Has your opinion of Jim Benning changed?

[Frankie Blueberries]

This statement is true of nearly every drafted player who has not yet played in the NHL. It's a nearly meaningless statement. No matter who you draft, someone better is liable to be drafted later in the same round unless you draft the best player from that point in the round onward, which is obviously not a meaningful or reasonable standard. Do you understand this?

Lol you cut out the rest of my post contextualizing the statement. Debating in bad faith, not really worth my time.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Two thirds of the players from that round have not yet played in the NHL. 5 players have played more than 10 games. Of the 150 or so players drafted after Gadjovic, 3 are in the NHL. If you think any of this contradicts anything I said, you simply don't understand what we're talking about. I don't know what else to say at this point.

Ok so you just don’t understand what the words “virtually all” mean. 1/3 is a substantial number. Be more careful in the words and language you use next time to avoid looking obtuse. A fair amount of players have played NHL games who were drafted after Lind. Your last post was factually incorrect.

 

[Delusionalplan]

At the very least, he's better than Chiarelli. Of course, almost all people/animals/inanimate objects would be a better GM than Chiarelli.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I mean it's a thread about our opinions of a GM.

Yeah so it's probably better to actually look at how something turned out rather than how you happened to feel at the time. Imagine applying the same logic to drafting, or for the opposite situation, it makes no sense.

I do think this happens quite a bit, though, where guys hold onto that initial bitterness and never really revisit that. People probably should more often.

 

[GreatSaveLuongo]

As a Nucks fan I'd reposition him as heat of scout and give him power to draft all future 1st round picks.

He's terrible at negotiating contracts and cap management; also terrible at trades with exception of Pearson.

We need a new GM who is focused more focused on hiring competent staff/do it himself for:
- contract negotiations
- trades
- cap management
- hiring competent AGM and better coach
- PR person for interviews (stop using injury as excuse)

 

[GreatSaveLuongo]

People don't seem to understand that you can "rebuild" your team without trading everyone and everything of value for picks and prospects. Keeping a team competitive by bringing in some decent vets to help shelter your kids is the right way.

Getting rid of everyone a la Edmonton and Buffalo and having your kids feasted on by grown men is not the way to make them winners. But it's like a good chunk of folks have this mentality that if a team isnt considered a cup contender then they might as well keep trading everything for more picks and prospects.

Making the playoffs most years even if you don't win is not a bad thing, and doesn't mean your franchise is bad. Look at Nashville. I'd trade McDavid in a heartbeat if it meant the team was competitive year in and year out like they've been for God knows how long.

By decent vets did you mean Erickson, Beagle, Schaller, Grudbranson, Sutter?

 

[Canucks LB]

@Lucbourdon just made that claim. You know, the post that I was responding to. I can't take you seriously if you aren't even reading the original post I responded to. You've become unhinged lol.

I am not saying Jim Benning is a fantastic GM, I think he has made countless mistakes that should have been fire-able offenses.

I am just saying his Drafting has been very good, and in the past few years he has been doing a much better job.
I think that is pretty fair.

 

[bandwagonesque]

So, the poster responding to me is an accurate representation of the nature and quality of discussion on our board right now -- just throwing together creaky, half-true arguments to prop up other people's creaky, half-true arguments about the particular goal or viewpoint most in favour on the board, which in our case happens to be the necessity to tank and fire our GM. My question for all fans reading this is as follows: is this happening on your boards too, particularly those of teams with an uncertain near future?

 

[Regal]

signings sure ill give you that.

Trades tho recently,

Miller for 1st and 3rd
Pearson for Gudbranson
Leivo for Carconne


how can you argue with those?

Miller move has been good so far but was still pretty risky at the time. Pearson was good but is at best a wash considering the terrible trade he made for Guddy in the first place, and Leivo is pretty dime a dozen even if he's been solid. The Kesler, Sutter, Granlund, Vey deals were all bad and he botched potentially trading Hamhuis. And he adds picks that seem unnecessary to almost every deal

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

No
He was never as bad as some claimed he was

He is never as good as some claiming he is

so No

Though every GM has its expiration regardless of their performance, i feel like his is just a few years away

 

[Canucks LB]

Miller move has been good so far but was still pretty risky at the time. Pearson was good but is at best a wash considering the terrible trade he made for Guddy in the first place, and Leivo is pretty dime a dozen even if he's been solid. The Kesler, Sutter, Granlund, Vey deals were all bad and he botched potentially trading Hamhuis. And he adds picks that seem unnecessary to almost every deal

Again notice when he made those other deals compared to the ones he made now.

Clearly he learned a thing or two.

Literally every bad trade you mentioned so far was in the first few years.

God I can’t believe I’m defending Jim Benning

 

[Regal]

I don’t know how much credit to give him for the Miller trade because I’ve always thought you should be able to judge a trade right when it happens. Did he think he was getting a 47-point forward?

Miller had 47 points playing half the year in the bottom 6 though and averaging under 15 minutes a game. I'm sure he thought he was getting the player who had 58 and 56 points the two years before that and who had shown flashes of the potential for more. I'd say Miller the player was worth a lower 1st even before this year. What made it a questionable deal was the potential for the pick to be in the lottery, the fact that Tampa didn't have a lot of leverage, and that another 3rd was required.

 

[GOilers88]

By decent vets did you mean Erickson, Beagle, Schaller, Grudbranson, Sutter?

I think Rousell, Myers, Miller, Pearson, and Benn have been pretty good additions.

If it wasn't for injuries, Sutter would be okay albeit slightly overpaid. Guddy is gone. Schaller is whatever. Eriksson and Beagle are the only two I really think are bad. But again, take every GM in the league, their last 5 years worth of transactions, and I bet every single one of them has made a few bad decisions. The team is fine in my opinion, and a year or two more experience for the core is what they really need.

Just my opinion though.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Nail Yakupov was a Calder finalist and robbed of it. Ep40 has regressed this year. A lot of it depends on what he does next year and what is ceiling is.I do not see true elite talent, a lot of teams don't have it, to be a cup contender.

Statistically? No
Eye tests? Hell No

Mind you he's also on the top of the list of "number of posts and bars hit by a player"

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Yeah so it's probably better to actually look at how something turned out rather than how you happened to feel at the time. Imagine applying the same logic to drafting, or for the opposite situation, it makes no sense.

I do think this happens quite a bit, though, where guys hold onto that initial bitterness and never really revisit that. People probably should more often.

HUNTER SHINKARUK IS GOING TO BE A GOOD PLAYER

WWWWHHHAT? PETTERSON OVER VILARDI???

etc

some of you know what am I referring to

 

[Breakers]

He has known when to jettison a prospect for something of value before they are worth nothing
Maybe the worst in the entire NHL at free agency
American scouting =
CHL scouting =

 

[Regal]

Again notice when he made those other deals compared to the ones he made now.

Clearly he learned a thing or two.

Literally every bad trade you mentioned so far was in the first few years.

God I can’t believe I’m defending Jim Benning

For sure. I'm not as concerned about his trading lately, and it's mostly the signings that have been an issue, but you have to question whether it's learning or simply luck as well. All GMs are going to have good and bad deals, and I'm not one to harp on everything he does, but it's hard to have too much faith eith that history even if the most recent have been better. And I still question the thought process behind some deals even if they worked out.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Pearson was good but is at best a wash considering the terrible trade he made for Guddy in the first place

The Gudbranson trade was terrible and took place several years ago. The Pearson trade took place less than a year ago and has proved to be one of the best trades in the league in recent memory.

 

[RebuildinVan]

He has improved ...but overall no. He has failed miserably to put together a good defense, Tanev and Edler were already here and I was shocked Hughes fell to us. That was a no brainer not great scouting. Our 3rd and 4th lines are badly overpaid, were at the cap and cant improve because of it. He obviously did zero research into Ferland in the off season, he was unsigned there was no need to open up the cheque book for him and give that term

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

I don't know what Gillis has to do with anything considering he was fired (largely because of his drafting) and has not been hired since (also probably largely because of his drafting). Why are you using an unqualified person as a comparable for Benning? Weird flex but ok.

At the end of the day, our drafting has been reflective of the picks that we have received. We haven't done exceptionally well (if we had, we wouldn't have picked Juolevi and Virtanen, and our 2nd round picks and later round picks would have had more success).

Because let's be honest

Mike Gillis is still the "God" of most Anti-Benning crowed

Like I get why people hate Benning, but really? Gillis is your standard???

 

[Regal]

The Gudbranson trade was terrible and took place several years ago. The Pearson trade took place less than a year ago and has proved to be one of the best trades in the league in recent memory.

The point is the deal was just undoing the previous damage. It's hard to get too much credit for that, though I'm glad he was willing to admit the mistake with Gudbranson.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

At the end of the day, result is all that matters.

If the Canucks can at least play a competitive 1st round series, you be the majority fan base (people who dont use HFboard) will support Benning, and that's just how life works

 

[bandwagonesque]

The point is the deal was just undoing the previous damage.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the individual trade itself was good and takes nothing away from it, any more than acquiring Pearson entitles us to think the Gudbranson trade wasn't bad.

 

[Michoulicious]

He's good at drafting, very bad at all the rest.

 

[Regal]

Yeah so it's probably better to actually look at how something turned out rather than how you happened to feel at the time. Imagine applying the same logic to drafting, or for the opposite situation, it makes no sense.

I do think this happens quite a bit, though, where guys hold onto that initial bitterness and never really revisit that. People probably should more often.

I think both need to be considered. I mean, if you trade a star for spare parts and one of them ends up a better star, it may have worked out but is a sign of luck more than ability, and theoretically you should have got more in the deal. You get credit for finding a diamond in the rough, but criticism for not maximizing asset value. Similarly, if you make a good value deal for a star and they blow out their knee and become half the player they were, that doesn't mean you screwed up.