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

[Strangelove]

"The point" has been addressed by "the apologists" many, many times.

All those players were young when they were brought in.

(it's not "instant gratification" when you bring in young developing players while retaining the standard number of picks)

(and for the billionth time no kid/prospect was given up in the Sutter trade)

You could apply the same reasoning to Burke's acquisition of Phil Kessel.

He was young an still developing. Hell, the leaves, despite not being able to draft Tyler Seguin in 2010 or Dougie Hamilton in 2011, still had the "standard number of picks" at the entry draft (7 in 2010, and 9 in 2011).

This was Benning's strategy his first couple years here (trying to take a short-cut, although thankfully he never went Full Burke). Like the leaves did, it appears the Canucks have learned this lesson, and have adopted a more traditional rebuild strategy.

Every team gives up picks for players.

But giving up unprotected firsts is a whole new ballgame.

Apples and orangutans.

"Full Burke" indeed.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Diehard had a great line about Abbotsford.

Most of his points are like trying to nail jello to a wall

[Strangelove]

Diehard had a great line about Abbotsford.

Most of his points are like trying to nail jello to a wall

Yes Blob you are like jello.

[2Fingers]

Yes, and Canucks will make the playoffs this season, you can take that to the bank Cliffy!

And look good once they get there, of course.

Thank you for a definite answer. More posters should be so bold.

Canucks will make the playoffs in 2019/2020 season.

Canucks will advance to third round in 2021/2022 season.

Even with Hughes this year the Canucks do not have the defence to get them out of a lottery pick next year. We desperately need Julio/Hughes to be worth the position they were drafted.

Demko needs 20 games this year, half season next season and the take the reins for the 2020/2021 season.

This assuming no major trades or FA pick ups, except to fill holes. This means no JT or Carlson type guys.

Defencemen normally need 2-4 years from drafting to be impactful players. Forwards can be quicker.

Written on phone so pardon grammar or spelling errors.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Diehard had a great line about Abbotsford.

Most of his points are like trying to nail jello to a wall

Yes Blob you are like jello.

More like granite. And you are armed with a plastic hammer

[Meds]

Diehard had a great line about Abbotsford.

Most of his points are like trying to nail jello to a wall

Yes Blob you are like jello.

More like granite. And you are armed with a plastic hammer

Bahahaha!!! Blobby it’s sooooo true.

[Chef Boi RD]

Is Blob tunneling Trump again?

[Blob Mckenzie]

Is Blob tunneling Trump again?

Hey !!! There’s another member of the IGC

Instant Gratification Club

The folks who can’t handle a rebuild

[Rocky Dennis]

gave up watching because he can't handle a rebuild

Or didn’t watch because the team was using slugs like Dowd, Jokinnen, Motte etc. They have developed one player in three seasons. You only watch all 82 because you live in a village of 150 people and you guys make an event out the NHL games and have a community potluck.


Someone say potluck?

[Hockey Widow]

The funny thing about this debate is that Benning hasn’t changed his approach from day one. A slow transition /rebuild. It’s taken five drafts to acquire a stable of good prospects on the cusp of being Canucks.

To get here he bought time, trying to stay game to game competitive. He’s added FA, some overpaid but it cost us nothing but cap, AND development time. He’s made some trades to add players he hoped could either develop into the new core, some of them, while buying time to develop young players. He’s renewed contracts at a pretty decent clip. Not all of his new contracts were Sutterish. Most were Pouliotish or Gudbransonish. Low term, slight increase in salary. All the while doing the slow transition into a new core.

He’s made mistakes and will again. He’s shown he can move NTC/NMC contracts. He’s shown he will walk away from mistakes. He’s shown he will cut players lose if he doesn’t see them fitting onto the Canucks lineup.

His philosophy from day one was a slow transition. As the transition begins to show promise by way of some good young prospects he continues to add depth and placeholders.

It would have been great to have had a top three in a couple of those drafts he came out ok. All the pieces aren’t in place yet. A player like Virtanen May still develop that power forward game and if he does he will be very valuable along side some of our small skilled guys. Point, until we see these players all transition into the NHL and see the new core we can’t say for sure if he’s gotten more right than wrong.

But his methodology has not changed much from one year to the next. How he managed that philosophy changed based upon the needs from year to year, his approach shifted. But his goals have remained unchanged.

[Meds]

The funny thing about this debate is that Benning hasn’t changed his approach from day one. A slow transition /rebuild. It’s taken five drafts to acquire a stable of good prospects on the cusp of being Canucks.

To get here he bought time, trying to stay game to game competitive. He’s added FA, some overpaid but it cost us nothing but cap, AND development time. He’s made some trades to add players he hoped could either develop into the new core, some of them, while buying time to develop young players. He’s renewed contracts at a pretty decent clip. Not all of his new contracts were Sutterish. Most were Pouliotish or Gudbransonish. Low term, slight increase in salary. All the while doing the slow transition into a new core.

He’s made mistakes and will again. He’s shown he can move NTC/NMC contracts. He’s shown he will walk away from mistakes. He’s shown he will cut players lose if he doesn’t see them fitting onto the Canucks lineup.

His philosophy from day one was a slow transition. As the transition begins to show promise by way of some good young prospects he continues to add depth and placeholders.

It would have been great to have had a top three in a couple of those drafts he came out ok. All the pieces aren’t in place yet. A player like Virtanen May still develop that power forward game and if he does he will be very valuable along side some of our small skilled guys. Point, until we see these players all transition into the NHL and see the new core we can’t say for sure if he’s gotten more right than wrong.

But his methodology has not changed much from one year to the next. How he managed that philosophy changed based upon the needs from year to year, his approach shifted. But his goals have remained unchanged.

Nice dose of perspective, thanks HW.

One thing I will say that was somewhat counter productive tho was the hanging onto Willie D for 3 years. He was inept at utilizing young players and letting them learn and develop through mistakes. Stapling guys to the bench and press box while maintaining Vigneault’s policy of zero accountability for guys like Edler, that’s just useless.

Like you said in a previous post, at some point you have let the kids play to give the fans something to be excited about, but also so that they are learning through exoeri nice and feel confident to work it out and try again.

[Ronning's Ghost]

The funny thing about this debate is that Benning hasn’t changed his approach from day one. A slow transition /rebuild..... How he managed that philosophy changed based upon the needs from year to year, his approach shifted. But his goals have remained unchanged.

Nice dose of perspective, thanks HW.

A nicely balanced perspective, but that's not how it looks from here. Of course I am not privy to the ownership/management's reasoning process, and I have already conceded that it can be wise for them to lie to the press in the interest of the franchise, but I think that the moves that we can observe are more consistent with another interpretation.

It looks to me as though for almost 3 seasons, they really did believe in that "retool on the fly" idea. It would be why they wanted young roster players, rather than draft picks, ("filling the age gap") and a competent veteran goalie, plus free agents who could potentially mesh with their aging stars (Vrbata, Eriksson), and rushed draft picks into the lineup. Had they chosen a more suitable coach, or had the Sedins proven to have Selänne-like longevity (not a ridiculous gamble back in '14), it might have worked. As it was, by the end of the 2017, it seemed clear even to the authors of the plan that a retool on the fly was not going to fly; they started actually using the "Rebuild" word, and dumped a couple of veterans at the deadline for futures, more in keeping with strategies some of us associated with a rebuild. Criticism of Benning (as the nominal strategic director of the ownership/management group) on this board has decreased since that time.

It will be a long time (if ever) before we can collect any direct evidence concerning if or how the Canucks ownership/management group's strategy has evolved by way of candid testimony from retired members of the group, but I think the pattern of behaviour reflects a change of plan. I would also suggest that Benning's drafting pattern implies that the blueprint has changed from the one Hockey Widow graciously explained to me at the outset of Benning's tenure (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9706&hilit=model&start=5010), although Strangelove has implied he believes (has always believed ?) that model was just a smokescreen, anyway (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11648&p=308616&hili ... es#p308616).

[Hockey Widow]

I see no change of plan. Transition =Rebuild on the fly. Same difference.

The plan/philosophy has remained the same. But each season they have to manage that philosophy based upon how the transition is going. When they first arrived it was prudent to secure placeholders in the mid 20, and add veteran depth. Unfortunately that meant trading picks which upset many. Was it prudent? Arguably a point of contention.

As the transition progresses their management of same shifts. As players develop and join the Canucks they don’t need to trade picks to stock up on a certain age group. Every year veterans were let go. Again, the argument can be made they didn’t move them out for picks in a prudent manner.

Some want to argue that it’s Benning who has changed, suddenly seen the light that transition doesn’t work and he needs to rebuild. Not so. OK, they use the R word now. That’s just going with the flow, giving up the argument, semantics. All that’s changed is that where we are in the transition allows for us to do things a little different. We are close to graduating a lot of players into the NHL. We only need place holders for 2-3 years at which time we’ll be on the backend of any veteran contracts still in the organization.

Last off season Benning didn’t go for big long term FA. He most likely won’t again this year. Really the only one he signed was Ericksson anyway and that hasn’t worked out. OK and Miller but that worked out fine, arguably.

It’s not that Benning has changed his philosophy and suddenly jump aboard the tear it down and rebuild train. It’s that at any given point of time during the transition different needs/ opportunities arrive.

I will concede this much. As long as we had the twins they were never going full Oiler/Sabre mode. But then again Benning never told us, once, they were going to tear it down and go full rebuild. It has always been, and continues to be, transition. As much as some want as many kids to play this year it won’t happen. He cleared out a lot of space in Utica for a reason. He’s looking to add 2-3 FA placeholders this year for a reason. Same old, same old. At most he suggests 2-3 kids may make the jump.

Just because he traded Burrows and Hansen at the same time doesn’t suggest he’s changed course. It suggests it was time at that point in the transition.

5 drafts, 4 seasons. It takes time. Has he made mistakes? Absolutely. Has he done some things right? Absolutely. But he’s never changed course. To think he has, merely suggests some people like this part of the transition better.

[Ronning's Ghost]

I see no change of plan...

I was writing only of an interpretation of what I could observe. Sometimes, you have written from the perspective of someone who has inside knowledge of the inner workings of the Canucks front office. Is your perspective on the transition trajectory based on inside information, or it also entirely an interpretation of what the rest of us can observe?

[Island Nucklehead]

I see no change of plan. Transition =Rebuild on the fly. Same difference.

But his methodology has not changed much from one year to the next. How he managed that philosophy changed based upon the needs from year to year, his approach shifted. But his goals have remained unchanged.

There is nothing "on the fly" about this rebuild. We've been in the basement three straight seasons, and our prospect pool has drastically improved because of it. It's not rocket science, and not a sign of genius. It's a sign of a bad hockey team being able to pick the better players each season. That Benning has been able to select good players in later positions is a sign of his drafting ability, something few disagree with.

I would say from the time he got here, until the Summer of Loui, you could certainly argue he was hoping for (and working towards) a shorter term turnaround. You don't trade prospects like McCann, target players like Vey with higher-end picks, or overpay for depth players like Sutter if you're working on 5+-year plan. Once the wheels went off the 16/17 season, I think the approach definitely changed.

I think most of the disagreement stems from his desire to accelerate a traditional rebuild by bringing in guys that most felt were just not going to be part of a long-term solution (the Veys, Clendennings, Pedans, Gudbransons). His strategy to fix a perceived "age gap", bringing in quasi-NHL players and trying to pass them off to the season ticket holders as a youth movement never passed the smell or eye test. That he did that while choosing not to stockpile picks that could easily (given his scouting reputation) be more valuable to the team in 3-5 years added to the annoyance. Some will jump in and say "but he maintained a standard amount of draft picks" miss the potential that having 2-4 more picks every year would bring (or chose to ignore it).

Now that his approach has shifted to a more "traditional", patient rebuilding approach, most are satisfied with his performance.