some good ones.  Like re-signing Sutter for a reasonable contract. Although if he never plays again that would suck.  Still shooting to win games of course.  But no big salary dump, and taking on long contracts. Then after this season, he would have a good understanding of the team and what it needed and have that ammunition of cap space to really put his stamp on the team for next season.

 

But that didn't fit into the ever impatient Aqua-fantasy of squeeking into the playoffs this season already.  Now, what good experienced GM would even want to begin to untangle the mess JB will leave behind?  Cap maxed out, not many next tier top prospects, especially on defence down the pike.

 

At least if we still sucked this season, there would be hope on the horizon.  We went all in a year too soon. If we continue to suck all season, there won't be much we can do other than more patch work deals, or a complete blow up and trading away good popular players.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

If I had to quickly encapsulate why Benning should go I would look at the D. After 8 years of draft and development our D 9 deep is:

 

Trade UFA

Draft UFA

UFA UFA

UFA, UFA, draft.

 

And the one Trade there, he traded three UFAs for. Bottom 6 has mostly been similarly filled. 

I agree with what you are saying; however, devil's advovate here...

 

I do want to point out that, as soon as he tried to draft a good defenseman he drafted Juolevi who had a lot of injuries but did look like he was going to be good originally. How one feels about Juolevi is another matter, but it shows that it's better to draft best player available, which for us has been more forwards than defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I agree with what you are saying; however, devil's advovate here...

 

I do want to point out that, as soon as he tried to draft a good defenseman he drafted Juolevi who had a lot of injuries but did look like he was going to be good originally. How one feels about Juolevi is another matter, but it shows that it's better to draft best player available, which for us has been more forwards than defense.

Sure, sure can’t blame everything on one failed prospect but this is 8 years in and he has one drafted d-man on team, one borderline between the big club and the AHL. 
Also that puts him 2/4 on his very high draft picks. Need to hit better than that especially if have a habit of trading high first rounders. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, spook007 said:

If we go down that road, question is if we may as well consider EP as well? 
I don't want him to leave, but by his own account, he want to win or play for a winner. 
Have doubts he wants to hang around, if the team continues to rebuild. He can see what that has brought Horvat. 
Definitely something that has to be discussed with him. @7.35M for another 2 years and still RFA after that, he may be the prize that really can fetch something. Especially if he indicates, he isn't keen to hang around for the rebuild.

The point of a soft rebuild is to keep the younger guys around, trade the solid veterans to add add more young talent as we're drafting high and then fill the key roles in UFA(Like C and D) after the rebuild phase as the youngsters join the team on ELCs and improve over time. 

 

Petey's young enough still to be around and I don't think we would get full value at this point. There's a risk factor with him right now. At most the best value we'd get is a young player in the same sort of situation which presents risk itself too. I also would think his priority would be to get his game back to form over a trade atm. By a lot of accounts he wanted to be the guy this year and is a player that's hard on himself, almost too much according to IMac.

 

If Petey wants out than yeah we could explore options but we also would have the option to have him stick around with us throughout this rebuild phase since we keep his rights for 3 years + RFA. Same sort of deal applies to Hughes and other youngsters too as well though. So if a deal has to be made we have and abundance of time to find the right one.

 

Essentially, whatever route we decide to go with Petey, we can afford to be patient with him, a luxury Horvat/Miller don't share expiring much sooner as UFAs in 2023.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

Amazing what a reputation will do for you.  One of the sole reasons he was picked as GM and hired here was, for everyone not named Aquilini I guess, it was assumed he was a draft and development guru. And finally the Canucks had a competent drafting specialist GM who would not cut corners, and build back up our prospect pool, after Gillis reign where we had depleted the farm because of not only bad drafting, but were so good in the standings we had not picked high for for awhile.

 

Instead, either because of wanting the job so badly that he bowed to ownership pressure, or he just got starry eyed, he completely flipped the script. And became the opposite of what he was billed as.  He was actually a gambler.  A serial gambler who needed help.  Linden tried to come in and give him counselling and reign him in, so Benning whined to the owner, and Doctor Linden was gone.

 

As a new GM, I can see how it would be a thrill to be given the challenge to get into the playoffs right away. (And every season after that).  How to do that. Vey for a second rounder to start. And on.  That would be a much funner directive to follow than plod along gathering picks and prospects, not getting much better in the standings. Shipping out fan favourites before they fall off a cliff, is never a popular option.  Just ask Wally Buono. 

 

He painted himself into a corner where this crop of players HAS to work.  I'm sure they too are in shock right now at just how much it has imploded.

 

The smart thing for the owner to do, would have been to let Jim go last Summer.  Hire a new GM, and then have him evaluate the team as they were, while Beagle, Rousell, and Player Name worked off their contracts this season.  He could keep Green or not for now. And make minor deals. Jim made some good ones.  Like re-signing Sutter for a reasonable contract. Although if he never plays again that would suck.  Still shooting to win games of course.  But no big salary dump, and taking on long contracts. Then after this season, he would have a good understanding of the team and what it needed and have that ammunition of cap space to really put his stamp on the team for next season.

 

But that didn't fit into the ever impatient Aqua-fantasy of squeeking into the playoffs this season already.  Now, what good experienced GM would even want to begin to untangle the mess JB will leave behind?  Cap maxed out, not many next tier top prospects, especially on defence down the pike.

 

At least if we still sucked this season, there would be hope on the horizon.  We went all in a year too soon. If we continue to suck all season, there won't be much we can do other than more patch work deals, or a complete blow up and trading away good popular players.

The downer of this post is nothing short of a spectacular downward spiral on the road to eventual depression.

 

Edited by Me_
  • Cheers 1
  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Sure, sure can’t blame everything on one failed prospect but this is 8 years in and he has one drafted d-man on team, one borderline between the big club and the AHL. 
Also that puts him 2/4 on his very high draft picks. Need to hit better than that especially if have a habit of trading high first rounders. 

Aside from Hughes, what about Rathbone? Seems to be on the verge of being an NHL player. Woo? I have little doubt that these players will make the club one day. Given how defensemen take a notorious amount of time to develop, given how we had none to begin with (Edler was before Gillis' time), 8 years isn't really that long. At least our prospect pool is a lot better than what Benning received.

 

Then there's Pettersson, Hoglander (2nd rounder), Podkolzin (too early to tell), along with Mikey Dipietro and several others. It's coming along pretty nicely. For a change, we have some players who can represent their countries because they're good enough to do so. We had nothing of that sort back in the day - not even on Team Canada. Niklas Jensen maybe? He represented Denmark.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Sure, sure can’t blame everything on one failed prospect but this is 8 years in and he has one drafted d-man on team, one borderline between the big club and the AHL. 
Also that puts him 2/4 on his very high draft picks. Need to hit better than that especially if have a habit of trading high first rounders. 

Of course. The premise is there and I see what you're saying. I just think looking at just the defenders when it seems like best player available is the key is probably not the most optimal way of looking at things. That being said, it doesn't change how he's been in the draft overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

The point of a soft rebuild is to keep the younger guys around, trade the solid veterans to add add more young talent as we're drafting high and then fill the key roles in UFA(Like C and D) after the rebuild phase as the youngsters join the team on ELCs and improve over time. 

 

Petey's young enough still to be around and I don't think we would get full value at this point. There's a risk factor with him right now. At most the best value we'd get is a young player in the same sort of situation which presents risk itself too. I also would think his priority would be to get his game back to form over a trade atm. By a lot of accounts he wanted to be the guy this year and is a player that's hard on himself, almost too much according to IMac.

 

If Petey wants out than yeah we could explore options but we also would have the option to have him stick around with us throughout this rebuild phase since we keep his rights for 3 years + RFA. Same sort of deal applies to Hughes and other youngsters too as well though. So if a deal has to be made we have and abundance of time to find the right one.

 

Essentially, whatever route we decide to go with Petey, we can afford to be patient with him, a luxury Horvat/Miller don't share expiring much sooner as UFAs in 2023.

Yeah true JD...

I hope he wants to hang around, but if he doesn't want to hang around like for a rebuild (soft), he would be the jewel in the crown. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2021 at 12:52 AM, dougieL said:

I have heard (not necessarily here) people say that we haven't rebuilt properly or that it's been 8 years of mediocrity under the Benning regime.

 

People are forgetting that for the 2014-15 to 2017-18 seasons, Linden said publicly that it would be unfair to the Sedins to rebuild (the articles can be easily found on Google). In these seasons, we signed Erickson, traded for Gudbranson, traded picks for players, and traded for and re-signed Sutter, among other moves.

 

Only AFTER the Sedins retired did Linden start pushing the proper rebuild. First off, the hypocrisy of this pivot is stunning and not acknowledged enough. Him quitting over the owners not buying into this vision is ludicrous considering his refusal to rebuild while the Sedins were clearly done (combined 14m cap hit, neither exceeded 60pts in any of the last 3 seasons of their career).

 

Second, it is difficult to imagine that the Canucks fan base would have the patience for a full rebuild that would start in the 2018-19 season. If a proper rebuild takes 5 years, this season AND next season might still well be a lottery seasons. We would essentially lose the primes of Demko, Horvat, and part of Boeser's, if they even remained with us through this hypothetical rebuild. 

 

With the drafting of Hughes and the anticipation of Pettersson becoming a quality player, along with the pain of the previous 3 seasons, I could see why the owners wanted Benning to accelerate the process.

 

So no, the rebuild was not done properly, but it is not all on Benning. Sure, Benning has made some questionable moves, but which GM hasn't? The owners, along with Linden, have to bear the brunt of the blame for the overall lack of direction.

 

 

Benning never pushed for "a proper rebuild". As a matter of fact he even said "if you're not going to try to make the playoffs what's the point in playing". Benning said the same things year after year the goal was to make the playoffs. And while doing that "transition to a younger team" also called rebuilding. If tanking is a "proper rebuild" I don't believe in it either. I don't think a team should ever be set up to lose from day 1 of the season. Put the best team you can on the ice and let the chips fall where they may.

Edited by Baggins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Lock said:

I agree with what you are saying; however, devil's advovate here...

 

I do want to point out that, as soon as he tried to draft a good defenseman he drafted Juolevi who had a lot of injuries but did look like he was going to be good originally. How one feels about Juolevi is another matter, but it shows that it's better to draft best player available, which for us has been more forwards than defense.

Benning could have drafted Sergachev instead of OJ.  How good would he look right now in our lineup?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2021 at 7:56 AM, grandmaster said:

I just don’t get why we never traded the Sedins in their final couple years for picks/prospects. These were assets we let whither away. Yes they were Canuck legends but the team was headed in another direction. We had to do this rebuild.

I think the same thing. Why did they not only not try to trade them, but Linden said that it would be "unfair" to rebuild around them. I honestly don't get that type of thinking. You either trade them to a contender (if they waive their clauses) or you start the rebuild around them.

 

Everything stalled so that they could what exactly? Play out their final couple of seasons in mediocrity? That's how it played out. Wasted a few years of the teams time, simple as that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Aside from Hughes, what about Rathbone? Seems to be on the verge of being an NHL player. Woo? I have little doubt that these players will make the club one day. Given how defensemen take a notorious amount of time to develop, given how we had none to begin with (Edler was before Gillis' time), 8 years isn't really that long. At least our prospect pool is a lot better than what Benning received.

 

Then there's Pettersson, Hoglander (2nd rounder), Podkolzin (too early to tell), along with Mikey Dipietro and several others. It's coming along pretty nicely. For a change, we have some players who can represent their countries because they're good enough to do so. We had nothing of that sort back in the day - not even on Team Canada. Niklas Jensen maybe? He represented Denmark.

Rathbone is the borderline player between NHL and AHL.  
Every team has a Woo, decent second rounder that may turn into a player but this isn’t his first season as GM it is his 8th. He has had a chance to pass numerous draft classes through the system up to the big club. 1 drafted regular d-man on team after eight years, One.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2021 at 7:56 AM, grandmaster said:

I just don’t get why we never traded the Sedins in their final couple years for picks/prospects. These were assets we let whither away. Yes they were Canuck legends but the team was headed in another direction. We had to do this rebuild.

NMC 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Lock said:

I agree with what you are saying; however, devil's advovate here...

 

I do want to point out that, as soon as he tried to draft a good defenseman he drafted Juolevi who had a lot of injuries but did look like he was going to be good originally. How one feels about Juolevi is another matter, but it shows that it's better to draft best player available, which for us has been more forwards than defense.

Here is the rub with Benning.. he is reactionary instead of having a solid vision.  Just because Juolevi didn’t work out, it doesn’t mean you give up drafting defensemen.

 

Horvat worked in the NHL right away… let’s put Virtanen and McCann right into the lineup as it cleverly works every time!

Wait, that didn’t work!  Let’s make sure we spend a few years not giving any young guys any chance!

We need to be patient and build properly through the draft… so I am going to trade away all these high draft picks for a bunch of journeymen and fringe players I could get for nothing in free agency.

We need to add size!  No we need to add skill!  We need to get younger.. oh wait we need more veteran leadership!

I am not interested in trading away 1st or 2nd round picks anymore to shed bad salary even if it means not being able to sign important players in our room…. Wait, let me trade a 1st round pick to shed salary.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

Rathbone is the borderline player between NHL and AHL.  
Every team has a Woo, decent second rounder that may turn into a player but this isn’t his first season as GM it is his 8th. He has had a chance to pass numerous draft classes through the system up to the big club. 1 drafted regular d-man on team after eight years, One.

Gillis had 0. What's your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were already rebuilding in 2015/16.  It didn't pan out and they had to start over but there was already a notable youth movement then.  Benning himself talked about the rebuilding process with the hope it would be completed by the time the Sedins' contracts expired.

 

Virtanen, McCann and Hutton made the team as rookies with no NHL experience.  Virtanen and McCann were teenagers and Hutton had just finished college.  Baertschi had never been a regular.  Horvat and Vey were 2nd year players (- Vey started in the AHL but was brought up in December).  They traded in season for Etem and Granlund - also young players with limited NHL experience.  Gaunce was also brought up.  Grenier and Pedan got a few games too.  Higgins and Prust were even demoted to the AHL so they could open up roster spots for youth. 

 

April 2016 by MacIntyre - extracts with full article here:

https://vancouversun.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/iain-macintyre-if-losing-doesnt-get-canucks-gm-jim-benning-the-misinformation-will

 

From the time president of hockey operations Trevor Linden hired Benning nearly two years ago, handing him a roster that contained mould and 10 no-trade contracts, the pair were consistent in their message: the Canucks could “transition” toward a younger, faster team while still making the National Hockey League playoffs.

 

It’s like they thought the team should be in the playoffs while the Canucks undertook their biggest rebuild since Keenan traded everyone in the short time 18 years ago he had the launch codes.

 

“We’ve never once said this was going to be easy or fast,” Benning insisted before the Canucks returned home Friday from their final road trip. “What we said is our goal every year is try to be competitive and make the playoffs. But we’ve never once mentioned the Stanley Cup or had any illusions about where we are as a team. If you don’t have the goal to be a playoff team, what’s the sense of even playing the games?”

 

As he told season-ticket holders at recent town hall meetings (and for that, too, he was criticized because obviously it’s a bad thing to try to inform and retain your most important customers), Benning said he is in the process of building a new core group of eight to 10 players who can propel the Canucks back toward the top of the standings about the time the Sedins’ contracts expire in two years.

 

“Look at that 2011 Vancouver team: the Sedins, Alex Burrows, Ryan Kesler, Alex Edler, Kevin Bieksa, Mason Raymond. Those were all players that the team drafted and developed. We’re still trying to establish the next core group that we’re going to win with. We’ve made strides in that this year. Bo Horvat will be part of that group. Jake Virtanen will be part of that group. Ben Hutton and Jacob Markstrom are part of that group. Jared McCann has a chance to be a part of that group. Sven Baertschi.

 

“We’ve got Thatcher Demko coming, and he’s going to be part of that core group. We have Brock Boeser, who has had a helluva year in college hockey. He’s going to be part of that core group. This is my second year on the job, so we’re two years into this.

 

“We want to be competitive next year,” Benning said. “Realistically, if you’re asking me when will the day be that we can compete with the best teams in the league, I think that (Sedin contract) timeline is fair. This is Year 2, and by our fourth or fifth year, I hope we’ll be there with the elite teams in the league.

 

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

2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Gillis had 0. What's your point?

Even though the point has been explained twice, let me explain it for a third time: Benning has drafted one regular defenseman on the team in 8 years, in the top 10 no less. That doesn't seem too good given that drafting is one thing he is supposedly good at. 

 

I think a better question is why you keep bringing Gillis into the discussion?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whysoserious said:

Even though the point has been explained twice, let me explain it for a third time: Benning has drafted one regular defenseman on the team in 8 years, in the top 10 no less. That doesn't seem too good given that drafting is one thing he is supposedly good at. 

 

I think a better question is why you keep bringing Gillis into the discussion?

You talk about having one drafted D men on the roster, and yet few people talk about the previous GM drafting zero defenseman. It is particularly interesting that the Benning guilt is heavier than what Gillis faced lol. It's incredibly hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You talk about having one drafted D men on the roster, and yet few people talk about the previous GM drafting zero defenseman. It is particularly interesting that the Benning guilt is heavier than what Gillis faced lol. It's incredibly hypocritical.

Maybe the reason few talk about it is because it has no relevance to the current discussion. Benning is the current GM, Gillis is not.

 

But since you love talking about Gillis, I'll bite. Gillis was actually able to assemble a competitive defense corp, something Benning has never been able to do. Gillis brought the team to within 1 game of the Stanley cup, 2 president's trophies and multiple playoff appearances. We were hated around the league because we were good, now we've become a laughing stock under Benning. Gillis had his faults, but Benning has many faults and far fewer positives on his side. It's not interesting at all that the Benning guilt is heavier than Gillis'.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...