Jim Benning

[Alflives]

Are we actually comparing the Gillis era to the Benning one? Gillis 2 President trophies and a Cup Final. Our club was both feared and respected. It’s value soared. Benning era we were awful and a a league joke. Our club value tanked (compared to the other club’s rising value)

Gillis era was our best ever.

Benning era was our worst ever.

Those are the comparable facts. 

 

If we are comparing the people Benning wins by a lot. Gilles seemed nasty. Benning seemed nice. 

[lmm]

9 hours ago, The Lock said:

You only listed a couple of GMs that haven't be fired a their jobs. Does that make what you're saying any better? If so, please elaborate further.

 

I'm listing GMs who were among the most successful at their job within that particular organization, in some cases the most successful at their job in that organization, only to have to leave later on due to the team losing. Your premise here is to say that winning GMs get to keep their jobs, yes? My list proves that that's not necessarily the case.

 

Also, I only provided the start of the alphabetical list of teams. Do you want me to go through ALL of the teams? I literally only had to do 5 minutes of work to get those 5 GMs. I also could provide more than 1 GM from each team. I was hoping you'd be able to understand this and be less bullheaded about this. I figured you were a smart so I didn't go any further. I still do think you're smart, but if you really need me to start coming up with an exhaustive list for this discussion that has no bearing on anything otherwise, I will; however, I want to see your list with my list. You also should be doing work in this.

 

We can 100% get to the bottom of all this if that is what you really want, although I expect you to just say "it's a funny list" no matter how much work I put in because you seem to be here to "win a debate", not actually learn what happens to GMs. This isn't meant as an attack, just an observation. Perhaps you could pleasantly surprise me though.

 

 

nah

I'm losing interest in this debate

you can continue to believe "Most" teams fire their GMs

 

In some respects not enough blame has been sent Trevor Linden's way

He Hired Jim and then let his own position slip away

Kind of makes you wonder about Trevor's character evaluatons

 

Good teams don't fire their Presidents either

the Canucks have fired Burke, Gillis, Linden and Benning

and that is just during the Aqua era

 

anyway, carry on, I'll lock horns with you again on a more current topic

cheers

[Viper007]

1 hour ago, jyu said:

I'd say that for one picking in the top 5 or top 10, you are rebuilding/retooling so you want to identify and draft star players into your core. For the one that is picking in the 20+, your success at the draft should be measured by the number of NHL games they play for you as your team is already in contention and those guys can help make the final push.

 

Let's look at Gillis first.

 

The league wide success rate as per @DSVIIis about 50% for 20-30 range and 78% for picks 6-10.

 

Gillis's hit rate in the 20+ range was 0-for-4 (2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 -- Shinkaruk). Very poor indeed. He traded away a first in 2010 even, so he had one less at bat.

 

And in fact, he really could have saved himself if he hit on these picks from 2009 to 2011 because the core players really needed a push in 2012-2015.

 

His hit rate on picks 6-10 range was 2-for-2: 2008 (Hodgson) and 2013 (Horvat). Horvat can be considered a star (2-time all star) so he did very well there -- although I don't know how they defined a star in compiling the stats shared by @DSVII.

 

Hodgson, well, he was a bonafide NHLer but his career was shortened and Gillis made a trade for Kassian who didn't pan out. In the end Hodgson didn't play enough games for us, like 70 games. So from that perspective, Hodgson could be seen as failed draft pick.

 

Although Gillis didn't do great at the draft table, I have and would like to defend Gillis. Gillis's priorities were to win the cup. Drafting and filling the prospect pool was not his primary goal, which he himself regretted later. The cap has been in place only for a few years when he took over and some teams were still going for the cup by mortgaging he future like the pre-cap era and for those teams, they did not put enough emphasis on picks.

 

The trend is completely different now. If Gillis were the GM now and he had the same team, I bet you Gillis will perform better at the draft.

 

As for Benning...

 

The hit rate on picks in the range 2-5 is 93%. His went 1-for-2 as he hit on Petey but struck out on Juolevi. On the surface, it looks like he didn't do well there... but then, on the metric of finding a star player, he succeeded. The league wide rate for finding a star with picks 2-5 is only 34% (I'm surprised to be honest -- I thought it would be much higher).

 

His hit rate on 6-10 is 1-for-2. Win on Hughes but lost on Virtanen -- I'm not counting Podz for now. The league wide success rate is 78% and for finding star is 13%. So again, he find a star player.

 

And he also hit on range 20-30: McCann and Boeser. McCann didn't play enough games for us and the subsequent trade didn't work out so maybe that is a failed pick but Boeser is still on the team and have played 370 games for us. We all have our opinion on Boeser these days but I'd say that pick was a success.

 

So Benning went 1-for-2 in that range. 

 

I honestly think he wasn't bad at all.

 

Let me put it this way. If he has hit on JV pick and OJ pick, say he got Ehlers and Sergachev.... He would be the only GM that I can think of, that have hit on all 100% of his 1st rounders.

 

 

 

 

 

We need to define exactly what a NHLer is also.

 

If it's just a game played in the NHL.  Then both Juolevi and JV are NHLers, as in they still played games in the league.  JV technically is still a NHLer in regards to the stats in my opinion.  If he didn't have the legal issues, I'm sure he'd still be playing in the league.

[The Lock]

1 hour ago, lmm said:

nah

I'm losing interest in this debate

you can continue to believe "Most" teams fire their GMs

 

In some respects not enough blame has been sent Trevor Linden's way

He Hired Jim and then let his own position slip away

Kind of makes you wonder about Trevor's character evaluatons

 

Good teams don't fire their Presidents either

the Canucks have fired Burke, Gillis, Linden and Benning

and that is just during the Aqua era

 

anyway, carry on, I'll lock horns with you again on a more current topic

cheers

For someone who claimed I was ultrafocused on Canucks GMs, you seem to be pretty focused on Canucks GMs.

 

Sure, we can agree to disagree, but I'm pretty confident that, as soon as you look outside of the Canucks organization, you'd see the rest of the NHL isn't much different.

Edited February 23, 2023 by The Lock

[AnthonyG]

6 hours ago, jyu said:

1. I look at 2014-2019 as rebuilding years even though the team refused to use that word and I think he laid good foundation by hitting on the first rounders and surrounding them with good supplementary players. 

 

2. During that time, his greatest duds were Virtanen and Juolevi. Especially Juolevi, who didn't even make the NHL. At #5, you expect at least an NHL player. He was unlucky with injuries but I think the GM needs to own up for the failed first round picks, especially if it's #5 or #6 overall picks. 

 

 

3. For the same reason, I wouldn't blame Gillis for not being able to draft players in the later rounds. Gillis didn't have much success in the first round: Hodgson (10), Schroeder (22), 2010 1st traded, Jensen (29), Gaunce (26), Horvat (9), Shinkaruk (26).

4. He was serving a different goal to that of Benning though.

 

1. 100% it was a stealth rebuild, I’ve said that myself as well. People dont realize what JB was doing, he had little to no trade chips to fast track any sort of retool/rebuild. He quietly moved guys out 1 by 1 while holding onto his 1st round picks and added 1 extra from the one and only trade chip that actually had value. It wasnt until JT Miller was available for a very reasonable price, which his value has skyrocketed since. Moving that 1st doesn’t hurt a rebuild as it netted an actual NHL impact player at a young age. Yes moving 9OA goes against a rebuild, however his intentions were to shape the backend that badly needed help AND still landed a young NHL player. I actually just met Guenther last night at the bar, really nice kid. He was a little bummed out he’s back in the WHL, but surely he is better suited there than rushed into the NHL.

 

2. Sure you can define Virtanen as a dud, he wasnt what everyone was expecting. However his career wasnt ended by his abilities to play hockey, it was a legal matter that had him removed from the NHL. What you have to admit, for a guy averaging less than 13mins TOI and a slightly less than 50% ozone deployment and little to no PP 1 time. Achieving 10, 15 and 18 goals is quite impressive. He was given no added opportunities to increase his offensive totals and played with several plugs.

As for Virtanen’s last season, he saw his ozone time completely diminished and getting 39%oZS all season with 12:15 TOI…. Good luck scoring. To me that is complete misusage of a player. Especially after he put up 18g and 18a the season prior in only 13:05 TOI. Who rewards a player after scoring the way he did, by demoting him?

Whats quite impressive is that in 38GP Virtanen was on for a total of 10 goals against. Thats ridiculous.

 

Juolevi…. You said it yourself, he was unlucky with injuries. So how is that on the GM to own up to that? That’s the thing that is infuriating with the majority of this fan base, crying and blaming a GM for picking a guy who was ranked the highest on avg out of all D in the 1st round and pretty much right around where he was taken, who had injuries pile up that required surgery. Not only that, he ended up being one of the hardest hit by COVID and lost a bunch of weight. Who knows, perhaps he is a long COVID sufferer?

You cant blame ANYONE for OJ. It’s just very unfortunate. So to me, its unfair to blame OJ or Benning, it was just bad luck and not all players are guarantees either.

 

3. Hodgson was a bad pick, but I understand you cant win them all. 

 

4. I have actually said it many times, when it comes to Gillis, I don’t blame him for going all in and sacrificing the future and leaving the cupboards empty. But this is ultimately the results of what happens when you sell the future and fail to draft. It sets you 5 years behind. Luckily JB had a pretty good drafting record without a top 3 pick, to quickly make up for the lack of talent in the system.

 

I appreciate the work you’ve put in, you’ve posted some really good material. 
 

Ultimately everyone will look back in a couple years and realize how much of an impact JB actually made. Because when this team is contending, it will be mainly all of his work, much like it was mainly Burke who put together the 2010-11 team. This core is soooo young, it just needs a little time to mature and reach their athletic prime.

[jyu]

6 minutes ago, AnthonyG said:

1. 100% it was a stealth rebuild, I’ve said that myself as well. People dont realize what JB was doing, he had little to no trade chips to fast track any sort of retool/rebuild. He quietly moved guys out 1 by 1 while holding onto his 1st round picks and added 1 extra from the one and only trade chip that actually had value. It wasnt until JT Miller was available for a very reasonable price, which his value has skyrocketed since. Moving that 1st doesn’t hurt a rebuild as it netted an actual NHL impact player at a young age. Yes moving 9OA goes against a rebuild, however his intentions were to shape the backend that badly needed help AND still landed a young NHL player. I actually just met Guenther last night at the bar, really nice kid. He was a little bummed out he’s back in the WHL, but surely he is better suited there than rushed into the NHL.

 

2. Sure you can define Virtanen as a dud, he wasnt what everyone was expecting. However his career wasnt ended by his abilities to play hockey, it was a legal matter that had him removed from the NHL. What you have to admit, for a guy averaging less than 13mins TOI and a slightly less than 50% ozone deployment and little to no PP 1 time. Achieving 10, 15 and 18 goals is quite impressive. He was given no added opportunities to increase his offensive totals and played with several plugs.

As for Virtanen’s last season, he saw his ozone time completely diminished and getting 39%oZS all season with 12:15 TOI…. Good luck scoring. To me that is complete misusage of a player. Especially after he put up 18g and 18a the season prior in only 13:05 TOI. Who rewards a player after scoring the way he did, by demoting him?

Whats quite impressive is that in 38GP Virtanen was on for a total of 10 goals against. Thats ridiculous.

 

Juolevi…. You said it yourself, he was unlucky with injuries. So how is that on the GM to own up to that? That’s the thing that is infuriating with the majority of this fan base, crying and blaming a GM for picking a guy who was ranked the highest on avg out of all D in the 1st round and pretty much right around where he was taken, who had injuries pile up that required surgery. Not only that, he ended up being one of the hardest hit by COVID and lost a bunch of weight. Who knows, perhaps he is a long COVID sufferer?

You cant blame ANYONE for OJ. It’s just very unfortunate. So to me, its unfair to blame OJ or Benning, it was just bad luck and not all players are guarantees either.

 

3. Hodgson was a bad pick, but I understand you cant win them all. 

 

4. I have actually said it many times, when it comes to Gillis, I don’t blame him for going all in and sacrificing the future and leaving the cupboards empty. But this is ultimately the results of what happens when you sell the future and fail to draft. It sets you 5 years behind. Luckily JB had a pretty good drafting record without a top 3 pick, to quickly make up for the lack of talent in the system.

 

I appreciate the work you’ve put in, you’ve posted some really good material. 
 

Ultimately everyone will look back in a couple years and realize how much of an impact JB actually made. Because when this team is contending, it will be mainly all of his work, much like it was mainly Burke who put together the 2010-11 team. This core is soooo young, it just needs a little time to mature and reach their athletic prime.

Thanks. You have good points. I see your point regarding JV and OJ. 

JV was actually legally cleared so if it wasn’t for that, he would still be playing. 
 

I’m still thinking that OJ is on JB.  Clearly, there was a better player available in Tkachuk.  See the rankings here: http://www.mynhldraft.com/2016-draft/nhl-draft-rankings/. 

 

So I’m under the impression that we prioritized position over BPA. 
 

Injuries have certainly prevented OJ from making progress and COVID may have ended it. I was hoping he could turn into a top 4 and at the least a serviceable bottom pairing defenceman. 

 

[jyu]

1 hour ago, Viper007 said:

We need to define exactly what a NHLer is also.

 

If it's just a game played in the NHL.  Then both Juolevi and JV are NHLers, as in they still played games in the league.  JV technically is still a NHLer in regards to the stats in my opinion.  If he didn't have the legal issues, I'm sure he'd still be playing in the league.

It’s not easy i guess. Maybe games played for your team and stats?

 

You are right about JV. He played enough games and have the stats to qualify as an NHLer.  

[AnthonyG]

9 hours ago, kilgore said:

  I understand the concept of prospects needing time to develop (or not)

 

.................

 

"Lets take Gillis's drafting out of that initial equation in that LOVELY chart you provided.

Drafting during Benning's tenure 2014-20

 

VAN - 662

 

Now lets look at your Boy Gillis's drafting compared to his counterparts around the league from 2010-2013 those other 4 drafts you seem to think is JBs responsibility

 

VANCOUVER CANUCKS - 549"

 

...................

 

So in that post, the way you presented your facts, only revealed that by average based on number of seasons, Gillis performed significantly better.  Blame the messenger......you!

 

Are you feelin alright dude?? Just want to quickly point out 662 is a greater number than 549. Soooo like idk where you keep getting this idea Gillis was more successful?

 

You make zero sense. And clearly you do understand development, time or accumulation of GP.

YOUR LOGIC… is that based on 4 drafts vs 7 drafts… Gillis is better because he had less drafts and just over 100 less games played….? YIKES. Idk what to say man, you might want to stop talking, because this is getting more and more embarrassing for you. No offence, I’m honestly not trying to be a dick, I dont understand how you can come up with such logic?

 

Just follow me for a minute….

 

for arguments sake, we’ll just keep to a simple 82 game season format.

If a player is drafted in 2010… that is 12 full seasons since they were drafted.

12x82=984 thats nearly 1000 games.

 

Meanwhile any draft picks in 2020 that need a couple years in the minors… are just stepping onto the ice, while a guy from 2010 is closing in on 1000gp.

 

so realistically 2020 is a long shot for most picks to even play a single game, because they likely arent ready to make the jump. So you likely wont see many if any games from 3rd rounders and beyond in 2020. Which as a matter of fact there have been a total of 101GP from rounds 3-7. 2019 is also another draft that shows players drafted that year are still developing with just over 400 games played from a total of 21 players… equating to roughly 20 games played over the course of 4 seasons.

 

Any of this making sense yet? Because now I’m going to point out what the most possible GP could be from a player drafted in 2014 using an 82 game format to keep it simple.

8x82 = 656

984>656

984-656= 328

Gillis’s draft pick from 2010 has a possible 328 game head start. Theoretically it would take a 2014 draft pick, his entire career, to catch up and beat the GP from a guy drafted 4 years prior. Because hes over 300 games behind.
 

Gillis is NOWHERE NEAR what JB has done at the draft table in ANY round. The fact JBs draft picks have already surpassed Gillis’s with less games played and a 4 year late start, goes to show Gills literally drafted almost absolutely nothing. Ben f***ing Hutton and Bo Horvat. Oh and Connauton…although he isnt really in the NHL…so idk, sure you can have that one for free. That  is all. Hodgson’s career was short. 

 

I’m sorry dude, but you have a completely flawed logic. If you cant figure this out, I’m honestly concerned. Because this really shouldnt be this difficult

[DSVII]

Good post @jyu

 

Quote

although I don't know how they defined a star in compiling the stats shared by @DSVII.

As per the graph, they define a hit as 200 NHL games played. And a star as 200 games plus 0.7 points per game for Forwards and 0.45 points per game for Defense

 

Quote

'd say that for one picking in the top 5 or top 10, you are rebuilding/retooling so you want to identify and draft star players into your core. For the one that is picking in the 20+, your success at the draft should be measured by the number of NHL games they play for you as your team is already in contention and those guys can help make the final push.

 

I think we need some more nuance in this. I agree games played is a decent metric, but you also need to somehow measure the quality of those games played and their contributions to the team. Not to mention games played is team agnostic, as you said, McCann is a fine pick, I agree, but his GP went onto other teams. Games Played too, we won't know the full effect until maybe a decade later, and we can't really make a judgement call of a GM until enough time has passed.

 

I've toyed with the idea of seeing if we can quantify trades by GMs based on production traded for and away per game or TOI maybe. Again, i don't have the answer. I think there needs to be something that should speak to the quality of a GP. (i.e 50 games of Myers versus 50 games of Hughes should not be equal).

 

Quote

The league wide success rate as per @DSVIIis about 50% for 20-30 range and 78% for picks 6-10.

I'm actually way more granular than that. I believe each draft pick has it's own unique probability and value. Otherwise going by that average a GM shouldn't care whether they have the 21st pick or the 29th pick. Considering we see GMs trade multiple 2nds and 3rds to move up even a few spots should discount that. The range was a way for the analyst to simplify the entire draft down to a digestible view. But I don't want to do the math and I don't expect you to either haha

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by DSVII

[AnthonyG]

43 minutes ago, jyu said:

I’m still thinking that OJ is on JB.  Clearly, there was a better player available in Tkachuk.  See the rankings here: http://www.mynhldraft.com/2016-draft/nhl-draft-rankings/. 

 

So I’m under the impression that we prioritized position over BPA. 
 

Injuries have certainly prevented OJ from making progress and COVID may have ended it. I was hoping he could turn into a top 4 and at the least a serviceable bottom pairing defenceman. 

 

The pick is on JB yes, but the outcome was neither on JB or OJ, so to me thats just a wash. It wasnt IQ or anything to do with hockey, it was health. 
 

Yea I went through that before and based on all the projections OJ was the highest ranked on average. 
 

At some point, you need to cut bait and go for organizational needs. Our last 1st round dman was drafted in 2005 and he tragically lost his life. At some point you need to go for organizational needs, otherwise you’re never going to address the actual needs of the organization. Its not like OJ was waaay off the board, he was taken within 1 spot of his final ranking on June 20th. It wasnt a massive gamble, it was a very safe and logical bet to make. Unfortunately it all came down to health after that. Like if OJ remained healthy and was able to play remotely close to a 5th overall pick… There would be zero cares whatsoever about Tkachuk and anyone taken after. 
Look at JP… consensus 3rd and possibly heading on waivers. I bet Edmonton wishes they took Tkachuk. 

[Fred65]

3 hours ago, jyu said:

I'd say that for one picking in the top 5 or top 10, you are rebuilding/retooling so you want to identify and draft star players into your core. For the one that is picking in the 20+, your success at the draft should be measured by the number of NHL games they play for you as your team is already in contention and those guys can help make the final push.

 

Let's look at Gillis first.

 

The league wide success rate as per @DSVIIis about 50% for 20-30 range and 78% for picks 6-10.

 

Gillis's hit rate in the 20+ range was 0-for-4 (2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 -- Shinkaruk). Very poor indeed. He traded away a first in 2010 even, so he had one less at bat.

 

And in fact, he really could have saved himself if he hit on these picks from 2009 to 2011 because the core players really needed a push in 2012-2015.

 

His hit rate on picks 6-10 range was 2-for-2: 2008 (Hodgson) and 2013 (Horvat). Horvat can be considered a star (2-time all star) so he did very well there -- although I don't know how they defined a star in compiling the stats shared by @DSVII.

 

Hodgson, well, he was a bonafide NHLer but his career was shortened and Gillis made a trade for Kassian who didn't pan out. In the end Hodgson didn't play enough games for us, like 70 games. So from that perspective, Hodgson could be seen as failed draft pick.

 

Although Gillis didn't do great at the draft table, I have and would like to defend Gillis. Gillis's priorities were to win the cup. Drafting and filling the prospect pool was not his primary goal, which he himself regretted later. The cap has been in place only for a few years when he took over and some teams were still going for the cup by mortgaging he future like the pre-cap era and for those teams, they did not put enough emphasis on picks.

 

The trend is completely different now. If Gillis were the GM now and he had the same team, I bet you Gillis will perform better at the draft.

 

As for Benning...

 

The hit rate on picks in the range 2-5 is 93%. His went 1-for-2 as he hit on Petey but struck out on Juolevi. On the surface, it looks like he didn't do well there... but then, on the metric of finding a star player, he succeeded. The league wide rate for finding a star with picks 2-5 is only 34% (I'm surprised to be honest -- I thought it would be much higher).

 

His hit rate on 6-10 is 1-for-2. Win on Hughes but lost on Virtanen -- I'm not counting Podz for now. The league wide success rate is 78% and for finding star is 13%. So again, he find a star player.

 

And he also hit on range 20-30: McCann and Boeser. McCann didn't play enough games for us and the subsequent trade didn't work out so maybe that is a failed pick but Boeser is still on the team and have played 370 games for us. We all have our opinion on Boeser these days but I'd say that pick was a success.

 

So Benning went 1-for-2 in that range. 

 

I honestly think he wasn't bad at all.

 

Let me put it this way. If he has hit on JV pick and OJ pick, say he got Ehlers and Sergachev.... He would be the only GM that I can think of, that have hit on all 100% of his 1st rounders.

 

 

 

 

 

I understand your compulsion to pay homage to the draft, all well and good. The fact is the NHL is about winning the Stanley Cup. You get a big shiny cup but there is no prize for drafting. You can draft as well as can be expected and still end up with a losing franchise. If JV had been this, or OJ had been that ( If's buts candies or nuts ) to put it bluntly they were to high high picks and he you might add McCann because he traded him for a goon named Gudbranson. That's where the management kicks in. The drafting of JV & OJ set thiss franchise back years where does that stat appear. I will not judge a team simply because of drafting I prefer to judge it by it's success and in that reagrd JB was a failure  Plus it's going to take a long time just, just, to sort out the Cap mess, thank you Jimbo, "you know what I mean" 

[spook007]

6 hours ago, lmm said:

Bill LaForge was a bad coach

he lasted 20 games

If a GM allows bad coaching to hang around for 8 years, it's on the GM

Likewise if the Prez allows a bad GM ... oh wait

 

at least Darryl Sutter fired himself

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah true... 

Willie was sacked, and then Green hired...

Have to wonder though, if JB was told from above that he would not get to choose another coach?

Green should never had been extended and definitely not the defensive guru Baumer

So yes thats on JB...

 

[spook007]

6 hours ago, jyu said:

I'd say that for one picking in the top 5 or top 10, you are rebuilding/retooling so you want to identify and draft star players into your core. For the one that is picking in the 20+, your success at the draft should be measured by the number of NHL games they play for you as your team is already in contention and those guys can help make the final push.

 

Let's look at Gillis first.

 

The league wide success rate as per @DSVIIis about 50% for 20-30 range and 78% for picks 6-10.

 

Gillis's hit rate in the 20+ range was 0-for-4 (2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 -- Shinkaruk). Very poor indeed. He traded away a first in 2010 even, so he had one less at bat.

 

And in fact, he really could have saved himself if he hit on these picks from 2009 to 2011 because the core players really needed a push in 2012-2015.

 

His hit rate on picks 6-10 range was 2-for-2: 2008 (Hodgson) and 2013 (Horvat). Horvat can be considered a star (2-time all star) so he did very well there -- although I don't know how they defined a star in compiling the stats shared by @DSVII.

 

Hodgson, well, he was a bonafide NHLer but his career was shortened and Gillis made a trade for Kassian who didn't pan out. In the end Hodgson didn't play enough games for us, like 70 games. So from that perspective, Hodgson could be seen as failed draft pick.

 

Although Gillis didn't do great at the draft table, I have and would like to defend Gillis. Gillis's priorities were to win the cup. Drafting and filling the prospect pool was not his primary goal, which he himself regretted later. The cap has been in place only for a few years when he took over and some teams were still going for the cup by mortgaging he future like the pre-cap era and for those teams, they did not put enough emphasis on picks.

 

The trend is completely different now. If Gillis were the GM now and he had the same team, I bet you Gillis will perform better at the draft.

 

As for Benning...

 

The hit rate on picks in the range 2-5 is 93%. His went 1-for-2 as he hit on Petey but struck out on Juolevi. On the surface, it looks like he didn't do well there... but then, on the metric of finding a star player, he succeeded. The league wide rate for finding a star with picks 2-5 is only 34% (I'm surprised to be honest -- I thought it would be much higher).

 

His hit rate on 6-10 is 1-for-2. Win on Hughes but lost on Virtanen -- I'm not counting Podz for now. The league wide success rate is 78% and for finding star is 13%. So again, he find a star player.

 

And he also hit on range 20-30: McCann and Boeser. McCann didn't play enough games for us and the subsequent trade didn't work out so maybe that is a failed pick but Boeser is still on the team and have played 370 games for us. We all have our opinion on Boeser these days but I'd say that pick was a success.

 

So Benning went 1-for-2 in that range. 

 

I honestly think he wasn't bad at all.

 

Let me put it this way. If he has hit on JV pick and OJ pick, say he got Ehlers and Sergachev.... He would be the only GM that I can think of, that have hit on all 100% of his 1st rounders.

 

 

 

 

 

Great very ballanced post @jyu  Bravo. 

[The Lock]

10 hours ago, Fred65 said:

I understand your compulsion to pay homage to the draft, all well and good. The fact is the NHL is about winning the Stanley Cup. You get a big shiny cup but there is no prize for drafting. You can draft as well as can be expected and still end up with a losing franchise. If JV had been this, or OJ had been that ( If's buts candies or nuts ) to put it bluntly they were to high high picks and he you might add McCann because he traded him for a goon named Gudbranson. That's where the management kicks in. The drafting of JV & OJ set thiss franchise back years where does that stat appear. I will not judge a team simply because of drafting I prefer to judge it by it's success and in that reagrd JB was a failure  Plus it's going to take a long time just, just, to sort out the Cap mess, thank you Jimbo, "you know what I mean" 

Imagine if we had a Karlsson and Palmieri instead of Hodgson and Schroeder for the SCF of 2011. 

 

Edit: Or, if they weren't ready by 2011, at least imagine how much better we'd be afterwards. Perhaps we wouldn't have even needed a "retool". Let me make one thing clear: I picture Benning and Gillis to be... about the same, so if you think I'm saying these things as an excuse for Benning, I'm not. They were both bad in the end.

Edited February 23, 2023 by The Lock

[alt kilgore]

13 hours ago, AnthonyG said:

Are you feelin alright dude?? Just want to quickly point out 662 is a greater number than 549. Soooo like idk where you keep getting this idea Gillis was more successful?

 

You make zero sense. And clearly you do understand development, time or accumulation of GP.

YOUR LOGIC… is that based on 4 drafts vs 7 drafts… Gillis is better because he had less drafts and just over 100 less games played….? YIKES. Idk what to say man, you might want to stop talking, because this is getting more and more embarrassing for you. No offence, I’m honestly not trying to be a dick, I dont understand how you can come up with such logic?

 

Just follow me for a minute….

 

for arguments sake, we’ll just keep to a simple 82 game season format.

If a player is drafted in 2010… that is 12 full seasons since they were drafted.

12x82=984 thats nearly 1000 games.

 

Meanwhile any draft picks in 2020 that need a couple years in the minors… are just stepping onto the ice, while a guy from 2010 is closing in on 1000gp.

 

so realistically 2020 is a long shot for most picks to even play a single game, because they likely arent ready to make the jump. So you likely wont see many if any games from 3rd rounders and beyond in 2020. Which as a matter of fact there have been a total of 101GP from rounds 3-7. 2019 is also another draft that shows players drafted that year are still developing with just over 400 games played from a total of 21 players… equating to roughly 20 games played over the course of 4 seasons.

 

Any of this making sense yet? Because now I’m going to point out what the most possible GP could be from a player drafted in 2014 using an 82 game format to keep it simple.

8x82 = 656

984>656

984-656= 328

Gillis’s draft pick from 2010 has a possible 328 game head start. Theoretically it would take a 2014 draft pick, his entire career, to catch up and beat the GP from a guy drafted 4 years prior. Because hes over 300 games behind.
 

Gillis is NOWHERE NEAR what JB has done at the draft table in ANY round. The fact JBs draft picks have already surpassed Gillis’s with less games played and a 4 year late start, goes to show Gills literally drafted almost absolutely nothing. Ben f***ing Hutton and Bo Horvat. Oh and Connauton…although he isnt really in the NHL…so idk, sure you can have that one for free. That  is all. Hodgson’s career was short. 

 

I’m sorry dude, but you have a completely flawed logic. If you cant figure this out, I’m honestly concerned. Because this really shouldnt be this difficult

 

Can I have some dressing with that salad?

 

Hey, I would have gladly agreed that Gillis Achilles heel was his drafting.  Of course he didn't come in claiming to be an expert drafter unlike another GM.  But I'd have given you that point because even if under Benning, the amateur scouting was better (with Brackett), it was what Benning did after draft day where he made most of his blunders.

But you are the one who decided to prove on paper for all to see how bad Gillis was in comparison. So I can only go by what you put down pal.

 

"Lets take Gillis's drafting out of that initial equation in that LOVELY chart you provided.

Drafting during Benning's tenure 2014-20

 

VAN - 662

 

Now lets look at your Boy Gillis's drafting compared to his counterparts around the league from 2010-2013 those other 4 drafts you seem to think is JBs responsibility

 

VANCOUVER CANUCKS - 549"

 

 

 

That is from the chart you posted.

Here's some maths from that for you;

 

Benning:  662 ÷ 7 years = yearly average output of 94.57  players

 

Gillis:  549 ÷ 4 years = yearly average output of 137.25 players

 

 

You can add on all kinds of qualifiers about Gillis picks getting a longer chance to develop, but we all know that if a junior player hasn't made the big club after something like 5 or 6 seasons, he's probably not going to make it.   And 2.5 years since JB's 2020 draft is enough time to at least get a good idea if a player will be more than long shot.

 

Even adjusting them down somewhat to compensate your concerns, and that brought them more even, still all you did by posting that chart result was proving to me and others here that Gillis actually wasn't as bad as we thought in the draft department, maybe in the first but not in later rounds. Good to know.

 

But again, I think I have to end with repeating this....drafting, especially knowing everything about every player in the later rounds, is not the main part of a GMs job.  And was never the main criticism of JB.  See, I even gave you an out for JB's underwhelming 3rd round and later draft numbers. You're welcome.

[Fred65]

3 hours ago, The Lock said:

Imagine if we had a Karlsson and Palmieri instead of Hodgson and Schroeder for the SCF of 2011. 

 

Edit: Or, if they weren't ready by 2011, at least imagine how much better we'd be afterwards. Perhaps we wouldn't have even needed a "retool". Let me make one thing clear: I picture Benning and Gillis to be... about the same, so if you think I'm saying these things as an excuse for Benning, I'm not. They were both bad in the end.

Maybe you're right, but the common denominator is Aquallini.

 

For me I enjoyed the success of Gillis. I have had season tickets for decades and enjoyed the Gillis era simply because I generally left Rogers with a smile. In addition I like to listen to intelligent people, I appreciate and can maybe learn a thing or two. I could appreceate Gillis partly because he reviewed every aspect of the franchise and upgraded where necassary. For instance we have Abbotsford because of the Gillis push, he hired Gilman  and Brackett and openly disclosed later he was slow off the mark chnaging the scouting staff, he could tell you without qualms if he erred and to be perfectly honest Aquallini played to the crowd, a few ignorant supposed fans. I also liked the fact that all the other GM's in the league who know far, far more about the job than any of us voted him GM of the year, I take note of things such as that. Many can offer excuses about the fact about him being the most successfull GM in fanchise history (especially those that think drafting is the be all and end all ) and what he was left with roster players but the fact is he did add a lot of quality to the team and I liked that, did he make errors .... for sure but they were few and far between. JB rinsed repeated again and again. The Cap situation is now dire

[The Lock]

38 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Maybe you're right, but the common denominator is Aquallini.

 

For me I enjoyed the success of Gillis. I have had season tickets for decades and enjoyed the Gillis era simply because I generally left Rogers with a smile. In addition I like to listen to intelligent people, I appreciate and can maybe learn a thing or two. I could appreceate Gillis partly because he reviewed every aspect of the franchise and upgraded where necassary. For instance we have Abbotsford because of the Gillis push, he hired Gilman  and Brackett and openly disclosed later he was slow off the mark chnaging the scouting staff, he could tell you without qualms if he erred and to be perfectly honest Aquallini played to the crowd, a few ignorant supposed fans. I also liked the fact that all the other GM's in the league who know far, far more about the job than any of us voted him GM of the year, I take note of things such as that. Many can offer excuses about the fact about him being the most successfull GM in fanchise history (especially those that think drafting is the be all and end all ) and what he was left with roster players but the fact is he did add a lot of quality to the team and I liked that, did he make errors .... for sure but they were few and far between. JB rinsed repeated again and again. The Cap situation is now dire

It's great if you enjoy the success. I'm not going to stop you from enjoying anything and success on this team is success at the end of the day. That's definately not what I mean to debate in all of this.

 

I will also agree that I think Acquillini's the common denominator. I'd even go one step further and say I don't really have a lot of faith even now that Benning's gone. Perhaps it should be noted that my thing is this: I will defend a move if there's some sense to it, so often it looks like I am a fanboy when really I'm probably just more patient and I tend to not want an ulcer if there's a chance things will work if that makes sense. I can see good in the Horvat trade. I hate how Boudreau was handled. Most of all, this phrase of "retool" that we hear over and over again makes this whole thing feel like a broken record.

 

However, like pretty much all previous GMs, this current management will bring some value to this team. They will also detract some value from this team. As you've said, there's a common denominator: Acquilini. This is the same with Benning who added value and detracted value, and Gillis who, again, added value and detracted value. I guess what I'm saying is there's going to be good and bad no matter the GM.

 

I guess maybe for me with Gillis, I think he was so smart that he started to overthink. He also didn't really have any experience as a GM. Even Benning arguably had more experience coming into things as an assistant GM. I remember with Gillis, our draft pool became an experiment where he thought he knew a better way (but clearly didn't given the lack of success in the draft). I remember there were huge debates on this forum how Gillis would never make a hockey trade. Don't get me wrong, Ehrhoff was a great trade, but there were not a ton of great trades that Gillis made outside of that it felt, at least not as impactful as that one trade. After 2011, an aging core became apparent, and nothing seemed to get done about that, Much like how Benning was attached to Green, Gillis seemed rather attached to that core.

 

I guess, keep in mind with all of this: I was there. I was on this forum when Gillis was around. I was active when Gillis was around. I was even vocal when Gillis was around. I defended Gillis a lot. I defended Hodgson. I defended Schroeder's small size and a whole bunch of things. I was also there when things went downhill. It wasn't fun and there was good reason for people to be upset. It's not much different than how Boudreau was handled last month really.

 

Edit: Just one more thing I should add (I had to go do work while I was typing before lol). I guess, my hope with all of my babbling here, is just to show that there's a bigger picture in all of this and not one GM or management group is going to look perfect. One GM's decisions are largely affected by a previous GM's decisions. It easily becomes a blur when looking at all of this and perhaps also makes it easy to look at some points while ignoring other points that might be just as relevant. It'll be interesting if, in a few years time, we have people saying what you're saying about Gillis now, but with Benning. It's a never ending cycle. lol

Edited February 23, 2023 by The Lock

[Fred65]

I was there during the Gillis era too!  He was smart and I enjoyed that. Many felt threatened. Those closest to Gillis was Quinn. I alway get a kick out of the fans that are always shouting shoot as if they some how some way were better than the players. There's a lot of fans have no idea what they're watching. Every time we see mention of Abbotsford say thank you Mike LOL  Sadly it's taken 8 years of ineptitude to make it a true develpment tool and thats on JB

Edited February 23, 2023 by Fred65

[EP Phone Home]

No matter who the former GM we are bickering about. I just want our amateur scouting to focus more on RSD. It’s been a black eye for this franchise, no excuses not to be drafting them. Yes they aren’t a sexy pick with godly numbers but who gives a dusty puck. We have our elite PMD with Hughes. We need at least two defensive minded right hand D. You overpay in free agency, you give up so many assets in trade. We need to draft and develop an army of D so we can be a more balanced roster on the big club and in the system. It takes time to have those prospects develop so we really have to get going here before we waste Petey and Hughes prime seasons. This is all that matters is fixing the D. Something that the previous regimes have neglected. I will say that MG found Tanev as a college FA and JB drafted Forsling and Hughes. Sadly we need more then that. What do we want? D! When do we want it?! Yesterday! 

[alt kilgore]

20 hours ago, jyu said:

Thanks. 
 

I replied your points one by one. 
 

Overall I agree with you that Accelerating the rebuild doesn’t work in general. Benning tried anyways and in the end, it set us back. But if it worked, he would have pulled off the impossible. And I think he may have been able to pull it off if not for his questionable roster moves post-2020 playoffs and COVID punishing his lenient cap usage. 

 

I don’t want to argue for or against specific moves but i think getting sutter was good. I would not want Pettersson doing the tough match up while still needing to develop his game, same with Bo earlier on. 

 

Gudbrason was a bad move for sure. Gave up on McCann too quick. Same with Forsling, I personally did not like that move to get Clendening myself. 
 

He stated on many occasions that he wanted to surround the young guys with vets. You don’t want Edmonton Oilers, where guys like Hall and RNH were expected to play like a seasoned vet from the getgo. Getting the vets in the right age group was to avoid running the prospects. Some moves went bad, some moves were OK, and some went well in my opinion. 

 

You can’t compare to Gillis promoting players from within like Kesler, Schneider, Burrows, because they were in the system well before Gillis arrived. Juice in 2001. Kesler drafted in 2003. Edler, Schneids, Hansen in 2004. Raymond in 2005. These guys have been in the system developing for 3-5 years before Gillis even got there. 
 

Benning had none. Like literally zero player ready to step in when he took over in 2014. He had Bo and Marky in the system but they needed further development. Bo made it in 2015 and slowly worked his way up the line up, he was mentored by guys like Sedins and Sutter.  Marky around 2016 and full time in 2017. He too was mentored by an experienced vet in Miller… Ryan Miller. 
 

And Gillis had prime Sedins and Luongo, to go along with those young NHL players.  Sedins were already PPG players and Luongo was considered a top 3 goalie in the league at the time. And obviously they would go on to become hall of famers.  Benning didnt have a core of hall of famers.  He didnt even have young NHL roster players. Instead he was left with an aging core who all had NMC or NTC. 

 

Hmm. This bolded point assumes that if JB didnt trade for say Gudbransons or Sutters, we would have performed better — that by making these moves he ended up actually rebuilding insted of turning it around.  Correct?

 

If he didn’t make those moves, we would have performed more or less the same: 2nd worst in the league for two consecutive seasons in 2016 and 2017. I dont think those moves did anything other than trading away prospects — which i agree were poor decisions. 

 

 

Two that are playing are not just playing though. One is a top 10, arguably a top 5 center in the league. The other guy is a top 5 puck possession defenceman in the league. Two that are not playing, yes that is unfortunate. I wish we picked Ehlers and Chychrun or Sergachev. 

 

the team was going to rebuild with or without those moves. It wasn’t accidental. When all you have are 30+ year olds with literally no young player or prospects, rebuild is inevitable no matter what benning did or didn’t do. 
 

My regret is, that he and the owner should have accepted this inevitable rebuild and to have rebuild methodically instead of making moves that didn’t make much difference only to waste assets. This is exactly what Linden was saying and he was shown  the door. 

 

hmmm but 2018 was when things started to look better for the first time in years. Petey came into the league. Then QH at the end of the season. And Brock still had the upsides and Bo as well.  You mean we should have stripped down at that point and go for a top pick in 2020 and 2021?

 

interesting. Maybe you have a good point there. We sure could use a defenceman or two now. 

 

Yes he was swinging for the fences. Getting Miller helped make this team better for the short term for sure. I don’t regret that trade though. 
 

As @Alflives claims, it’s the owner!! #selltheteam

 

You have to acknowledge that he had to fill the NHL roster as well as fill the prospect pipeline. Balancing that is near impossible. In the end, he didn’t pull it off but he at least let us some good pieces behind so that doing a retool actually might work this time. 
 

Like Gillis, Allvin was left with two potential hall of famers in Petey and Hughes as well as a top ten goalie in Demko. And not too barren of a prospect pool with Podz, Hogs, Klim, Rathbone, Jurmo, which have since then been upgraded with Lekkerinaki and Raty and two high picks in 2023. 
 

 

Thanks for the detailed response.

Again, I agree with most of it.

A few counter points.

 

With Sutter, it wasn't that he didn't provide anything.  It was that he was overpaid for what he brought. 5 x $4.375 million.  Another unnecessary bite out of the cap.  Benning was continually paying more than market for acquisitions and re-signings. Case in point Pearson.  Every hockey pundit at the time was saying he could be re-signed, especially in the COVID flat cap era, when players were more desperate to sign, for between 2 and 2.5 cap.  JB didn't even try. He just handed out a 3.25 x 3 to him no questions.

 

 

"If he didn’t make those moves, we would have performed more or less the same: 2nd worst in the league for two consecutive seasons in 2016 and 2017. I dont think those moves did anything other than trading away prospects — which i agree were poor decisions."

 

But that was part of the problem. Trading away too many prospects.  You say we'd have performed no worse. Fine, but we also gave away McCann, and a second, who turned into Rasmus Asplund, who now is in his fourth season with the Sabres.

 

 

"the team was going to rebuild with or without those moves. It wasn’t accidental. When all you have are 30+ year olds with literally no young player or prospects, rebuild is inevitable no matter what benning did or didn’t do. "

 

Were they though?  Are they now even? I think your definition of a rebuild might be different than mine.  To my eyes, it seems like Benning was doing his best to not only avoid a rebuild but sabotage any attempts to for years ahead.  coughOELcough.  If all you have are 30+ players and no young players or prospects, a rebuild is NOT inevitable. Its the prudent thing to do, but its not inevitable. Not as long as there are free agents to tempt macaroni GMs like Benning to try and patch the holes.

 

Now a caveat to that is obviously a rebuiild will eventually be inevitable if a GM and owner keep up this unsustainable way to build a team.  Eventually it will collapse into itself. And it was getting close. Which is why I said that JB could have even started a full rebuild as late as 2019.  Because the team never got much better.  With Petey, Hughes, Demko, and to a lesser extent Podz, Hogz, and Boeser, as his new young core, yeah, I think JB still had one more shot at finally doing a proper rebuild even then. Kept the #1 round and #3 round pick instead of Miller.  Who I agree with you that I liked the signing for the team's sake, in purely hockey move, but was maybe the wrong timing. But I love having Miller on the team.  And would rather have him over Bo any day, which a lot don't agree with. But imagine the picks/prospects we could have acquired from trading Bo, and keeping the picks we gave away for Miller.  And the picks for OEL but that's another post.  And watched as they developed behind this young core in the last few seasons. Yes we do have a few promising prospects but how many more, and more talented ones, we will never know.  We needed an army!

 

One can always point to Edmonton to be afraid of going too young, but for every Edmonton there's a New York (Rangers) who wrote a note to the fans in 2018 to expect pain, and now are one of the top teams in the East.

 

Now? i believe its too late for a full rebuild.  Not if want to give Petey and Hughes any chance in the next couple of years, and before they are grizzled vets. Or worse, before Petey asks out.  It still could all work out.  JR needs some luck. But if he performs a miracle, and is able to, say, move Myers out. Or him AND OEL would be incredible. And actually find a decent replacement or two back there, with Demko hopefully back in form, and with our high powered offence with a newly signed Kuz, a healthy Mik, ya never know.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by kilgore