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

[Alflives]

38 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Take out his worst most misguided move….3/10, he was still awful well before that. 

You are generous. 

[24K PureCool]

Without OEL, probably a 5 so very average. 

 

With OEL, negative over 9000. Literally killed this core. 

[MaxVerstappen33]

2 hours ago, DSVII said:

If we waived Myers or Poolman last December. How confident would you be that a team would scoop him up? Because hey, there was only one bad contract right?

You might not like Myers. But that is just a meh contract. And that was proven by Gudbranson. You'd think Gudbranson wasn't even good enough for the KHL by the time fans like you were done with him. And yet he signed another 4 million per year contract in the NHL. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

You might not like Myers. But that is just a meh contract. And that was proven by Gudbranson. You'd think Gudbranson wasn't even good enough for the KHL by the time fans like you were done with him. And yet he signed another 4 million per year contract in the NHL. 

Gudbranson is better than Myers. Love to see him here and praying with Hughes. Hughes would make Guddy look like an all star. 

[hammertime]

38 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

Without OEL, probably a 5 so very average. 

 

With OEL, negative over 9000. Literally killed this core. 

Minni staying competitive with 14+m dead cap. 

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

You might not like Myers. But that is just a meh contract. And that was proven by Gudbranson. You'd think Gudbranson wasn't even good enough for the KHL by the time fans like you were done with him. And yet he signed another 4 million per year contract in the NHL. 

So by this logic, because Benning created a market demand for OEL, that was not a bad contract? There are other bad GMs out there ya know.

 

I'll also bite on that strawman. The mistake with Gudbranson was not necessarily the contract, but the assets given up to acquire the player. 

 

Myers is a serviceable #4, being paid like a top 2. And therefore a bad contract. Unless we want to define what bad means to you? I mean judging by your own words, the bar seems as low as not being a max term/cap contract. Just because Benning didn't pay a $3-4 mil guy an 8x8 doesn't mean paying him a 6x5 isn't a mistake/bad deal. it still is an overpayment.

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by DSVII

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

4 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes, and Demko more then make up for Juolevi and Virtanen.  Besides are we going to blame the three season-ending injuries that Juolevi suffered on something that Benning should've known before we drafted him?  Virtanen was a miss for sure for his draft position, but drafting a top 10 d-man and center league wide at 5th and 7th picks is exceptional.  

 

I was ready for Benning to be fired a year or two prior but always wanted him to stay for the draft if we hadn't made the change by then.  I really hope that Allvin keeps the same drafting record.  

If you want to start nitpicking individual players, there's no point in assessing a GM.  After all, nobody expected Sutter to be broken, or for Juolevi to be broken, or for Ferland to be broken.  Does Benning even deserve the credit/criticism when Judd Brackett was likely the one making all the scouting suggestions?  It's a pointless conversation to have - there was one man in charge, and he failed to deliver results.

 

The bigger picture is all we need: the Canucks, despite having made the playoffs only twice, have consistently been ranked at the bottom for prospects.  Benning didn't know how to rebuild, and he also didn't know how to win.  You can't give someone an 8/10 in anything with such poor results.

 

I've already given Benning credit with a 5/10 in drafting.  After seven years of drafting (with 5 of them non-playoff years), do you really think four good players make him deserving of such a high score?

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

58 minutes ago, DSVII said:

So by this logic, because Benning created a market demand for OEL, that was not a bad contract? There are other bad GMs out there ya know.

 

I'll also bite on that strawman. The mistake with Gudbranson was not necessarily the contract, but the assets given up to acquire the player. 

 

Myers is a serviceable #4, being paid like a top 2. And therefore a bad contract. Unless we want to define what bad means to you? I mean judging by your own words, the bar seems as low as not being a max term/cap contract. Just because Benning didn't pay a $3-4 mil guy an 8x8 doesn't mean paying him a 6x5 isn't a mistake/bad deal. it still is an overpayment.

"Serviceable #4"

 

[goog16]

if I had to sum up GMJB's legacy with a picture it would be this one...he gets a 5/10 for drafting Petey!!

Edited June 9, 2023 by goog16

[iinatcc]

2 hours ago, hammertime said:

Minni staying competitive with 14+m dead cap. 

Well no one is saying ... gee I hope my team aspires to be the Wild 

[Timråfan]

9 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Drafting: 5/10.  It's a pretty short list when you think about it.  He had a lot of good picks and he traded most of them away.  When you look at a full database of our picks, the list of NHL talent is extremely small.

Signing: 3/10.  Good signings few and far between.  Hughes, Schenn, Tanev, Markstrom, Horvat, and Demko.  That's a very short list for seven years.  There's a long list of depth players who got retirement money from Benning.  And it also forced Benning not to sign players who walked for free (Tanev & Toffoli).

Trading: 3/10.  The Miller and OEL trades stand out.  But there is a long list of picks needlessly given away.  If you were another team's GM, it was guaranteed that you could get a 3/4/5th round pick packaged for free.  Just look at this list and ask, why did he throw in those picks?  https://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_GM/Jim_Benning/280/

Personnel: 2/10.  Of all the people fans wanted gone,  Benning was one of the last to go.  Linden gone.  Brackett gone.  Gilman gone.  Green and Desjardins are out of the league.  Some blame probably goes to Aquaman of course, but Dim Jim was the man in charge.

 

Overall score: 3.2/10.  It's bad.   Probably good enough to be the worst GM in recent Canucks memory.  And to be honest, I think I'm giving him a pretty favourable score. The general consensus among the wider hockey community is that Benning was one of the worst GMs in history.  The fact that a failing GM held onto office for seven years really damaged the franchise.  

I would probably lower it to 2,2 but I’m biased I heard. 
 

Amasing that fans here have this view on Benning. Kudos for that.

 

This place were literally filled with Bennings henchmen attacking everyone that had a different(negative) opinion.

 

 

[Timråfan]

7 hours ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

Without it , the Canucks wouldn't have a single bad contract at the end of his tenure. But hey , worst GM in history.

 

 

I hope you were joking there.

Ferland that no insurance company would insure is by far the worst contract of Benning.

Not Loui, Not the whole OEL trade etc

 

Ferland played three games and two fights and then he was gone with a hefty price tag.

Way worst contract and Benning knew how bad it was with Ferland.

 

So the allegation that Benning gave senior players a pension fond might be accurate or that he was Bettmans handyman here.

[Kevin Biestra]

Without the OEL trade maybe a 4.  With the OEL trade maybe a 3.  I think these figures might both be slightly generous to Benning.

 

Even when he got something right (getting Bonino for Kesler, drafting McCann, drafting Forsling) he would sometimes then quickly undo that success so it basically never happened.

 

It leaves him with not many real victories.  Drafting Hughes, drafting Demko, drafting Elias, scouting JT Miller.  A few other things and a couple playoff rounds one year.  That's really not much to show for seven plus years.

 

I tried to stay positive about him while he was around and see the silver linings or best case scenarios but...it wasn't a good run.

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Kevin Biestra

[DrJockitch]

7 hours ago, Alflives said:

You are generous. 

I am trying to be more positive. 

[kloubek]

I maintain the LE signing made sense at the time. The guy was coming off a great year (so no signs of regression), ownership wanted to keep the window open with the Sedins and LE has prior chemistry with them. It all made sense at the time.

 

I don't think anybody anticipated LE would forget how to play hockey the moment pen hit paper. 

As for the OEL trade - yeah, that one was just plain bad. 1 more year of pain would have made all those bad contracts disappear, but instead he doubled down and hamstrung this org with cap hell for another several years.

[Kevin Biestra]

46 minutes ago, kloubek said:

I maintain the LE signing made sense at the time. The guy was coming off a great year (so no signs of regression), ownership wanted to keep the window open with the Sedins and LE has prior chemistry with them. It all made sense at the time.

 

I don't think anybody anticipated LE would forget how to play hockey the moment pen hit paper. 

As for the OEL trade - yeah, that one was just plain bad. 1 more year of pain would have made all those bad contracts disappear, but instead he doubled down and hamstrung this org with cap hell for another several years.

 

It's a deal that wasn't...demonstrably unreasonable when it was signed.  It was absolutely committing hard and long term to a guy after an anomalously high performance in his contract year (ermm...Horvat style) and it was an obvious gamble and one that went pear shaped as quickly and badly as humanly possible.  Literally one of the worst signings in NHL history in the final analysis.  If you hand out a deal like that and it works out...terrific.  If you hand out one of these and basically give your NHL team a club foot for over half a decade...then the guy who hands out the deal is the guy who looks like a dummy.

 

Eriksson wasn't showing signs of regression in the individual year before the deal...but he had been regressing year by year until that free agency season.

 

The OEL trade is outright unreasonable from the get go.  The Eriksson deal was a spin at the roulette wheel and...sometimes it's better not to play roulette (see also Ferland, etc.).

[canucklehead44]

2 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

It's a deal that wasn't...demonstrably unreasonable when it was signed.  It was absolutely committing hard and long term to a guy after an anomalously high performance in his contract year (ermm...Horvat style) and it was an obvious gamble and one that went pear shaped as quickly and badly as humanly possible.  Literally one of the worst signings in NHL history in the final analysis.  If you hand out a deal like that and it works out...terrific.  If you hand out one of these and basically give your NHL team a club foot for over half a decade...then the guy who hands out the deal is the guy who looks like a dummy.

 

Eriksson wasn't showing signs of regression in the individual year before the deal...but he had been regressing year by year until that free agency season.

 

The OEL trade is outright unreasonable from the get go.  The Eriksson deal was a spin at the roulette wheel and...sometimes it's better not to play roulette (see also Ferland, etc.).

This is true - most hockey writers and analysts blasted the Canucks for the signing. Boston fans said he was a 3rd line player. He picked up a tonne of points on the power play in front of the net with a team that lead the league in shots from the point - Vancouver was last in that category. Also his age, money, and length committed didn't make a tonne of sense.

That said - Loui was waaaaaay worse than he should have been. He at the very least should have been around 20 goals, 0.5 points per game and a great penalty killer/defensive player. Instead he maxed out at 11 goals, never hit 30 points, and was a solid penalty killer but at the end of the day the player we got should have been like 3 years x 2 million. 

If Loui was the only really bad signing I would have given Benning a pass - but the list of terrible signings he made in addition to Loui makes me dizzy. 

If I were to give one mulligan during Benning's tenure it is Eriksson. For Gillis it is Ballard. For Nonis it is the Naslund signing. For Burke it is the Potvin trade. These deals all ended up a lot worse than they should have and were not necessariy terrible at the time. 

[MaxVerstappen33]

2 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

It's a deal that wasn't...demonstrably unreasonable when it was signed.  It was absolutely committing hard and long term to a guy after an anomalously high performance in his contract year (ermm...Horvat style) and it was an obvious gamble and one that went pear shaped as quickly and badly as humanly possible.  Literally one of the worst signings in NHL history in the final analysis.  If you hand out a deal like that and it works out...terrific.  If you hand out one of these and basically give your NHL team a club foot for over half a decade...then the guy who hands out the deal is the guy who looks like a dummy.

 

Eriksson wasn't showing signs of regression in the individual year before the deal...but he had been regressing year by year until that free agency season.

 

The OEL trade is outright unreasonable from the get go.  The Eriksson deal was a spin at the roulette wheel and...sometimes it's better not to play roulette (see also Ferland, etc.).

It was bad but wasn't even the worst free agent signing of 2016. 

 

2	Kyle Okposo – RW	Islanders	Sabres	7 yrs, $42M ($6.0M AAV)
3	Loui Eriksson – RW	Bruins	Canucks	6 yrs, $36M ($6.0M AAV)
4	Milan Lucic – LW	Kings	Oilers	7 yrs, $42M ($6.0M AAV)
5	David Backes – C	Blues	Bruins	5 yrs, $30M ($6.0M AAV)
6	Andrew Ladd – LW	Blackhawks	Islanders	7 yrs, $38.5M ($5.5M AAV)

[MeanSeanBean]

18 hours ago, Pears said:

Yup. I defended him for longer than I should have, then I came to realize the situation we’re currently in and took all of that back. 

I hear that. I was a hardcore Benning supporter. I was blinded by optimism because I wanted it to be true. I was down with the Sutter foundation, I was all in with extending the Twin window, and I made excuses for the Linden departure. Then over time, I started seeing disturbing patterns of incompetence that I just could optimism away. Then the OEL trade went down, and I 180'd the entire thing. That trade was so horrible from the second it happened that it shook me out of my haze. I could see clearly for the first time in years that Benning wasn't trying to create a cup-winning team, everything he did was desperately trying to keep his job. 

[Pears]

3 minutes ago, MeanSeanBean said:

I hear that. I was a hardcore Benning supporter. I was blinded by optimism because I wanted it to be true. I was down with the Sutter foundation, I was all in with extending the Twin window, and I made excuses for the Linden departure. Then over time, I started seeing disturbing patterns of incompetence that I just could optimism away. Then the OEL trade went down, and I 180'd the entire thing. That trade was so horrible from the second it happened that it shook me out of my haze. I could see clearly for the first time in years that Benning wasn't trying to create a cup-winning team, everything he did was desperately trying to keep his job. 

Yeah the OEL trade was what did it for me too. Took awhile but after realizing all we had to do was wait a year, we’d have an extra $12 million in cap space and a young NHL ready prospect who could’ve easily stepped into the second line this year.