I seem to recall a fairly loud portion of the media and fanbase who also wanted to local kid after passing on so many in the past. But Benning is the one who should end up taking the blame, right or wrong, because that's his job.
Has your opinion of Jim Benning changed?
- Thread starter FreeMcdavid
- Start date
I seem to recall a fairly loud portion of the media and fanbase who also wanted to local kid after passing on so many in the past. But Benning is the one who should end up taking the blame, right or wrong, because that's his job.
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
No idea where you're getting the Gaudette assertion - I never remotely said anything of that nature. I said it's comical that we wouldn't have Gaudette without Gillis acquiring that extra pick. I never said Benning doesn't deserve credit for Gaudette. Stop lying.
And this is the theme of Benning supporters. "It's not a big deal, it doesn't matter much." - in reference to throwing away draft picks, cap space on overpaid UFA depth players, etc. All of this adds up, and does indeed become a big deal, like our cap this offseason.
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
You're going off of results ("most good GMs miss on picks", along with the Dal Colle, Bennet comparisons). I'm going off whether the decision making process made sense at the time it happened (Juolevi being a reach over Tkachuk). Those are two very different ways of looking at how well a GM drafts, and I believe my way is more fair and equitable, as opposed to using hindsight to chastise a GM for making a consensus pick.
If your support of a general manager is based almost entirely on the aspect of the job that depends on an entire staff of people to do the grunt work, than what value is the GM actually providing?
You just knew this thread was going to be a "but da prospects", "look at the drafting", while never providing a baseline of expectations based on where they were selecting.
I'm pleased they added some elite players in EP and QH, as when Benning took over, I thought the team was ripe to become the late Iginla flames, not good enough to win, not bad enough to draft high. Thankfully I was wrong and Benning put together some of the worst teams in franchise history that allowed the team to draft these elite talents high in the draft.
You just knew this thread was going to be a "but da prospects", "look at the drafting", while never providing a baseline of expectations based on where they were selecting.
I'm pleased they added some elite players in EP and QH, as when Benning took over, I thought the team was ripe to become the late Iginla flames, not good enough to win, not bad enough to draft high. Thankfully I was wrong and Benning put together some of the worst teams in franchise history that allowed the team to draft these elite talents high in the draft.
No. You’ve misinterpreted my post. I’m saying every GM misses on some first round picks. And I’m saying I think the three home runs with Boeser, Hughes and EP make up somewhat for the Juolevi miss. I think my way of looking at it is more logical. You disagree. I think we are at an impasse.
Now I’m out of here to enjoy the B.C. rain.
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
No one is lying bud
I qualified my statement in an earlier post with how you were attempting to marginally discredit the pick by emphasizing how Gillis was the one who traded for him. Riiiiight. Now you're conflating the incredibly small statistical difference in late round picks with things like UFA mistakes and throwing away picks. Much like your first post in this thread, you are making false equivalencies. I don't think any of those things are not a big deal (and recently commented the team flushed a 33rd overall pick down the toilet not that long ago), I also don't think focusing on them obsessively while laughably rating drafting a C is remotely objective or logical.
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
Is your view that the GM is also not dependent on his staff for contracts, trades or pro-scouting?
Thus far there isn't anything to change my mind over. Nothing has been achieved by this club in this his 6th season at the helm. Many of the underlying numbers at ES have remained unchanged or have limited improvement...it's a team being led to success by Markstrom and the PP. Yes parts of the team that can't be discounted but not exactly comforting or enough to say the team building capability of management has improved.
They are still very much in a dog fight to make the playoffs despite spending a significant asset and money for help and being healthy. If they don't it will be 5 straight years of missed playoffs. If they do make the playoffs he will still need to prove he can actually build on that success. Find ways to avoid the contract bloat as in very short order there are big contracts to be handed out to young players. He'll already be rolling over significant performance bonuses to next years cap hit. He still has Spooner buy out money on the books next year (and perhaps more if he's forced to buy other out). There is the Luongo recapture.
And that isn't some unusual bar. I set the same bar for Nonis for example. He was unable to build a truly competitive roster depsite making some good moves himself.
They are still very much in a dog fight to make the playoffs despite spending a significant asset and money for help and being healthy. If they don't it will be 5 straight years of missed playoffs. If they do make the playoffs he will still need to prove he can actually build on that success. Find ways to avoid the contract bloat as in very short order there are big contracts to be handed out to young players. He'll already be rolling over significant performance bonuses to next years cap hit. He still has Spooner buy out money on the books next year (and perhaps more if he's forced to buy other out). There is the Luongo recapture.
And that isn't some unusual bar. I set the same bar for Nonis for example. He was unable to build a truly competitive roster depsite making some good moves himself.
Last edited:
Hyperbole that doesn’t really advance the discussion at all. Some are saying they are generally happy with Bennings drafting. It’s a big jump from there to say they support his other moves.
As for other staff being responsible for the drafting that’s how big businesses generally work. The boss is supposed to hire good people and oversee their work. If they succeed he shares in the credit. If they fail it’s his job on the line. If Benning has put Brackett in charge of the scouting and Ian Clark in charge of the goal tending then he deserves the credit. He also gets the blame for some of the terrible trades and signings.
I would say these other aspects have less staff members doing the work. I think using the draft to evaluate GM's is a common mistake. I used to make the same mistake, but then I read what GM's have said about their jobs as GM's -"...it's less about hockey, and more about managing people".
How much sense does it make to credit/blame the GM for the draft, when there is video of him having no clue about Jonah Gadjovich, a player his team took fairly high (2nd round pick).
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
No one is lying bud
Ok, so you're just purposefully misrepresenting my post to try to make me look bad. That's way better, right? Debating in bad faith.
I'm conflating it because it's true. Benning supporters tend to overlook or excuse his minor gaffes (throwing in extra draft picks into trades that aren't necessary like Kassian + 5th for Prust, for instance), but these minor mistakes add up and make a big impact on the team.
As for the later round draft picks' likelihood for turning into NHLers, it is very nuanced. There's 6 more rounds after the 1st round. Then you'd need to repeat the exercise for at least the 5 years we have sucked. At the end of the day, your measurement of using the average team and applying it to the Canucks is laughable. The Canucks haven't been average for the last 5 years, we've sucked and have been the worst team in the league. This completely changes your erroneous comparison in an effort to justify why we have only had 2 players crack the NHL from 2nd-7th round picks in a 6 year span. Talk about false equivalencies
Where is the hyperbole? What an overused misunderstood word.
Nowhere in my post did I say that the GM doesn't wear the picks, I questioned how much he actually has to do with it.
"Benning drafted so and so..." is the kind of statement I'm arguing against. The team drafted so and so while the GM was Jim Benning. My point isn't about limiting his praise, but trying to find out what kind of value he's actually providing to the draft.
And when it comes down to it, drafting is always used to support him as a GM and that is exactly what I expected to read when I entered this thread.
You don't think Benning is cut out to take them to the next level, you typed it to me this morning, so I don't understand your purpose here. I actually think baselining the draft and questioning how much the GM has to do with it, advance the conversation a lot more than "bright young core" and "but da prospects".....but I guess that's exaggerating in your mind.
Clendening, Sutter, Vey and McCann I agree were trades Benning lost. Vey had extenuating circumstances though (with his dad being charged for attempting to kill his mom during the year) so he was pretty distracted in the year he was with the Canucks.
However, Baertschi's was even as the Canucks did get some solid production out of him but injuries (which you can't blame Benning for) derailed his career allowing others to supplant him in a top 6 role. Calgary used the pick well, but had Baertschi not been injured, he'd be a 40-50 point player which I think would be a fair trade. Kesler had a NTC and demanded where to go which hamstrung the front office to find a good location for him. Yes, I agree that Benning didn't get a good return for him but Kesler being an a** means I blame Kesler more than Benning.
Definitely made mistakes but unlike some GMs (*cough* Bergevin *cough*) has some homeruns that can make the overall work at least look like they're going right direction.
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
I'm conflating it because it's true. Benning supporters tend to overlook or excuse his minor gaffes (throwing in extra draft picks into trades that aren't necessary like Kassian + 5th for Prust, for instance), but these minor mistakes add up and make a big impact on the team.
As for the later round draft picks' likelihood for turning into NHLers, it is very nuanced. There's 6 more rounds after the 1st round. Then you'd need to repeat the exercise for at least the 5 years we have sucked. At the end of the day, your measurement of using the average team and applying it to the Canucks is laughable. The Canucks haven't been average for the last 5 years, we've sucked and have been the worst team in the league. This completely changes your erroneous comparison in an effort to justify why we have only had 2 players crack the NHL from 2nd-7th round picks in a 6 year span. Talk about false equivalencies
You are utterly grasping at straws at this point. I think we're done here.
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
It's pretty amusing that you can dish it out but can't take it. You criticize my methodologies, then use an erroneous measurement yourself, and get all defensive about it. There is no need for the hypocrisy.
John Eichel da GOAT
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2008
- 6,486
- 2,097
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
I don't think you properly understand what the words lying, defensive or hypocrisy mean. You really feel that lazily collating a bunch of moves to rate a GM is the same is working through the statistical minutiae involved in looking at late round pick success rates relative to draft order over 5 years? When we already have general rates of success for the late rounds? That is ludicrous.
You sound more like you're attempting to convince yourself than anyone else at this point. It's not so much that I can't take it, it's simply that you're making a variety of logical fallacies and false equivalencies and digging in when anyone in this thread has called you out on it. Which is, as I'm now realizing, a colossal waste of my time. Like the other poster I don't see any value in this conversation and was clearly mistaken to engage you in the first place. Ah well, live and learn I suppose.
As it's clear you're going to continue responding out of bluster and stubbornness...last word will be yours.
But they aren’t. They play in the Pacific, and are playing for 1st in the division.
Yes, they are up against the cap, but have a ton of prospects who will push for spots in the next year or 2 to coincide with expiring veteran deals. Their 2 best players are 20 and 21.
The Canucks have an excellent young core, a deep but not elite prospect pool, and a deep roster that can roll 4 lines. There is no reason to assume they won’t continue to progress.
They have been rebuilding? They went all in this year by adding Miller, Meyers, Ferland, and Hughes, and look lime a vastly different team.
Rebuilding teams usually don’t do well, didn’t think I would need to explain that.
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
You used a bad measurement, I called you out on it, and since then you've done damage control and have tried to downplay it. Right after you had attacked all of the methodology I was using, using lies and misrepresentations to discredit me ("omitting facts" - when I asked you what facts I had omitted, I get radio silence from you lol). It is amusing. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
And then ad hominem attacks? A sure fire sign that someone has mailed it in and has no interest continuing the debate in good faith.
Numba9
Registered User
So if the Canucks had this money who would they spend it on? Panarin? or Tavares? Lol. You know what they would likely spend it on?; third and forth liners lol Or more likely they would just wouldn't spend it. They likely wouldn't be much better off. That 20M only really helps if you can use it on big time players and I think we can agree those are very hard to find as UFAs.
Being critical of moves in a silo is shortsighted. If this team makes it out of the Pacific, which is not unreasonable, are you going to still hang onto poor moves from 5 years ago?
Benning is not judged on individual moves, he is judged on how his NHL team is doing, which is about as good as you could hope in year 6. Many teams have to rebuild their rebuild, I don’t think the Canucks will have to. Bennings tenure/rebuild has not been perfect, but has been very successful. We have the best young team we have ever had, as well as the deepest prospect pipeline we have had as well. I’ll take that over a few mid round picks.
I just wondering why "look at the standings" wasn't permitted in previous seasons.
They're all in?
So say they miss the playoffs, by a single point....then what? And don't say it's not a realistic possibility. They're in the playoffs by 2 points.
It's why these types of threads don't make any sense with 40% of the season left to play.
