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

[Blob Mckenzie]

Brian Burke used to bring in veterans on two and three year contracts. Guys like Baron, Cassels, Essensa etc. These five and six year deals for average players is stupid to say the least and yes there are some damn good forwards who will be available in the 2018 and 2019. We are never going to agree on this so I'll stop here. At least you actually are willing to debate unlike some others on this board.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004

Credible or otherwise, HF is a legitimate 3rd party observer, i.e., not just a bunch more Canucks fans.

Since it's only reasonable to expect a weak performance from the on-ice product during a rebuild, I submit that one useful measure of the job Benning is doing will be whether the general assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool continues to rise.

[5thhorseman]

Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004

Credible or otherwise, HF is a legitimate 3rd party observer, i.e., not just a bunch more Canucks fans.

Since it's only reasonable to expect a weak performance from the on-ice product during a rebuild, I submit that one useful measure of the job Benning is doing will be whether the general assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool continues to rise.

On the other hand, the Canuck's weakness may allow prospects to "graduate" to the NHL sooner than normal, thus not contributing to the ranking anymore and eroding the usefulness of this measure.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004

Credible or otherwise, HF is a legitimate 3rd party observer, i.e., not just a bunch more Canucks fans.

Since it's only reasonable to expect a weak performance from the on-ice product during a rebuild, I submit that one useful measure of the job Benning is doing will be whether the general assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool continues to rise.

On the other hand, the Canuck's weakness may allow prospects to "graduate" to the NHL sooner than normal, thus not contributing to the ranking anymore and eroding the usefulness of this measure.

I agree this is a possibility. However, I would argue that one of the other things a successful rebuilding GM should be doing is signing veterans to short-term contracts (to be flipped at the deadline), and these veterans should keep prospects from graduating before they are ready.

[Island Nucklehead]

Again, in three years - 75% roster turned over, 5 rookies becoming roster players, plus Boeser, Goldobin, and Virtanen with sniffs at the NHL, 2 lottery-picks, made the playoffs once.

After year 4, there's a pretty good chance that only one D-man will remain from the team Benning inherited, 3 more rookies are developed, only 1 or 2 players over 30, and the team still has Gaudette, Juolevi, Demko, and Dahlen in the pipeline.

That's a rebuild.

If Benning had done none of the deck chair shuffling, or trading younger assets for "age gap" players, just moved out vets, played the waiver wire, and stockpiled picks/prospects, you could still say the same thing, and I'd be satisfied that this was an actual rebuild. You are right, we'd still have the pain, but we'd be following a coherent plan. For a team that has been relatively putrid since he got here, you'd expect a better and deeper prospect pool, and some of that has to do with his willingness to move picks for (very poor) short-term results.

We'll have to agree to disagree ESQ, but if your definition of "rebuild" is acceptable, why has Linden refused to acknowledge the rebuild by using the word "rebuild"? Does he believe it has negative connotations? I don't consider rebuilding to be a bad thing, but a necessary period of the generally boom-bust cycle of pro-hockey.

I suspect your definition is closer to Lindening's "transition" (roster turnover), but without the "remaining competitive bit". By your definition, the Oilers were extremely successful at rebuilding, as they seemed to do it 2-3 times over the past 10 years...

[ESQ]

Brian Burke used to bring in veterans on two and three year contracts. Guys like Baron, Cassels, Essensa etc. These five and six year deals for average players is stupid to say the least and yes there are some damn good forwards who will be available in the 2018 and 2019.

I'd say Eriksson, Sutter, Miller are all much better than Baron, Cassels and Essensa. I don't remember Baron's contract, but he was on the Canucks for a really bad 5-year stretch. Cassels was for sure a great pick-up, better than the comparable Demitra and better than Eriksson's no doubt. That was quite a different era though when it comes to contract length.

The 2018 potential UFAs can't be extended until July 1 this year, I'd wager we won't see Fowler, Tavares, Turris, Neal, Perron make it to UFA status. The cream of that crop would probably be Stastny, E Kane, JVR, Josh Bailey.

This year's top UFAs are probably Oshie and Radulov, 50+ point players coming off career seasons at age 30. Will they get over $6 mil/6 years? I bet they will but we shall see soon enough.

[ESQ]

If Benning had done none of the deck chair shuffling, or trading younger assets for "age gap" players, just moved out vets, played the waiver wire, and stockpiled picks/prospects, you could still say the same thing, and I'd be satisfied that this was an actual rebuild. You are right, we'd still have the pain, but we'd be following a coherent plan. For a team that has been relatively putrid since he got here, you'd expect a better and deeper prospect pool, and some of that has to do with his willingness to move picks for (very poor) short-term results.

Its looked pretty coherent to me - every season he's made drastic changes to the lineup by trading vets and bringing along prospects, only in 15-16 did he let the vets walk as UFAs.

We'll have to agree to disagree ESQ, but if your definition of "rebuild" is acceptable, why has Linden refused to acknowledge the rebuild by using the word "rebuild"? Does he believe it has negative connotations?

I actually could care less about this issue of Linden not saying re-build. Nobody agrees what a re-build actually is, so its totally meaningless.

I suspect your definition is closer to Lindening's "transition" (roster turnover), but without the "remaining competitive bit". By your definition, the Oilers were extremely successful at rebuilding, as they seemed to do it 2-3 times over the past 10 years...

Well, were the Oilers successful at rebuilding? Is that what a rebuild is to you? They got their lottery pick, they're back in the playoffs, their future is bright thanks solely to McDavid, and its taken them 10 years to get to that point.

What is a successful rebuild? Chicago had to win a lottery to do it. Pittsburgh won the ultimate lottery. If those are your successful re-builds, you should bear in mind that they were in the toilet far longer than the Canucks have been thus far. Pittsburgh had 5 years in the wilderness and had 2 first-overalls and 2 second-overalls. Chicago had a decade with one playoff appearance, and got Toews at 3rd and Kane at 1st.

We're 2 years in the toilet. If Benning does it in 5, without drafting a Crosby, Kane or McDavid at 1st overall, he is truly a genius.

[SKYO]

Well, were the Oilers successful at rebuilding? Is that what a rebuild is to you? They got their lottery pick, they're back in the playoffs, their future is bright thanks solely to McDavid, and its taken them 10 years to get to that point.

What is a successful rebuild? Chicago had to win a lottery to do it. Pittsburgh won the ultimate lottery. If those are your successful re-builds, you should bear in mind that they were in the toilet far longer than the Canucks have been thus far. Pittsburgh had 5 years in the wilderness and had 2 first-overalls and 2 second-overalls. Chicago had a decade with one playoff appearance, and got Toews at 3rd and Kane at 1st.

We're 2 years in the toilet. If Benning does it in 5, without drafting a Crosby, Kane or McDavid at 1st overall, he is truly a genius.

Yup some of the best teams today Penguins and Blackhawks had to tank to get a 1st overall pick, along with some key trades, good picks later in draft, the right UFA's.

Only the Bruins, Ducks and Kings won with size and talent, with no 1st overall picks (iirc) even though Doughty was a 2nd overall.

Getzlaf and Kopitar were great latter draft choices for their top centers, big slower guys but a lot of skill, why I wouldn't mind Vilardi if we lose the draft lotto.

Bergeron/Krejci were both 2nd rounders for the bruins top centers, but their key player was a UFA with Chara, *(forgot ducks key dman was also a UFA S. Niedermayer & uber trade for Pronger) so there are other ways to win a Cup with the key being superb drafting, all the more reason to keep Benning, be helpful to win a 1st overall for once/first time in Vancouver history.

[ESQ]

The Kings are an outlier in many respects - which is why I was so shocked that they were able to repeat!

Two cups, and haven't won the Division since 1990/91! Won the Cup as 8th-seed!

Their window was similar to the Canucks, though it came after missing the playoffs for 7 years. The obvious difference is they won it all in their window, where we came oh-so-close.

One thing LA had in both its championships was unreal health/durability. They went on deep playoff runs with a full, healthy roster and managed to not lose anyone to injury.

But now, I suppose we can take solace in the fact that we have one more playoff win in the past 3 seasons than the Kings do

[Madcombinepilot]

But now, I suppose we can take solace in the fact that we have one more playoff win in the past 3 seasons than the Kings do

Yyeeeaaahhhhh... uh, no

Think I will just sit here quietly in the corner and plot their downfall while looking suspiciously at all strangers...

[nuckster]

Just found this article that ranks the GMs. Its kind of comical to see that Elmer is rated as dead last! I didnt really read it - just skimmed it, but it should be amusing to some.
https://hockey-graphs.com/2017/05/04/th ... more-19656

[SKYO]

The Kings are an outlier in many respects - which is why I was so shocked that they were able to repeat!

Two cups, and haven't won the Division since 1990/91! Won the Cup as 8th-seed!

Their window was similar to the Canucks, though it came after missing the playoffs for 7 years. The obvious difference is they won it all in their window, where we came oh-so-close.

One thing LA had in both its championships was unreal health/durability. They went on deep playoff runs with a full, healthy roster and managed to not lose anyone to injury.

But now, I suppose we can take solace in the fact that we have one more playoff win in the past 3 seasons than the Kings do

Helped Lombardi targeted the right players that can score goals (carter/williams/richards (gagne 2012, gaborik 2014) after they had a big solid top 6 defense and a goalie in the zone, their defense had unreal synergy that perfectly worked together to help Quick, who had mindfucked all the teams/fans with his stellar performances.

And more importantly they had age correct players for 2012-2014, their team was built with mass and size, built for the playoffs, all coached by the hard working blue collar farmboy Sutter.

Kings top 6 mass: Brown (216lbs), Carter (217lbs), Kopitar (224lbs)
Pearson (204lbs) Toffoli (201lbs)
depth: King (229lbs) Clifford (211lbs), Nolan (219lbs), 2012 Penner (242lbs).

Most of their dmen were all big boys.

Now about Vancouver, the only players with some mass up front on the Canucks is Horvat and our bottom six depth: Gaunce and Virtanen.

Most of our forwards are all under 200lbs including Dorsett at 192lbs , so it's no wonder this team gets injured a lot.

Chiarelli first thing he did was get mass on his team, Maroon (for a prospect + pick), Larsson (hall), Lucic (ufa), Kassian (scrivens).

Benning has to start doing this now, he's been after small skilled players so much now, Dahlen, Goldobin, Granlund, Baertschi, eriksson/sutter both in 190's lbs, he's been so focused on acquiring that perfect & proven power winger, he should lower his standards and just acquire a big fella who can score.

[Blob Mckenzie]

I don't think Elmer is quite as bad as the piss posse at hfboards makes him out , but he's definitely one of the poorer managers in the league that's for sure. He made a couple decent moves but he needs to continue this trend and not resort back to the constant blunders we have seen for most of his tenure.

[nuckster]

I don't think Elmer is quite as bad as the piss posse at hfboards makes him out , but he's definitely one of the poorer managers in the league that's for sure. He made a couple decent moves but he needs to continue this trend and not resort back to the constant blunders we have seen for most of his tenure.

Pretty balanced response there BM. I should probably lay off being so hard on Benning; I just get a little tired of the rediculous 'genious' mindset.

[Mickey107]

There is no-way I consider JB the worst GM in the league, but he is definitely what I would call somewhat of a hybrid.
In other words, head scout and GM, so he like has to report to himself? It's different.

Though I doubt many around the hockey world would agree with me, "yet" !
I think the worst GM in the league is S.Y.