Has your opinion of Jim Benning changed?
- Thread starter FreeMcdavid
- Start date
bandwagonesque
I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,508
- 5,883
And therefore your assertions that the Gudbranson trade should alter our perception of the Pearson trade don't make any sense.
Ignoring context behind a deal is dumb. The poster I quoted was using those deals as examples against another poster's assertion that he shouldn't be making trades. The fact that his best trade only saved face from a bad trade is telling in that instance. Benning deserves credit for turning a problem he created into a positive, and I hope his recent deals are more a sign of a step forward, but he's going to need to keep it up for longer to end up on the positive side of the ledger
He's done a great job building a Stanley cup level nucleus of young/prime-aged players. He has absolutely no idea how the cap works though and how to plan 2-3 steps ahead which is crucial. He should be replaced or just be given scout duties while a GM that can take the core to the next level be put in place. Don't think he gets fired now though. Drafting franchise level talents in Pettersson and Hughes who play the most significant positions, hitting a home-run in the J.T Miller trade, and Markstrom turning into an elite goalie pretty much saved his job.
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
More importantly, the more damning fact is that Benning was ready to trade Gudbranson for Demers, until Demers vetoed it. So if it were up to Benning, we'd have Demers on the roster instead of Pearson, since that trade was agreed-upon before the Pearson trade happened. The point being, Benning intended to trade for a pretty bad defenceman in Demers and was luckily saved by Demers himself.
He’s also awful at selecting his hair dye
Josepho
i want the bartkowski thread back
I don't hate him AS much as I did in, say, 2016.
That's as much as I'll say on the matter.
That's as much as I'll say on the matter.
Beezeral
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2010
- 10,029
- 5,224
Is roughly 25% of the Canucks cap no longer tied up in inarguably terrible long term contracts?
No?
my opinion hasn’t changed. Getting top 10 picks right isn’t something to pat yourself on the back about when you give out the worst contracts every free agency season.
No?
my opinion hasn’t changed. Getting top 10 picks right isn’t something to pat yourself on the back about when you give out the worst contracts every free agency season.
Tender Rip
Wears long pants
Seems a fair enough summation.
And eventually, good drafting will get you a good team... more so if the development program is up to snuff and Utica suggests that is the case.
Crow
Registered User
- May 19, 2014
- 4,473
- 3,313
Wow. A lot of you Canucks fans here, but certainly not all or even most are a real strange breed. This thread is fascinating in a disturbing kind of way.
Generally speaking, Benning’s bad moves have been much less recent and quite a bit less harmful than his good, which is a big reason why they are a promising young team, but some people just want to dwell in the negative past.
A lot of double standards, negativity bias and just generally poor logic. Going so far as to blame Benning for cap hits on injured guys? Lol. So you just hate him. Fine. Someone else said as a criticism that with their draft position, they should be able to ice a competitive team. You might want to take a look at the standings.
He was doing a very poor job. He signed some bad contracts, but they aren’t even with that much term. Those aren’t that hard to unload when you need to. Hard to say he hasn’t improved his performance. Benning is doing a better job than a lot of GMs.
Generally speaking, Benning’s bad moves have been much less recent and quite a bit less harmful than his good, which is a big reason why they are a promising young team, but some people just want to dwell in the negative past.
A lot of double standards, negativity bias and just generally poor logic. Going so far as to blame Benning for cap hits on injured guys? Lol. So you just hate him. Fine. Someone else said as a criticism that with their draft position, they should be able to ice a competitive team. You might want to take a look at the standings.
He was doing a very poor job. He signed some bad contracts, but they aren’t even with that much term. Those aren’t that hard to unload when you need to. Hard to say he hasn’t improved his performance. Benning is doing a better job than a lot of GMs.
Last edited:
This is spot on.
The OP giving Benning credit for being first in the division is a bit ridiculous though. The main reason we are there is due to Markstrom and the rest of the division being mediocre at best.
Last edited:
AwesomeInTheory
A Christmas miracle
- Aug 21, 2015
- 4,624
- 5,106
No. The team is doing well presently, but this is in a generally weaker Western Conference with a slightly improved Canucks team year over year. They are first in the division, yes, but they are a single point ahead of 4 other teams in their division, are the only team in the current playoff record with a losing road record.
The Canucks are looking good, but I had stated before the season had started that they were a bubble team this year and nothing so far has really dispelled that notion.
It also doesn't excuse a lot of gaffes that Benning has made prior to right now, particularly given his reputation as being a "talent whisperer."
I find this to be a really overblown point. This is to take nothing away from any of those three players and it is a great sign that the Canucks have a solid core, but it takes away from some of Benning's "talent whisperer" mistakes -- specifically having less success outside of the first round and making some rather underwhelming selections with Virtanen, Juolevi and (potentially, I'll admit this is too early to tell) Podkolzin.
This is basically a repeat of your first point, just giving more emphasis to Hughes.
It is looking like a shrewd move and is one of the few trades that Benning hasn't bungled. As a butt saving move, it is brilliant, particularly if the Canucks end up making the playoffs. I'm more interested in seeing how the team is going to perform in the next couple of years, but the point you've made about the effective cost is a solid one.
This is slightly misleading and in part wrong. Pettersson has scored 17 goals from November 1-now, while Pearson has scored 2 more goals than Horvat (with far less responsibilities than Horvat) and 3 more than Boeser.
However, Pearson has also been the beneficiary of at least 3 empty netters, which isn't exactly a huge testament to his skill...and I think you alluded to that fact in the last part.
Debatable, his "turning the corner", and still is a bad look compared to his relative draft position. It's good that the Canucks are able to get a serviceable player out of him. But consistency has always been one of Virtanen's biggest issues and this isn't the first season similar arguments have been made regarding him. I'm rooting for him to continue with his current upwards trending, though.
With a razor-thin margin. Also, it brings up an interesting question from some of my observations at the beginning of my post: are the Canucks likely to continue to have a losing record on the road (which, again, they're the only team in the current playoff picture that has a losing away record) or are the Canucks going to be able to sustain .700 win% hockey for the rest of the season (which is what they've done in their last 10GP)?
I will be honest and state that I haven't been following the farm team as much as I have in past years. If this is accurate, this is encouraging as Utica was sort of neglected in previous years. Bailey is intriguing, although I'm wondering if he's a prime example of Jason Krog Syndrome (great AHL numbers, meh performance at the NHL level.)
If these 'gems' are able to perform at the NHL level I'll give him full credit. I just remember names like Jordan Subban and Cole "the McDavid Killer" Cassels being touted in similar roles and look at where they are now. It's fine to be excited by upcoming prospects, but until they do something at the pro level, I don't really care beyond what their potential value is at upgrading the team at the pro level.
Big picture, yes Benning has his blemishes on his resume, and so does all the other GMs but its tough to argue with those results. Im curious to see the current perception of Jim Benning is.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Of course. Most teams in first place are getting good goaltending. I’m not sure why that detracts from Benning.
He didn’t trade for Markstrom but he did bring in Ian Clark as goalie coach who has revived Markstrom’s career ( he passed through waivers a couple of years ago) and has Demko trending as a starter as well. Full credit to Benning for hiring good people.
The point on the weak Pacific is a valid one though.
This pretty much sums up and embodies the posters who refuse to recognize growth and change.
They focus on the "roughly 25 percent%" of bad contracts on the roster and are too blinded to see the other 75% who has the Canucks in 1st place and in a good position core wise.
and define "long term contracts" ... Whats the worst contract the Canucks have? Eriksson? he expires in 2 years. Beagle? 2 years. .. Sutter 1 yr.....
They dont exactly have a Karlsson 11mil for 7 more years or Burns 8 mil for 5 more years...Lucic /Neal 3 more years., Okposo 3 more yrs 6M, Seabrooke 4more year 7 mil.
and yes getting top 10 picks right isnt a norm..the draft is a crapshoot. Busts happen every year. Getting it Right and Hitting Home Runs is also much much different especially when someone like EP40 was ranked anywhere between 4-14 pre draft.
Last edited:
Markstrom has been MVP but he has also been on the team for a while. IMO the main reason Canucks are in 1st place ( along with Markstrom)is because Hughes is a game changer, Miller has been amazing, and added depth on the blueline with Myers Fattenberg and Benn has allowed us to have more balance and less exposure injury.
[/QUOTE]
LMAO i didnt look but i sure hope you arent a Canuck "fan" otherwise it might be better for your life to just take some time off and not follow the team as it seems to give you more stress and worry in your life as i dont think you are capable of enjoying whats in front of you.
In looking at that post there's no way id be able to tell you are a fellow Canuck fan like me because the Canucks have never won the Stanley Cup. Reading your post there seems to be some sort of entitlement and demanding. AS a Canuck fan, im the complete opposite because like i said, weve won diddly squat in the league.
To sum up your thought process:
-Canucks are in 1st place BUT its a weak Conference
- Canucks might accomplish a feat not done since 1966 and go back to back Calder Winner BUT he drafted Virtanen in 2014
- Tanner Pearson is has 49 pts in 68 games with the Canucks BUT some of those are empty netters
- Virtanen is on pace for 24 goals , career year BUT we didnt get Nylander in 2014
- Utica prospects are doing very well and performing BUT im going to randomly bring up busted 4th round prospects like Jordan Subban who was drafted in 2013 to try and make an irrelevant correlation.
that doesnt sound healthy at all.
Canuck fans ( and like i said i dont know if you are) arent the Montreal Canadians fan base. We dont have 23 Stanley Cups. We've won nothing. Some Beggars here seems to want to be Choosers as well.
at the end of the day it comes down to this for Jimbo.
If you believe that drafting Franchise players like Hughes and Pettersson and assembling one of the brighter cores in the NHL is the same value positively as it is negatively to giving Loui Eriksson 6x6 contract then there is no changing your mind.
If you believe that drafting Franchise players like Hughes and Pettersson and assembling one of the brighter cores in the NHL is the same value positively as it is negatively to giving Loui Eriksson 6x6 contract then there is no changing your mind.
Stopped reading this thread when after reading the first couple a pages realized this is a HF Canucks thread full of Canuck fans attacking eachother. The only difference is this one is in the main boards. I will now go back to HF Canucks and attack other Canucks posters........
I am toxic
. . . even in small doses
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
You completely glossed over his point, which is that drafting Petterson (win) is far more impactful than trading Clendenning for Forsling (loss). Your "objective" assessment treats each move as equal. Massive difference between drafting a #1 C, or a #1 D and losing a trade involving career AHL'ers.
Also how many 2nd - 6th round picks are playing on each team? 2 is an average number of late round picks contributing. If Tryamkin comes back then it becomes 3.
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
No, it doesn't. And no where did I call my report card assessment objective, stop lying. I agree that drafting Pettersson is much more important to the franchise than the Forsling/Clendening trade. But they fall under separate categories/job duties of a GM (drafting and trading). My assessment involved rating each part of his job and then grading each part. It's fine if you think drafting is more important than trading, I never said my methodology was perfect, but it at least elaborates my opinion on why I believe Benning has not done a great job so far and provides more logic and reasoning than a lot of the posts in this thread.
As for the 2nd part of your post, 2nd - 6th round picks should still be important to a rebuilding team, especially when the GM is heralded for his drafting ability. But the greater point is that it's poor asset management. We needed to have stockpiled futures, not traded them for waiver-eligible bust prospects like Clendening, Larsen, Etem, Vey, Pouliot, etc. You shouldn't be looking at what the average number of late picks contributing is, because the Canucks record over the last 6 years is anything but average.
What key player has he dealt that makes his trades so poor? He has won the bulk of the trades he made.
Good post. And realistically the later round picks take at least three years in most cases to make the NHL. It’s far too early to assess the last three years drafts even though some later picks like Madden and Rathbone are tracking well.
