Canucks Managerial Thread II

[Drop the Sopel]

To summarize the interview:

If Hutton keeps playing like he's playing he won't be sent down

McCann played well but will be sent down if he shows he isn't able to keep up with the speed/physicality, Benning noted 3 good defensive plays by McCann.

Virtanen needs to be patient.

Benning also said that he does not know what Horvat's ceiling is.

Not really that much in there that we don't know already.

Also acknowledged the Canucks are the smallest team in the NHL this season and how he puts very little emphasis on size, instead focusing on guys with hockey sense that compete hard and skate well.

Talked about how everyone pointed to his teams in Boston as the 'big bad Bruins', even though they were the 4th lightest team in the NHL the year they won the cup. Said it's not the size of the player that matters, but instead their hockey smarts and how much they are willing to battle and compete.

Thought this was all common sense, as his acquisitions thus far have bared this out, through trades and especially the draft, but for whatever reason this narrative persists around here that he's obsessed with size.

That narrative dies here today. Jim Benning assembled the smallest team in the NHL.

 

[Verviticus]

drafting virtanen with the 6th OA, as a comprehensive statement, is the problem. he could have addressed this in multiple ways, one of the safest ones being to trade to a spot where he's more likely to get full value for the 6OA pick (ie, a prospect + stuff)

 

[tantalum]

was the most interesting part of that piece.

The most interesting part of the piece to me was Lack and his agent seeing the money given out to lesser players and wanting to surf that wave. Benning wanted to apparently keep Lack but got scared by the number the Lack camp asked for and traded him. So essentially, he didn't really try negotiating (immediately made the decision to move on) and his other contracts he handed out to guys like Sbisa and Dorsett affected the ask from a superior player to the point they had to move that player when they didn't want to. It is just further evidence that Benning is not skilled in the art of negotiation and he makes hasty and rash decisions.

 

[tantalum]

Thought this was all common sense, as his acquisitions thus far have bared this out, through trades and especially the draft, but for whatever reason this narrative persists around here that he's obsessed with size.

That narrative dies here today. Jim Benning assembled the smallest team in the NHL.

Vey, Baertschi and most of the time Sbisa do not fit his narrative...they really don't IMO. All passive players much of the time. Every once in awhile Sbisa decides to use his size but there are other times where he just trades recipes during scrums and fails to engage physically during the play.

And for size not being something he looks for he sure is quick in this same interview to point out how much bigger and stronger Horvat is, how big Hutton actually is, and when acquired he was quick to point out how big Sutter is (though of course he's wrong on that). So no the narrative doesn't really die here when the first thing out of his mouth most of the time is about size.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

drafting virtanen with the 6th OA, as a comprehensive statement, is the problem. he could have addressed this in multiple ways, one of the safest ones being to trade to a spot where he's more likely to get full value for the 6OA pick (ie, a prospect + stuff)

Safest? The entire history of trading down is that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I think there's been some pretty comprehensive posts on this topic around here, and that's the conclusion I always come to.

Just look at the year the Isles traded down from #5 to #7, and then from #7 down to #9. None of the later picks they got turned into anything (and they got a bunch), however the guy taken at #7 turned out to be easily the best of the 3, and #5 by far the worst:
#5- Luke Schenn
#7- Colin Wilson
#9- Josh Bailey

It's a crapshoot...guess right and you're a hero, guess wrong (enough times) and you're looking for a new job.

Edit: The Isles got a 2cnd and 3rd from the Leafs and another 2cnd from Nashville:
#37- Matt Clark, #40- Aaron Ness, #67- Shawn Lalonde

 

[Cupless44]

thats nonsense though. almost every person disagrees with benning in a calm level-headed manner and then a lot of them also like to throw in personal attacks

find me a single poster - one poster - that has done nothing but insult jim benning

What would be accurate is to say is that are a large number of posters who do post about a variety of topics... but their number one agenda is to bash Benning and every move he makes pretty much

 

[banme*]

The most interesting part of the piece to me was Lack and his agent seeing the money given out to lesser players and wanting to surf that wave. Benning wanted to apparently keep Lack but got scared by the number the Lack camp asked for and traded him. So essentially, he didn't really try negotiating (immediately made the decision to move on) and his other contracts he handed out to guys like Sbisa and Dorsett affected the ask from a superior player to the point they had to move that player when they didn't want to. It is just further evidence that Benning is not skilled in the art of negotiation and he makes hasty and rash decisions.

Yep that part was a great read too. I picked the Vey part because I thought it was surprising, although it makes sense if they had decided to waive him and therefore looked to trade him first.

 

[Cupless44]

What mountain of evidence? First year on the job the team made the playoffs. His biggest free agent acquisition scored 30+ goals. The other guy he went after had a pretty good season too. The return from the Kesler trade wasn't half bad. Bonino wasn't a bust. His draft picks seem promising. Virtanen and McCann are on the team. Vey acquisition wasn't great. Baertschi looks promising. The "mountain of evidence" you speak of are posters judging Benning's moves ON PAPER.

Exactly.

Benning inherited a slow, soft aging team that had won 1 playoff game in 4 years. He has been on the job a little more than 1 year. Much has to play out and requires some patience.

How about chilling on Virtanen for one. Power forwards take some time and patience. You should know that the moment one is drafted. Expecting a power forward to have his game all together ONE MONTH after his 19th birthday is pretty ridiculous actually.

Some moves are clearly bad. Sbisa trade and contract we can all agree. Clendening trade questionable. All GMs make mistakes though and I still have yet to see any that cripple the team going forward. It is about the kids. It is always about the kids when it is time to rebuild.

At least this management has made very clear their #1 priority is drafting and developing young players. Pretty important for a franchise that has an abysmal record in this most important area for years before Benning was hired.

I read all summer what a moron Benning was for trading away "such a good promising young player" in Kassian. Haven't heard to many peeps from those posters admitting that maybe they don't know everything about running a hockey team and don't have all the information.

So many posters on here have been so critical of Benning, including personal attacks that you have left yourselves little room for credibility if Benning actually does what he was hired to do....rebuild this team into a good young contending team in 3-5 years. That is how you judge a GM. Not after a year because he made a few unpopular moves. The Lacks and the Kassians will be insignificant in the rear view mirror before you know it.

 

[Jyrki21]

Sure glad Benning called 12 or 15 teams about Corrado before putting him on waivers. I can understand how it would be hard to call the other half of the league as well.

The white board runs out of space at 'M'.

How about chilling on Virtanen for one. Power forwards take some time and patience. You should know that the moment one is drafted. Expecting a power forward to have his game all together ONE MONTH after his 19th birthday is pretty ridiculous actually.

Why is it a problem to therefore criticize the draft pick? I don't like drafting power forwards high precisely because of their slow development and the brevity of their peak. I think they are a bad investment. This is a perfectly valid view and a reason why I might not like Virtanen at 6.

If Hutton keeps playing like he's playing he won't be sent down

McCann played well but will be sent down if he shows he isn't able to keep up with the speed/physicality, Benning noted 3 good defensive plays by McCann.

Assuming this is accurate paraphrasing of what Benning said, it amuses me that they basically amount to the same thing, but one is said positively, and another negatively.

Nothing said here has been even remotely close to slander.

The lower courts, but not yet the supreme court have ruled on this and have actually treated the internet pretty much like normal society in where people are 100% accountable for their actions, and actually the forum owners themselves are responsible. IPs are forced to be produced so further action can take place etc.

I'm going to weigh in here, because the "defamation" excuse gets thrown around a lot here to silence posters, and it is unfair scare-mongering.

First, as everyone who saw 2002 Spider-Man should recall, it's "preposterous" to call anything posted here slander, because in writing it's libel.

Secondly, the defamation that one is generally concerned about is not a crime -- it is a tort, meaning that you can sue if you have suffered damage to your reputation. The purpose of tort law is not to punish (which is also why it need not be intentional), it's to "make a person whole" after s/he has suffered harm because someone has breached a duty of care. How much damage to his reputation does Jim Benning suffer because a schmoe on the Internet doesn't like the job he's doing or questions his intelligence? While punitive damages can arise, they don't just get thrown about willy-nilly (and are in part designed to prevent wealthy people from simply absorbing a damages award and continuing with defamation -- not exactly the "anonymous guy on the Internet" defendant).

Thirdly, if every insult on the Internet were actionable our lives would be consumed by endless lawsuits. One of the main reasons this doesn't happen (apart from common sense and a realistic perception of how much damage is actually caused), there is a defense to defamation called "fair comment" meaning that as long as your basic facts are right, you are allowed to express an opinion on a matter of public interest, even if it's harsh (e.g. "Benning traded player X for player Y and I think this proves he's incompetent") as long as it's not malicious ("...and therefore is clearly a candidate to be institutionalized, and we should all push for this" <-- and that likely wouldn't even cross the line).

Think of it this way: the comments on any political article on the Globe and Mail or CNN websites are a bazillion times worse than anything you'll read here (and way more personal too), and even in a country with as out-of-date defamation laws as Canada, you don't see lawsuits stemming from these.

The issue raised by Jay Cee addresses only the means of expression, not the subsantive issue of what is defamatory. A comment being on an Internet forum doesn't make a statement any more or less defamatory, that's all.

In Canada there does exist a criminal libel provision for knowingly false statements, so basically don't say with sincerity that Benning eats babies or whatever.

 

[tantalum]

Assuming this is accurate paraphrasing of what Benning said, it amuses me that they basically amount to the same thing, but one is said positively, and another negatively.

Listened to what Benning said. Going from memory: He did say as long as McCann can show he can keep up and put up with the physicality he'd stay. He also said that based on his camp and first game that at this point they have no reason to believe he can't do those things. And then he pointed out his strong play in the third. I think he very much talked about McCann in a positive he'll stay light.

 

[Cupless44]

For those who want to read something positive that Benning did this off season

From NBC Sports

For Vancouver GM Jim Benning, it became clear early last season that speed was an issue for his team.

Specifically, the Canucks didn’t have enough of it.

And that’s a pretty big problem in today’s NHL.

Fast forward to when Vancouver was eliminated by Calgary in the first round of the playoffs and it was the Flames’ ability to “get in on the forecheck†(an oft-used phrase by Benning) that proved a deciding factor.

And so Benning made changes. He traded aging defender Kevin Bieksa and slow-footed forward Nick Bonino. He acquired Matt Bartkowski, an excellent skater, and Brandon Sutter, also a good skater.

But most importantly, Benning committed to a younger roster. Last night in Calgary, the Canucks earned a 5-1 victory with a lineup that featured Sven Baertschi, 23, Ben Hutton, 22, Bo Horvat, 20, and Jared McCann, 19.

All four can skate.

So can Jake Virtanen, 19, who was a healthy scratch.

Add Jannik Hansen and Derek Dorsett, arguably their fastest veteran skaters, to the equation and all of a sudden Vancouver didn’t look so slow anymore.

“The Canucks were much better than us,†said Flames coach Bob Hartley. “We got what we deserved. They kicked our butts.â€

Granted, it was only the first of 82 games. Who knows if kids like McCann and Hutton can maintain their level of play for an entire season.

But last night?

That wasn’t the same Vancouver team as last year.

Benning made sure of that.

 

[Ryp37]

The reaction after 1 game is hilarious

It was a great game, but still hilarious

 

[Nomobo]

The white board runs out of space at 'M'.


Why is it a problem to therefore criticize the draft pick? I don't like drafting power forwards high precisely because of their slow development and the brevity of their peak. I think they are a bad investment. This is a perfectly valid view and a reason why I might not like Virtanen at 6.


Assuming this is accurate paraphrasing of what Benning said, it amuses me that they basically amount to the same thing, but one is said positively, and another negatively.




I'm going to weigh in here, because the "defamation" excuse gets thrown around a lot here to silence posters, and it is unfair scare-mongering.

First, as everyone who saw 2002 Spider-Man should recall, it's "preposterous" to call anything posted here slander, because in writing it's libel.

Secondly, the defamation that one is generally concerned about is not a crime -- it is a tort, meaning that you can sue if you have suffered damage to your reputation. The purpose of tort law is not to punish (which is also why it need not be intentional), it's to "make a person whole" after s/he has suffered harm because someone has breached a duty of care. How much damage to his reputation does Jim Benning suffer because a schmoe on the Internet doesn't like the job he's doing or questions his intelligence? While punitive damages can arise, they don't just get thrown about willy-nilly (and are in part designed to prevent wealthy people from simply absorbing a damages award and continuing with defamation -- not exactly the "anonymous guy on the Internet" defendant).

Thirdly, if every insult on the Internet were actionable our lives would be consumed by endless lawsuits. One of the main reasons this doesn't happen (apart from common sense and a realistic perception of how much damage is actually caused), there is a defense to defamation called "fair comment" meaning that as long as your basic facts are right, you are allowed to express an opinion on a matter of public interest, even if it's harsh (e.g. "Benning traded player X for player Y and I think this proves he's incompetent") as long as it's not malicious ("...and therefore is clearly a candidate to be institutionalized, and we should all push for this" <-- and that likely wouldn't even cross the line).

Think of it this way: the comments on any political article on the Globe and Mail or CNN websites are a bazillion times worse than anything you'll read here (and way more personal too), and even in a country with as out-of-date defamation laws as Canada, you don't see lawsuits stemming from these.

The issue raised by Jay Cee addresses only the means of expression, not the subsantive issue of what is defamatory. A comment being on an Internet forum doesn't make a statement any more or less defamatory, that's all.

In Canada there does exist a criminal libel provision for knowingly false statements, so basically don't say with sincerity that Benning eats babies or whatever.

The bolded is enough for me to put this discussion to bed. Thanks for that.

 

[tantalum]

The reaction after 1 game is hilarious

It was a great game, but still hilarious

Good games for a team doesn't mean that individuals who didn't have a good game can't be criticized or flaws pointed out (or accolades given out). We won 5-1 so stop complaining isn't a very compelling conversation to have on a message board. It's fair game to point out that Sutter did look out of sorts the first period but seemed to settle after the goal...which was a nice goal. It's fair game to point out that while Bartkowski can skate he has a tendency to skate himself into trouble and get trapped and he was overly active the first half of the game (skated miles some said and were happy but those miles were leading to chances against). He also settled down. It fair to suggest Sbisa wasn't good because he wasn't (well he might have been good for Sbisa but overall he was easily the worst D-man for the canucks). Baertschi wasn't invloved etc etc etc.

Sure the team played very well overall and won big but is not the purpose of the overall discussion to see where the weaknesses on the team are and how those weaknesses can be addressed moving forward? Weaknesses exist in good games and often I think the weaknesses are better illustrated in those overall good team games. You see quite clearly who was performing at a level below teammates when the team as a whole is "on".

Now one doesn't want to go over board and make grand proclamation (in either direction) after one game but discussion of things done poorly and things done well is valid.

 

[Ryp37]

Good games for a team doesn't mean that individuals who didn't have a good game can't be criticized or flaws pointed out (or accolades given out). We won 5-1 so stop complaining isn't a very compelling conversation to have on a message board. It's fair game to point out that Sutter did look out of sorts the first period but seemed to settle after the goal...which was a nice goal. It's fair game to point out that while Bartkowski can skate he has a tendency to skate himself into trouble and get trapped and he was overly active the first half of the game (skated miles some said and were happy but those miles were leading to chances against). He also settled down. It fair to suggest Sbisa wasn't good because he wasn't (well he might have been good for Sbisa but overall he was easily the worst D-man for the canucks). Baertschi wasn't invloved etc etc etc.

Sure the team played very well overall and won big but is not the purpose of the overall discussion to see where the weaknesses on the team are and how those weaknesses can be addressed moving forward? Weaknesses exist in good games and often I think the weaknesses are better illustrated in those overall good team games. You see quite clearly who was performing at a level below teammates when the team as a whole is "on".

Now one doesn't want to go over board and make grand proclamation (in either direction) after one game but discussion of things done poorly and things done well is valid.

I'm talking more of the overreaction by a lot of people

Ive seen articles saying Benning won the preseason, Sutter with Sedins is so crazy it just might work and on and on, after 1 game. Got no problem talking positives and negatives as that's what we do here.

 

[rune74]

I'm talking more of the overreaction by a lot of people

Ive seen articles saying Benning won the preseason, Sutter with Sedins is so crazy it just might work and on and on, after 1 game. Got no problem talking positives and negatives as that's what we do here.

I think it's funny after the extreme negativity we have seen this summer. If we continue to do well then what?

 

[Cupless44]

Good games for a team doesn't mean that individuals who didn't have a good game can't be criticized or flaws pointed out (or accolades given out). We won 5-1 so stop complaining isn't a very compelling conversation to have on a message board. It's fair game to point out that Sutter did look out of sorts the first period but seemed to settle after the goal...which was a nice goal. It's fair game to point out that while Bartkowski can skate he has a tendency to skate himself into trouble and get trapped and he was overly active the first half of the game (skated miles some said and were happy but those miles were leading to chances against). He also settled down. It fair to suggest Sbisa wasn't good because he wasn't (well he might have been good for Sbisa but overall he was easily the worst D-man for the canucks). Baertschi wasn't invloved etc etc etc.

Sure the team played very well overall and won big but is not the purpose of the overall discussion to see where the weaknesses on the team are and how those weaknesses can be addressed moving forward? Weaknesses exist in good games and often I think the weaknesses are better illustrated in those overall good team games. You see quite clearly who was performing at a level below teammates when the team as a whole is "on".

Now one doesn't want to go over board and make grand proclamation (in either direction) after one game but discussion of things done poorly and things done well is valid.

It is also a very fair assessment to say that whether the team makes the playoffs or not, Benning has made strides to make a slow team faster. Not the only ingredient for success, but something that had to be done.

 

[Cupless44]

I think it's funny after the extreme negativity we have seen this summer. If we continue to do well then what?

You are right "extreme negativity" is precisely what these boards were full of all summer.

To answer your question... I think those that have trashed Benning past the point of no return are well past being able to give him any credit, even when warranted.

 

[rune74]

You are right "extreme negativity" is precisely what these boards were full of all summer.

To answer your question... I think those that have trashed Benning past the point of no return are well past being able to give him any credit, even when warranted.

I'm not a fan of a couple of trades...was at first quite upset about Kassian, not so much anymore...or not at all.

But man, I'm extremely happy with the rookies. I like the fact that they are operating as a team and the players all look like they want to be here. It's early, but it already looks like we are a faster team and harder to play against. Lets hope it continues.

 

[RandV]

The most interesting part of the piece to me was Lack and his agent seeing the money given out to lesser players and wanting to surf that wave. Benning wanted to apparently keep Lack but got scared by the number the Lack camp asked for and traded him. So essentially, he didn't really try negotiating (immediately made the decision to move on) and his other contracts he handed out to guys like Sbisa and Dorsett affected the ask from a superior player to the point they had to move that player when they didn't want to. It is just further evidence that Benning is not skilled in the art of negotiation and he makes hasty and rash decisions.

Yes this has been perhaps my biggest concern. When Lack proved to be the better goaltender last year, and has UFA rights coming up, how do you think him and his agent are going to approach Benning in contract negotiation when he just gave Miller $6 million. When solid 2nd/3rd line tweeners Higgins and Hansen accepted $2.5M contracts, what will their demands be next time after Jimbo gave Dorsett $2.65M and Sutter $4.375M? It's not something to really argue about but I wouldn't be surprised if Gilman worked on the Tanev extension, but do you think top pairing dman Tanev would accept $4.45M again after Benning just gave bottom pairing Sbisa $3.6M?

If the team looks good it shouldn't be discounted that we're still reaping some benefits of the last regimes great cap structure & contracts.

 

[Ryp37]

I think it's funny after the extreme negativity we have seen this summer. If we continue to do well then what?

Then we're all happy the teams performing to their best ability.

 

[rune74]

Then we're all happy the teams performing to their best ability.

We'll see.

 

[Jyrki21]

The bolded is enough for me to put this discussion to bed. Thanks for that.

My point is that a random user on the Internet is unlikely to have deep pockets or have a wide audience. Not that the schmoe's opinion isn't valid.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Sure the team played very well overall and won big but is not the purpose of the overall discussion to see where the weaknesses on the team are and how those weaknesses can be addressed moving forward?

The purpose of the overall discussion is just to have the discussion. We're fans, we don't have input on team managerial decisions. We're not building anything here, and tweaking the knobs and dials, we're just expressing our passion for the sport through conversation about our favorite team.

Given the absolutely toxic tone of these boards over the last six-eight months, there is really no need to take a "pro-negativity" stance. The weaknesses on the team, such as they are, have been well and thoroughly discussed, and in lurid detail. Indeed, it seems that at times we cannot expect to stop discussing them, and they are routinely exhumed and gone over in every single thread on this board, regardless of its intended content.

You are correct that we cannot look at a 5-1 result in a single game...a game in which the opposition can be charitably described as a fire drill...and conclude that there are no problems on board the good ship Canuck and it will be full steam ahead to an inevitable championship season. I do ask you to consider what the tone would be if we'd LOST 5-1. Would you be arguing that it was just a single game, that no hasty conclusions should be drawn, that objectivity and perspective should be the order of the day?

I suspect very few posters would. The tone of the GDT was sharply bi-polar for much of the game, with people piling onto every mistake and bad shift until the score was so out of reach it seemed churlish to complain, and even then you had people trying.

There's really nothing wrong with getting hyped about a lopsided win against a historical rival, particularly in a low to no-hoper season like this one. It's fun. Hockey is entertainment. It's supposed to be fun. There's really no need to petition for dour assessments of the team's many flaws post-victory. Believe me, it'll come soon enough. All it's going to take is one bad shift, one bad goal, one bad game, and there will be fresh jeremiads issued about the wailing incompetence of the boob crew running the team and the crumbling, overpaid and under-talented roster tottering around on the ice. There will be naught BUT weaknesses to address, and by address I of course mean 'pillory with withering scorn' until our fingers can type no more.

 

[arttk]

Yes this has been perhaps my biggest concern. When Lack proved to be the better goaltender last year, and has UFA rights coming up, how do you think him and his agent are going to approach Benning in contract negotiation when he just gave Miller $6 million. When solid 2nd/3rd line tweeners Higgins and Hansen accepted $2.5M contracts, what will their demands be next time after Jimbo gave Dorsett $2.65M and Sutter $4.375M? It's not something to really argue about but I wouldn't be surprised if Gilman worked on the Tanev extension, but do you think top pairing dman Tanev would accept $4.45M again after Benning just gave bottom pairing Sbisa $3.6M?

If the team looks good it shouldn't be discounted that we're still reaping some benefits of the last regimes great cap structure & contracts.

A good example would be the story Botch broke on Lack.

Lack asked for 4.x as an opening offer and Benning freaked out and nope his way into trading Lack.

I mean this really illustrates how Benning has zero concept on how to negotiate. First offer from the player side is the ceiling, not he starting point. Really explains how every contract signed is paid to the max . Ask Benning and you shall receive.

This will only end up looking like Boston where we end up needing to trade guys away because our cap management is utter ****.
Just look at the list a poster posted, basically the money we are spending now, we can get like a player or 2 more extra. This is fine for now since we still have a ton of guys on great contracts. Give him 1 or 2 years and you will start to see us bleed more talent for no reason other than incompetence.