Confirmed with Link: Canucks extend Jim Benning’s contract

[MS]

He was expecting the team to make the playoffs in 2015-16...and 2016-17 (by the TDL,the Sedins were done, and the dream was over)...He only expected to 'try' and make the playoffs and be 'competitive' in 2017-18 and 2018-19.

He thinks they have a good shot at the playoffs in 2019-20.

As already noted, by your own definition of Jim Benning's expectations for the team, he completely failed in each of the last 4 years.

 

[mathonwy]

Yep. I've said this from the start. I understand that there are people who will refuse to do the job if they don't have complete creative control. Mike Gillis appears to be one of them. But if you want the job and you believe in yourself then you should believe that you can work within the parameters. Like I said years ago, if I'm Benning I'm going in with my vision of what the ideal plan is but also have a plan B that I think the owners would like. When Mike Gillis first started here he came in saying that the Canucks were far from being contenders but at the same time say they were a few bold moves away. Gillis came away looking like he was highly critical of past management yet presented himself as some kind of saviour. The message is still "I can do it."

I think that overall Benning doesn't have a lot of patience. He sees a problem or an area for improvement he goes and try to fix it. His lack of patience can lead to bad moves but it also leads to him not falling into the blindly loyal trap that plagues most GMs. A 2nd round pick for Linden Vey? After one year it's show me. Sam Gagner was off the team with two years remaining. The Canucks paid a big price for Gudbranson and he was shopped and moved relatively quickly.

Good or bad, Benning doesn't sit around and wait for his previous moves to work out. He has made plenty of mistakes but he is relatively quick in his attempts to correct them.

I think his interview on 650 is enlightening. He's quite aware of fan criticism. He's also delegated a lot of duties that a lot of posters here feel he is not good at and contrary to the opinion that he doesn't delegate.

 

[MS]

Yep. I've said this from the start. I understand that there are people who will refuse to do the job if they don't have complete creative control. Mike Gillis appears to be one of them. But if you want the job and you believe in yourself then you should believe that you can work within the parameters. Like I said years ago, if I'm Benning I'm going in with my vision of what the ideal plan is but also have a plan B that I think the owners would like. When Mike Gillis first started here he came in saying that the Canucks were far from being contenders but at the same time say they were a few bold moves away. Gillis came away looking like he was highly critical of past management yet presented himself as some kind of saviour. The message is still "I can do it."

And that's fine.

If Benning had come here and made sensible moves to try and compete, shown a high level of intelligence and competence in various aspects of his job, and the 2014-18 period had ended in a couple playoff appearances and maybe won a series or two but ultimately petered out as a 'failure', I really wouldn't have too many complaints.

The problem is the execution of that plan, which was horrific. Again, this is a guy who targeted Sutter, Gudbranson, Sbisa, Eriksson as the key components needing to be brought in to compete now. Consistently mis-evaluated the needs of the team. Couldn't find a competent NHL defender in 5 years. Showed the salary cap management skills of a small child.

And the result was a 'competing team' in Benning's mind that accidentally out-tanked teams intentionally trying to lose. It wasn't just a failure, it was a failure of comically biblical proportions.

I think that overall Benning doesn't have a lot of patience. He sees a problem or an area for improvement he goes and try to fix it. His lack of patience can lead to bad moves but it also leads to him not falling into the blindly loyal trap that plagues most GMs. A 2nd round pick for Linden Vey? After one year it's show me. Sam Gagner was off the team with two years remaining. The Canucks paid a big price for Gudbranson and he was shopped and moved relatively quickly.

Good or bad, Benning doesn't sit around and wait for his previous moves to work out. He has made plenty of mistakes but he is relatively quick in his attempts to correct them.

I think his interview on 650 is enlightening. He's quite aware of fan criticism. He's also delegated a lot of duties that a lot of posters here feel he is not good at and contrary to the opinion that he doesn't delegate.

These are not good examples.

Vey was absolutely horrific in his first season and should have been released immediately. Instead he was inexplicably doubled-down on and given a raise.

Gudbranson was one of the worst defenders in the NHL for two seasons and (miraculously) could have been traded for picks at the 2018 deadline. Instead Benning again doubled down and re-signed him to a long-term deal and was forced to take another team's cap dump in exchange to get rid of him.

Gagner, yes. But what happened there was very out-of-character.

 

[timw33]

The comments on that very good article make my head feel like exploding.

Time is a flat circle.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

You've slid into an incredibly inaccurate misstatement.

1. People seem to be ignoring completely that it was two picks traded for Miller, not just one. The trade was a 2019-3rd, 2020 or 2021-1st and a contract dump to Tampa for Miller.

2. You've changed your "almost two years" in your last post to "1 pick in 2 years."

If you go back two years you get him trading his 2019-3rd, 2020 or 2021-1st, 2020-7th and 2018-4th. So it isn't 1 pick in 2 years, it is 4. That may not be considered a lot, but trading 4 picks in 2 years is a hell of a lot different than 1 pick in 2 years. Hell, "1 pick in 2 years" makes it seem like he hadn't actually traded 3 picks (including an unprotected 1st rounder and a 3rd rounder) in just over 4 months.

Right the third too.

A 7th round pick is pretty inconsiquential. Which is why I said "basically", considering it had to be moved under the unpredictable circumstances of 3 goalies being injured.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

Right the third too.

A 7th round pick is pretty inconsiquential. Which is why I said "basically", considering it had to be moved under the unpredictable circumstances of 3 goalies being injured.

One of the goalies already had a long term injury before Benning traded away Nilsson for a goalie who required waivers. Losing McKenna wasn't that unpredictable given the goalie injuries around the league at the time.

Benning didn't "have" to trade a pick for a goalie either. Coreau went for future considerations around the same time. He could have simply signed Leighton like he did after the fact for some reason.

The goalie debacle last season was 100% self inflicted.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

One of the goalies already had a long term injury before Benning traded away Nilsson for a goalie who required waivers. Losing McKenna wasn't that unpredictable given the goalie injuries around the league at the time.

Benning didn't "have" to trade a pick for a goalie either. Coreau went for future considerations around the same time. He could have simply signed Leighton like he did after the fact for some reason.

The goalie debacle last season was 100% self inflicted.

I mean they didnt injure the goalies themselves. So it's not "100% self inflicted".

I agree they're at fault for the reasons you listed, but it's also a pretty unusual situation. And I dont think you can be mad that they traded Nilsson.

 

[timw33]

In the last two years Benning has traded away a 4th, 7th, 3rd, 1st, 6th.

In that time he's acquired a 6th, 7th, 7th.

And we're two of those picks acquired at the draft from trading down in the 6th round?

The extreme sides fighting is always going to be stupid like this.

You could take the more rational approach and stick to the middle (which is closer to the truth).

Lol, we've got the Howard Schultz of HFboards here.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

So if the pro scouting is horrible during a rebuild does it magically become better when the teams ready to take the next step?

Really not getting the logic here. Man builds team that sucks its way into high picks, gets credit for being a good amateur scout because of it despite not being able to scout the pro ranks to save his life

If drafting is so important during a rebuild shouldn’t he have actually kept his picks and acquired more? Imagine if we drafted DeBrincat instead of acquiring Gudbranson? Wow we have two effective cost controlled young players instead of more dead weight

Agreed. These are my biggest problems with Benning. Its been the direction & the pro-scouting.

The problem with direction critique is, how much of it is Benning & how much of it is ownership? I've said this a few times now, but I find it hard to pin it directly all on Benning.

This team should have another cost controlled young player on the roster right now with the picks they traded away, and with Benning's lackluster pro scouting I don't think he'll be here forever.

At some point this team is going to be expected to take the next step from just an in & out playoff team, & it'll require some superb moves on the pro-side. At which point Benning will likely fail & be gone. But he'll be credited for this core for years to come, like Nonis/Burke were for Gillis.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

Just because he’s not compounding matters by frequently trading picks in no way assuages criticism that he just traded one of his best picks while having missed the playoffs 4 years in a row.

Yeah I agree. I said I wasn't a fan of the move.

But you can't say he's trading picks left & right for projects & meh roster players anymore, which was something I hated.

No, drafting doesn’t outweigh 2/3rds of his job. These are mutually dependent factors serving the same goal: Rebuilding.

If you find better talent through trade/FA, you don’t have to draft as well. On the flip side, a poor performance at pro scouting creates that much more pressure at the draft table. In other words, drafting became that much more important because Benning was poor everywhere else. He didn’t even help himself at the draft table by getting more picks. Does someone who emphasizes the draft do this?

But back to the main question: What is your baseline? I would like to know what you would have expected another GM to do at the draft table? Per stats markers posted here before, Benning has been decidedly average at the draft table. Do you have a different analysis?

I completely disagree. Your never going to build a young core through trades. You might swap out a piece for a different one (ala Johansen for Jones), or supplement your core, but it'll never be built through trading or free agency. Not in the cap world.

It outweighs everything else because its more important than a 'third'. If you had a pie chart of these areas based on importance drafting would be minimum 60% of it. Somewhere between 60-80% I'd say. (Again given the state of the team)

As far as not getting more picks, I agree, I hated that too. Its not my argument.

For this baseline. What would I have expected other GM's to do? Have some hits & misses. Every GM does.

My point goes beyond metrics & 'stat markers'. Ultimately the goal of the draft is to draft a core that can carry your team to serious improvement (out of the basement) & later cup contention. I believe we have the makings of that.

Like picking Pettersson alone, which he deserves full marks for, is bigger than any draft miss he's made. That's the best player in the draft & you got him at 5. It could be one of the best picks in franchise history.

He's assembled a core of players that will make us competitive for years, and he's done it with picks #5 or later. Pettersson is a caliber of player teams picking #1 hope to get, and Benning was able to get find him without any lottery luck. No doubt that pick has saved his job.

As far as overall grading the drafting, its still too early to rate most of the players.

 

[I am toxic]

"Benning is not a bad GM."

"Well, by what metric?"

"He didn't go out on the ice and strike our goalies with a steel pipe, while having no NHL backup."

"Well, . . . well, . . . ok . . . uhhh . . . are there any bad GM's? I mean, we had LaForge but he was a coa . .. "

"You're toxic."

 

[BeardyCanuck03]

Lol, we've got the Howard Schultz of HFboards here.

Except I make better coffee.

I am pretty critical of Benning's moves that haven't worked out, but I also give him credit for the moves that have. I don't think you need to "choose a side" on this Pro/Anti Benning debate to have a valid, rational opinion.

 

[MS]

Yeah I agree. I said I wasn't a fan of the move.

But you can't say he's trading picks left & right for projects & meh roster players anymore, which was something I hated.



I completely disagree. Your never going to build a young core through trades. You might swap out a piece for a different one (ala Johansen for Jones), or supplement your core, but it'll never be built through trading or free agency. Not in the cap world.

It outweighs everything else because its more important than a 'third'. If you had a pie chart of these areas based on importance drafting would be minimum 60% of it. Somewhere between 60-80% I'd say. (Again given the state of the team)

As far as not getting more picks, I agree, I hated that too. Its not my argument.

For this baseline. What would I have expected other GM's to do? Have some hits & misses. Every GM does.

My point goes beyond metrics & 'stat markers'. Ultimately the goal of the draft is to draft a core that can carry your team to serious improvement (out of the basement) & later cup contention. I believe we have the makings of that.

Like picking Pettersson alone, which he deserves full marks for, is bigger than any draft miss he's made. That's the best player in the draft & you got him at 5. It could be one of the best picks in franchise history.

He's assembled a core of players that will make us competitive for years, and he's done it with picks #5 or later. Pettersson is a caliber of player teams picking #1 hope to get, and Benning was able to get find him without any lottery luck. No doubt that pick has saved his job.

As far as overall grading the drafting, its still too early to rate most of the players.

Benning tried to trade the Boeser pick for Milan Lucic in what would have been one of the worst trades in franchise history, and credible media sources (as well as a truckload of circumstantial evidence) have confirmed that Benning didn't want to draft Pettersson in 2017 and that Linden settled a heated debate on the side of Brackett over Benning. Both of those 'big wins' were Benning's 2nd choice.

Regardless, if we had Nylander, Tkachuk, Konecny, and Glass or some other combination like that, would any of the pro-Benning arguments be any different?

 

[Svencouver]

"Benning is not a bad GM."

"Well, by what metric?"

"He didn't go out on the ice and strike our goalies with a steel pipe, while having no NHL backup."

"Well, . . . well, . . . ok . . . uhhh . . . are there any bad GM's? I mean, we had LaForge but he was a coa . .. "

"You're toxic."

This strawman meme is so boring already, cut it out lol

Is arguing against what the poster is actually saying instead of comically misrepresenting them really too much to ask

 

[tantalum]

Would being ranked top3 last year and 4, 5 and 8 that i've read so far this year not be an indication of being superior to more than 2/3rds to 3/4 of the league though?

No. Because it isn't clearly superior than other teams AND it is already sinking. And the farm still isn't set up to be a consistent feeder. It will be another year where there is essentially nothing on the farm

So you believe EP40 will have a worse year than last?

More than possible. Let's look at the Calder winners and concentrate on the offensive numbers because that will be his primary contribution to the success of the team:

Barzal - sophmore year was worse than rookie year
Matthews - slight dip from his rookie year
Panarin - no production increase (fair enough he was older and entered the league in his prime)
Ekblad - second year output was the same as rookie year
MacKinnon - disastrous sophmore year tbh
Huberdeau - production rate took a significant hit
Landeskog - same production level
Skinner - similar production rate
Myers - never come close to his rookie year....and I'll end here because it nicely ties a different thread!

So yes. I can easily see a similar or even worse offensive year for Pettersson. It happens all the time.

You believe that they are poor ineffective NHLers then? Because the past has shown them to be decent and effective players. Are they too old?

I don't believe Baertschi has ever shown himself to be an effective NHL player. Absolutely replaceable. Sutter has shown to have a strong defensive game but it is at the expense of any offensive game. On the balance he doesn't help a team win. My opinion.

What long term harm are you thinking? Heavy 20goal scorer that can put up 50pts is a pretty desirable asset

Not in my mind because I don't believe he moves the needle. I believe they added that player at the expense of a lottery pick because I do not believe this team is a playoff team (predictions I've seen so far are suggesting an 80ish point team again).

Fair enough i could see that....i just dont think they have had an opportunity to play for something yet and could be more effective if so. Virtanen especially so

They've had the oppurtunity to play for a job, PP time, more ice time etc. Stecher indeed raised his play. I don't think he has much more to give. Virtanen raises his play for a dozen games and doesn't maintain it.

He will have some defensive issues for sure. Offensively its a big addition. We'll see....

I hope he is but I feel for the first season or two he will be a sheltered #6 with PP time. The difference between the canucks PP and Lightning PP was 31 goals. Hughes isn't going to have that influence. Heck if he was a great influence you might expect an impact of a few goals.

Missed by 9pts. The key will be adding 30 goals and taking away 30. You would have to admit that given the additions they should be able to add 30 (Miller Pearson Myers Hughes Ferland some good health and progression for the kids) The defensive side is the unknown.....agree. Markstrom should be better supported with Demko but goaltending is a guessing game sometimes.

No they missed by 10 because they would not have had the ROW to win the tiebreaker. Do they add thirty? That's a hell of a lot to add. I don't think they do.

I disagree. The depth and top roster positions are vastly improved IMO.

There is no one on the farm. They are still playing players that shouldn't be in the NHL. the top 6 is deeper. I'll concede that. I don't believe anything else is actually appreciably deeper. And honestly after 5 of 6 years missing the playoffs it damn well should be. But I don't see it.

Did you watch some of the heavier teams just push us aside physically? It matters is battles and puck possession. And you do have to build an identity. I think were built better to cope with differnt styles of opposing teams.

I don't think it was a problem up front at all and the only person they maybe added in that regard is Ferland (but he has other warts that can limit effectiveness). And if it was a problem up front what has changed? You are still 100% dependent on the guys who would get swatted aside for your success. On the back end I agree. The blueline was embarassing in 1-on-1 battles. Real Gud Poo in particular were atrocious. Guess what? Myers and Hughes aren't going to address that.

If we hold court with Hutton Gudbranson and Pouliots ability to defend and you add 30pts in Myers 20 in Benn (same as Hutton) and 30-45 in Hughes is that not a substantial improvement. And for the love of god the 3 in vs 3 out cannot possibly be worse defensively. Do you honestly believe this? I would be shocked.

You aren't adding 30 points in Myers and 20 in Benn. You are REPLACING Hutton's 20 with a differen persons 20. That's not a add. You are replacing other points with Myers. There may be a bit of a gain, HOWEVER, Alex Biega who presumably isn't involved much in the ideal scenarios you are presenting had 16 in 41 games. So those points would be gone. The player who played the other 41 of those games also had points. You have a net add of 5-10 points if all goes well. And if you were to dig deeper on where the points are coming from is it actually an increase that impacts the 5-on-5 play because that is where the canucks got destroyed.

Disagree...as i said 30 more goals puts us in the thick of playoff teams scoring

And I think you are lofty in your expectations at best and at worst forgetting that you don't just bring goals into the lineup but you also lose goals. Ferland, MIller and Pearson are all borderline 20 goal scorers. The guys they are replacing through full seasons are similar 15-20 goal scorers. Your net gain is not going to be 30.

Disagree But we do seem to be cursed by injuries so we'll see what happens

I don't think it's a curse but given the travel the team has I think it should be expected.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Benning tried to trade the Boeser pick for Milan Lucic in what would have been one of the worst trades in franchise history, and credible media sources (as well as a truckload of circumstantial evidence) have confirmed that Benning didn't want to draft Pettersson in 2017 and that Linden settled a heated debate on the side of Brackett over Benning. Both of those 'big wins' were Benning's 2nd choice.

Regardless, if we had Nylander, Tkachuk, Konecny, and Glass or some other combination like that, would any of the pro-Benning arguments be any different?

For example, if Benning drafted the toddler pool of Fleury, Barbashev, Boeser, Tkachuk, Rasmussen, Dobson, and Boldy.

"Nobody bats 1000."

"Fleury can still be a good pick. Defencemen take longer to develop."

"He got a franchise power forward, a future 40 goal scorer, and a future #1 defender without picking higher than 5."

Also want to point out that with Bob Mackenzie's draft rankings and a random number generator, I have the same record as Jim Benning in the top 10. I am a draft guru.

 

[Svencouver]

Benning tried to trade the Boeser pick for Milan Lucic in what would have been one of the worst trades in franchise history, and credible media sources (as well as a truckload of circumstantial evidence) have confirmed that Benning didn't want to draft Pettersson in 2017 and that Linden settled a heated debate on the side of Brackett over Benning. Both of those 'big wins' were Benning's 2nd choice.

Regardless, if we had Nylander, Tkachuk, Konecny, and Glass or some other combination like that, would any of the pro-Benning arguments be any different?

Could you source these claims, I've seen them a few times but there is literally nothing on google, not even a rumor, that says anything about Boeser for Lucic. I remember there being a paywalled LeBrun article about the latter, potentially, but I also don't remember it being as condemning as you claim.

 

[krutovsdonut]

As already noted, by your own definition of Jim Benning's expectations for the team, he completely failed in each of the last 4 years.

by which metric though?

that article either calls into question what his expectations have been for the team almost from the start or what the word "rebuild" means in his mind.

i see three scenarios

1. -he is lying now, but genuinely thought in 2015 he could get it done without a full rebuild then and failed miserably at it.

2. -he is telling the truth now, but was prevented in 2015 from rebuilding to the extent he wanted and publicly lied about what he thought at that time to toe the company line.

3. -he is telling the truth now, but also thinks now that he was rebuilding after 2015 according to a definition of that term quite a bit looser than used by hfboards.

i think, given, the sensitivity of the organization to the word "rebuild" they understand it to mean something similar to how hfboards understands it, so we can eliminate option 3.

i think benning would have been fired if option 1 was the case. but linden was fired.

i think for a lot of reasons he is squarely in option 2, and i also think you can infer he was outvoted by the owner and the president who imposed a compromise strategy.

if i am right i think you can also infer that the extension benning just got has freed his tongue a little. he may finally be at the no shits given stage.

we'll see. interesting times.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Could you source these claims, I've seen them a few times but there is literally nothing on google, not even a rumor, that says anything about Boeser for Lucic. I remember there being a paywalled LeBrun article about the latter, potentially, but I also don't remember it being as condemning as you claim.

Benning worked hard on Lucic deal, but Bruins chose Kings package to land winger

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

What on earth? This just gets weirder and weirder.

So your argument is this?

1) Benning was fully on-board with competing now around the Sedins in 14-15, coming off a non-playoff season.

2) After putting up 101 points, Benning realized the team couldn't compete but Evil Trevor kept forcing bad moves that didn't make sense.

3) After the 15-16 disaster, mid-way through 16-17 Linden realizes a longer-term rebuild is necessary. But after deciding a 101-point team needed rebuilding and then watching the team fail for two years since, Benning now thinks it's time to compete again? And so clashes with Linden and Linden is gone.

Like, the mental gymnastics here are astonishing even for you.




5 division titles in 6 years and nearly winning a Cup makes Gillis a demon in your eyes, but squeaking into the playoffs after 6 years makes Benning a God. Gotcha.

1)...yes...turned the team around in a hurry and made the playoffs..It was the last gasp for the declining core.

2)..For the following two seasons..they still made moves to fortify the Sedins (Eriksson)..We have to assume that JB and TL were in allegiance...(Benning said in his interview that he thought the team needed rebuilding after 2015..the moves don't spell that out)..

3)..At the TDL 2017..Linden announces "R" word..Sedins announce retirement..Team more or less bottoms out for a couple of seasons..Its only this upcoming season that Benning has 'gone for it"...Benning never clashed with Linden, Aqualini did (are you making stuff up.... again?)

Who said Gillis was a demon?..and who said Benning was a God.?.. both have strengths and weaknesses...Your post is perfect demonstration of radical 'polarized' thinking ...Basically, its either 'black or white' for you .. ...

 

[MS]

1)...yes...turned the team around in a hurry and made the playoffs..It was the last gasp for the declining core.

2)..For the following two seasons..they still made moves to fortify the Sedins (Eriksson)..We have to assume that JB and TL were in allegiance...(Benning said in his interview that he thought the team needed rebuilding after 2015..the moves don't spell that out)..

This is literally the opposite of what you were arguing previously, when you were saying that Benning wanted to rebuild in 2015 and strongly hinted that the reason he didn't was Linden.

You're backpedaling on that, then?

3)..At the TDL 2017..Linden announces "R" word..Sedins announce retirement..Team more or less bottoms out for a couple of seasons..Its only this upcoming season that Benning has 'gone for it"...Benning never clashed with Linden, Aqualini did (are you making stuff up.... again?)

Reports are that Linden realized during 16-17 that competing wasn't working (duh) and wanted to commit to a full rebuild - which lines up with the much more muted 2017 we saw on multiple fronts with short-term contracts, actual deadline deals, and actual talk of a rebuild. Then he lost his grip on power to Benning and Aquilini who wanted to go for it and compete, and by 2018 was forced out.

The evidence we have indicates that Benning has been in full-on compete mode since the day he arrived and the only time the brakes were put on that was in 2017 because of Linden.

Who said Gillis was a demon?..and who said Benning was a God.?.. both have strengths and weaknesses...Your post is perfect demonstration of radical 'polarized' thinking ...Basically, its either 'black or white' .. ...

You literally just responded to the Dear Leader meme by saying 'yes if he makes the playoffs'. And have spent years as the biggest BUT GILLISer here.

 

[MS]

I'll also add that it's my belief - and no, I don't have a SOURCE? for this - that the complete flop we had in 16-17 after signing Eriksson and Gudbranson allowed for a window where Linden understood the need for a rebuild and was temporarily able to sell that to ownership in the spring/summer of 2017. And what we saw for most of 2017 was consistent with a rebuild for the most part.

Then we got off to a hot start in 2017-18 with Boeser scoring lots of goals and were sort of on the periphery of the playoff chase! And both Benning and Aquilini got super excited about it - Aquilini was doing radio spots and crowing about the team, and Benning was calling it 'the best team he'd had so far' and they were both clearly thinking playoffs. And I think this is the point where they convinced themselves and each other that Linden was wrong and we didn't need a full rebuild and this is the point where Linden was outnumbered and pushed out.

 

[Svencouver]

Benning worked hard on Lucic deal, but Bruins chose Kings package to land winger

The pick that was eventually used to select Boeser != Boeser. The value is way different. At the time, the proposed trade was pretty fair value, even though with how the involved pieces have developed now, it would have been awful. It's worth remembering that at the time, Lucic was a very solid commodity in Boston at 27 and went on to record two strong years in LA and Edmonton respectively before his dramatic decline.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

Benning tried to trade the Boeser pick for Milan Lucic in what would have been one of the worst trades in franchise history, and credible media sources (as well as a truckload of circumstantial evidence) have confirmed that Benning didn't want to draft Pettersson in 2017 and that Linden settled a heated debate on the side of Brackett over Benning. Both of those 'big wins' were Benning's 2nd choice.

Regardless, if we had Nylander, Tkachuk, Konecny, and Glass or some other combination like that, would any of the pro-Benning arguments be any different?

I'd love to see these sources, haven't heard that before.

Im pretty sure they had Hughes & Pettersson ranked 3rd in their respective years. In 2017 I think they had Makar & Heiskanen 1-2. No doubt in my mind they would've taken Makar if he was available, but he wasn't, and they went for Pettersson who was ranked lower than #5.

As far as had we drafted differently, its hard to say. Depends on who the picks were, the arguments could be the same or Benning could've been fired. I don't know that there's much value in speculating that.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

This is literally the opposite of what you were arguing previously, when you were saying that Benning wanted to rebuild in 2015 and strongly hinted that the reason he didn't was Linden.

You're backpedaling on that, then?



Reports are that Linden realized during 16-17 that competing wasn't working and wanted to commit to a full rebuild - which lines up with the much more muted 2017 we saw on multiple fronts with short-term contracts, actual deadline deals, and actual talk of a rebuild. Then he lost his grip on power to Benning and Aquilini who wanted to go for it and compete, and by 2018 was forced out.



You literally just responded to the Dear Leader meme by saying 'yes if he makes the playoffs'. And have spent years as the biggest BUT GILLISer here.

Please quote my post where I said that Benning wanted to rebuild in 2014..I never said that..Rebuilding in 2014 was never an option..The mandate set by the owner and President was to 'compete on the fly".

Linden wanting to do a 'slow' rebuild' appears to be true..and was forced out..Sitting around waiting for 1st round draft picks years after year is no guarantee of anything, except expecting the same losing results of the previous years...This season will determine if Benning and ownership were correct in accelerating the process.

I liked Gillis throughout most of his tenure (didnt even mind his arrogance)..He put the final touches on an elite core (and got us to a game of the SC)..but he also squandered his inheritance, and left a sunken ship of a prospect pool...