Bravo Benning. The D is pretty much rebuilt.

[wiredmaverick]

When Benning took over our D was:

Edler-Tanev
Garrison-Hamhuis
Bieksa-Weber
Corrado

2 years later:

Edler-Tanev
Hutton-Gudbranson
Sbisa-Tryamkin
Pedan

Not to be a downer, but that doesn't seem like a big improvement to me. Younger yes, better....no.

Especially disappointing considering the fact that we gained no additional assets from trading our veterans
(Garrison-->2nd-->Vey-->dumpster)
(Bieksa-->2nd-->throw-in on Sutter)
(Hamhuis-->nothing)
(Corrado-->accidently waived)

And especially disappointing considering the fact that acquiring our #4 and #5 Dmen required giving up a recurrent Selke-candidate centre

 

[iceburg]

When Benning took over our D was:

Edler-Tanev
Garrison-Hamhuis
Bieksa-Weber
Corrado

2 years later:

Edler-Tanev
Hutton-Gudbranson
Sbisa-Tryamkin
Pedan

Not to be a downer, but that doesn't seem like a big improvement to me. Younger yes, better....no.

Especially disappointing considering the fact that we gained no additional assets from trading our veterans
(Garrison-->2nd-->Vey-->dumpster)
(Bieksa-->2nd-->throw-in on Sutter)
(Hamhuis-->nothing)
(Corrado-->accidently waived)

And especially disappointing considering the fact that acquiring our #4 and #5 Dmen required giving up a recurrent Selke-candidate centre

Now take a look at the forwards...David Booth and Chris Higgins were supposed to be anchoring the top 6...while it's arguable that the D-isn't better, the potential is way higher and there really is no comparison at forward especially when you factor in age.
As much as Benning gets trashed on these boards, he's actually done a pretty good job of transitioning the roster. I can buy the arguments that he could have done better (some trades were definitely questionable) but it's hard to argue that the roster is overall worse and it certainly is younger, bigger, and faster.

 

[VanJack]

When Benning took over our D was:

Edler-Tanev
Garrison-Hamhuis
Bieksa-Weber
Corrado

2 years later:

Edler-Tanev
Hutton-Gudbranson
Sbisa-Tryamkin
Pedan

Not to be a downer, but that doesn't seem like a big improvement to me. Younger yes, better....no.

Especially disappointing considering the fact that we gained no additional assets from trading our veterans
(Garrison-->2nd-->Vey-->dumpster)
(Bieksa-->2nd-->throw-in on Sutter)
(Hamhuis-->nothing)
(Corrado-->accidently waived)

And especially disappointing considering the fact that acquiring our #4 and #5 Dmen required giving up a recurrent Selke-candidate centre

I'd agree with you normally, but the Bieksa and Hamhuis who were here when Jimbo arrived aren't the same guys three years later....both are solidly on the back-side of the mountain and would be struggling mightily if they were still being penciled into the lineup next year...and not sure Garrison or Corrado is much of a loss either...d-corps looks a lot more solid for next year, particularly with Juolevi on the horizon.

 

[wiredmaverick]

Now take a look at the forwards...David Booth and Chris Higgins were supposed to be anchoring the top 6...while it's arguable that the D-isn't better, the potential is way higher and there really is no comparison at forward especially when you factor in age.
As much as Benning gets trashed on these boards, he's actually done a pretty good job of transitioning the roster. I can buy the arguments that he could have done better (some trades were definitely questionable) but it's hard to argue that the roster is overall worse and it certainly is younger, bigger, and faster.

K, same exercise at forward.

When Benning came in:

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Booth-Kesler-Higgins
Matthias-Santorelli-Hansen
Kassian-Richardson-Tostito

Now:

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Baertschi-Sutter-FA
Virtanen-Horvat-Hansen
Etem-Granlund-Dorsett

So what are we looking at?

• Our 2nd line C has been severely downgraded (but is 3 years younger)
• Deadweight is gone with Booth/Higgins/Matthias/Santorelli (but we gained no assets from offloading any of them)
• The 6th OA pick from 2014 (a luxury Gillis never even came close to) likely has a small role on the team this year, and has lots of potential
• Horvat (Gillis' pick) was allowed to join the team, and is a bright spot
• Baertschi looks like a solid trade
• Our 4th line C is younger (at the cost of Hunter)
• Our 4th line muscle (Dorsett) is actually a decent hockey player, but is overpaid
• Kassian has been replaced by Etem (lower upside, but whatever, I get it)

So what are you giving Benning credit for here?

The Baertschi trade? I'm OK with it, but the jury's still out
Not messing up Horvat?
Not completely blowing the 6th OA pick in 2014? (and again jury is still out here, Ehlers and Nylander were better picks IMO)
Revamping the 4th line by trading two 1sts (Shink/Jensen), two 3rds and Kassian?

 

[wiredmaverick]

I'd agree with you normally, but the Bieksa and Hamhuis who were here when Jimbo arrived aren't the same guys three years later....both are solidly on the back-side of the mountain and would be struggling mightily if they were still being penciled into the lineup next year...and not sure Garrison or Corrado is much of a loss either...d-corps looks a lot more solid for next year, particularly with Juolevi on the horizon.

I mean, sure.

I agree totally about Bieksa/Hamhuis. I still think Garrison is really good. Corrado was just a decent #6Dman we spent years developing and then accidently waived. Not a massive loss, but a dumb one.

My point is just that Benning hasn't "fixed" our D. They're not even the same level that they were at when we were tanking in 2014. It's still very much a work in progress.

I guess I'm just being a killjoy

 

[Shareefruck]

As much as Benning gets trashed on these boards, he's actually done a pretty good job of transitioning the roster. I can buy the arguments that he could have done better (some trades were definitely questionable) but it's hard to argue that the roster is overall worse and it certainly is younger, bigger, and faster.

Calling anything where the roster looks more promising than it did when it was on its last legs and ready for a rebuild is a ridiculously low bar, though.

Standing still and doing the absolute bare minimum (making zero unforced trades and drafting consensus BPA) would have left this team in a better and younger position than it previously was in. An argument could be made that doing this could have left the team in a better position with a better outlook than Benning has left it as well.

I'd actually be curious what the team would look like if that were actually the case.

 

[me2]

I'd agree with you normally, but the Bieksa and Hamhuis who were here when Jimbo arrived aren't the same guys three years later....both are solidly on the back-side of the mountain and would be struggling mightily if they were still being penciled into the lineup next year...and not sure Garrison or Corrado is much of a loss either...d-corps looks a lot more solid for next year, particularly with Juolevi on the horizon.

Meh, do nothing approach yields a very solid defense, as good or better than Benning's.

Edler Tanev
Hutton garrison
Hamhuis Corrado

Bieksa etc

Now add three off seasons to improve it, 5th overall picks, 33rd picks, McCann etc.

 

[me2]

Now take a look at the forwards...David Booth and Chris Higgins were supposed to be anchoring the top 6...while it's arguable that the D-isn't better, the potential is way higher and there really is no comparison at forward especially when you factor in age.
As much as Benning gets trashed on these boards, he's actually done a pretty good job of transitioning the roster. I can buy the arguments that he could have done better (some trades were definitely questionable) but it's hard to argue that the roster is overall worse and it certainly is younger, bigger, and faster.

A young player/prospect core of

Connor Nylander Horvat Larkin
Boeser McCann Shinkaruk
Joulevi Provorov Hutton Tryamkin
Demko

Veterans
Sedin Sedin
Hansen Richardson Matthias
Tanev Hamhuis

Add Baertschi and other draft picks.
As some big spend on UFAs

Now that would have been a good job, that is what Benning should have delivered. When you see what we have instead it you see how weak a job he has done.

 

[Hit the post]

Now take a look at the forwards...David Booth and Chris Higgins were supposed to be anchoring the top 6...

Well David Booth might've stayed around in a productive capacity a fair bit longer had he not taken that cheapshot knee-on-knee hit.

 

[mdobbs]

A young player/prospect core of

Connor Nylander Horvat Larkin
Boeser McCann Shinkaruk
Joulevi Provorov Hutton Tryamkin
Demko

Veterans
Sedin Sedin
Hansen Richardson Matthias
Tanev Hamhuis

Add Baertschi and other draft picks.
As some big spend on UFAs

Now that would have been a good job, that is what Benning should have delivered. When you see what we have instead it you see how weak a job he has done.

No gm could ever deliver this unless they were an omniscient god

You've cherry picked literally the best players we could possibly have gotten

 

[Shareefruck]

I disagree that Juolevi - Tanev should be the top pairing that we build towards. I don't see a benefit to having their similar strengths overlap. Instead they should be used to solidify/complement two different pairings, IMO.

 

[ginner classic]

That D still needs work. We really need to load up on picks over the next three years.

 

[me2]

No gm could ever deliver this unless they were an omniscient god

You've cherry picked literally the best players we could possibly have gotten

Nope pretty much Benning's picks (switch. Virtanen for Nylander if you must) plus two mid-firsts (15th overall is a middle as you can get). Provorov was in that 5-6 range that the Canucks have drafted the last few years. Competent rebuild that is all, no magic cherry picking.

 

[fancouver]

Calling anything where the roster looks more promising than it did when it was on its last legs and ready for a rebuild is a ridiculously low bar, though.

Standing still and doing the absolute bare minimum (making zero unforced trades and drafting consensus BPA) would have left this team in a better and younger position than it previously was in. An argument could be made that doing this could have left the team in a better position with a better outlook than Benning has left it as well.

I'd actually be curious what the team would look like if that were actually the case.

Assuming Benning didn't cave into trade demands (ie Kesler), made zero trades, and just re-signed Gillis' guys, here's what we'd look like:

2016:

Sedin - Sedin - Hansen
Shinkaruk - Kesler - Virtanen
Burrows - Horvat - Matthais
Gaunce - Richardson - Higgins

Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Corrado

Lack
Markstrom

 

[iceburg]

Assuming Benning didn't cave into trade demands (ie Kesler), made zero trades, and just re-signed Gillis' guys, here's what we'd look like:

2016:

Sedin - Sedin - Hansen
Shinkaruk - Kesler - Virtanen
Burrows - Horvat - Matthais
Gaunce - Richardson - Higgins

Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Corrado

Lack
Markstrom

Interesting way of looking at it. Decent looking roster with some things that would need to be addressed primarily because of age. Alas, keeping Kesler would not have worked IMO. I don't see it as an option and it was the first domino that caused several other dominos to fall. And replacements for Burrows, Higgins, Bieksa, and soon Hamhius needed to be groomed.

Calling anything where the roster looks more promising than it did when it was on its last legs and ready for a rebuild is a ridiculously low bar, though.

Standing still and doing the absolute bare minimum (making zero unforced trades and drafting consensus BPA) would have left this team in a better and younger position than it previously was in. An argument could be made that doing this could have left the team in a better position with a better outlook than Benning has left it as well.

I'd actually be curious what the team would look like if that were actually the case.

Benning had to do something. The roster was aging and a fringe playoff team at best. Some of the moves have been questionable and, as I've said, regardless of what you think of today's team, it's a reasonable argument to say that the team should be better than it is. The return on some of the assets, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, has been poor. I for one like the young core much better now than had Benning done nothing.

 

[fancouver]

Interesting way of looking at it. Decent looking roster with some things that would need to be addressed primarily because of age. Alas, keeping Kesler would not have worked IMO. I don't see it as an option and it was the first domino that caused several other dominos to fall. And replacements for Burrows, Higgins, Bieksa, and soon Hamhius needed to be groomed.

Yeah, it's a weak roster anyway you look at it. If I changed the year to 2012 (no Horvat or Virtanen), then it might look better. But a lot of those guys like Burrows, Higgins, are no longer top 6 options due to decline.

I think when people look at:

Sedin - Sedin - Hansen
Shinkaruk - Kesler - Virtanen
Burrows - Horvat - Matthais
Gaunce - Richardson - Higgins

Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Corrado

Lack
Markstrom

They think it looks good, but it really isn't. Everyone there is old and the core is stale. This team wouldn't make the playoffs either.

We needed a change and at least a young team has the chance to become better. An old team doesn't.

 

[iceburg]

Yeah, it's a weak roster anyway you look at it. If I changed the year to 2012 (no Horvat or Virtanen), then it might look better. But a lot of those guys like Burrows, Higgins, are no longer top 6 options due to decline.

I think when people look at:

Sedin - Sedin - Hansen
Shinkaruk - Kesler - Virtanen
Burrows - Horvat - Matthais
Gaunce - Richardson - Higgins

Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Corrado

Lack
Markstrom

They think it looks good, but it really isn't. Everyone there is old and the core is stale. This team wouldn't make the playoffs either.

We needed a change and at least a young team has the chance to become better. An old team doesn't.

This is an important point. It's always easy after a time to bend towards remembering the good times. After the Lou/Schneider debacle, you're right, the team took on a sense of staleness. Add to that Kelser's abandoning ship (one of the reasons I have so much respect for Burrows btw, the fact that he stuck it out). Benning had to make the team younger and it was bound to be a rocky ride.

 

[No Face No Case]

Benning has certainly changed the identity of the dcore, if not the team.

Compared to:

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Ehrhoff
Rome/Ballard - Salo

-----

Edler - Tanev
Hutton - Gudbranson
Sbisa - Tryamkin

It's certainly a lot more physical, punishing and intimidating. Seeing how the Pacific is such a physical division, it sets us up nicely moving forward.

Edler and Sbisa will likely be traded or bought out in a few years:

Juolevi - Tanev
Hutton - Gudbranson
Pedan - Tryamkin

Half of the D core hits to hurt.

yup

i like it.

 

[fancouver]

This is an important point. It's always easy after a time to bend towards remembering the good times. After the Lou/Schneider debacle, you're right, the team took on a sense of staleness. Add to that Kelser's abandoning ship (one of the reasons I have so much respect for Burrows btw, the fact that he stuck it out). Benning had to make the team younger and it was bound to be a rocky ride.

Yeah, much of it is nostalgia. That roster looks good if it was 2010.

But 6 years later, it's a very old and slow team.

 

[Phenomenon13]

OP is right.

The defense has been rebuilt by Benning. The three best defenseman on this team were all acquired by his genius intellect. Not to mention that great bottom pairing defense of tryamkin sbisa.

I wonder where khl super star Larsen fits. Has he even signed with the mighty Canucks yet? We might not even need him with how stacked we are getting.

 

[Shareefruck]

Interesting way of looking at it. Decent looking roster with some things that would need to be addressed primarily because of age. Alas, keeping Kesler would not have worked IMO. I don't see it as an option and it was the first domino that caused several other dominos to fall. And replacements for Burrows, Higgins, Bieksa, and soon Hamhius needed to be groomed.



Benning had to do something. The roster was aging and a fringe playoff team at best. Some of the moves have been questionable and, as I've said, regardless of what you think of today's team, it's a reasonable argument to say that the team should be better than it is. The return on some of the assets, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, has been poor. I for one like the young core much better now than had Benning done nothing.

It just feels like he traded away as much of the youth as we acquired anyways. Let's say the Kesler trade had to happen, so we have McCann. Now let's say he doesn't get value for any of the expiring veterans and he just lets their contracts run out without re-signing them...... but he ALSO keeps all of the picks that he makes and never makes any trade at all.

Surely that would result in better youth outlook, wouldn't it? In that sense, doing nothing could arguably be better than doing what he did. You would have Shinkaruk, McCann, Forsling, multiple decent draft picks that were bled and the only thing of significance that is lost is Baertschi and possibly Gudbranson.

I don't mean do nothing as in holding onto/resigning the old players and evaluating the team based on that crappy existing group. Benning arguably could have ended up building a better young group of prospects simply by refusing to sign any veterans, refusing to make any trades and simply drafting all the Vancouver picks that we had and nothing else.

 

[Shareefruck]

Assuming Benning didn't cave into trade demands (ie Kesler), made zero trades, and just re-signed Gillis' guys, here's what we'd look like:

2016:

Sedin - Sedin - Hansen
Shinkaruk - Kesler - Virtanen
Burrows - Horvat - Matthais
Gaunce - Richardson - Higgins

Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Corrado

Lack
Markstrom

That's just the result of re-signing the crappy veterans and focusing on them to make the team look old and awful, though. What does the prospect pool look like? That's what I'm arguing would be improved.

 

[iFan]

Now take a look at the forwards...David Booth and Chris Higgins were supposed to be anchoring the top 6...while it's arguable that the D-isn't better, the potential is way higher and there really is no comparison at forward especially when you factor in age.
As much as Benning gets trashed on these boards, he's actually done a pretty good job of transitioning the roster. I can buy the arguments that he could have done better (some trades were definitely questionable) but it's hard to argue that the roster is overall worse and it certainly is younger, bigger, and faster.

The problem is trying to transitioning the roster, we needed a full out rebuild, I know owners forced his and Gillies hand with competing now. Our future looks like a mess, I don't see much direction or a plan for when the Sedins retire, we're not a good team now and we dont have much of a future to look forward to as in being contenders soon. We don't have an offensive threat on the back end, I do like Juolevi but we need a pure puck mover with that top pairing potential as well. We have some good young forwards with top 6 potential in Horvat, Virtanen and Boeser but out side that it's a bit weak and lacking that number 1 offensive centre. The problem is is there's nothing to be really excited about, this team is trying to compete now and make playoffs but it's a boring team that's not big and gritty nor highly skilled, at least if we accepted the rebuild and moved a guy like Edler for a solid young player and made moves up to this point that puts the focus on a rebuild we'd have something to look forward, instead this team has pissed away draft pick to try and compete now and haven't built up its prospect depth, been making dumb moves like Vey, Sutter etc or keeping Edler when he has the most trade value and letting Hamhuis walk. We're in for some dark times.

 

[iFan]

Assuming Benning didn't cave into trade demands (ie Kesler), made zero trades, and just re-signed Gillis' guys, here's what we'd look like:

2016:

Sedin - Sedin - Hansen
Shinkaruk - Kesler - Virtanen
Burrows - Horvat - Matthais
Gaunce - Richardson - Higgins

Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Corrado

Lack
Markstrom

Kesler wouldn't of re-signed, he wanted a trade... I loved Bieksa but he's not the same D man he once was. That's not much of a roster in 2016... But neither is the one we currently have

 

[Scurr]

If you exclude Gudbranson and Sutter from being good pieces for the team to move forward with it certainly makes Jim's retool look really bad.