Around the league (signings, RFAs injuries)

[Iceman2014]

Dude you need to get off the Gillis hate train. He is gone. Focus on the current manager and the garbage job he's doing. Constantly bringing up Eye Bags does nothing to support Ignitowski.It makes you look like you don't have a point. Do you have a point? Do you?

Are you still hanging out at the Dufferin on the weekends?

Listen Goatee McKenzie. I'm just struggling with the fact that you refuse to drop the hate bombs on to Gillis major trade deadline gaffs - Like the Luongo fiasco, the two 4th round picks for the Shut Downer Pahlsson, a 2nd round pick/Connauton for Derek the useless Roy. But you are shittin your trunks over not dealing the injured/suckage that Vrbatat is/was and old man/two teams he'd waive for, coming off a serious injury - Hamhius??? Gotta love Luongo's contract, Hammer's and Keslers NTC's, Higgins contracts, Booth and Ballards buyouts, Garrison, Burrows and Edlers contracts and all those glorious NTC's ole Gill-eye handed out like it was going out of style. Yet Benning is the worse! Waaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!

You forgot about all of those awesome Gillis drafts. He got us so many top 6 forwards and top 4 D. What a GENIUS! He sure didn't turn the Canucks into a giant mess. Nope. He stocked the system full of great prospects and was a genius drafter...or not

Gillis is a moron. Benning is doing a way better job already than Gillis did in all of his years here. Gillis was given almost all of the high end talent and didn't replenish any of it. Anyone thinking Gillis was a genius needs to finish eating their paste and try and think just a little....I know it's hard. It seems like Blob lives in the glue factory - eating and inhaling all day, everyday.

[Chef Boi RD]

Dude you need to get off the Gillis hate train. He is gone. Focus on the current manager and the garbage job he's doing. Constantly bringing up Eye Bags does nothing to support Ignitowski.It makes you look like you don't have a point. Do you have a point? Do you?

Are you still hanging out at the Dufferin on the weekends?

Listen Goatee McKenzie. I'm just struggling with the fact that you refuse to drop the hate bombs on to Gillis major trade deadline gaffs - Like the Luongo fiasco, the two 4th round picks for the Shut Downer Pahlsson, a 2nd round pick/Connauton for Derek the useless Roy. But you are shittin your trunks over not dealing the injured/suckage that Vrbatat is/was and old man/two teams he'd waive for, coming off a serious injury - Hamhius??? Gotta love Luongo's contract, Hammer's and Keslers NTC's, Higgins contracts, Booth and Ballards buyouts, Garrison, Burrows and Edlers contracts and all those glorious NTC's ole Gill-eye handed out like it was going out of style. Yet Benning is the worse! Waaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!

You forgot about all of those awesome Gillis drafts. He got us so many top 6 forwards and top 4 D. What a GENIUS! He sure didn't turn the Canucks into a giant mess. Nope. He stocked the system full of great prospects and was a genius drafter...or not

Gillis is a moron. Benning is doing a way better job already than Gillis did in all of his years here. Gillis was given almost all of the high end talent and didn't replenish any of it. Anyone thinking Gillis was a genius needs to finish eating their paste and try and think just a little....I know it's hard. It seems like Blob lives in the glue factory - eating and inhaling all day, everyday.

Amen!

[Topper]

GMMG built for the moment with little or no eye on the future, GMJB is building for the future with less concern for the moment.

[Island Nucklehead]

Gillis iced the best teams the Canucks have ever had. The bar is much lower these days.

We'll see if Benning does away with the "tinkering" and "re-tooling" and undertakes a more aggressive rebuild. Either way, letting an asset like Hamhuis walk away for nothing is piss-poor asset management and the simple fact folks bring up terrible deadline deals like Pahlsson to excuse it tells you all you need to know about how they really feel.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Gillis is a moron. Benning is doing a way better job already than Gillis did in all of his years here.

If you think that Gillis did a really bad job, then saying that Benning is doing a better one is still not much of a defence of his efforts.

Whatever the merits of Blob's criticisms of Benning, I think his latest point -- that saying that other GMs (in Vancouver or elsewhere) have done, or are doing, worse is not strong support of Benning's work -- is valid.

Have you been watching Sbisa play lately Blob?

I think this is a better way of defending Benning's work, and more conducive to useful and entertaining discussion.

To elaborate on what I understand to be Topper's point (or at least part of it), I think a significant component of the latest formulation of the kool-aid is the belief that Benning possesses an exceptional aptitude for spotting unrealized hockey potential, and so many of his less easily understood moves (such as giving what appeared to be a sub-par defenceman an over-value contract) will be revealed to have been prescient when the player more fully blossoms. A really convenient aspect of this position is that it requires that every move be given several years before its effectiveness can be evaluated, so nothing need be conceded as a mistake now.

I think one limitation of Benning's performance so far has been the lack of effectiveness with which he has communicated his vision to the fans. I won't go so far as to call it a mistake, because I recognize that he operates in a business space as well as a strategic one, and he, or other elements of ownership and management, may have deemed it necessary to say things like 'rebuild while remaining competitive', whether or not that is the actual plan, and he might also believe that it's important not to reveal too much of his plans to rival GMs or player agents. I think that if he had communicated a clearer version of the plan, and perhaps how some of his moves fit into the plan, it would be easier for some fans to get behind whatever the plan may be, but whether or not that would be the best thing for ticket sales, or even his ability to execute the plan, is more than I know.

[Hockey Widow]

Here's the thing. Benning has communicated the plan from day one. He has said :

1) we lacked players in the 20-25 age group that could play meaningful minutes. A lot of his moves have been to specifically target those types of players. Vey, Baertschi, Etem, Granlund, Bartkowski, Larson, Pedan.

2) he said he wants to get younger, faster and more skilled. He has moved out Garrison, Bieksa, Higgins, Prust.

3) he wants to give the kids a chance to play if they show they are ready. He has done that. Hutton, McCann, Virtanen plus those younger guys he acquired. He wants to look at Gaunce, Grenier, Pedan, Tryamkin.

4) he wants to stay competitive while transition ( rebuilding). He brought in vet players like Miller, Vrbata, Sutter, Dorsett, Prust to help achieve that goal.

5) said he wants to concentrate on rebuilding through the draft. Even those that don't like Benning will agree that his drafting has been solid. Yes, he has given up some picks and that is contentious but he has followed his plan.

6) said that they will identify players in the system that don't fit into the long term plans of the Canucks and move them out. This frees up cap, roster spots in both Vancouver and Utica and contracts so we have room to add players/contracts. He has done this with players like Kassian, Lack, Jensen, Shinkaruk. Garrison was the first to go.

7) said the goal will always be to make the playoffs and be competitive every night. There will be no "tank". Will foster a winning attitude. Said it will take 3-4 years, from the point he started and we are just finishing his second year so we have 1-2 more years of transitioning to go.


Has he made mistakes? For sure, all GMs do. I tend to think he has overpaid on some of his signings. Not as much as some feel but enough to concern me about cap managment in the future, if this is his pattern. Some, the term is longer than I like. But I also accept that in part he has done this to avoid full NTC in some cases and all trade protection in others. I also accept that he needed to find place holders or transitional players. Those here for 3-5 years holding down the fort as the kids mature and develop. I also didn't like the trend of giving up 2nds and adding picks to sweeten deals. But that seems to have abated so we'll see. It may simply have been the price he had to pay to transition and not tank.

When you go back over all of his moves he has made you see he has followed his plan. He has a plan, a clear plan. So I think saying he has no plan or doesn't know wtf he is doing is unfair criticism. It is fair however to disagree with the plan or to disagree with how he is implementing his plan.

I also don't like the all or nothing attitude some show. He is either all good or all bad. Similar to how some find everything Gillis did as all bad. Bringing up past GMs to support the current one doesn't add substance to the Benning debate. Being so polarized, that is you either love Benning or hate Benning, doesn't add substance either.

[Island Nucklehead]

Nice post, HW. Tough to disagree with much there, except that with such a broad strategy it's easy to justify pretty much any move. Saying that he wants to get "younger, faster, more skilled" is pretty much the management equivalent of the intermission interview "need to work hard out there, stay out of the box, get pucks deep and everything at the net".

It is fair however to disagree with the plan or to disagree with how he is implementing his plan.

I also don't like the all or nothing attitude some show. He is either all good or all bad. Similar to how some find everything Gillis did as all bad. Bringing up past GMs to support the current one doesn't add substance to the Benning debate. Being so polarized, that is you either love Benning or hate Benning, doesn't add substance either.

Agreed. Realistically, most of us are on the same page. The differences of opinion seems to be around how Benning is going about it, on the right track or prolonging the inevitable bottoming out kinda thing.

I do think Benning is a good amateur scout and drafter, so when I see missed opportunities like this years trade deadline, or dumping 2nds for guys like Vey, 5ths for Prust, turning 2nds into 3rds as sweeteners, it's frustrating. I don't buy the theory that Benning can do in 5 picks what others do in 10, I'd rather Benning have 10 picks. If he's as good at drafting as we all hope he is, the rebuild would be much faster.

[Hockey Widow]

IN, I have concerns too over the number of picks he has given up vs the number he has acquired. But breaking them down shows its not as dreadful as some would argue.

A 2nd for Vey, I'm sure he would welcome a do over here. This was a WD move.

A 2nd for Baertschi was a good move and one I think will pay dividends down the road.

Swapping picks in the Sutter trade now seems more understandable given Clendenning is gone from Pittsburg and Bonino is firmly planted as a 3/4 line centre. But it would be nice to be on the winning side of some of those.

Giving up a 5th in the Prust deal was a head scratcher at the time, until the Kassian substance abuse issues surfaced.

Too bad we couldn't have gotten Etem straight up for Jensen. We gave up what a 6th?

A 3rd for Dorsett was not a bad deal. The new contract may have been but the deal was ok.

Off the top of my head I can't recall what other picks we have given up. He did get two picks for Lack, a 2nd for Bieksa and a freebie for Torts, a 2nd for Garrison.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Here's the thing. Benning has communicated the plan from day one.

The things you list are elements of a plan, but do not convey to me an idea of what the final product will look like, or how he will get there. Perhaps, to someone with more hockey knowledge, the extrapolation seemed too obvious to detail.

2) he said he wants to get younger, faster and more skilled. He has moved out Garrison, Bieksa, Higgins, Prust.

4) he wants to stay competitive while transition ( rebuilding). He brought in vet players like Miller, Vrbata, Sutter, Dorsett, Prust to help achieve that goal.

Those two moves don't appear consistent with a coherent plan.

5) said he wants to concentrate on rebuilding through the draft. Even those that don't like Benning will agree that his drafting has been solid.

Things appear promising, but we really won't know for sure for several years.

7) said the goal will always be to make the playoffs and be competitive every night. There will be no "tank". Will foster a winning attitude. Said it will take 3-4 years, from the point he started and we are just finishing his second year so we have 1-2 more years of transitioning to go.

As I said, this may reflect what he thinks he has to say, rather than his actual views. It will take even longer to find out for sure. Maybe when he publishes his biography.

So I think saying he has no plan or doesn't know wtf he is doing is unfair criticism.

To be clear, I said neither of those things. I said he had not clearly communicated his vision, by which I suppose what I meant was that I don't understand it. As more specifically elaborated above, I don't see what the characteristics are of the final product that will differentiate it from other teams that will not win the Stanley Cup in 2018, or how what he is doing to accomplish this is more effective than what GMs of the other teams that will not win the Stanley Cup are doing. I accept that the limitation may be mine.

I also don't like the all or nothing attitude some show. He is either all good or all bad. Similar to how some find everything Gillis did as all bad. Bringing up past GMs to support the current one doesn't add substance to the Benning debate. Being so polarized, that is you either love Benning or hate Benning, doesn't add substance either.

I think this is a useful statement, and I agree with it.

[Hockey Widow]

Not sure then what it is you expect him to say. The elements, as you call them, of the plan, are the plan. That is how he is going to get to the promised land.

Clear out those that don't fit. Draft well. Develop well. Create a winning culture. Support youth with experienced vets.

A GM isn't going to spell out the full blue print. No one does that.

He has said he will target college UFAs, he has a list, and as the their teams are eliminated he will try to sign a few players. He sure isn't going to tell us who. He is looking at KHL FA with the same goal. He has said they have a target list of NHL FA they will go after July 1. Again he isn't going to tell us who, not only would that be tampering, it would be stupid.

He has said it will take a few years.

Not trying to be difficult but I'm unclear what it is you would specifically like to hear from him. Perhaps you could be clearer in what it is you find missing in his explanations.

As for the Prust inconsistency, well it isn't. He wanted to bring in experienced vets and in Prust's case he wanted to create a safe working environment for the kids. It didn't work out and Prust was waived.

[Lloyd Braun]

I have no problem giving up picks for players who are just making their way into the league.

In a cap world, the early, improving, and cost controlled years of a career are the most valuable from a cost/benefit perspective.

Typically, the real crime with giving up picks is losing out on those years. Benning hasn't done that.

Otherwise, the only question is whether the value is there. So far, it mostly has been. Vey was a loss. Baertchi was a big win, IMO. The scale balances in Benning's direction.

The league has professionalised and rid itself of the Milburys who were easily exploited in the past. Not every trade is going to be a slam-dunk, no matter who the GM is.

[Island Nucklehead]

Off the top of my head I can't recall what other picks we have given up. He did get two picks for Lack, a 2nd for Bieksa and a freebie for Torts, a 2nd for Garrison.

He added a 7th to the Garrison deal, and a 3rd in the Pedan trade. Larsen for a 5th. We got a 7th for McNally.

I guess I'd be more inclined to like these kind of trades if I could see them leading to longer-term solutions for the team. The Baerstchi deal, for example, looks like it could turn out well. But a guy like Larsen could be gone at training camp if he hits waivers. Kind of like adding picks to the Prust deal, or trading one for Dorsett. These kind of depth guys are not unique, and similar players can be had in free agency. In isolation any of these trades, much like his signings, are pretty "meh" but it's the trend that's concerning.

[Topper]

Here's the thing. Benning has communicated the plan from day one.

That is what is lost to the navel gazing urine crew. Benning and Linden have been consistent from day one with a clear vision.

They take the long term view and don't give a damn what comes out of HF or the local vocal hacks who are hung up on the last night's scoreboard and can't see the next line change let alone a lineup three years hence.

The part I find so hypocritical is no one yet has the balls to criticize the guy who helps little old ladies cross the street, he is still beyond reproach though Benning's plan is firmly backed by him.

[Hockey Widow]

Off the top of my head I can't recall what other picks we have given up. He did get two picks for Lack, a 2nd for Bieksa and a freebie for Torts, a 2nd for Garrison.

He added a 7th to the Garrison deal, and a 3rd in the Pedan trade. Larsen for a 5th. We got a 7th for McNally.

I guess I'd be more inclined to like these kind of trades if I could see them leading to longer-term solutions for the team. The Baerstchi deal, for example, looks like it could turn out well. But a guy like Larsen could be gone at training camp if he hits waivers. Kind of like adding picks to the Prust deal, or trading one for Dorsett. These kind of depth guys are not unique, and similar players can be had in free agency. In isolation any of these trades, much like his signings, are pretty "meh" but it's the trend that's concerning.

Ya I have some concerns about the picks surrendered for a team rebuilding I guess. But it seems to have abated somewhat. I don't mind the Larsom move. He fits a need. A RH D man in the right age group. He could be a bust or he could be anywhere in the starting 6. But a 5th for a shot at a RH D man that may be part of the solution is a good move. Now I say that without any memory of his playing time in the NHL.

So ya, I share some of the concern but I can also find a way to justify every move. I look more at this as setting the table. If the trend continues over the next 2-3 years than I will have bigger concerns.

[Hockey Widow]

Here's the thing. Benning has communicated the plan from day one.

That is what is lost to the navel gazing urine crew. Benning and Linden have been consistent from day one with a clear vision.

They take the long term view and don't give a damn what comes out of HF or the local vocal hacks who are hung up on the last night's scoreboard and can't see the next line change let alone a lineup three years hence.

The part I find so hypocritical is no one yet has the balls to criticize the guy who helps little old ladies cross the street, he is still beyond reproach though Benning's plan is firmly backed by him.

I don't understand this part.