2019 NHL ENTRY DRAFT - Vancouver

[Diehard1]

Fucking Benning-bashers...

Pointing out that Benning had more options that people usually ascribe to him isn't "bashing"; it is, if anything, "excuse dismissal".

But if you believe that the rebuild is going brilliantly, and has been since Benning took the reins, then you don't think he needs any excuses, do you?

Well I know for a fact that Edler does not want to play for anyone but the Canucks...

Is Benning the first GM in hockey who doesn’t trade pending UFA’s with NTCs at the deadline?

I am beginning to feel some sympathy with Blob's frustration at your reading comprehension skills. Maybe try re-reading Hockey Widow's post -- as I said, she explained it better.

You're a pretty insightful poster when you're sober. Have you considered a breathalyzer lock for your CC login ?

Nice to quote me but don't forget the part that said I agreed with him not strong arming any of those other players. Yes Benning had a choice, I don't see anyone disputing that. But his choices were extremely limited, which is the part you forget.

Kesler, waived to 1-2 teams, depending upon who tells the story.In the end only one team. Benning got what he could.

Hamhuis injured, came back and refused to waive until about a week before the TDD. Then only 1-2 teams. In the end Dallas tried to get one over on Benning and Benning decided that having Hamhuis finish out the year with the Canucks Brough more value than a 4th round pick.

Bieksa, agreed to waive for a handful of teams but only if they agreed to a two year extension.

Burrows agreed to waive but only to a team that agreed to a 2 year extension.

Hansen gave a list.

Edler refused to waive.

I'm not sure how much more Benning could have gotten done in those above mentioned. Who else should he have strong armed in your opinion? Like really who did he refuse to trade or refuse to push out the door? Higgins? He tried for 1.5 years to trade him, no takers. Prust? No takers. Vrbata? He provided a list as required but no takers.

I'm confused by who you think he wasted an opportunity to move.

I think this is more aimed at me, so here's how I see it - no, it's not just 'no trade deals, not Benning's fault'

Kesler - waived to 1-2 teams, Jimbo got the best he could. I'm fine with it.

Hamhuis - Benning didn't ask him to waive until right before the deadline. Piss poor planning, smart GMs see this happening weeks or even months in advance and get the player prepared to waive then

Bieksa - agreed to waive, was traded to SJ which didn't happen, then traded to Anaheim. Again, good business

Burr - agreed to waive as he thought it would help the team. Good trade even if Dahlen didn't work out

Edler - Jimbo approached him, again right at the deadline, to see if he would waive. Piss poor planning once again, especially when you consider they had already had extension discussions and agreed on most points! If you want a guy to waive, especially one who doesn't necessarily want to leave, then you don't wave a new contract in front of him first.

Garrison - yep, forced him to waive because he wasn't needed, good business.

The truth is that for most of these guys Jimbo didn't want or try to trade them, because he thought they were needed. That may be fine but to then say he was hamstrung by NTCs is disingenuous - fact is Jimbo didn't want to trade them and really didn't try very hard. Can't have it both ways, wanting to keep the player and blaming NTCs as well.

[DonCherry4PM]

- he had to move Kesler anyway. As you so well described, Benning could have held out for better terms, and indeed considered doing so. He made a strategic decision not to, because he didn't want to sacrifice the 2014-2015 season. I submit that it would have been better to sacrifice the season for a better return.

- he traded Bieksa anyway. If he had done it earlier, he might have gotten more.

- ditto for Burrows and Hansen

- if he'd started leaning on Hamhuis earlier, he might have been able to get an acceptable return.

- there would also have more likely been takers for Vrbata the season before (and really, that should have been the premise for attracting free agents all along: sign for a year, we'll put you with the Sedins to pump your stats, trade you to a contender, and you can use this year's performance to negotiate a fatter contract with your new team next year.)

Oh, okay.

I'm just gonna put this out there, poster RG is smarter than any GM in the league, GMs in the NHL are all idiots and RG would be way better than Benning as GM.

I mean, he could have held out and gotten a better return on Kesler? Why didn't Benning think of that?!?! He could've gotten more for Bieksa?! Well what the heck Jim???!?

I'm glad to finally have my eyes opened to the truth - Benning should have got more on all of his trades. What a turkey.

Questioning certain actions and indicating there was potential to do better is far from making a statement about how much smarter he is than "any GM in the league".

But nice narrative if it makes you feel better.

I, for one, appreciate the reasoned approach that RG brings to this forum. But I can understand how such approach would be quite an affront to the faithful.

[Ronning's Ghost]

I mean, he could have held out and gotten a better return on Kesler? Why didn't Benning think of that?!?!

You need to read further up the thread. As Hockey Widow explained, Benning did think of that. He decided it was more important to get on with the 2104-2015 season without distractions. I disagree. That doesn't mean I think I would be a better hockey executive than Benning. We're here to discuss the Canucks, and that includes assessing GM performance. Or are you one of the posters who thinks discussion here should be limited to debating whether it would be more accurate to describe Benning as 10 times the GM that Sam Pollock was, or 20 times?

He could've gotten more for Bieksa?! Well what the heck Jim???!?

Bieksa one year younger and with one more year on his contract would be worth more. I hardly think that's a controversial assertion. Benning decided when he wanted to trade Bieksa.

What I'm really saying, and have been saying since 2014, is that "re-tool on the fly" was a bad plan. It may have been the Little Eagles' plan, but part of the GM's job seems to be talking owners out of bad plans. I think we can see evidence now that the "re-tool on the fly" has delayed, or possibly even stunted, the rebuild. It may yet turn out that superior drafting (superior to what we're used to in Vancouver, anyway) overcomes all hockey management obstacles. We'll see.

[Diehard1]

Ya I'm happy with the results. I wait to be made happier though.

Benning did what he said he'd do. He drafted and waited patiently for the kids to develop. We are starting to see those results and they are good results. As much as this season had suckage, and it did have suckage, it was also fun and exciting at times. I truly believe that no matter who the GM was we would have ended up in basically the same place. We would have Taychook instead of Juolevi. Who knows who we would have instead of Pettersson, maybe Glass. Who knows who we would have instead of Hughes or Boeser or Demko.

My point, the team was broken, old, on the downside and as our beloved Torts said, stale. No matter who the GM was they would have had to rebuild, re-tool, transition. No matter who the GM was it would have been painful. Re-builds take about 5 years. Next year must be a playoff year though.

I and others have said this before, the biggest obstacle to our rebuild, re-tool, transition, was year one under Benning and that damn 101 point season. It gave the water-boy a false sense that we just needed to tinker. But ya, overall I'm happy with Benning"s work to date. That doesn't mean I see him as a genius or that he has been perfect. But if you look at his entire body of work and not differing areas in isolation I think he has done a fine job.

I agree, I do think we'd be in a similar stage with another GM, though my point is there were opportunities to accelerate the rebuild by trading assets. Yes, I consider players assets not people, might sound harsh but that's the way the league is set up.

I've liked Jimbo's drafting for the most part
I've liked Jimbo's patience for the most part
I've disliked most of Jimbo's trades
I've disliked most of Jimbo's signings

There are a couple of exceptions for all of these - Virtanen wasn't the best pick for example, I think Jimbo has been too patient with guys like Pouliot, I liked the Pearson trade and Roussel signings respectively, but in general those are my thoughts.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing some parts of his job and liking others - there are very few posters who are Benning haters all the time, just like there are very few who are Benning supporters all the time, but the few who are on the extreme of one side are the other are mostly just here to push buttons of other posters.

[Diehard1]

Kirby DACH showing some flash and pizzazz in the playoffs, dude might got the elite skills after all.
*I think that was the GWG as well.

Kirby Dach is who I was leaning towards last november. Although he dropped in some of the rankings for a while,
he's gaining again now and might be out of reach if we are, ho hum, ninth.

If we get 9th or 10th, the most likely spots, we'll get a player like Dach. I say like Dach because there's almost no separation between 3-10:

Turcotte
Dach
Cozens
Byram
Zegras
Boldy
Podkolzin
Krebs
Soderstrom

All are definite possibilities at 9 or 10, given Kakko and Hughes are locks for 1 & 2. Dach would be great given his size and playmaking, but so would Cozens given his speed and shot, Zegras given his skating and skill, Boldy given his hands and shot, Krebs given his motor and playmaking, etc.

Lots of good choices, we will get a good player - Brackett will see to it, I have the utmost confidence in him.

[Ronning's Ghost]

- he had to move Kesler anyway. As you so well described, Benning could have held out for better terms, and indeed considered doing so. He made a strategic decision not to, because he didn't want to sacrifice the 2014-2015 season. I submit that it would have been better to sacrifice the season for a better return.

- he traded Bieksa anyway. If he had done it earlier, he might have gotten more.

- ditto for Burrows and Hansen

- if he'd started leaning on Hamhuis earlier, he might have been able to get an acceptable return.

- there would also have more likely been takers for Vrbata the season before (and really, that should have been the premise for attracting free agents all along: sign for a year, we'll put you with the Sedins to pump your stats, trade you to a contender, and you can use this year's performance to negotiate a fatter contract with your new team next year.)

Oh, okay.

I'm just gonna put this out there, poster RG is smarter than any GM in the league, GMs in the NHL are all idiots and RG would be way better than Benning as GM.

I mean, he could have held out and gotten a better return on Kesler? Why didn't Benning think of that?!?! He could've gotten more for Bieksa?! Well what the heck Jim???!?

I'm glad to finally have my eyes opened to the truth - Benning should have got more on all of his trades. What a turkey.

Questioning certain actions and indicating there was potential to do better is far from making a statement about how much smarter he is than "any GM in the league".

But nice narrative if it makes you feel better.

I, for one, appreciate the reasoned approach that RG brings to this forum. But I can understand how such approach would be quite an affront to the faithful.

I see you got to it before I did. Thanks.

I think you nailed it though: faith and reason are not a comfortable mix. Some posters here are just more comfortable with blind faith in Benning. I'm not sure what he has done to earn that, but of course, I don't share that position.

[Blob Mckenzie]

There is nothing wrong with criticizing some parts of his job and liking others - there are very few posters who are Benning haters all the time, just like there are very few who are Benning supporters all the time, but the few who are on the extreme of one side are the other are mostly just here to push buttons of other posters.

A good point mostly... but I disagree slightly. I haven’t seen ANY posters who are Benning haters all the time.

I have however seen a good half dozen posters (at least) who are Benning supporters ALL THE TIME. These posters get their backs up at ANY criticism of Elmer

[Strangelove]

I see you got to it before I did. Thanks.

I think you nailed it though: faith and reason are not a comfortable mix. Some posters here are just more comfortable with blind faith in Benning. I'm not sure what he has done to earn that, but of course, I don't share that position.

So...

People who are not comfortable with Benning as GM = Smart

People who are comfortable with Benning as GM = Dumb


Thank you SO MUCH for your unbiased assessment Cliffy!

No matter how many times people give their reasons for being comfortable, it's "blind faith"...

[Strangelove]

These posters get their backs up at ANY criticism of Elmer

Yes, they are purple with rage!!

[Blob Mckenzie]

These posters get their backs up at ANY criticism of Elmer

Yes, they are purple with rage!!

Would you ever criticize a Benning move?

[Strangelove]

These posters get their backs up at ANY criticism of Elmer

Yes, they are purple with rage!!

Would you ever criticize a Benning move?

I was the first person here to criticize him (Sbisa extension).

[Blob Mckenzie]

These posters get their backs up at ANY criticism of Elmer

Yes, they are purple with rage!!

Would you ever criticize a Benning move?

I was the first person here to criticize him (Sbisa extension).

Yes you were. Kudos ... you seemed a bit more open minded back then. Any other moves cover the years ( 2016 draft for instance) that you’d like to comment on, or is that the only error he’s made in his tenure?

[Strangelove]

These posters get their backs up at ANY criticism of Elmer

Yes, they are purple with rage!!

Would you ever criticize a Benning move?

I was the first person here to criticize him (Sbisa extension).

Yes you were. Kudos ... you seemed a bit more open minded back then. Any other moves cover the years ( 2016 draft for instance) that you’d like to comment on, or is that the only error he’s made in his tenure?

Actually, in hindsight, it wasn't an error.

[ESQ]

I think you nailed it though: faith and reason are not a comfortable mix.

Thank you for your "reason" - I just see a post that says "Benning should have got more" to be pointless - you weren't in the room, you don't know what was offered, and by the way, all of those players have gone off a cliff since being traded.

Your post is a classic example of unreasonable Canucks fans overestimating the value of their players.

Benning was lucky to get anyone to take Bieksa, Bieksa was unbelievably lucky to get another 3 year contract, but you're right, Benning just should have gotten more, because from your armchair you can tell he could have got more!

Allow me to illustrate with an example - Gillis should have traded Kesler after the 2011 run and his disastrous injuries. He would have gotten more.

Do you see how pointless that statement is?

[Blob Mckenzie]

the few who are on the extreme of one side are mostly just here to push buttons of other posters.

Sorry fixed for accuracy. A “mod” just confirmed it