Jim Benning TSN1040 - 6:10PM TODAY!

[Cupless44]

He has to step up a tremendous amount to be a bargain. The best one can hope for is that he steps up enough so the contract isn't so embarrassing. It's doubtful at this point that he ever really earns that money.

I cant say I am overly confident either.

 

[RandV]

It has nothing to do with gloating. I just can't see this team being competitive with management that's incapable of a modern approach to the game. Thus, the faster they fail (I expect an accidental tank will begin as soon as next year), the faster they're removed and the organization can move back towards fielding a top club.

The result on here will just be fun to watch. You take pleasure where you can.

I dread the idea of the Sedins finishing their careers here in mediocrity, or having to move to another team for their last chance at success like Jarome Iginla. But if there's one guilty pleasure I'll take should the team collapse it will be in watching how our spoiled fan 'always have to make the playoffs' owner responds.

 

[tantalum]

The team targeted skiled youth that was excelling at the AHL level, in organizations that are littered with depth, keeping these players from cracking the NHL roster. The thought process behind the Vey, Baerstchi, Clendening and Pedan deals is sound IMO - of course they're not all going to work out. If even 1 of the 4 become good players, you're doing well.

But in general that thought is a fallacy IMO. There is no organization I can think of that doesn't embrace young guys ready to play in the league on cheap contracts. Especially in a hard cap world. Yes some of those guys exist but by and large the best you are going to do with that type of player is a Stanton (who was grabbed from waivers and no assets given up). Look at Vey...the reason Vey wasn't on the team wasn't because he was behind some great depth. It was because he wasn't good enough to replace Stoll or Richards. And Richards they really really really wanted to get rid of. Clendenning didn't get stuck behind great depth...he fell in the depth chart as other players passed him.

Baertschi may be different in that the president before even knowing the guy was throwing him under the bus and the fan base was legitimately shocked he didn't make the team coming out of camp. But I'll be honest, what I saw of him as a canucks suggests Hartley may have been correct. Odds are that is the case.

I'll go further...I don't think it's a coincidence that the biggest successes from Gillis targetting those older type of players have been Tanev, Lack and Hopefully Kenins. These were guys that were not in an organization yet. They were true diamonds in the rough not some fictional "they just didn't get a chance" player.

So yes sometimes it is the case a guy does get pushed out due to depth (Stanton legitimately got pushed out) however, even in that case it is very rare that such a player goes on to be any sort of impact player in the NHL. They are still depth players....extra forwards, first callups etc.

We didn't draft a single player under the previous management group that outscored Vey this season.

Hopefully that little tidbit helps put in perspective why they felt it was worth the gamble on a highly skilled young pro that looked close to being NHL ready.

First incorrect. Horvat did. And given Vey wasn't drafted why are you limiting things to what the old regime drafted or acquired for similar cost.

If you do that you'll find Higgins and Mathias also outproduced him. Not to mention Kenins likely would have. And heck Tanev a low scoring D-man nearly did.

Vey had 9 points in his last 40 games.

This goes to what Bieksa basically said. It doesn't matter if they are young players if they aren't good players. To me Vey and Clendenning are going to turn out as getting younger for the sake of getting younger rather than younger and better.

Then again, I'm a firm believer in high end AHL production translating to the NHL. I've never been one to get too excited about a prospect until they've shown they can be an impact player at the AHL level.

And in general that's fine when saying a lower end AHL producer is not likely to be anything more than a scrub NHL player. But not all high end producing AHL players make the NHL. Many don't. The AHL is littered with 20-something players who put up good even great AHL numbers and don't have a hope at a NHL career. Unless Vey goes through some sort of tremendous growth as a player this summer he'll be one of those guys. Same with Clendenning. We'll see on Baertschi but I'm not going to be shocked that around January of next year he is waived and on his way to Utica (or Europe).

 

[Drop the Sopel]

He made a terrible decision on Garrison. Good player on a great contract that would have filled the biggest hole on our roster this postseason.

And hell yeah he missed on Santorelli.

Garrison is a good player on a fair contract. I wasn't surprised in the least to hear the guy responsible for signing Garrison had designs of shipping him out last summer. The defense fit together poorly and more cap space needed to be allocated elsewhere. Zero problem with dealing a good, veteran player based on where this group is.

And when one of your 'bad moves' has you foregoing term, along with 30 other GM's, on a journeyman, veteran player with a spotty track record, it puts into perspective what a truly bad move is.

Benning's vision for what this team needs and lacks is pretty much exactly in line with most people have been saying over the last couple years. They need to get younger, faster and acquire players that can get to the front of the net and score goals. I have zero problem with him basically acknowledging that this veteran group isn't good enough, and essentially wilted in the face of adversity.

That's their eulogy. Bring on the next wave.

 

[Proto]

That's sad. I'll take pleasure from cheering on the team, watching youngsters like Horvat and Baertschi take the next step forward and enjoying my team winning against hated rivals. Maybe even have a few beers while doing so.

This isn't mutually exclusive from what I said at all.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

That's not fixing the prospect pipeline, it's taking out a payday loan. Even if Benning recoups the picks by trading pro roster players that's still only getting us back up to par on our number of draft picks, when the vets could have been traded to give us extra picks.

If he does move vets to acquire more picks, which I think he will do, it's basically akin to keeping all your picks, while trading vets for 21-23 year old soon to be waiver eligible youth. I think that is a sound strategy.

If the Canucks didn't have the worst under 25 core in the NHL, with a dearth of talent at the AHL level, I don't think Benning goes out and aggressively pursues these 4 young players. This was a move in hopes of bringing along 2-3 youngsters each and every year, as opposed to nothing for 3 years, followed by a handful of guys trying to make it at the same time. Again, there is merit to this IMO.

If he doesn't recoup any picks, I won't be as big a fan of getting the Baertschi, Pedan's etc... Though I think it's a foregone conclusion we see the likes of Higgins/Bieksa etc. moved to fill in the gaps.

 

[Verviticus]

He didn't miss on Garrison. He saw an opportunity to shed salary, get younger and add a valuable pick.

i cant wait until he trades all of our good players for peanuts and everyone justifies it with long winded ******** like "well benning decided [horrible stupid thing] and so his solution was to [really dumb trade] and i cant judge him because hes the gm"

oh wait people have already done that with garrison. more of it to come!

hmmm

 

[MS]

Garrison is a good player on a fair contract. I wasn't surprised in the least to hear the guy responsible for signing Garrison had designs of shipping him out last summer. The defense fit together poorly and more cap space needed to be allocated elsewhere. Zero problem with dealing a good, veteran player based on where this group is.

And when one of your 'bad moves' has you foregoing term, along with 30 other GM's, on a journeyman, veteran player with a spotty track record, it puts into perspective what a truly bad move is.

Benning's vision for what this team needs and lacks is pretty much exactly in line with most people have been saying over the last couple years. They need to get younger, faster and acquire players that can get to the front of the net and score goals. I have zero problem with him basically acknowledging that this veteran group isn't good enough, and essentially wilted in the face of adversity.

That's their eulogy. Bring on the next wave.

If Benning would have replaced Garrison with someone who made the mix on defense better, fine. But he didn't. He brought in literally the worst possible fit to that spot and made our blueline mix even worse. Awful management.

Again, two awful decisions that led to $10 million on useless assets in just one year. Nonis must be impressed.

No kidding the team needs to get younger and faster. Everyone knows this and it's an easy thing to say. So far he has done zilch to make that actually happen in reality. Vrbata is old and Vey and Bonino are slugs.

 

[tantalum]

Benning's vision for what this team needs and lacks is pretty much exactly in line with most people have been saying over the last couple years. They need to get younger, faster and acquire players that can get to the front of the net and score goals. I have zero problem with him basically acknowledging that this veteran group isn't good enough, and essentially wilted in the face of adversity.

That's their eulogy. Bring on the next wave.

I don't see anyone arguing to supplement the old core and give it a last go. No one is saying that.

I think everyone agrees with the stated vision of getting young and better etc etc etc.

The argument is whether the execution has been up to par and if there is confidence this management group can succeed.

Personally, I think the execution has been poor overall despite some decent moves. I also think the execution has been very poor in a couple areas that it is going to be hard to actually effectively move forward. The Bieksa deal is no longer a good one. And that is now compounded with a terrible deal to Sbisa. A poor deal to Dorsett and poor deal to Miller. The cap is likely coming down. This isn't a time to be excited over this management group IMO>

I hope they prove me wrong. I really really do. I want to see a fantastic summer of wheeling and dealing. A summer where Benning actually wins a trade. A strong draft. etc etc.

That's what I want to see. I expect what I'll see is quality depth veterans like Higgins, Mathias, Hamhuis and Richardson replaced with younger and poorer players. You can nurse one of those guys along like they did with Horvat for 35 games but you can't nurse 3 or 4 of them.

 

[Verviticus]

*trades horvat for a pick 'just outside the 1st round'*

an opportunity to shed salary, get younger and add a valuable pick!

 

[Bleach Clean]

This offseason we had a team with no 2nd line centre, no 3rd line centre, it needed a 2nd line RW, a 2nd line LW, had a defense that fit together poorly with not enough offensive push from the backend, while having the most inexperienced, questionable duo between the pipes of any team in the league. To sit here and pretend it wasn't going to take an absolute miracle to turn this team into anything resembling a contender would be an argument not worth listening to. .

It wasn't going to take a miracle. It was about the team getting back to their previous form - this was the argument in the offseason. Just because you judged it to be a "miracle", and were proven wrong, doesn't mean it was still a "miracle".

Further, when you say that players 1 through 20 saw improvements in their game, you're actually giving credit to the team beyond Benning's additions of Bonino+Vrbata for that bounce back. I knew you would come around to seeing it wasn't solely due to them. Good on you.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This isn't about Gillis. Please keep talk in this thread about Benning and his interview.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

But not all high end producing AHL players make the NHL. Many don't.

Many draft picks outside the 1st Rd don't play in the NHL either. Hell, when was the last time we drafted a guy that was even a high end producer at the AHL level, let alone the NHL level?

None of these are blue-chip prospects. None of the assets given up to acquire them were blue-chip assets. We should have a pretty good idea by the mid point of next season how these deals will likely shake out.

 

[MS]

If he does move vets to acquire more picks, which I think he will do, it's basically akin to keeping all your picks, while trading vets for 21-23 year old soon to be waiver eligible youth. I think that is a sound strategy.

If the Canucks didn't have the worst under 25 core in the NHL, with a dearth of talent at the AHL level, I don't think Benning goes out and aggressively pursues these 4 young players. This was a move in hopes of bringing along 2-3 youngsters each and every year, as opposed to nothing for 3 years, followed by a handful of guys trying to make it at the same time. Again, there is merit to this IMO.

If he doesn't recoup any picks, I won't be as big a fan of getting the Baertschi, Pedan's etc... Though I think it's a foregone conclusion we see the likes of Higgins/Bieksa etc. moved to fill in the gaps.

That's nice.

If he valued a young core, he wouldn't have completely mucked up the goaltending situation and his young starting goalie.

In terms of good/damage to the future core, if the Miller signing forces a Lack trade that result would be 10x worse than any positive that comes out of these smaller moves.

 

[tantalum]

If he does move vets to acquire more picks, which I think he will do, it's basically akin to keeping all your picks, while trading vets for 21-23 year old soon to be waiver eligible youth. I think that is a sound strategy.

It is only a sound strategy if that 21 year old is at the top of a teams prospect list. It will NOT work with guys who are falling down the prospect list. And that is the problem with the Vey and Clendenning acquisitions. These weren't top prospects any longer. These were guys that had been passed by other prospects their age and were getting passed by those that were younger. That's the wrong trajectory for a 20 something player and one you don't really want to invest in.

I hope Benning proves I'm the idiot with those acquisitions. But thus far it doesn't look good. Vey wasn't dressed at the end of the year and in the playoffs despite a favourable history with the coach. Clendenning wasn't even in the NHL by the end of the year. Think about it...the blueline was bad and the guy they may keep on the roster next year because of waiver eligibility wasn't even good enough to be the #7 this year. That's not good.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Hit on Weber.

seems like several people already responded to this, but i'll throw in my 2 cents as well.
wasn't weber brought in by gillis? benning gets a "hit" for this? if you mean benning gets a "hit" for keeping him at near minimum salary, ok, but seems like a no-brainer to me to keep a 6/7 Dman at that salary.

Hit on keeping Edler over Garrison.

not sure how you can say keeping edler over garrison is a "hit" when we don't know what edler could've garner in a trade. since we don't know what offers benning have for edler, it makes no sense to give him a "hit" for "keeping edler over garrison". all we can do without that info is to judge the garrison trade in isolation, which i think is clearly a "miss". you just don't trade top 4 Dman for a 2nd, you can EASILY keep garrison at $4.5M if you don't take sbisa ($2.9M) and sign hiller ($4M) instead of miller ($6M).

Sort of hit on Dorsett? He had a career year and was voted unsung hero by his teammates. There is no sort of.

the trade for dorsett is definitely a "hit" imo, 3rd rounders are highly overrated, dorsett was a solid 4th liner, it is not his fault willyD play him like a 2nd/3rd liner.
his extension though...to me that is a "miss". 5th highest cap hit among forwards for a 4th liner is too much no matter how good of a 4th liner he is.

He 'missed' on Santorelli, being 1 of 30 GM's that refused to give him term? There was what, 1 other GM in the league that valued Santo more than Benning?

i think the whole league "miss" on santo, benning gets a pass for this from me.

He didn't miss on Garrison. He saw an opportunity to shed salary, get younger and add a valuable pick.

he absolutely did "miss" on garrison. dumping a contributing top 4 Dman for a 2nd is ridiculous, specially when this team only have 4 top 4 Dman WITH garrison.
what makes it even worst is the sequence of event that follows: spending the saved cap space on miller, re-signing sbisa to "protect" themselves from hamhuis/bieksa UFA status, etc.

In 1 year, Benning has done 1 thing that would raise eyebrows around the league and be considered a 'what the he'll are you thinking' move. The Sbisa extension. That's it. 1 move. When you make decisions on 20+ players in 1 year, there will be some hits and some misses. That's where we're at today.

what about the miller contract (both term AND money)?
considering the going rate for top 4 D, the garrison trade falls into that as well. then subsequently flip that pick for vey.
his near-trade (or general handling) of kassian.
his drafting of virtanen over nylander/ehlers/ritchie.
his trade for clendenning when we have sanguiette/corrado on the farm and never given a chance to prove themselves.
etc.

Let's not forget the team went from 28th in goals for to 8th in one offseason. And that's with the teams only goal scoring threat demanding a trade! That in itself was a terrific accomplishment - one that took an unwatchable group back to respectability and improved the entertainment value significantly.

henrik not getting injured/playing injured and burrows not breaking his leg first game of the season helped. but benning did sign vrbata. no matter HOW/WHY vrbata was signed, benning deserve credit for that.

He even managed to do it while stockpiling a lot of skilled youth into the organization as well. He's not the shoe-in for GM of the year candidate like he was one third of the way into this season, but it sure wouldn't surprise me if he still gets consideration.

did he? he walked into the #6OA pick last draft, and gained an extra 1st when kesler demanded a trade. what else did he do that "stockpiled" skilled youth that he otherwise wouldn't have? had he not traded his draft picks for pedan, vey, clendenning, beartschi, he would've used them to "stockpile" skilled youth by drafting prospects anyways. all he did was "fast track" (i believe this is his saying) the draft picks, it is neither a positive nor negative at this point.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

It wasn't going to take a miracle. It was about the team getting back to their previous form - this was the argument in the offseason. Just because you judged it to be a "miracle", and were proven wrong, doesn't mean it was still a "miracle".

Uh, so now you're saying this group is a contender? Again, I disagree with that assessment. Contender for a playoff spot, sure. Cup contender? I don't see it. Nor did I this offseason.

 

[I in the Eye]

If he does move vets to acquire more picks, which I think he will do, it's basically akin to keeping all your picks, while trading vets for 21-23 year old soon to be waiver eligible youth. I think that is a sound strategy.

If the Canucks didn't have the worst under 25 core in the NHL, with a dearth of talent at the AHL level, I don't think Benning goes out and aggressively pursues these 4 young players. This was a move in hopes of bringing along 2-3 youngsters each and every year, as opposed to nothing for 3 years, followed by a handful of guys trying to make it at the same time. Again, there is merit to this IMO.

If he doesn't recoup any picks, I won't be as big a fan of getting the Baertschi, Pedan's etc... Though I think it's a foregone conclusion we see the likes of Higgins/Bieksa etc. moved to fill in the gaps.

Why these 4 young players specifically? I'd love to see the analysis that determined these were the 4 to get. I get the impression that these 4 were targeted, because these teams called Benning and said they were available (for a variety of reasons), Benning looked at their AHL stats, Benning went off memory from his scouting of these players years past, Benning had the desire to get young 20 players (the right strategy, IMO), and Benning made the deals. I think the analysis could have been as simple as that.

I have nothing really against the strategy, I have nothing really against these players. I have concerns about how this regime is making decisions and determinations, because I find myself disagreeing with them a lot more than agreeing with them. If they were privy to resources, technology and information that I'm not, than fair enough. But I could have visited the Anaheim board last draft, asked what they thought about Sbisa, decide not to make the deal, and feel I made the right decision today. In fact, Sbisa is the player that Anaheim fans warned visiting Canuck fan posters about. I could have also visited the NYI board and found out that Pedan had concussion issues, found out about Vey's size and strength issues on the LA board, etc. Perhaps, I'm more informed and connected to reality than they are. Benning could have visited here, and realized that Lack was a great goaltender prior to making the Miller deal... and made a better decision than the one he did. I just had to watch the games to realize that Sbisa isn't worth that contract he gave him... I didn't even have to visit this board to realize that one. And the Canucks lost against the Flames because the fans were loud and colour co-ordinated. Sounds like complete ******** to me. Seems over-simplistic reasoning to me. For me, the roster deployment was probably the biggest reason for the series loss. But, maybe, this regime are privy to resources, technology and information that I'm not. Maybe arena atmosphere is the greatest determining factor for playoff success or failure.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Personally, I think the execution has been poor overall despite some decent moves. I also think the execution has been very poor in a couple areas that it is going to be hard to actually effectively move forward.

This is how I feel as well. One can talk about "getting younger", but it's how you do it. Vey's season has everyone questioning that 'eye for talent'. Further, a "winning environment" is great, but not so if your team is dragging along 12m+ in burned cap space. And of course "he's tough in scrums and hits" = 3.6m on term has everyone going.

It's execution.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Uh, so now you're saying this group is a contender? Again, I disagree with that assessment. Contender for a playoff spot, sure. Cup contender? I don't see it. Nor did I this offseason.

Straw man.

The arguments last season were about pushing for the playoffs vs. a controlled tank (whatever that is). They pushed for the playoffs. They made it. Players 1 though 20 improved from last year's performance. No miracle required.

 

[tantalum]

None of these are blue-chip prospects. None of the assets given up to acquire them were blue-chip assets. We should have a pretty good idea by the mid point of next season how these deals will likely shake out.

Ah but the difference is you KNOW the assets acquired were not blue chippers. You don't know if the draft pick could have been. After all many NHL stars and superstars were drafted outside the first round.

That's the problem. Acquiring guys who are actively falling on a teams prospect list isn't a sound strategy to get you ahead of the curve.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Straw man.

The arguments last season were about pushing for the playoffs vs. a controlled tank. They pushed for the playoffs. They made it. Players 1 though 20 improved from last year's performance. No miracle required.

The argument was whether or not this core group could contend for a Stanley cup, or would it be in the best long term interests of the franchise to ice a young roster, and the growing pains associated with that?

I want the same thing this offseason that I did the last. Go young, and if you can have a season like the Flames just did, great. If you can't compete with an infusion of youth, so be it.

Keeping guys like Higgins around would be the best move if the objective is to simply 'push for the playoffs'. I have zero interest in seeing Chris Higgins play another game in a Canuck uniform.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Ah but the difference is you KNOW the assets acquired were not blue chippers. You don't know if the draft pick could have been. After all many NHL stars and superstars were drafted outside the first round.

That's the problem. Acquiring guys who are actively falling on a teams prospect list isn't a sound strategy to get you ahead of the curve.

There is truth to this. You're probably sacrificing upside, in lieu of risk. As high level AHL players have a much greater chance of playing in the NHL than your average 2nd, 3rd and 5th Rd picks.

Though I also do like the upside of guys like Baertschi and Pedan specifically. You very well could get a 50+ point player out of Baertschi, as well as a top 4 damn out of Pedan - with a skill set that is virtually impossible to find.

 

[Proto]

The argument was whether or not this core group could contend for a Stanley cup, or would it be in the best long term interests of the franchise to ice a young roster, and the growing pains associated with that?

I want the same thing this offseason that I did the last. Go young, and if you can have a season like the Flames just did, great. If you can't compete with an infusion of youth, so be it.

Keeping guys like Higgins around would be the best move if the objective is to simply 'push for the playoffs'. I have zero interest in seeing Chris Higgins play another game in a Canuck uniform.

And yet you arduously defend the team's acquisition of players like Dorsett, Sbisa, Bonino, and Vrbata as vital to the team increasing offense and making the product exciting so they can make the playoffs.

I'm not even sure you know what you're defending anymore

I'll let someone else engage your debate-club antics from here on in.

 

[ugghhh]

And yet you arduously defend the team's acquisition of players like Dorsett, Sbisa, Bonino, and Vrbata as vital to the team increasing offense and making the product exciting so they can make the playoffs.

I'm not even sure you know what you're defending anymore

I'll let someone else engage your debate-club antics from here on in.

Exactly this.

Dorsett and Sbisa (and Miller) are taking up roster spots that should go to younger players while draining us of valuable cap space.

The Canucks biggest issue is secondary scoring and a PPQB. We could have used that money to fill those needs and iced a competitive team with a lot of youth as well.