Nick Lang
Registered User
- May 14, 2015
- 2,408
- 883
Canucks Managerial Discussion | Part 18
- Thread starter DL44
- Start date
- Status
In his defense, with all if the ntc, you can only move the ones who okay to waive it. And Edler is not going to waive it. Neither was hamhuis. Bieksa saw the writing in the wall and managed to get a 2 year extension for $4 mill per. Garrison easily wanted to go to TB since he had played in Florida and liked it down to there.
Right now, it's a mess given all of the bad extensions gillis gave out because he couldn't fix the scouting department.
We all want management to be in the same page. please no more retool. Go full on rebuild.
Forget about adding any UFA for both term nd dollars. Aim for short term stop gap guys. Why safdke the new core with guys brought in to play with the twins. Wait until the twins retire then you can evaluate where it is best to spend your cap space. Look at how wise Winnipeg looks now by not giving Ladd a six year deal.
Amateur scouting appears on the right track now. Pro scouting, jury still out given the performances of bear, vey, granlund, so far.
Still think the rebuild should have occurred with the kesler deal. No need to pick up pizza and Bonino. Should have aimed for first rounders. But guess aquaman was not keen on rebuilding.
But, benning has to get better at contracts. bring someone else in to handle it like Burke did with Nonis.
He has to get better at pro scouting if he is going to acquire NHL or AHL players in trades.
We have more NTC now than we did under Gillis... and a worse players with them... and a worse team...
Of course I'd change my mind if Benning suddenly started doing smart things. What the hell? I would say that his first two years were awful but then he turned a corner. Would you rather I cling to outdated beliefs in the face of new contradicting evidence? Yikes.
That is seriously one of the strangest things I've seen here. Just baffling. I must be misunderstanding something.
That is seriously one of the strangest things I've seen here. Just baffling. I must be misunderstanding something.
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
Cupless44
Registered User
- Jun 25, 2014
- 7,200
- 3,352
Going to diagree with you on Lack. Martin Jones fetched a first round pick because he is a good young goalie who has proven himself as a starter. Talbot is playing for Team Canada right now and looks like the Oiler have found their starter to grow with the young core.
Lack is still a back up, couldn't beat out Ward even though he is clearly on the decline. Carolina is rumoured to be looking for a goaltending upgrade this summer.
That's the point, Lack last year was thought of as good as both. That was fact. He was thought of as the second best guy on the market, and we couldn't get half of the assets. I am not saying either jones or Talbot aren't good, just Lack was in their Class. He put up a .921 Sv% with more minutes than either of those guys on a worse team.
We are accused of this on a regular basis but without anything to back it up it is nothing but an ad hominem, and should be culled.
If I can backup my reasons for disliking something in a reasonable way that isn't inconsistent with other things I've posted, then there is no basis for simply dismissing my opinion as being motivated by some "dislike" for the person making them. Frankly, that behaviour is juvenile and should be dealt with extremely harshly. It's the very definition of an ad hominem, attacking somebody's motives instead of their argument. Unfortunately it seems to be the new fad here.
If I am inconsistent then please call me on it. If my explanations lack logic then call me on it. But to assert that I don't have any real reasons and am motivated by "blind hate" is baseless and peurile. It is disgusting actually, and those that post such things should be barred from discussion. There is no logical reason for me to dislike Benning OTHER THAN the fact that I dislike what he's doing to my favourite team.
I couldn't care less about Benning personally, have never met the guy. If he would do something that helps the Canucks I'd be the first to cheer. I was happy when he signed Tanev to a good long-term extension, for example, as that helps the Vancouver Canucks. To assert that the arrow of causality is flipped around is just baseless and just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's a cowardly way to dodge an argument you don't like by attacking the poster in a way that is just barely within the rules. It is a disgrace. It should not be tolerated in civil discourse.
The fact is that most of my opinions are posted long before the action that precipitates my using them in an argument about some particular transaction. Again, if there is inconsistency here please point it out. I absolutely deserve to be called on it if that is the case. To my knowledge that is not the case. If it is, please point it out.
For example, I hold the position that Alex Burrows should not be bought out this off-season. I hold this position long before any action that Benning does or does not take. If he chooses to buy out Burrows, I will absolutely complain, and don't you dare accuse my reasoning as being "motivated by hate" when I am loudly against the move before it happens. But of course, if Benning does the sensible thing and does not buy out Burrows, then this will never come up in an argument so I will never get "credit" for agreeing with him. That's the thing about moves that you agree with, you aren't likely to spend much time talking about it unless other people disagree and you argue with them.
y2kcanucks
Better than you
Yet you can't name more draft pick hits in those 2 drafts than from the 2012 and 2013 drafts combined. Very interesting.
Not realistic given that the 2014 and 2015 classes really should not be in the NHL. I believe Jake and Jared were a bit rushed. Demko has progressed great in BC. Tryamkin is a nice find in round 3. Boeser is a good get in round 1 in 2015. 2nd was moved for Baertschi. 3rd for Pedan, but honestly, I'd rather had kept the 3rd and let JB do his thing. Brisebois is the return for Lack. Surprisingly, Tate Olson, a 7th rounder has progressed and likely gets a look at the AHL. Then this is NCAA Centre Gaudette at Northeastern. For guys who turn 20/21, still pretty early.
In 2012, there is Gaunce and Hutton. Don't think there is anyone else to get excited about.
Horvat, yes, he was a 2013 draft pick, but he came at a very expensive price of Schneider. McCann was a part of the Kesler deal, but Kes wanted out, Cory didn't. And Cory likely is a Vezina finalist if he doesn't get hurt late in the season.
Shinkaruk. Wait and see how he does. Still didn't want to draft him. Was hoping for Theodore or Hagg. The others from that draft, this is outside hope for Cassels. He has the intelligence to play, but he needs work on his skating. Subban, might be too undersized to play regularly. he'll have to impress offensively.
For a GM, the 3 main areas to be good at are:
Drafting
Trading (thus player evaluation, both at the NHL, other pro leagues and drafted players)
Contract signing
For a GM, you can delegate drafting to a head scout and contract negotiations to a Director of Player Personnel, but deal making, that's solely on the GM. Seems like JB spent a lot of time drafting, but didn't do much with PC in the deal making or contract aspect.
Going forward, like to see JB bring in a Gilman/Nonis type of guy to handle contracts. Don't want to see another Dorsett signing. JB can get away with it in terms of it costing him since the team isn't very good. But, should they turn it around, he doesn't want to have bad contracts on the books.
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
Complete and utter ********. On this board 80-90% of posters want Benning gone, yet there's still been a few moves and signings he's done where no one had had any real disagreement. Baerstchi and Etem trades, Biega contract, and apart from picking Virtanen over Nylander/Ehlers there's little complaint today about the teams drafting record.
geebaan
7th round busted
- Oct 27, 2012
- 10,424
- 9,124
We are accused of this on a regular basis but without anything to back it up it is nothing but an ad hominem, and should be culled.
If I can backup my reasons for disliking something in a reasonable way that isn't inconsistent with other things I've posted, then there is no basis for simply dismissing my opinion as being motivated by some "dislike" for the person making them. Frankly, that behaviour is juvenile and should be dealt with extremely harshly. It's the very definition of an ad hominem, attacking somebody's motives instead of their argument. Unfortunately it seems to be the new fad here.
If I am inconsistent then please call me on it. If my explanations lack logic then call me on it. But to assert that I don't have any real reasons and am motivated by "blind hate" is baseless and peurile. It is disgusting actually, and those that post such things should be barred from discussion. There is no logical reason for me to dislike Benning OTHER THAN the fact that I dislike what he's doing to my favourite team.
I couldn't care less about Benning personally, have never met the guy. If he would do something that helps the Canucks I'd be the first to cheer. I was happy when he signed Tanev to a good long-term extension, for example, as that helps the Vancouver Canucks. To assert that the arrow of causality is flipped around is just baseless and just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's a cowardly way to dodge an argument you don't like by attacking the poster in a way that is just barely within the rules. It is a disgrace. It should not be tolerated in civil discourse.
The fact is that most of my opinions are posted long before the action that precipitates my using them in an argument about some particular transaction. Again, if there is inconsistency here please point it out. I absolutely deserve to be called on it if that is the case. To my knowledge that is not the case. If it is, please point it out.
For example, I hold the position that Alex Burrows should not be bought out this off-season. I hold this position long before any action that Benning does or does not take. If he chooses to buy out Burrows, I will absolutely complain, and don't you dare accuse my reasoning as being "motivated by hate" when I am loudly against the move before it happens. But of course, if Benning does the sensible thing and does not buy out Burrows, then this will never come up in an argument so I will never get "credit" for agreeing with him. That's the thing about moves that you agree with, you aren't likely to spend much time talking about it unless other people disagree and you argue with them.
This sums up my feelings exactly. Great post.
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
good post.
Hoping the brain trust finds a way to get Benning a pick in the 20-40 range. I've been against trading Hansen, as I think his compete and edge is what a rebuilding team needs but now I'm starting to think we should move him if a pick in that range can be secured.
He can be the the head scout then.
The GM job is much more comprehensive than watching kids from junior. His competency with pro scouting, contract evaluation and trades leaves much, much to be desired.
Whatever good work he does scouting will be eroded by continually targeting the wrong veterans to supplement them and then vastly overpaying them.
I think the 2013 draft is more reflective of how the Canucks would have drafted had Gillis stayed on rather than 2012. The 2012 draft was about Gillis believing overagers were undervalued. Obviously, Hutton looks to be a gem, but Mallet was clearly a clunker so if you're going to declare that Gillis had "fixed" drafting in 2012 and that the 2012 draft was a good one you may want to think again. The biggest "fix" was putting Crawford in charge of amateur scouting and going with geographic odds. It's pretty much been undone by Benning and the drafts still look good.
The Canucks being historically bad at the draft does not mean there weren't good drafts. The problem is that every GM who has passed through here can't seem to avoid a pure stinker where an entire draft is wasted, whether it was Burke, Nonis, or Gilis.
I was one of the few, if not the only one, who pointed out that Gillis was the one who finally demoted Delorme. But I also said that I have reservations about Crawford (because IMO his pro scouting was a real big hit and miss). So in my mind, Gillis didn't "fix" amateur scouting. He improved it by changing the way the Canucks went about drafting for who knows how long but he wasn't that involved. So to me, Benning being involved in the scouting process is better than leaving it to Crawford and everyone else.
Again, the Canucks' drafting has been historically bad. To say that "drafting was already fixed in 2012 under Gillis. His last 2 drafts were very good. They probably would have continued to be good under him or any other competent GM" is really being hopeful or ignorant of the fact that the Canucks' drafting has never been good under any GM prior to Benning (where the jury is still out). Even the 2013 draft. Horvat was a top 10 pick. I like him. He's a solid pick. Is he a better pick than say Max Domi? I don't really have a problem with the picks that came after Horvat, but it's not like any of those picks are producing sure-fire NHLers.
BTW. Boston's drafting was never under "Benning's guidance." That is utterly false.
The point is that a drafting team is dynamic, fluid, and there are different nuances to it that make it impossible to assess in a cut-and-dry fashion.
At a high level, Gillis I think had made a few good moves that got our drafting moving in the right direction, and it has seemingly continued moving in the right direction. Benning implemented some major changes for 2015 and especially 2016 but it will be another few years before we will know if those changes got us going even better or if it actually set us in the wrong direction. Or neither.
But the idea that our drafting was garbage and then Benning just came in and waved a magic wand and now it's great is silly, overly simplistic and fantastical. Just not reconcilable with the real world, and brushes aside far too much including 95% of the people who are involved in a draft.
From those who hold such notions, I'd love to hear some details on how they think he accomplished that.
At a high level, Gillis I think had made a few good moves that got our drafting moving in the right direction, and it has seemingly continued moving in the right direction. Benning implemented some major changes for 2015 and especially 2016 but it will be another few years before we will know if those changes got us going even better or if it actually set us in the wrong direction. Or neither.
But the idea that our drafting was garbage and then Benning just came in and waved a magic wand and now it's great is silly, overly simplistic and fantastical. Just not reconcilable with the real world, and brushes aside far too much including 95% of the people who are involved in a draft.
From those who hold such notions, I'd love to hear some details on how they think he accomplished that.
Last edited:
The point is that a drafting team is dynamic, fluid, and there are different nuances to it that make it impossible to assess in a cut-and-dry fashion.
At a high level, Gillis I think had made a few good moves that got our drafting moving in the right direction, and it has seemingly continued moving in the right direction. Benning implemented some major changes for 2015 and especially 2016 but it will be another few years before we will know if those changes got us going even better or if it actually set us in the wrong direction. Or neither.
But the idea that our drafting was garbage and then Benning just came in and waved a magic wand and now it's great is silly, overly simplistic and fantastical. Just not reconcilable with the real world, and brushes aside far too much including 95% of the people who are involved in a draft.
Both Gillis and Benning believed that the scouts that were here were not the problem. They both believed that they can work with the scouts and obtain much better results than previous GMs. Both ended up adding to the scouting staff and promoting a scout who was already on the staff to head the amateur scouting operations but really didn't make significant changes to the scouting staff except at the top. When Gillis says it's about setting the parameters and telling the scouts what to look for he isn't living in some fantastical world. You can clearly see it in his drafts.
No one said anything about waiving a magic wand except you. We know that Gillis implemented a significant change in the process in 2012 that is reflected in the 2013 draft. We also know that Benning is very involved in scouting prospects himself and even since last draft, Crawford was reporting to Weisbrod.
It's silly to think that a GM can't influence the way a team drafts. Then again, as you suggested, given the Canucks' drafting history it's ludicrous to suggest that the drafting has been "fixed" without actual proof.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 16,784
- 16,103
Very Good
Sven Baertschi - Cost = B (53rd) Ability = B (extremely talented small top 6)
--Amateur Scouting--
Jared McCann - Cost = C- (Kesler part, 23rd) Ability = B+ (potential 2 way top 6 C?)
Brock Boeser - Cost = C+ (23rd) Ability = B+ (potential top 6 sniper?)
Thatcher Demko - Cost = B (36th) Ability = B+ (potential high end starter??)
Good
Radim Vrbata - Cost = C (5x2) performance = C+ (1yr all star A, 1 yr pouting primadonna C-)....UFA
Emerson Etem - Cost = C+ (Jensen, 6th) Ability C (potential 3rd liner)
Troy Stecher - Cost = B (FA) Ability C (potential 5-7 offensive D??)
--Amateur--
Nikita Tryamkin - Cost = B (3rd) ability = C+ (potential shut down top 4???)
Meh
Brandon Sutter - Cost C- (Bonino, 7 draft spots, 4.35x5) Ability C+ (solid versatile 2 way C)
Ryan Miller - Cost = C- (6x3) Performance = C+ (average to below average starter)
Adam Cracknell - Cost = C (Cheap UFA) Performance = C- (depth forward)................... UFA
Philip Larsen - Cost = C- (5th?) Ability = C (potential 5-7 offensive D)
Andrey Pedan - Cost = C- (3rd) Ability = C- (potential 5-7 aggressive D)
---Amateur--
Jake Virtanen - Cost = C- (6th) ability = C+ (2/3 line PF winger)
Bad
Derek Dorsett - Cost = D (3rd, 2.6x4) Performance = C (good 4th liner)
Markus Granlund cost = D (Shinkaruk) Ability = C (Potential 3rd liner)
Luca Sbisa - cost = D (throw in Kesler deal, 3.6x3) Performance = C- (5-7 defensive D)
Matt Bartkowski - Cost = C (1.8 UFA) performance = D (depth defenseman).......UFA
Terrible
Linden Vey - Cost = F (2nd) Ability = D (depth forward)
Adam Clendening Cost = D (Forsling) Ability = D (depth defenseman)
Brandon Prust - Cost = F (Kassian 5th, 2.5) Performance = F (garbage).......UFA
Yannick Weber - Cost = C- (1.7 UFA) performance = F (disaster)...........UFA
I don't see it as badly as you do.
Inherited the worst 5 rosters in future trade able assets and blue chip prospects.
Last edited:
That's not true though. The deal sucks no matter what because at the time of the deal Sbisa was a garbage player who should've had negative value.
Great if the result goes that way, but that doesn't make the actual deal any better. A garbage player could and should be had for free if the GM was any competent. What happens in the future is irrelevant.
When did I say a GM can't influence the way a team drafts? Of course h can, but it takes time. To say that the 2014 was all Benning, and many posters here do say that, is to subscribe to the magic wand theory I was alluding to.
y2kcanucks
Better than you
How was Martin Jones proven as a good young starter when SJ traded a 1st round pick for him? He had averaged about 14 starts per season in his first two years in the NHL.
Meanwhile Lack was actually our starter when Miller got hurt, and backstopped us to the playoffs last year.
BloatedGuppy
Registered User
How was Martin Jones proven as a good young starter when SJ traded a 1st round pick for him? He had averaged about 14 starts per season in his first two years in the NHL.
Meanwhile Lack was actually our starter when Miller got hurt, and backstopped us to the playoffs last year.
Still this nonsense with Lack?
Players, especially goaltenders, only have as much value as the GM trading for them decides they have. You act like the other 29 teams do not have scouts, or preferences, or targets. That they are 100% reliant on Jim Benning and his SALESMANSHIP when it comes to what goaltender to acquire. "Hey Jim, we heard you had a goaltender. We checked out his stat line on NHL.COM and he looks just as good as the other guys on the market. Oh, you say he's NOT as good? Oh never mind then."
As long as RJL is angrily calling out fantastical thinking, I wish he'd spare some umbrage for ridiculous nonsense like this.
- Status
