Jim Bennings legacy without the OEL trade. Grade him out of 10.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

You bet.   Yzerman is currently starting his fifth year.    Holland had several years to work on creating his post Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk group too.    Personally always felt whomever we got next, was really in for it,  and sure that played into JB getting extra time.   We had no prospects, a huge age gap in talent, virtually a decade between Nonis first draft and MG last (four and six)... Edler, Schneider, Brown, Hansen and Horvat.     Yikes.    There was some logic to JB using two of his second rounders for Vey and Bear.  We added a couple second rounders, and used them.    Also had an extra first (McAan) used up on Guddy, because we needed to work on virtually every position.    For a succession plan.  

 

Do I think JB was a good GM?  No I do not.   Ranked him a 4-4.5 not including his two dumbest moves.    Feel he bought himself extra time twice.   Once when his "re-tool" seemed to be clicking and we finished 7th overall.   That's a contender still maybe?   First round exit later.   Well maybe next year right?   Wrong.    Then he bought himself more time after the bubble.     The only reason he doesn't get a 2, was he was based on the strength of his drafting.   Not that it was awesome or anything.   It was above average.     Better than Holland managed.   Maybe better then Yzerman will manage too, hard to say yet.    Based on where he was drafting as well.   We kept getting boned with the lottery,  we should have drafted 3rd OJ's draft year.   That was our worst overall finish, aside from EPs draft year which I think we were supposed to draft second.  

 

As for trading picks.  Aside from the Miller trade which worked out great for the team,  and the OEL debacle,  we had one extra first and one less second overall.    JB used the little bit of extras (Garrison, Bieksa, coach Torts award) to try and plug some holes.    We had holes all over.   A decade of wholes.   We weren't going to fill all those up with free agents that's for sure.    That didn't work out great for us either.    

 

JB biggest failure was tactical.   Should have listened to Linden.    Team needed to properly bottom out.   And stop this idea we had to spend to the cap to create a competitive environment.   Nobody planned for covid, but the reality is, JB had zero business spending to the cap then.    Instead of trading our first for Miller and signing Myers, we should have paid our dues properly.   The Sedins were honoured, but it didn't help the team at all did it.   EP and QHs would be happier if we had a better chance of winning.    Instead of Miller and Myers we'd probably have 3-4 extra guys on the team now on first and second deals.   Whoops! 

 

Edit:  On JB drafting.  MG too.  And  Nonis aside from his first year.    Why the freaking heck, after that many years, can't we find even a Hansen after the second round?   Blows my mind.    Yes get that scouts consider a 100 games a win past the second round.   A big win.   And sure we did that with Gaudette.   And maybe even Brisbois and a couple other guys won't even bother checking.    Hansen was the last big win past the 3rd round,  and Edler our last big win as a third rounder.    That simply sucks.    EP and QHs are elite quality picks, with injury luck, on pace for the HHOF.   Back to back.   Like Kane and Toews.    Aside from Burkes draft gymnastic's it's only happened to us once all-time.    IF Allvin can fix and be the finisher we need, all isn't lost yet.   Good thing I wasn't drafting those years.   Wouldn't have picked either guy. 

More important, as much as I puke in mouth for giving praise to the punk Duncan Keith, drafting that **** in the 2nd round was a huge win.  Bigger than anything JB has done.  And it was followed up the next season by the 2nd half of the great shutdown pairing, Brent Seabrook (1st round but only 14th overall).  Byfuglien was drafted that year (in the 8th friggin round out of the WHL - I guess Ron Delorme was scouting in Sweden again at the time).  Which goes to your point of, it all fine and dandy to draft two possible HHOFers but you have to surround those players with a supporting cast.  Something JB was unable to do in 7 years (either by draft or trade).  

Edited June 23, 2023 by NewbieCanuckFan

[jyu]

On 6/22/2023 at 2:14 AM, iinatcc said:

Thomas Drance actually debunked that belief that Benning was put in a tough position inheriting what Gillis left. 

 

And he has a point. Even if the prospect pool was quite empty, Benning had tradable assets in the current roster. Kesler, Garrison, Bieksa, Hansen, Edler and Hamhius were all tradeable if he wanted to go that direction and Benning did have a pretty good amount of cap space heading to free agency and a compliance buyout was still available at the time.

 

Heck he had 2 first round picks and additional 2nd and 3rd round picks n his initial draft when he traded Garrison and Kesler. It's on Benning for flipping the picks to Vey and Dorsett, selecting Virtanen and giving up on McCann 

 

So it's kind of an overblown narrative that Benning inherited a bad situation. He had all the assets in his arsenal to stockpile on assets to help rebuild / retool this team within 2 to 3 years time.

 

 

One omission with Drance's argument is that the mandate from the ownership was to win now as pointed out by IBatch:

 

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

It is moot because the team still wanted to try and win.    The 7th overall finish made it look like maybe it could work.   A lot of players did eventually waive, well after they had much value though.   Of that team: Kesler, Garrison, Burrows, Bieksa and Hansen.   Three core players, a once upon a time top four D and probably the best support player.    Too little too late for sure. 

7th overall finish indeed made it seem like it could work. 

 

And by the time we realized that it wasn't going to work and when some those guys were traded, the return was minimal. Burrows for Dahlen, Hansen for Goldobin, Bieksa for 2nd.

 

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Didn't those guys, including Garrison who was traded right away and Kesler who wanted out all have clauses, and didn't JB ask Edler to waive a couple times on his last deal and he wouldn't waive?   Bieksa, Hansen and Burrows all eventually were ok with been traded, well after their value had tanked, on their own terms to the teams they chose, because they were fully claused up.   That isn't fiction, it was reality.     It was MG biggest failure but worth the risk given it almost got us a cup.     Point is the player drives the bus when they have a full NTC or NMC.  

^ I agree with this 100%.

 

The part that hurt us the most was 2016 off season. After finishing 3rd worst in 2016, it was plainly obvious that Henrik Sedin was not a first line center anymore. Yet, they made some  dubious moves like Eriksson signing and Gudbranson trade to try to win now. Not to mention the failed Juolevi pick, which I could live with because we found cornerstone players in 2017 and 2018 but Eriksson contract haunted the team for a while and giving up McCann and additional 2nd for Guddy was a bad move.

 

 

2 hours ago, iinatcc said:

In the end Benning still got assets out of those players. Edler not but even w/o trading him Benning had enough tradeable assets to get picks and players to build the team long term.  

 

I think that was Drance's point. People seem to exaggerate how much what Gillis left behind was a determent to Benning's time as GM. Which I agree with, when you have 8 years to run a team you can't use the excuse that the previous GM did something to hinder the current guy.

I think those assets were moved a little too late due to the win now mandate from above. And he had already squandered 2nd rounders and McCann to try to build a winning team, and forgoing the opportunity to build a nice prospect pool using those assets. 

 

I think Gillis' job was easier because the state of the team and the mandate from the ownership aligned nicely. He already had cornerstone players in Sedins and Luongo to build around with plethora of young prospects about to hit their primes, Kesler, Hansen, Burrows, Raymond, Edler, Bieksa, and Schneider. He made nice signings and trades to supplement the team, Sundin, Samuelsson, Demitra, Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Malholtra and he already had a top 3RD in Salo on the roster.

 

If the mandate was to rebuild and Benning from the moment he took over, then I agree that Drance has a good point. The mandate was to win AND get younger. The two goals cannot be fulfilled at the same time.

 

But I do agree with you that when you have 8 years to run a team, then using the previous GM as an excuse doesn't work after a while. 

 

[jyu]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

You bet.   Yzerman is currently starting his fifth year.    Holland had several years to work on creating his post Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk group too.    Personally always felt whomever we got next, was really in for it,  and sure that played into JB getting extra time.   We had no prospects, a huge age gap in talent, virtually a decade between Nonis first draft and MG last (four and six)... Edler, Schneider, Brown, Hansen and Horvat.     Yikes.    There was some logic to JB using two of his second rounders for Vey and Bear.  We added a couple second rounders, and used them.    Also had an extra first (McAan) used up on Guddy, because we needed to work on virtually every position.    For a succession plan.  

 

Do I think JB was a good GM?  No I do not.   Ranked him a 4-4.5 not including his two dumbest moves.    Feel he bought himself extra time twice.   Once when his "re-tool" seemed to be clicking and we finished 7th overall.   That's a contender still maybe?   First round exit later.   Well maybe next year right?   Wrong.    Then he bought himself more time after the bubble.     The only reason he doesn't get a 2, was he was based on the strength of his drafting.   Not that it was awesome or anything.   It was above average.     Better than Holland managed.   Maybe better then Yzerman will manage too, hard to say yet.    Based on where he was drafting as well.   We kept getting boned with the lottery,  we should have drafted 3rd OJ's draft year.   That was our worst overall finish, aside from EPs draft year which I think we were supposed to draft second.  

 

As for trading picks.  Aside from the Miller trade which worked out great for the team,  and the OEL debacle,  we had one extra first and one less second overall.    JB used the little bit of extras (Garrison, Bieksa, coach Torts award) to try and plug some holes.    We had holes all over.   A decade of wholes.   We weren't going to fill all those up with free agents that's for sure.    That didn't work out great for us either.    

 

JB biggest failure was tactical.   Should have listened to Linden.    Team needed to properly bottom out.   And stop this idea we had to spend to the cap to create a competitive environment.   Nobody planned for covid, but the reality is, JB had zero business spending to the cap then.    Instead of trading our first for Miller and signing Myers, we should have paid our dues properly.   The Sedins were honoured, but it didn't help the team at all did it.   EP and QHs would be happier if we had a better chance of winning.    Instead of Miller and Myers we'd probably have 3-4 extra guys on the team now on first and second deals.   Whoops! 

 

Edit:  On JB drafting.  MG too.  And  Nonis aside from his first year.    Why the freaking heck, after that many years, can't we find even a Hansen after the second round?   Blows my mind.    Yes get that scouts consider a 100 games a win past the second round.   A big win.   And sure we did that with Gaudette.   And maybe even Brisbois and a couple other guys won't even bother checking.    Hansen was the last big win past the 3rd round,  and Edler our last big win as a third rounder.    That simply sucks.    EP and QHs are elite quality picks, with injury luck, on pace for the HHOF.   Back to back.   Like Kane and Toews.    Aside from Burkes draft gymnastic's it's only happened to us once all-time.    IF Allvin can fix and be the finisher we need, all isn't lost yet.   Good thing I wasn't drafting those years.   Wouldn't have picked either guy. 

Great post.

 

I hope all is not lost. Getting two quality players like Petey and Hughes gives you that perfect alignment of age and an extended window. The last time we had that was Sedins and Luongo (although Lu wasn't drafted by us). It would have been even more perfect had we gotten a star player in 2016 draft and we would be well out of the mushy middle ground that we are in right now.

 

I am cautiously optimistic that Allvin could be the guy to save what's left from Benning era. We will know more based on how he utilizes the new found cap space from OEL buyout.

 

For short-term contention, buying out OEL absolutely made sense and buys us some time. Years 3 and 4 might sting but maybe we will have an ELC contract playing over his pay grade to mitigate the pain.

 

And we don't have to contend every year, there will be some years where we take a step back and years 3 and 4 might be that. And those years can be used to draft high quality players and fill the pipeline of young players.

 

[iinatcc]

2 hours ago, jyu said:

One omission with Drance's argument is that the mandate from the ownership was to win now as pointed out by IBatch:

 

 

That is true. We all know how FA likes to retool on the fly. Having said that there were successful retools done recently that show even if Benning wasn't allowed to tear it all down it is possible. 

 

Some examples are the recent LA Kings, New York Rangers, and the Blues when they won the 2019 Stanley Cup. Even the Bruins have been retooling for more than a decade now and have been successful doing it. 

 

[IBatch]

48 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

That is true. We all know how FA likes to retool on the fly. Having said that there were successful retools done recently that show even if Benning wasn't allowed to tear it all down it is possible. 

 

Some examples are the recent LA Kings, New York Rangers, and the Blues when they won the 2019 Stanley Cup. Even the Bruins have been retooling for more than a decade now and have been successful doing it. 

 

Don't forget SJ and Dallas. 

[jyu]

3 hours ago, iinatcc said:

That is true. We all know how FA likes to retool on the fly. Having said that there were successful retools done recently that show even if Benning wasn't allowed to tear it all down it is possible. 

 

Some examples are the recent LA Kings, New York Rangers, and the Blues when they won the 2019 Stanley Cup. Even the Bruins have been retooling for more than a decade now and have been successful doing it. 

 

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Some teams have been able to retool on the fly.

 

Bruins are an interesting example. Their retool worked because they had Marchand and Bergeron, who were still in their 20's to build around. St. Louis also had some young players to retool around like Pietrangelo. 

 

In our case, the notion of retool just didn't make sense considering that Sedins were 34 years old when Benning took over.

 

It was an unsalvageable situation and we needed a deep rebuild. A forward thinking owner would have called for it in 2014. An average owner would have called for it in 2016 after a 3rd worst finish and watching the Sedins decline... and even the dumbest of the owners would have called for it in 2018 after the Sedins retired, the team had three consecutive years of bottom finishes, and your POHO openly comes out and calls for a rebuild.

 

Instead, FA let Linden walk, handed the reigns over to Benning. With no one to watch over Benning, he was free to make short-sighted decisions and it finally caught up to us due to COVID cap crunch.

 

 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

24 minutes ago, jyu said:

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Some teams have been able to retool on the fly.

 

Bruins are an interesting example. Their retool worked because they had Marchand and Bergeron, who were still in their 20's to build around. St. Louis also had some young players to retool around like Pietrangelo. 

 

In our case, the notion of retool just didn't make sense considering that Sedins were 34 years old when Benning took over.

 

It was an unsalvageable situation and we needed a deep rebuild. A forward thinking owner would have called for it in 2014. An average owner would have called for it in 2016 after a 3rd worst finish and watching the Sedins decline... and even the dumbest of the owners would have called for it in 2018 after the Sedins retired, the team had three consecutive years of bottom finishes, and your POHO openly comes out and calls for a rebuild.

 

Instead, FA let Linden walk, handed the reigns over to Benning. With no one to watch over Benning, he was free to make short-sighted decisions and it finally caught up to us due to COVID cap crunch.

 

 

Actually COVID bought Jim Benning time.  Don't forget the team was in a downward spiral prior to the season being cancelled early (it wasn't unlike how Torts had the Canucks actually in a playoff spot until February before the wheels fell off).  That & riding hot goaltending meant there wasn't like a 5 seasons of 'no playoffs' because of the 'play-in round' where due to in no small part to hot goaltending we advanced a few rounds.

[IBatch]

18 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Actually COVID bought Jim Benning time.  Don't forget the team was in a downward spiral prior to the season being cancelled early (it wasn't unlike how Torts had the Canucks actually in a playoff spot until February before the wheels fell off).  That & riding hot goaltending meant there wasn't like a 5 seasons of 'no playoffs' because of the 'play-in round' where due to in no small part to hot goaltending we advanced a few rounds.

MIN wasn't a patsy, same with St. Louis.   Vegas sure showed us how far we had to go though. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

4 minutes ago, IBatch said:

MIN wasn't a patsy, same with St. Louis.   Vegas sure showed us how far we had to go though. 

We had "elite" levels of goaltending (at least my opinion) from both Marky & Demko those series.  Vegas lacked the ability to finish off an opponent (which caught up with them in the Finals that season).  Almost bit Vegas in the ass against us.

 

edit:  I probably underrated JT Miller's performance that post-season upon recollection.

Edited June 23, 2023 by NewbieCanuckFan

[iinatcc]

29 minutes ago, IBatch said:

MIN wasn't a patsy, same with St. Louis.   Vegas sure showed us how far we had to go though. 

Reports were that the Blues didn't really want to be there. You could see this with the way they played their placement matches.  Vancouver was probably playing the Blues at 60% 

 

Vancouver was lucky to reach 7 games and that was all on Demko. Canucks has nothing left in the series against Vegas.  

Edited June 23, 2023 by iinatcc

[canuck73_3]

39 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

We had "elite" levels of goaltending (at least my opinion) from both Marky & Demko those series.  Vegas lacked the ability to finish off an opponent (which caught up with them in the Finals that season).  Almost bit Vegas in the ass against us.

 

edit:  I probably underrated JT Miller's performance that post-season upon recollection.

JT Bo, Petey and Demko were beasts that post season, Marky started well and tapered off 

[jyu]

1 hour ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Actually COVID bought Jim Benning time.  Don't forget the team was in a downward spiral prior to the season being cancelled early (it wasn't unlike how Torts had the Canucks actually in a playoff spot until February before the wheels fell off).  That & riding hot goaltending meant there wasn't like a 5 seasons of 'no playoffs' because of the 'play-in round' where due to in no small part to hot goaltending we advanced a few rounds.

Yes, it did buy Benning time. The players were tired and IMO, we were going to miss the playoffs without COVID.

 

What I meant was that without COVID, the cap may have gone up just enough so that he may not have been punished by previous years of cap mismanagement.

 

 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

5 minutes ago, jyu said:

Yes, it did buy Benning time. The players were tired and IMO, we were going to miss the playoffs without COVID.

 

What I meant was that without COVID, the cap may have gone up just enough so that he may not have been punished by previous years of cap mismanagement.

 

 

My mistake....I neglected the effect on Sutter.  COVID ended his career and boy did the Canucks miss his defensive center abilities (what he brought still hasn't been replaced today).

[IBatch]

32 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Reports were that the Blues didn't really want to be there. You could see this with the way they played their placement matches.  Vancouver was probably playing the Blues at 60% 

 

Vancouver was lucky to reach 7 games and that was all on Demko. Canucks has nothing left in the series against Vegas.  

MIN was a top 3 defensive team all year.   It wasn't like we owned St. Louis but those "reports" were bogus, just as many other teams and players weren't super happy about the bubble, it was what it was.   It's a dialogue not worth paying any attention too, and a scapegoat because they got beat.  Vegas for sure showed us we had a long way to go.   As far as goaltending goes, it wasn't like Markstrom was winning the games on his own either. 

Edited June 23, 2023 by IBatch

[IBatch]

9 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

My mistake....I neglected the effect on Sutter.  COVID ended his career and boy did the Canucks miss his defensive center abilities (what he brought still hasn't been replaced today).

We sure could use Sutter now.   Too bad he couldn't play.  One million for 75% Sutter would have sure helped our team and especially the PK. 

[IBatch]

17 minutes ago, jyu said:

Yes, it did buy Benning time. The players were tired and IMO, we were going to miss the playoffs without COVID.

 

What I meant was that without COVID, the cap may have gone up just enough so that he may not have been punished by previous years of cap mismanagement.

 

 

Yep.   Too bad he didn't have a plague calendar.   That said he shouldn't have done what he did either. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

We sure could use Sutter now.   Too bad he couldn't play.  One million for 75% Sutter would have sure helped our team and especially the PK. 

Yeah people get too fixed of "points" but forget you also win games by preventing the other team from scoring as well.  Sutter was as solid as you want in that regard (that he had a pretty good shot didn't hurt either).

[IBatch]

Just now, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Yeah people get too fixed of "points" but forget you also win games by preventing the other team from scoring as well.  Sutter was as solid as you want in that regard (that he had a pretty good shot didn't hurt either).

Yep.   Just imagine trading all your best PKers but the one who can't play, and think your coach is going to somehow make it work.  

[kanucks25]

"Gillis left him nothing" is just another way of saying "I know absolutely nothing about hockey and I want to make this fact public".

[canuck73_3]

9 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

"Gillis left him nothing" is just another way of saying "I know absolutely nothing about hockey and I want to make this fact public".

I mean he left him more than nothing however, what he left wasn't much and too many had full-too much trade control. When even Jannik Hansen has a NTC you're getting kinda ridiculous territory. Gilman gets far too much credit for his "genious" around here.