A Review of GMJB's Trades - He Did Well!

[filthycanuck]

10 hours ago, on the cycle said:

The Toffoli and Sutter trades were clear losses. Sutter wasn't even better than Bonino and we let Toffoli walk.

 

Every trade Benning made was to rush the rebuild along. Even the futures he got back were squandered. For someone who talked an awful lot about drafting and acquiring pick he sure didn't play into that "strength".

FFS. 

The way Toffoli and the other UFA's like Tanev or Markstrom was treated was inexcusable. Benning was the GM, he couldn't even muster a conversation with their agents to fill them in on whats going on? A GMs job is not strictly just to draft, if that was the case, Jimbo should just stick to scouting or playing fantasy hockey or whatever the hell he does. He's near the top (next to the owner) of heading an almost billion dollar BUSINESS and he can't do that. The Toffoli situation stung quite a bit. Its bad enough local media berates Benning because of his dumba$$ decision making, but for the sports world to know how much of an imbecile he is? Thats one of the all time lows in IMO. You can even hear the anger coming out of Steamer in his presser as temp GM. The Canucks brand was just dragged in the mud for WAY too long

 

Damn that Bonino trade, geez. We even added a draft pick to get Sutter. Bonino was decent here, and was under contract for the season after in a very cheap deal. There is no way people can justify that as a win for us. Sutter has been a massive failure. The only foundational about him is his handicap spot in Rogers arena

[filthycanuck]

14 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Pretty rough on ol' Jim but that last sentence is one of the best zingers I've seen on here.

 

Maybe it can hang next to the bra from Cowan's lady friend.

 

 

Too bad Jeff Cowan wasn't playing during Bennings era. Knowing Jim, probably would've signed him to a 3 year/ 3million per deal. The only other losers in the Jim Benning era are the player agents. I bet they have Jimbo on speed dial when July 1st rolls around, knowing that idiot is going to massively overpay for their clients

 

Jim Benning fanboys can't face facts, the records of the previous regimes speak for themselves. Lets hope JR digs us out of this hole, looking good so far

Edited February 6, 2022 by filthycanuck

[filthycanuck]

14 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

Mayor of Rightville

 

"Empty cupboard 

Large bad contracts 

No cap space 

Underperforming team "

 

This is JB's legacy. 

I appreciate the effort to compile the OP, but even if you twist his trades to a "win" on paper, that is only half the story, in fact, its less than half the story.  The real proof and evaluations should be in how they pan out based on the pro-scouting done on the player by that GM.

 

Things like calling the Schmidt deals, coming and going, as Ws is laughable.  Conveniently, this time even the "on paper" is thrown out.  Which would have only been a Draw. 3rd > 3rd.  But in reality, taking on an unhappy player, who didn't want to be here, and showed it on ice, was a waste of a year of instead adapting a different player who would have liked to play here.  Or even keeping Tanev.  And just further extended the Canucks perpetual problem of finding enough high end D help that will stick here. We had that gap as soon as Tanev left, and we still do.  How is that any kind of W?  lol

 

I agree, Benning will go down as one of the worst managers we've ever had. This whitewashing attempt is a joke.  Conveniently only highlighting the one area that Benning did the best at...trades..which was still woefully inadequate, just based on where this team is now, the actual results of those trades.  And ignoring FA signings, trading away picks until he didn't even have his allotment, Giving up on too many of the scarce prospects he had too early, lack of communication, and his self described management style of "day to day" which could be more aptly described as "season to season".  Wherein each Summer he scrambled to fix the last season's failures with new plugs, and trading away more #1 picks for a splash before we were even ready to take that next step.

 

IMO Benning has wasted 8 years of my @#$%ing life as a Canucks fan. 

LOL what legacy? Hes' got no banners to show for it in the arena! When Jim Rutherford trims the fat off the $hitty carcass Benning left us and hopefully wins us a cup, nobody is going to remember the Benning era.

 

I feel ya on the 8 years, you're not the only one thats glad that Benning trash is over. Im quietly optimistic on JR and Alvinn

 

 

[spook007]

15 hours ago, Steven Stamkos said:

13/14 season Kesler asked for a trade at the beginning of the year. Gillis tried to move him to Pittsburgh and ownership nixed the deal, he had a large list at the time. Gillis get fired and Kesler as a FU to ownership shortens his list to two teams. There was reports at the time saying Anaheim, Chicago or no trade. GMs don’t have to cave under the pressure of a player but Benning did. Kesler was not giving up millions of dollars to sit out next season, Benning could have played hardball but did not. 

GMs don't have to cave under player pressure, but Jim did....?

The last 8 years has been nothing but a massive complaint over not shifting players and get something in return. Here's a player, who doesn't want to be in Vancouver, and then you complain about him being shipped out? Which is it?

On top of this imagine the reaction if we had to watch the down fall of Kesler here in VCR, a player who didn't want to be here, instead of getting a return, no matter how much it was...

[spook007]

13 hours ago, iceman64 said:

you lost me at the rated hockey prospect pool, of course it was rated low, this is the Canucks we're talking about. Where ownership on down doesn't tell fans to suck it up and put down the crying like lil kids towel. JB's biggest mistake was exactly that, bowed to media etc instead of taking it slower and telling people who don't know shi_  to just wait it out and if they don't like it, too bad so sad. 

 Doing the opposite was his mistake and fell into the same thing as with every other of the 10 GM's before him to sell out the farm for a win now and sell the farm like it's ALWAYS been, and it's been media/fan demanded instead of actually building a team which a lot of people think one and done and that never happens and if it does for a single cup.. I'd rather have a contender every year with DEPTH.

 And one other thing, and I'll quote JR on this, picks are a crap shoot at best and I add that even 1st overall have been busts so with JV and OJ were busts compared to what they could have been but JV was a head issue and OJ an injury and NO ONE can ever see things like that so if you want to thank someone for all that, start with the bush league media and the moron fans who are dumb enough to follow what they say as IF it's the truth.. 

 

This.... maybe Virtanen could have been found out, but Juolevi was supposed to be the defender of the lot. How is this so hard to understand. 
With that kind of view you wonder if folks also think Bourdon (RIP) was a bad pick since he never got to play?

Just don't get it... of Bennings faults his drafting wasn't one of them. 

[IBatch]

39 minutes ago, spook007 said:

This.... maybe Virtanen could have been found out, but Juolevi was supposed to be the defender of the lot. How is this so hard to understand. 
With that kind of view you wonder if folks also think Bourdon (RIP) was a bad pick since he never got to play?

Just don't get it... of Bennings faults his drafting wasn't one of them. 

Yes.   JB was above average at the table compared to his peers, based on where he picked.   It was enough to recoup the slipping, what was it again - 7 spots?  Quite a few anyways, when it really mattered for us.   The OJ draft all he did was pump PLD tires throughout the pre-draft .... and we slipped from 3-5, at 3 we could of got him (and yes maybe that was smoke and mirrors - hard to know for sure).    Even with JV and OJ ....  The only thing i'd liked to have seen was one late rounder come in and make an impact.   AG was the closest we had to that.    No Hansen or even Edler like picks during his tenure which did hurt.   Demko was like a top ten pick despite miffing on JV.   BB of course too.   In a way our future will be tied to how well his last group of tweeners turns out,  Hogs, Podz and Klim - plus what else comes out of the woodwork (Woo?  Rathbone?).... 

 

One thing is for sure, Allvin and JR are going to put their stamp on this club in a  big way between now and the start of next season.   I'd be a little surprised to see all of Miller, Motte, Garland, Brock, even EP or Horvat on the ice next season.    If we did that means something special is going to happen.  

[Steven Stamkos]

3 hours ago, spook007 said:

GMs don't have to cave under player pressure, but Jim did....?

The last 8 years has been nothing but a massive complaint over not shifting players and get something in return. Here's a player, who doesn't want to be in Vancouver, and then you complain about him being shipped out? Which is it?

On top of this imagine the reaction if we had to watch the down fall of Kesler here in VCR, a player who didn't want to be here, instead of getting a return, no matter how much it was...

It’s about getting the best value out of your best player. 

[spook007]

14 minutes ago, Steven Stamkos said:

It’s about getting the best value out of your best player. 

With Kesler I feel it was about getting something for a player, who did not want to stay.

You could force him to stay, but its never good for the dressing room with players, who doesn't want to be there...

[Josepho]

What I disagree with:
 

- Juolevi for Lamikko is a nothing trade. Lamikko hasn't been "excellent" and that player exists by the dozens in free agency and on waivers every year.

 

- The entire Nate Schmidt situation should probably just be a draw. 

 

- The OEL contract is going to look so bad towards the end. I have to call that a loss, even if he's been better than I anticipated. If you want to do the "wait and see" approach that's fine, but calling it a win is extremely premature.

 

- We downgraded our pick to take on a player in Bowey (who will never play for us regularly) because Jim wasn't able to plan for the expansion draft prior to the deadline. Unquestionably a loss, no other organization &^@#ed up like this and the process behind this was genuinely embarrassing. 

 

- It is extremely unlikely anyone in this Perron/Costmar trade amounts to anything. Draw.

 

- Karlsson has been encouraging, but Dahlen is producing in the NHL. This is very likely to be a loss, and if your logic is consistent with considering the OEL trade a win, I think you have to rule this as a loss.

 

- Trading a 7th for Mazanec was another situation caused by poor planning that you rarely see from other organizations. Mazanec was hardly "part of" the Miller trade, he was a contract slot that could've been literally any of our AHL players. This is a loss.

 

- You're forgetting the 4th we also gave up for Pouliot. This makes it a loss.

 

- 5th for Larsen is a loss. Another trade for a player who didn't really move the needle for us who -- we could've easily found similar caliber players in free agency for free. A bad team like this shouldn't have been continuously giving away draft picks.

 

- Granlund is technically a win yeah, but he still was complete garbage here and it's not like winning this kind of trade moves the needle whatsoever. Maybe we could've sold high on him after the 2017 season, but he was never "good" for us.

 

- Once again forgetting the pick we gave up in the Etem trade, which is enough to turn this into a loss.

 

- The Bonino/Sutter trade is an absolutely massive loss across the board and in terms of sheer value might be Benning's worst trade. Even if you believe Sutter is slightly better than Bonino (which I don't), Bonino's contract was way better (likely could've gotten a 1st out of it) and we downgraded our pick. 

 

- I actually disagree with Bieksa for a 2nd being a draw. That was great value for a player who wasn't very good anymore. 

 

- McNally for a 7th is probably a very slight win. Got something out of a player who wasn't really interested in playing here.

 

-  Giving up a 3rd round pick for Pedan is awful. And the fact that we later had to downgrade our 2nd to "re-acquire" Lockwood doesn't make it not awful. If I give up 5 bucks in value for a nickel, but later reacquire that 5 bucks by giving up 10 bucks, I'm still losing money.

 

- A 2nd for Vey was a massive overpay. Even if you consider the specific player that LA took at that spot, you have to consider all the other possibilities with that pick. Brayden Point is the obvious stinger there. Also guys like Montour, Donato and Dvorak were picked in that range. This was another situation where we could've gotten Vey-like players on waivers and in free agency.

 

- Dorsett's trade was dramatically ruined by the contract we later gave him, but he was serviceable enough in 14-15.

 

- I was actually one of the few people who was "okay" with the original Kesler trade, but I think we dramatically lost with what we did afterwards with Bonino and McCann. Don't really know what to rate the original trade in a vaccuum, but in the big picture it's definitely not a win.

 

- Garrison for a 2nd was probably a loss. He had multiple good playoff runs with Tampa and was on a very affordable contract. And if you want to consider what he did with the 2nd, it's a definite loss.

 

I just completely disagree with the notion that you should evaluate pick-player trades by looking at what happened with the exact player that got picked at that spot, and how easy it is to find a free agency replacement for the player you acquired. Picks are currency, and we could've done other things (like perhaps move up in the draft) with those.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Josepho]

4 hours ago, spook007 said:

This.... maybe Virtanen could have been found out, but Juolevi was supposed to be the defender of the lot. How is this so hard to understand. 
With that kind of view you wonder if folks also think Bourdon (RIP) was a bad pick since he never got to play?

Just don't get it... of Bennings faults his drafting wasn't one of them. 

Juolevi was trending poorly before he suffered substantial injuries.

 

And yes, as immoral as it might be to say, Bourdon over Kopitar was an absolutely terrible pick. That doesn't make his death any less tragic, but everyone was furious with that pick and its development at the time, and it would've been borderline impossible for him to justify his draft selection.

[Steven Stamkos]

31 minutes ago, spook007 said:

With Kesler I feel it was about getting something for a player, who did not want to stay.

You could force him to stay, but its never good for the dressing room with players, who doesn't want to be there...

There is an argument to be made here for sure on the players not wanting to stay and playing bad or being a cancer. On the other end, we held out on Bure and ended up getting a decent return. 

[spook007]

1 hour ago, Josepho said:

Juolevi was trending poorly before he suffered substantial injuries.

 

And yes, as immoral as it might be to say, Bourdon over Kopitar was an absolutely terrible pick. That doesn't make his death any less tragic, but everyone was furious with that pick and its development at the time, and it would've been borderline impossible for him to justify his draft selection.

Nope that's wrong.. there was a lot of unhappiness about not drafting Tkachuk, but there was also a lot of understanding for drafting a defender as there was zero in the pipeline...

As for not drafting Tkachuk, If he said during the interview, he didn't like Vancouver, do you still draft him? I don't know, why Benning didn't take him, but maybe they still thought Jake was enough or at least would become a player...?

When he drafted Petey there was also a lot of anger... how did they look with egg on their faces? Easy to choose with hindsight...

As for Bourdon, the point was, you never know, what's round the corner...its the same with injuries.

[AV.]

Surely, this thread is sarcasm?

[Baggins]

21 hours ago, lmm said:

every year 16 or so GMs miss the play offs and of the remaining 16, 15 lose their last game

what is your point?

You just made my point.

[IBatch]

8 minutes ago, AV. said:

Surely, this thread is sarcasm?

Nah why don't you enlighten us?  (that is sarcasm).   That said I guess we are bored to tears waiting for the next game - call it a "draw thread"...   This entire thread is just bait will say that.    We need to move on.   Just like we did with Quin/Keenan/Burke/Nonis/MG et al.    Revisionist history is useless with zero context, even based purely on production.   

[iceman64]

On 2/5/2022 at 12:18 PM, kilgore said:

 

Mayor of Rightville

 

"Empty cupboard 

Large bad contracts 

No cap space 

Underperforming team "

 

This is JB's legacy. 

I appreciate the effort to compile the OP, but even if you twist his trades to a "win" on paper, that is only half the story, in fact, its less than half the story.  The real proof and evaluations should be in how they pan out based on the pro-scouting done on the player by that GM.

 

Things like calling the Schmidt deals, coming and going, as Ws is laughable.  Conveniently, this time even the "on paper" is thrown out.  Which would have only been a Draw. 3rd > 3rd.  But in reality, taking on an unhappy player, who didn't want to be here, and showed it on ice, was a waste of a year of instead adapting a different player who would have liked to play here.  Or even keeping Tanev.  And just further extended the Canucks perpetual problem of finding enough high end D help that will stick here. We had that gap as soon as Tanev left, and we still do.  How is that any kind of W?  lol

 

I agree, Benning will go down as one of the worst managers we've ever had. This whitewashing attempt is a joke.  Conveniently only highlighting the one area that Benning did the best at...trades..which was still woefully inadequate, just based on where this team is now, the actual results of those trades.  And ignoring FA signings, trading away picks until he didn't even have his allotment, Giving up on too many of the scarce prospects he had too early, lack of communication, and his self described management style of "day to day" which could be more aptly described as "season to season".  Wherein each Summer he scrambled to fix the last season's failures with new plugs, and trading away more #1 picks for a splash before we were even ready to take that next step.

 

IMO Benning has wasted 8 years of my @#$%ing life as a Canucks fan. 

First your incorrect in a lot of it and whining you lost 8 years, good grief, try since 1974 and no cup, my first game listened to on the radio was back then so I wouldn't be so upset about it.. 

ok so you think JB left that as his legacy? for real? That's been the never ending legacy of this whole franchise from back then to current but first, the cupboards were bare when JB got here.

 Gillis had almost the whole team locked down to long term contracts ffs! 

and same with that, and not a lot of cap space. 

JB did bow down to pressure of idiot fans and media AS well as every GM in canuck history and that why we don't have a cup, the runs we did have was the same old, sold the farm to get the roster but end up with zero depth and thus zero cups, there has never been a team that hasn't had injuries in the playoffs, so that depth is a have to have and we never have! THIS IS NOT anything new, but for once if we actually build a team for a change and wait it out until it happens properly THEN we have a shot but not until.

 A shot at a contending team EVERY year not just a one trick pony, that's f'n old and needs to end but trade and trade and trade without getting depth is going to win F all but seems like most people still want to try that route... even though it's been tried here since DAY ONE!  

 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by iceman64

[iceman64]

6 hours ago, Josepho said:

Juolevi was trending poorly before he suffered substantial injuries.

 

And yes, as immoral as it might be to say, Bourdon over Kopitar was an absolutely terrible pick. That doesn't make his death any less tragic, but everyone was furious with that pick and its development at the time, and it would've been borderline impossible for him to justify his draft selection.

who said OJ was trending poorly, his offensive game and puck moving were fine but everyone knows the NHL is so fast you have to practice defence before moving forward.

 LB? whoa! He had what Tanev/Hughes have, the ability not to panic with the puck and wait until the last possible millisecond and then make a strong play which is something you don't find in every Dman and if you find it in a player, for sure he's going to be on top or 2nd pairing and scoring forwards are a LOT easier to find so it wasn't a bad move but I'm pretty sure he'd have been on top pairing for us. Is that worth more than a Kopitar? Depends on your teams weakness and our was D, always injuries so it was not a bad idea.

[lmm]

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

You just made my point.

that Ol Jimmer was one of the lower half of the 30-31 losers for 6 of the 8 years he was here,

and in his best season he made it to into the top 7 losers

 

Yup, I agree with you there

 

why are we even arguing?

[NHL97OneTimer]

16 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Do you want a better view?

 

Canucks GM records

 

Brian Burke  219-181-68-24      

Dave Nonis  130-91-25

Mike Gillis  261-183 - 51

Jim Benning 233 - 257- 63

 

Bring out your calculator or abacus and tell us what Bennings win percentage compared to the other 3. Im not gonna even put Pat Quinn's name in there considering its an insult to even have his name attached to any comparison in relation to Jim Benning. Burke, Nonis, Gillis, and Quinn all have banners in Rogers arena.

 

Granted Jim Benning should have one. The jersey thrown on the ice should be hung up there, marking an end of the most pathetic 8 seasons this city has ever seen

Abacus?  Way to take my comment, twist it and grab the winning team years as a comparison to act like a knob who doesn't need a calculator.  Have a look farther back in the history of the Canucks like I said.....The Canucks were around before 1998 last time I checked but perhaps you weren't around then?  I have a long history of remembering the worst years of the Canucks history. From 1970 to 1991, the Canucks had 2 winning seasons......2!!!  And one of them was close to a losing season.  But hey, you call the last 8 years the worst in history?!!!

 

My point is that JB wasn't the worst.....I wasn't saying he was the best neither.  But hey, way to be an internet hero tough guy.

 

Mike Gillis inherited a good team and left Benning an AHL team at best.  How do you quantify that in a record?  How about comparing records at the 5-year mark to really assess how good a GM is.  Perhaps that's a better view?!!!  JB may have built the foundation of a contender and people should give him credit for the good things he did.

 

Anyway, someone else seems to think that there were worse Vancouver GMs than JB.  That person can do a bit more research than you're apparently capable of:

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/vancouver-canucks-history-ranking-general-managers/

Edited February 7, 2022 by NHL97OneTimer

[Ballisticsports.]

 

3 hours ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

Abacus?  Way to take my comment, twist it and grab the winning team years as a comparison to act like a knob who doesn't need a calculator.  Have a look farther back in the history of the Canucks like I said.....The Canucks were around before 1998 last time I checked but perhaps you weren't around then?  I have a long history of remembering the worst years of the Canucks history. From 1970 to 1991, the Canucks had 2 winning seasons......2!!!  And one of them was close to a losing season.  But hey, you call the last 8 years the worst in history?!!!

 

My point is that JB wasn't the worst.....I wasn't saying he was the best neither.  But hey, way to be an internet hero tough guy.

 

Mike Gillis inherited a good team and left Benning an AHL team at best.  How do you quantify that in a record?  How about comparing records at the 5-year mark to really assess how good a GM is.  Perhaps that's a better view?!!!  JB may have built the foundation of a contender and people should give him credit for the good things he did.

 

Anyway, someone else seems to think that there were worse Vancouver GMs than JB.  That person can do a bit more research than you're apparently capable of:

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/vancouver-canucks-history-ranking-general-managers/

Let's not get too carried away

An AHL team at best?

His 1st year they were 8th overall in league standings

True historically the Canucks have almost the worst NHL winning % of all active teams ,surprisingly many of those  losing records you speak of we were still 1-3 in our Conf. and never in our history with JB at the helm were we at the bottom of the League standings for sooo long

 

Benning was the 2nd longest serving GM in Canucks history, so he had more time than anyone to do more good, yet since 1974 only acting GM Mike Keenan has anyone had less success

Everyone has a shelve life

No need to feel sorry for a guy who had much more opportunity than others before him, he is still on the payroll isn't he?

 

Remember Smyl at the press conference?

We now have a management team that will work together and one of experience and that is a good thing and hopefully will bring us all together that we won't care about past GM's and be so happy of the one that brought us an elite team to enjoy again

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by ba;;isticsports
put NHL and meant AHL