CanucksCorner.com Forums

Posted: **Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:13 pm**

Is Blob tunneling Trump again?

Posted: **Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:34 pm**

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:13 pm Is Blob tunneling Trump again?

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

Instant Gratification Club

The folks who can’t handle a rebuild

Posted: **Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:34 pm**

Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:12 am
Topper wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:08 am 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?

Posted: **Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:00 pm**

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.

Posted: **Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:55 pm**

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:00 pm 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.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:01 am**

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:00 pm 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.

Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:55 pm 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).

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:36 am**

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.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:13 am**

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:36 am 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?

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am**

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:00 pm 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.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:48 am**

Strangelove wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:45 pm
DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:31 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:08 am The old party line about not being able to handle a rebuild. In case you forget I’m the guy who wants the GM to acquire more picks in order to rebuild and develop a deep organization similar to what the Jets and Predators have done. You and your crew want to fastrack the rebuild by trading picks and kids for mid 20 something players like Sutter, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Vey, Pedan, Pouliott etc. You guys can’t wait for future draft picks to develop and want instant gratification. But it’s me that can’t handle a rebuild.

This point continues to evade the apologists*. They keep preaching their false narrative notwithstanding direct evidence to the contrary. But then how could they continue to be apologists if they actually responded with something other than ad hominens when presented with reasoned analysis?

*Replace "cultist(s)" with "apologist(s)" at your discretion.
"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)

"Instant gratification" in the sense of acquiring someone already in the league rather than waiting for the development curve of a draft pick who would potentially have much more upside but take much longer.

The heart of the argument is that, simply put, JB is best when he is at the drafting table (I don't think many, if any, will disagree with that). Therefore, he should be using his area of greatest strength as much as possible by obtaining and drafting as many picks as possible rather than keeping the "standard number of picks" and expending any extra picks on "quicker fix" assets. Saying that proponents of this view "can't handle a rebuild" is disingenuous as it actually takes the long road of developing ones own picks rather than attempting to revive the castoffs of other teams (or as you put it "young developing players").

Strangelove wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:45 pm Lord knows folks like Blob and Reef have responded with their share of ad hominens.

(not that I mind, humour is good too... but you are pretty silent on those ones)

You make a valid point and I probably should be more balanced and come down on Blob and Reef equally for the ad hominens but, then again, I'm not a Mod.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:50 am**

Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:00 pm 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.

Well said.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:32 am**

DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:50 am
Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:00 pm 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.
Well said.

What to second that, good post IN.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 pm**

Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am 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.

How is bringing in a a 24-year-old (Guds) and a 22-year-old (Vey) not conducive to a "5+-year plan"?

Likewise with "overpaying" Sutter...

Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am 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).

Nope, pretty much everyone had high hopes for these young guys when they were brought in.

Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am 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).

Mind explaining how we could have had 2-4 more picks every year?

And hey, that's a lot of fucking picks!

Also, comparing the potential of young developing players to even younger players is a fool's errand.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:04 pm**

Strangelove wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 pm How is bringing in a a 24-year-old (Guds) and a 22-year-old (Vey) not conducive to a "5+-year plan"?

Gudbranson is servicable, but there's no way we're recouping what we gave up for him. And 5 years after the Canucks acquired him, Linden Vey is likely to be starting his second season with Zurich SC.

Likewise with "overpaying" Sutter...

How many times have you recently talked about trading him after next season? Why are we going down that road? Wasn't he supposed to be a foundational player, just needing a shot to escape the long shadows of Crosby/Malkin? What happened?!

Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am Nope, pretty much everyone had high hopes for these young guys when they were brought in.

So it's just a case of poor professional scouting. Agreed.

Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am 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).
Mind explaining how we could have had 2-4 more picks every year?

Benning has sent twelve picks out the door. He's brought in 10.

He gave up draft picks in trades for Dorsett, Vey, Baertschi, Prust, Sutter, Etem, Larson, Gudbranson and Pouliot. Maybe he doesn't do some of those deals, maybe in other trades he prioritizes draft picks instead of aging prospects or veterans.

Not hard to think the guy could've picked up 15-20 draft picks over the past 5 seasons...

Also, comparing the potential of young developing players to even younger players is a fool's errand.

Perhaps, but I would say the older guys give a better indication of what to expect. I'd rather have the chance at a home run than pick up a single.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:38 pm**

“Recouping what we gave up for Gudbranson?” So you still see some kind of crazy value in Tweener McCann not seen by the naked eye?

I’d do the Dorsett trade over and over and over again, it’s just unfortunate for us he had a career ending injury

Baertschi just signed a 3 year contract. I’d do that trade over again as well

I’m not a huge fan of the Vey trade but I get it. Didn’t work out

Jensen and a 7th for Etem? Can’t remember. Who cares

Pouliot extended. Big deal who cares

Not a fan of the Larsen trade nor the Kassian trade. Should have just let The coke head walk for nothing, big deal, so what

Love the Sutter/Lockwood aquisition. Forsling is a career minor leaguer, Bonino the American was never gonna re-up here

CanucksCorner.com Forums

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

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!