Benning ~ Not all bad (Discussion)

[Dr. Crossbar]

Looking back now, I still maintain Benning was hampered by the amount of NTCs when he took over. It was clear then, as it still is today, that a decision was made by "new" management to work around those contracts.

 

There were upwards of 10 contracts, which gave them a built-in timeline of about 4 years to retool while contracts peeled away, and they could draft, develop as best as possible within those four years. 

 

In a lot of ways, Benning inherited a bad situation. Obviously they chose to honour most of the contracts and work around them. Was it the right decision? In hindsight, maybe not seeing where things wound up 7-8 years later, but I do understsnd the decision. Especially in the wake of the shocking change of the Torts season and the fan reaction.

 

Could Benning have really made even more shocking, abrupt change on top of Torts season with fans being happy to see all those NTCs broken and all our core players shipped out? I think what needed to happen and what was possible were two opposing forces that management tried to balance and make the best of in those early years.

 

I honestly believe management in their first year, including Linden, saw they were limited in what they could change and decided to base the "retool" largely around the Sedins final 4-year contract. Linden's "not fair to the Sedins" comment echoes this. 

 

As well, I also believe they all knew - right from the start - there would be two phases to their plan: 1. making limited change around the NTCs while contracts expired and remaining competitive and 2. making significant, larger changes once all the old contracts were expired. It really wasn't going to be Benning's team until Phase 2. 

 

That's why there was so much focus on "patience" in those first four years. Most thought it was largely to draft and develop - which it partly was - but imo it was also due to them knowing they had to get past the retool for larger change to really take place. 

 

And I also believe they had a long term commitment from ownership to both of these phases. To me, it's why ownership was so committed to Benning for so long, because they really invested in the long-term, both the retool and time for the new core to emerge post retool. And then once the new core was up and running, they could add pieces to the roster to make a push into a playoff team. 

 

This past offseason, to me, was Benning's last ditch final push to see his plan through after being disrupted by Covid. I believe management and ownership were so invested in each other after committing to the long term 8 years ago that the failed results of this season took them all by shocking surprise. This wasn't supposed to happen. In my eyes, that's why it took so long for ownership to act, because none of them - management and ownership - could believe what was happening. 

 

As for the positive of Benning's time here, I mean, the guy should feel good that he actually got 8 years to see it all through even though it didn't work out for him in the end. I think he can find peace in that and hold his head high knowing he was given time to build his team after being hampered by the retool and contracts from the previous GM. Benning was given the opportunity to drive HIS team.

 

At least he can look at this roster now and see that he did build a good team and he left it in good hands. Also, looking at the turnaround with Boudreau behind the bench, Benning should be able to admit, hey, maybe I should have made a coaching change earlier. 

 

Sure, a lot of mistakes were made by Benning but a lot of good came out his decisions. I mean, although a lot of people hated Ryan Miller's time here, I'm glad Benning brought him in to keep our net stable. He was a warrior. And we now have Demko. I mean, the fact that we also have Hughes, Petey, Boeser, Hoglander, Miller, Podz,... also Garland ... those guys are evidence of Benning's good impact on the team.

 

Benning did a lot of good during his era but eight years is a long time. I've said this before, I think he peaked with the playoff run and gutted too many key pieces of the team. I also believe last season, with Covid, the team was personally affected behind the scenes so much that the relationship between players, coaching, and management was broken beyond repair. Change was essential and inevitable.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Dr. Crossbar

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Gally said:

Green doesn't choose the players who are on the ice. I'm not even a Travis Green fan I think especially this season he was a part of the issue since the players clearly weren't all in. Keep defending the bumbling idiot who got fired last week after one of the longest and least successful tenures in Canucks history though. 

Why not? Green has always been actively involved in scratching players, namely all the younger players like Macewen, Bailey, etc. Gadjovich barely got a sniff in the roster. In fact, Green benched players like Juolevi and Podkolzin for no particular reason. And at the same time, Chiasson was put into the roster all the time, similar to Megna.

 

But yeah, Coach Green was totally helpless in his job... /S

 

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

You are wilfully forgetting that Green's teams had NEVER played the style that Boudreau has employed. You're also forgetting that Green's second periods have traditionally been poor. All the momentum in the first period usually goes to die here. Something was funky about how Green coached.

Moreover, Green has repetitively employed the same tactics, namely the dump and chase, over a course of five seasons. We can see that he's been VERY ineffective. Now, with a new coach, we see a vastly improved team.

 

But of course, it's not Green's fault at all, right?

 

All this blame on Benning for 8 years, but not a shred of blame for Green for his COACHING of five years. No bias there at all, right? LOL.

Dazzle ... do you really think that once the dust settles, and it will, that it's all on Green?   Even Bruce knows it's not. Said as much after the first win.  Why?  Because we aren't WSH.   As in a top team.  As an older guy i appreciate that too.  Not as old as him just as old as Green.   Almost.   The Green haters hated whatever he did.   If he moved guys off lines.   If he stuck to lines.   That said during the "bubble" ... we all loved him no?  Except a few posters who didn't stop.    Back to my first couple sentences.  Why do you think Bruce doesn't like the slogan "Bruce there it is"....maybe because he's been around long enough to know that like he said - Bruce there he goes is right after that.   I'm hoping for a 10 game winning streak.   Well really an 1000 game one like every fan from every team.   Five games in and half the guys from the bubble.   Thankfully half the guys have also had a five game winning streak with Green before.    Wonder how much capital Bruce has.   I'd say about as much until the he's right with Green.   And he knows it.   Why he's not stupid enough to encourage the chanting. 

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, Gally said:

Green doesn't choose the players who are on the ice. I'm not even a Travis Green fan I think especially this season he was a part of the issue since the players clearly weren't all in. Keep defending the bumbling idiot who got fired last week after one of the longest and least successful tenures in Canucks history though. 

Wait...what?

 

The...coach...doesn't choose who plays and who sits or doesn't play?

 

Huh?

 

Who does then?  benny the beer guy in the upper bowl or?

[Gally]

10 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Why not? Green has always been actively involved in scratching players, namely all the younger players like Macewen, Bailey, etc. Gadjovich barely got a sniff in the roster. In fact, Green benched players like Juolevi and Podkolzin for no particular reason. And at the same time, Chiasson was put into the roster all the time, similar to Megna.

 

But yeah, Coach Green was totally helpless in his job... /S

 

So if Green played those 4th liners Macewen, Bailey, Gadjovich, Juolevi we would've been a better team? Like I said, I don't think Green is a good coach but to say that him not playing a bunch of fringe/non NHL players is part of the reason we did bad is ludicrous. He didn't do great with what he had but Benning consistently provided a terrible D-core and a roster that lacked depth. 

[Gally]

6 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Wait...what?

 

The...coach...doesn't choose who plays and who sits or doesn't play?

 

Huh?

 

Who does then?  benny the beer guy in the upper bowl or?

He can choose between Chiasson and Dowling all he wants he can't fix a D core with Myers, Poolman, Hamonic, Burroughs all playing

[IBatch]

6 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Wait...what?

 

The...coach...doesn't choose who plays and who sits or doesn't play?

 

Huh?

 

Who does then?  benny the beer guy in the upper bowl or?

Come on.  He chooses who the GM signs, drafted and traded for.   The coach gets to decide the lines and the minutes.   That's about it.   Which is exactly what that poster was referring too.   

[Honky Cat]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

You don't think the competency level of employers, how they treat their employees, how much faith employees have in their employers, etc. has any effect on employee performance?

 

This is all walks of life, not just hockey.

 

Come on now.

 

The players' reactions and comments from last summer told you all you needed to know. And if you didn't get it then, the relief and happiness they are showing right now says it all.

The players reactions and comments coming into the season were completely enthusiastic, they couldn't wait to hit the ice with a reinforced lineup.

I don't think they cared about Benning one way or the other, they were certainly grateful that he added key players on the team.

The current relief and happiness comes from the fact that they are free from the shackles of Greens system, and are now playing a system more conducive to the players they have.

[Dazzle]

8 minutes ago, Gally said:

So if Green played those 4th liners Macewen, Bailey, Gadjovich, Juolevi we would've been a better team? Like I said, I don't think Green is a good coach but to say that him not playing a bunch of fringe/non NHL players is part of the reason we did bad is ludicrous. He didn't do great with what he had but Benning consistently provided a terrible D-core and a roster that lacked depth. 

No, I'm not saying those players would've improved the team. I'm arguing against your silly narrative that Green had his hands tied on rosters. Now you're arguing that Green had eliminated the poor performing players, so thanks for proving my point that

 

A) Green makes decisions on the rosters, contrary to your defense of Green

 

B ) You're making excuses for Green, but blaming Benning for everything. Biased much?

[alt kilgore]

First off, every one of us is speculating.  None of us know exactly how the chips fall if we

 

1. Kept Gillis longer to try and convince some of his NTC vets to be moved and begin a rebuild back in 2014

 

2. Got rid of Benning after a 5 year window was up, after his prediction of a "fast turnaround" was proven wrong after depleting the team of future picks, prospects to make his deluded fantasies true about being a playoff team. And worse, accepting the owners naive plan of "just get in, and anything can happen" way to the Cup, instead of the slower, step by step, approach.  Getting our D in place first for instance.

 

3. If Benning had not re-signed Green, or even fired him before last season. And hired a more experienced coach.

 

One thing that is laughable is blaming the GM who got the job almost 14 years ago, who took us to the final.  He inherited a core, but had to also assemble the supporting players. And acquired D like Tanev. The Ballard trade was the season of the SCF run. The only time he traded a #1, perfectly reasonable, but Ballard didn't play up to snuff or was injured.  As opposed to JB trading 2 firsts, and multiple seconds, when we were not even close to being competitive. When his trades didn't play up to stuff, there was no backup parts, like Gillis had.  In the end, even a stacked team will fail in the SCF if they have enough injuries.  Especially in concert with terrible decisions like Rome's suspension, and a Boston friendly NHL disciplinary department.

 

I'm about as much impressed with a politician who blames the economy on a President or Prime Minister in power 10 years earlier, as I am when it comes to blaming a past GM for the present day hockey team.  The average playing career of an NHL player is just FIVE YEARS for Peteys sake!  To think that Gillis should have done more to make the 2021 Canucks better is ridiculous.

 

There is plenty of blame to go around.  Its not either or.  We needed a change in both coaching and in team management. Both made bad mistakes.  Ultimately its the GM who should carry most of the blame as its his decision to also hire the coach.

 

I'll give Benning credit for actually, finally, assembling a competent team. I was happy with this team in September. Not a complete team, as our D is still a work in progress. But a team that should do better than they have been in the first 20 games. Good for him, but he's taken 8 years, numerous #1, #2 picks and prospects.  Numerous times unloading players that vastly underperformed.  Depleted the farm to get here. Tied the hands of management for years ahead. Talk about Gillis leaving nothing, his amateur scouting staff didn't do a great job, as Brackett did for Benning, but at least he wasn't deliberately frittering his picks away. In a desperate, day to day, kind of team asset management. 

 

JB was completely in the clouds about how to develop a "culture of winning".  You can't force it or speed it up. And you can't ignore how important communication is. How important other voices are to bounce important decisions with. How much your behaviour as GM towards your players, especially veterans,  can have an affect on that culture.

 

Like the first 3 questions, you can't prove a negative or positive with hindsight. We don't know if we'd have a more complete deep team if we'd have had, say, Rutherford in here instead of Benning, after Gillis.  We may not have been in a position to pick Petey or Hughes. Or maybe picked above them and overlooked them. But there are a lot of teams who are better than us right now, with their own top ten picks doing quite well.

 

JB was a gambler.  That was his GM style. He was an addict and every off season he couldn't help himself. Complete 180 than what we, at least I, expected from him when he came in.  And after almost 8 years, of pulling the handle, he finally has a decent assemblage of players. After mortgaging the house twice, selling some nice pieces of furniture at garage sale prices, and then paying full price, draining the bank account, and borrowing even more, to get new pieces.  But okay, at least we have a watchable team now.  My hope is renewed from the start of the season, where while still acknowledging Jim's past mistakes, I was hopeful that winning breeds winning.  That can help keep good players here, and make others want to come here. Help to build that culture, and worry about restocking the farm later.  And, even if its too little too late for the team to gel in time for this season's playoffs, and even though we have not much in the way of assets left to help future management, at least we have entertaining hockey to watch now, at present....  so good for you Jim. Good for you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dazzle]

11 minutes ago, Gally said:

He can choose between Chiasson and Dowling all he wants he can't fix a D core with Myers, Poolman, Hamonic, Burroughs all playing

The D core is not the problem. If so, BB would have issues with their defense as well, which is clearly not the case. In fact, BB has changed the exact same roster that Green had struggles with all season long .

 

But of course, Green is not to blame, according to you, even though he's had five seasons of poor coaching performance, which includes poor line deployments.

 

Hey, get this: Green quickly dismantled a promising line - Pettersson, Pod, Garland, even though it was clicking. Meanwhile, BB in his first day, kept them together. Look at them now. Green is a notorious line blender. This is all coaching. Nothing to do with GM decisions.

 

I don't expect you to admit your points and position has been effectively discredited. Rather, you'll just double down and repeat your points. Face it: Green sucks.

[Gally]

4 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

No, I'm not saying those players would've improved the team. I'm arguing against your silly narrative that Green had his hands tied on rosters. Now you're arguing that Green had eliminated the poor performing players, so thanks for proving my point that

 

A) Green makes decisions on the rosters, contrary to your defense of Green

 

B ) You're making excuses for Green, but blaming Benning for everything. Biased much?

Defence of Green? I've said multiple times I don't think he's a good coach. And yeah I will blame Benning a lot more than Green for putting forth a terrible NHL roster for 8 years straight. Firing both was the right move and BB is an upgrade.

 

You saying the D core isn't the issue tells me enough. You think a good NHL team can have a RHD consisting of Myers, Poolman, Schenn/Hamonic? It's hockey don't form opinions based on 5 game sample sizes. Especially a sample size where we've been getting a .960 SV% from our goalie, very sustainable.

 

 

[spook007]

18 minutes ago, Gally said:

He can choose between Chiasson and Dowling all he wants he can't fix a D core with Myers, Poolman, Hamonic, Burroughs all playing

That D-core is actually doing not too bad at the moment...

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, Gally said:

Defence of Green? I've said multiple times I don't think he's a good coach. And yeah I will blame Benning a lot more than Green for putting forth a terrible NHL roster for 8 years straight. Firing both was the right move and BB is an upgrade.

 

You saying the D core isn't the issue tells me enough. You think a good NHL team can have a RHD consisting of Myers, Poolman, Schenn/Hamonic? It's hockey don't form opinions based on 5 game sample sizes. Especially a sample size where we've been getting a .960 SV% from our goalie, very sustainable.

 

 

I'm saying the D core has been red herring and not really a major issue. We've seen how poorly the D core performed under Baumgartner. Now that Shaw is in charge, we see a vastly different team. Is it really the D core then?

 

This is on coaching. Benning kept the coaches, so this is on him too. Green hired his assistants. This is all on Green though.

 

Benning deserved to get fired if he thought Green was the right man, but ultimately, Green is a terrible coach. The blame should go on Green for poorly utilizing this roster, regardless of all the chances he got.

[kanucks25]

28 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

The players reactions and comments coming into the season were completely enthusiastic, they couldn't wait to hit the ice with a reinforced lineup.

I don't think they cared about Benning one way or the other, they were certainly grateful that he added key players on the team.

The current relief and happiness comes from the fact that they are free from the shackles of Greens system, and are now playing a system more conducive to the players they have.

If the players were that upset with Green they would have made their voices heard and Green would not have been extended.

 

Green was a problem, but not THE problem.

 

And, for the billionth time, the GM chooses the coach.

[Gally]

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I'm saying the D core has been red herring and not really a major issue. We've seen how poorly the D core performed under Baumgartner. Now that Shaw is in charge, we see a vastly different team. Is it really the D core then?

 

This is on coaching. Benning kept the coaches, so this is on him too. Green hired his assistants. This is all on Green though.

 

Benning deserved to get fired if he thought Green was the right man, but ultimately, Green is a terrible coach. The blame should go on Green for poorly utilizing this roster, regardless of all the chances he got.

Does Green get the blame for Juolevi, Virtanen, letting Toffoli/Tanev/Markstrom/all the others walk for nothing? Trading McCann, Dahlen, Forsling for nothing? The bad contracts to Roussel, Beagle, Myers, Poolman, Ferland, Holtby, Sutter and others? Constantly trading draft picks despite being one of the worst teams in the league?

[Dazzle]

9 minutes ago, Gally said:

Does Green get the blame for Juolevi, Virtanen, letting Toffoli/Tanev/Markstrom/all the others walk for nothing? Trading McCann, Dahlen, Forsling for nothing? The bad contracts to Roussel, Beagle, Myers, Poolman, Ferland, Holtby, Sutter and others? Constantly trading draft picks despite being one of the worst teams in the league?

Green gets the blame for how he utilizes the roster because he's the head coach. The defensive coaches should get blamed for how they utilize the defense, but Green is the HEAD coach. He has the final say on this, including scratches.

 

Stop coddling him like he's a rookie coach. He's had five seasons on the job. If only people held Green to the same level of accountability that Benning gets, then we wouldn't have a problem. I've seen you make so many excuses for Green, but place the emphasis of the blame back on Benning. LOL.

Benning's not the one who was directly scratching Podkolzin after he scored a goal. Green did that with Juolevi, and he did that frequently with Goldobin. I fail to see your mental gymnastics about how Green gets less blame for stuff that Benning isn't DIRECTLY responsible for. The GM picks players that Green approves of. If Green doesn't like that player, he scratches them. So enough of the BS about Green not getting blame.

 

He sucked for his five seasons, and we see just how experience matters. BB has truly unravelled what Benning was trying to do with his team(s). Benning's biggest mistake was arguably keeping Green for as long as he did. These rosters never really stood a chance with this underqualified coaching.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Dazzle

[Honky Cat]

19 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

If the players were that upset with Green they would have made their voices heard and Green would not have been extended.

 

Green was a problem, but not THE problem.

 

And, for the billionth time, the GM chooses the coach.

Nobody is arguing that JB isn’t responsible for extending Green,and both JB and TG were both well worthy of their firings.

 

The players put last year behind them,and judging from their comments were enthusiastic to start this season.

 

Not buying the players playing poorly because of a person they literally don’t have any contact with (Benning).Trying to shoehorn that idea is something that only the rabid anti Benning posters would do.

 

if Benning had hired Claude Julien this season.I believe we would be currently around a playoff spot.

 

The players were not upset with Green either. It just came down to terrible results,and a coach and GM that had completely run out of runway.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Honky Cat

[cdgraham]

Agree with all of this. It was time to let him go I think, but I was always a supporter of Benning. If you look at my posts I always said green should go before Benning as the team that was assembled was so much better then what we saw. Sure enough looks like that was bang on. 

 

If you ask me, he seemed to have got a lot better as time went on in all aspects too, including free agency. Most of his last trades worked out well too. 

 

I think he should get another GM job tbh, a team could do a lot worse. 

Edited December 16, 2021 by cdgraham

[N4ZZY]

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

Demko was rather mediocre that season (.905 S% 3.06 GAA) while Marky was widely regarded our MVP. It was Demko's performance in the playoffs that really boosted his status and value. Trading Marky at the deadline would have sent the message "we are giving up the playoffs". Again, teams lose players to free agency when making the playoffs. The Canucks are not immune to that. Had it not been for Demko's playoff performance it wouldn't have surprised if Marky was re-signed and Demko traded. We could only protect one from the expansion draft. I am glad it turned out the way it did. Demko is 5 years younger and has really proven himself.

Right. But I was saying if the long term outlook from management and Benning in particular was that he was going to go with Demko, then why not enter into the season with those two guys splitting goaltending duties, and shopping Markström before the trade deadline, to get a return for him, and then riding Demko the rest of the way. I'm just saying that there needed to be a better way to be responsible over the players that they had under contract, instead of just letting those guys walk away for free, and retaining nothing in return for their services. 

 

Could we have a few more prospects from a Markström trade? Probably. What about a Tanev trade? Yes again to that. Stetcher probably wouldn't have gotten us much, but a pick? Sure. Point being is that we could have received some assets back for some of those players, and it could have been likely that the Canucks could have been in the running to sign Tanev if he hit free agency. Win win to me. 

 

You see I have an issue that it seems management under Benning only decided to retain Demko because of his playoff performance, instead of going into the season with a plan that Demko was their guy for the foreseeable future moving forwards, and that they would live or die with him. If they had decided that, then Markström would have been traded and shopped.