The Great Jim Benning Debate! (And personal insult thread)

[Chef Boi RD]

Ken Holland, considered a genius by many in this market. Drafted Svechnikov in the 1st round of the 2015 draft with Boeser still on board. In 2016 drafted Chylowski who isn't looking too good, then followed that up with the UFA signing of Nielsen. Then in the 2017 draft, drafted Rassmussen in the 1st round with so many good players still available like Necas for one. Holland - considered a genius by many, sure ain't looking so genius lately, but that being said, has made his share of mistakes. Like I said, a genius will make his mistakes on his way to his masterpiece. It's the big picture. Stop focusing on the place holders.

[Ronning's Ghost]

This thread should be entitled "Is Jim Benning a Genius?"

I created one to that effect long ago:
http://canuckscorner.com/forums/viewtop ... 8&start=15

I feel that in the mean time, The Dude has provided the definitive answer:

Geniuses create Masterpieces.
Therefore, if Benning creates a Masterpiece, he is a genius.
If he doesn't, he isn't.

In the context of an NHL executive, I would say that a Masterpiece would have to be a dynasty team (or as close as modern rules allow, say, 3 Cups in 6 seasons).

That's actually a more rigorous standard than any I proposed, so I'm happy to abide by it.

[Cousin Strawberry]

My 2 bits is that he's definitely been a good drafting GM but thats only part of the equation. Plenty of teams with tons of young talent that suck.

Until the team gets out of the NHL basement under his hand he's no more than the GM of a shitty team who has drafted a few good forwards.

[Island Nucklehead]

So the trade was good.

The contract extension was bad.

As far as trades to Benning has made a couple of head scratchers, but not many. It’s the signings and re-signings that feel out to lunch.

Not sure that you can look at them in isolation. The Pens traded Sutter because they didn't want to pay him. The Canucks acquired him knowing they had to (and did in a matter of days).

I didn't like the trade or the contract. Bonino was a cost-effective tweener C that was fine here in the role. The perfect placeholder, if you will.

I've always found it curious Benning going out and targetting specific players, cost be damned, when the team is full of holes throughout the lineup. It's not like we were a Brandon Sutter or Erik Gudbranson away from competing. When the team needs first line wingers, top-pairing dman, and the picks/prospects to acquire them, it's odd he'd go out and blow multiple picks/prospects/players for two depth guys, even if they are "high character" and full of "intangibles". To me, these kind of moves that epitomize the failed "rebuild on the fly" strategy.

[ESQ]

Ken Holland, considered a genius by many in this market. Drafted Svechnikov in the 1st round of the 2015 draft with Boeser still on board. In 2016 drafted Chylowski who isn't looking too good, then followed that up with the UFA signing of Nielsen. Then in the 2017 draft, drafted Rassmussen in the 1st round with so many good players still available like Necas for one. Holland - considered a genius by many, sure ain't looking so genius lately, but that being said, has made his share of mistakes. Like I said, a genius will make his mistakes on his way to his masterpiece. It's the big picture. Stop focusing on the place holders.

I've heard a lot of chatter about Holland on 650, which makes me worried that that's where the Aquilinis will go.

Holland is not a good GM. He hasn't had a dangerous team since Lidstom (drafted ten years before he became GM) retired. The team was carried by 1989 draft pick Lidstrom and 1983 draft pick Yzerman for decades, then fluked on 5th and 7th round picks Zetterberg and Datsyuk

Without the GOAT pieces he inherited, or the dumb luck in getting Zetterberg and Datsyuk, the Wings would have looked ... An awful lot like they do now. He had by far the highest payroll pre-cap, and Lidstrom in his prime, and managed one cup in 7 years before the lockout.

He's drafted one top-6 forward, one defenceman, one goalie, and a handful of tweener forwards in the last 18 drafts.

If he was a Good GM, the Wings wouldn't look like they currently do without Datsyuk.

[DonCherry4PM]

Do you agree that every team and GM has a bad contract or two under their belt, current and past?

RD, do you agree that a "Genius" should be held to a higher standard than the average (or "every") NHL GM?

DC, it's great to see you use the word "Genius" in regards to GMJB.

This thread should be entitled "Is Jim Benning a Genius?"

Hold on there! I just asked a simple question. No references whatsoever.

In fact, you should be chastising me for not staying on topic.

[DonCherry4PM]

I've always found it curious Benning going out and targetting specific players, cost be damned, when the team is full of holes throughout the lineup.

I wonder if this is a function of his being a scout at heart. Most of us agree that his drafting is one of the better aspects (I would argue best) of his skillset. Perhaps the targeting you reference is just his application of that strength in an area where it, at times, may not be as effective (i.e. when the targets require trading assets rather then expending draft picks).

[Island Nucklehead]

lol ESQ. Is Mantha (on pace for 55 points) not a top-6 forward, or are you referring to Larkin?

With such a terrible GM, it's amazing they managed to luck their way into three cups and 18 straight playoff appearances under his watch. You'd think after such a multi-generational run they'd be forgiven if they needed to rebuild. Their worst finish in the last 25 years is 25th. The Canucks, under Jim Benning, have finished better than 25th once.

If Holland isn't a good GM, there's no way you can have a good opinion of Jim Benning.

[Island Nucklehead]

I've always found it curious Benning going out and targetting specific players, cost be damned, when the team is full of holes throughout the lineup.

I wonder if this is a function of his being a scout at heart. Most of us agree that his drafting is one of the better aspects (I would argue best) of his skillset. Perhaps the targeting you reference is just his application of that strength in an area where it, at times, may not be as effective (i.e. when the targets require trading assets rather then expending draft picks).

I think you're absolutely correct, and it may be that he loved what he saw of these players (Sutter, Gudbranson) as amateurs, overlooking what they are as pros.

[Chef Boi RD]

[quote="Island Nucklehead" post_id=296242 time=1516498387 user_id=385]


Not sure that you can look at them in isolation. The Pens traded Sutter because they didn't want to pay him. The Canucks acquired him knowing they had to (and did in a matter of days).

I didn't like the trade or the contract. Bonino was a cost-effective tweener C that was fine here in the role. The perfect placeholder, if you will.

I've always found it curious Benning going out and targetting specific players, cost be damned, when the team is full of holes throughout the lineup. It's not like we were a Brandon Sutter or Erik Gudbranson away from competing. When the team needs first line wingers, top-pairing dman, and the picks/prospects to acquire them, it's odd he'd go out and blow multiple picks/prospects/players for two depth guys, even if they are "high character" and full of "intangibles". To me, these kind of moves that epitomize the failed "rebuild on the fly" strategy.
[/quote]

Bonino was a cost affective tweener at the time.... yeah sure I guess (he did absolutely, embarrassingly SFA in the playoffs against the Flames) but hey let's leave out those good parts like how he is now making $4 million on a 4 year in Nashville after two seasons in Pittsburgh. Should we have kept him? Signed him to something similar or lost him to the market for zilch. Won't know and to you that doesn't matter

[Island Nucklehead]

Bonino was a cost affective tweener at the time.... yeah sure I guess (he did absolutely, embarrassingly SFA in the playoffs against the Flames) but hey let's leave out those good parts like how he is now making $4 million on a 4 year in Nashville after two seasons in Pittsburgh. Should we have kept him? Signed him to something similar or lost him to the market for zilch. Won't know and to you that doesn't matter

I don't think the Canucks needed either guy long-term. Like I said, Bonino was the ideal placeholder. He should've been used to buy the kids some time for another year and a half and traded as a valuable (and cheap) depth piece to team loading up.

It's always funny to hear people talk about Sutter "upping his game when it matters", how many meaningful games has the guy played in? Certainly none for this franchise.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Jason Botchford said in the Provies that Elmer had a choice between Vatanen and Sbisa and picked Sbisa. Gesus Christ.

[SKYO]

Jason Botchford said in the Provies that Elmer had a choice between Vatanen and Sbisa and picked Sbisa. Gesus Christ.

everyone hates botchford, he imitates his god................

[Chef Boi RD]

Jason Botchford said in the Provies that Elmer had a choice between Vatanen and Sbisa and picked Sbisa. Gesus Christ.

everyone hates botchford, he imitates his god................

It's Bitchfotd the bitch. So legit

Vatanen traded to New Jersey for that bum Henriqur

Vatanen 2 goals 12 assists in 36 games
Sbisa 1 goal 9 assists in 24 games

Vatanen 5'-10" 185 lbs
Sbisa 6'-2" 210 lbs

The golden knights are raving about Sbisa. Shrimp Vatanen gets traded

Both are 27 years of age

Bubbles quoting Bitchford. Gold Jerry

[Chef Boi RD]

Sutter 2 goals in 2 games since coming back from his injury