Canucks Managerial Discussion | Part 12

[pitseleh]

1. The team didn't get worse. It's a disappointing day, but the team is no worse off than they were on February 27th. Nothing they did yesterday was going to make or break the future of this team.

Only if you ignore opportunity cost, which is a folly.

2. At least they walked away from the lowball offer right at the deadline. If it's true that Dallas circles back right before the deadline with an offer of a mid-round pick and a lesser prospect, I think you have to have some pride and walk away. I know Benning is not known around these parts as a strong negotiator, but I think you have to show that you're not going to be forced into making bad deals just because you're under the gun.

As much as it would be better to get something rather than nothing, I don't think you can let other GMs force you into a bad deal just because your under the gun. Ultimately, Dallas lost out on a good defenseman. No deal hurts them as much as it hurts the Canucks.

Management since they have been here have been poor negotiators. One instance of putting your foot down isn't going to change that. Even if it could, it's dumb to decide that market value is important when you have an opportunity for a pure profit move. Save it for when you are negotiating deals like the Granlund deal.

So while yesterday was an extremely frustrating and discouraging day in many respects, it's not one that does much permanent damage.

This is how most teams are run into the ground: lots of little dumb decisions that don't by themselves cause permanent damage.

La, Chicago, Dallas were his teams. La didn't want him, Dallas chose Russell, Chicago I'm not sure what went on there

Friedman said that Hamhuis would have gone to one of the top teams in the East too.

 

[CorySchneids]

I don't buy it, this is the same guy who took less value for lack, he took what the market valued lack at. From what I read Dallas chose Russell, like a lot of the non Vancouver media felt was the better player(not me). Does anybody know what the Chicago offer was?

From my understanding Dallas had a similar, slightly BETTER offer on the table for Hamhuis, jim probably said "I'll get back to you" and after speaking with whomever (linden, ownership, Boston) h tried to squeeze out maybe another late round pick. After this Nill said screw it, you take too long and now you want more, I'll go grab the shot blocker for less, who may actually resign.

I don't see how anyone can possibly draw he conclusion that Dallas chose Russell over Hammer of all things were equal.

 

[valkynax]

Obviously, yesterday was a bad day for Benning & Co. You can't go in to a trade deadline with that many UFAs and walk away with nothing, and once Hamhuis agreed to waive, you have to find a deal that works.

That said, there are maybe a couple of (very small) silver linings:

1. The team didn't get worse. It's a disappointing day, but the team is no worse off than they were on February 27th. Nothing they did yesterday was going to make or break the future of this team.

2. At least they walked away from the lowball offer right at the deadline. If it's true that Dallas circles back right before the deadline with an offer of a mid-round pick and a lesser prospect, I think you have to have some pride and walk away. I know Benning is not known around these parts as a strong negotiator, but I think you have to show that you're not going to be forced into making bad deals just because you're under the gun.

As much as it would be better to get something rather than nothing, I don't think you can let other GMs force you into a bad deal just because your under pressure. Ultimately, Dallas lost out on a good defenseman. No deal hurts them as much as it hurts the Canucks.

So while yesterday was an extremely frustrating and discouraging day in many respects, it's not one that does much permanent damage.

It's not just "damage", it's another showcase of how our management group is so incomprehensibly awful that their job.

And I don't believe that neither Chicago or Dallas put together a sensible offer, because both were eyeing each other and with Chicago making more additions, at least some pressure should be on Dallas to keep up. Plus, just look at Mike Weber and Roman Polak deal. Same with Vrbata's thing, look at how many other players were dealt.

I honestly have no clue what our managers are doing - neither do they, I don't think.

 

[tantalum]

I don't buy it, this is the same guy who took less value for lack, he took what the market valued lack at. From what I read Dallas chose Russell, like a lot of the non Vancouver media felt was the better player(not me). Does anybody know what the Chicago offer was?

That's fine you don't need to buy it despite Willes, Botchford, Farhan etc saying it was indeed the case. Now the inner workings may be different. Some suggest the Stars didn't want to pay what the Flames were asking and came to Vancouver with a similar offer. They then circled back to the flames and the flames pulled the trigger. Then trying to win the day offered something else to Benning. You don't need to believe it but somehow a similar deal that The flames got very much seems to have been offered to the Canucks. A similar deal to the Ladd deal was offered from the rumblings and turned down.

Hamhuis sad he would have waived for other teams but those teams weren't brought to him.

And in the end Benning gave himself no flexibility to take on contracts to improve returns etc. They failed on deadline day. They were outclassed. Of that there should be no question. A tale of two teams, one cuts salary and comes away with 6 picks and a couple prospects, the other loses a guy on waivers for no reason and trades it's best performing offensive prospect for a guy falling on the depth chart of a team somehow behind them in the standings. And they fail to file any paperwork to give the farm team a boost.

From ownership down to the coaching staff it is a complete embarrassment of an organization.

And I'm disturbed that the bar for our management group appears to be lowered to "well he didn't do any damage...so win?"

 

[coldsteel79]

Only if you ignore opportunity cost, which is a folly.



Management since they have been here have been poor negotiators. One instance of putting your foot down isn't going to change that. Even if it could, it's dumb to decide that market value is important when you have an opportunity for a pure profit move. Save it for when you are negotiating deals like the Granlund deal.



This is how most teams are run into the ground: lots of little dumb decisions that don't by themselves cause permanent damage.



Friedman said that Hamhuis would have gone to one of the top teams in the East too.

Hamhuis himself said he wouldn't in his interview, in his interview he gave the go ahead for Dallas or chicago

 

[tantalum]

Hamhuis himself said he wouldn't in his interview, in his interview he gave the go ahead for Dallas or chicago

I believe he also said he would have waived for other teams but it was only Chicago and Dallas that were brought to him.

 

[Fat Tony]

Bless the peeps still in defend mode. There isn't enough lipstick for this pig.

 

[Hit the post]

And I'm disturbed that the bar for our management group appears to be lowered to "well he didn't do any damage...so win?"

Baby steps for the three stooges....baby steps.

Have to look on the bright side....that's all we got now.

 

[coldsteel79]

That's fine you don't need to buy it despite Willes, Botchford, Farhan etc saying it was indeed the case. Now the inner workings may be different. Some suggest the Stars didn't want to pay what the Flames were asking and came to Vancouver with a similar offer. They then circled back to the flames and the flames pulled the trigger. Then trying to win the day offered something else to Benning. You don't need to believe it but somehow a similar deal that The flames got very much seems to have been offered to the Canucks. A similar deal to the Ladd deal was offered from the rumblings and turned down.

And in the end he gave himself no flexibility to take on contracts to improve returns etc. They failed on deadline day. They were outclassed. Of that there should be no question. A tale of two teams, one cuts salary and comes away with 6 picks and a couple prospects, the other loses a guy on waivers for no reason and trades it's best performing offensive prospect for a guy falling on the depth chart of a team somehow behind them in the standings. And they fail to file any paperwork to give the farm team a boost.

From ownership down to the coaching staff it is a complete embarrassment of an organization.

And I'm disturbed that the bar for our management group appears to be lowered to "well he didn't do any damage...so win?"

There's more going on behind the scenes, I mean we're talking about "trader Jim" here I doubt he digs his heels in, his entire time here has been about "decisively" making moves if the value is close.

 

[Cocoa Crisp]

That's fine you don't need to buy it despite Willes, Botchford, Farhan etc saying it was indeed the case. Now the inner workings may be different. Some suggest the Stars didn't want to pay what the Flames were asking and came to Vancouver with a similar offer. They then circled back to the flames and the flames pulled the trigger. Then trying to win the day offered something else to Benning. You don't need to believe it but somehow a similar deal that The flames got very much seems to have been offered to the Canucks. A similar deal to the Ladd deal was offered from the rumblings and turned down.

Hamhuis sad he would have waived for other teams but those teams weren't brought to him.

And in the end Benning gave himself no flexibility to take on contracts to improve returns etc. They failed on deadline day. They were outclassed. Of that there should be no question. A tale of two teams, one cuts salary and comes away with 6 picks and a couple prospects, the other loses a guy on waivers for no reason and trades it's best performing offensive prospect for a guy falling on the depth chart of a team somehow behind them in the standings. And they fail to file any paperwork to give the farm team a boost.

From ownership down to the coaching staff it is a complete embarrassment of an organization.

And I'm disturbed that the bar for our management group appears to be lowered to "well he didn't do any damage...so win?"

He also managed not to set his office on fire that morning or smear feces all over his face during the presser. So there's that.

 

[tantalum]

There's more going on behind the scenes, I mean we're talking about "trader Jim" here I doubt he digs his heels in, his entire time here has been about "decisively" making moves if the value is close.

He's decisively made a majority of bad moves.

I'm not saying ownership didn't do something stupid. But anybody who has a meddling manager knows that the way around it is putting together an iron clad story or multiple appealing options. You have to be a salesmen to those types of managers. So perhaps ownership scuttled a Dallas deal. They didn't scuttle a Chicago deal. They don't listen in on Bennings phone calls while Benning puts together other options.

The problem on the Dallas deal may have been ownership (maybe). The bigger problem was a GM still honestly believing they had a shot at the playoffs a week ago...and I do not believe that is a manifestation of ownership desire. It's what he honestly believed. He wasn't putting together options. He wasn't talking to Hamhuis to try to open up possibilities. He wasn't building value in Vrbata by making sure the coach played him with the twins. He doesn't have a clear strategy an/or is just real ****** with execution.

And again, while ownership gets involved more than I'd like it also seems to only really manifest when they lose confidence in the GM for whatever reason. Was it ownership wanting more on a deal from Dallas or ownership wanting a GM to deliver more? No idea.

It doesn't change anything. I dislike the ownership group. They are too involved sometimes. But the ineptness of the management team is a very real thing. If they had actually done a decent job the first 20 months ownership likely wouldn't be sticking their oar in at all because the direction would be clear; the team and organization would be better. It isn't and quite frankly that is far more on Benning and not ownership.

 

[Horrorshow]

this thread will never get locked haha

 

[BoHorvat 53]

From my understanding Dallas had a similar, slightly BETTER offer on the table for Hamhuis, jim probably said "I'll get back to you" and after speaking with whomever (linden, ownership, Boston) h tried to squeeze out maybe another late round pick. After this Nill said screw it, you take too long and now you want more, I'll go grab the shot blocker for less, who may actually resign.

I don't see how anyone can possibly draw he conclusion that Dallas chose Russell over Hammer of all things were equal.

Repeat after me, Russell is a rental. He will not be re-signing with Dallas because they're getting ready to pony up for Seguin + Benn's big boy contracts.

 

[MarkMM]

There's more going on behind the scenes, I mean we're talking about "trader Jim" here I doubt he digs his heels in, his entire time here has been about "decisively" making moves if the value is close.

No matter how you spin it, yesterday was objectively a bad day for Benning.

Signing Sbisa to a long-term extension with a big raise despite being statistically one of the worst defencemen in the league based on hope he'd get better when he was an RFA and could have been qualified to make earn a raise and protect against downside is a bad decision.

Trading Garrison and replacing him with Sbisa and then finding yourself short on competent defenceman, and seeing that 2nd you got in return for Garrison become an underwhelming Linden Vey turns out to be a bad decision.

Signing Miller for an elite goaltender salary for three years when cheaper, shorter options were available and watching him get outplayed by two younger, cheaper goaltenders one of which we're forced to move (at lesser value than equivalents at the time) was a bad decision.

Trading a young but troubled power prospect with a cheap contract for an older, more expensive, UFA fourth-line thug and adding a 5th on top and then saying Prust is a character player who becomes a lockerroom problem and is so bad that gets waived and not claimed is a bad decision.

Saying there is cap uncertainty and then signing Sutter to a six-year deal before he's played a single game for us for value he hasn't lived up to is a bad decision.

You keep defending Benning by spinning individual moves as "not too bad" or "understandable" but collectively the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. His decisions are dumb, one can say that this is in hindsight but it's not hindsight when us "amateurs" repeatedly predict things, and second, he's being paid millions to use his vaunted wisdom, experience and insider knowledge to make the right decisions.

Jim Benning and quite possibly Trevor Linden are abject failures. Period.

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

Too add to the above could you imagine if McCann got drafted ahead of us and we drafted a player that's two years away from being two years away? This city would be going nuts right now. They better be thankful for McCann. He's the only thing keeping that trade from being a disaster

 

[Samzilla]

The idea that "at least Benning didn't make the team worse", and to take that as a win, is sad. Maybe he didn't make the team worse, but he did make our future worse by giving up on Shinkaruk before even evaluating him at the NHL level (one game with Prust as his linemate is hardly a proper evaluation) and trading a 5th.

But let's look at it this way. If I was offered one thousand dollars, and all I had to do was say "yes I would like one thousand dollars" to the person offering...but for some god unknown reason I goobied and said no. Now let's say I didn't spend any money that day. The next day I could look at the situation and say, "I didn't lose any money yesterday. That's a win!" But it wasn't, was it.

 

[CorySchneids]

Repeat after me, Russell is a rental. He will not be re-signing with Dallas because they're getting ready to pony up for Seguin + Benn's big boy contracts.

I don't think too highly of him therefore I imagine a scenerio where Dallas would like to keep him, especially after giving up so much for him.

If they knew for sure they wouldn't resign whomever they acquired why not go all in and do what it takes to get the superior player in Hammer.

 

[MS]

Bless the peeps still in defend mode. There isn't enough lipstick for this pig.

It really is amazing.

I guess some people were so invested in hating the 'arrogant' Gillis that the arena will literally have to burn to the ground before they admit anything is wrong with the new regime.

 

[I am toxic]

No matter how you spin it, yesterday was objectively a bad day for Benning.

Signing Sbisa to a long-term extension with a big raise despite being statistically one of the worst defencemen in the league based on hope he'd get better when he was an RFA and could have been qualified to make earn a raise and protect against downside is a bad decision.

Trading Garrison and replacing him with Sbisa and then finding yourself short on competent defenceman, and seeing that 2nd you got in return for Garrison become an underwhelming Linden Vey turns out to be a bad decision.

Signing Miller for an elite goaltender salary for three years when cheaper, shorter options were available and watching him get outplayed by two younger, cheaper goaltenders one of which we're forced to move (at lesser value than equivalents at the time) was a bad decision.

Trading a young but troubled power prospect with a cheap contract for an older, more expensive, UFA fourth-line thug and adding a 5th on top and then saying Prust is a character player who becomes a lockerroom problem and is so bad that gets waived and not claimed is a bad decision.

Saying there is cap uncertainty and then signing Sutter to a six-year deal before he's played a single game for us for value he hasn't lived up to is a bad decision.

You keep defending Benning by spinning individual moves as "not too bad" or "understandable" but collectively the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. His decisions are dumb, one can say that this is in hindsight but it's not hindsight when us "amateurs" repeatedly predict things, and second, he's being paid millions to use his vaunted wisdom, experience and insider knowledge to make the right decisions.

Jim Benning and quite possibly Trevor Linden are abject failures. Period.

Team Potato:

Sedin-Sedin-Hansen
Higgins-Kesler-Burrows
Matthias-Horvat-Kassian
Santos-Richardson-6th Round Pick
Shink

Tanev-Edler
Hamhuis-Biega
Garrison-Hutton
Bieksa-Corrado
Forsling

Lack
Markstrom
Eriksson
Cannata

$17M in cap space


Team Benning, after 2 seasons:

Sedin-Sedin-Hansen
Bae-Bo-JV
Etem-Granlund-Vey
Dorsett-Sutter-Vrbata
McCann

Tanev-Edler
Hamhuis-Sbisa
Hutton-Biega
Weber-Barts
-Larsen?

Miller
Markstrom
Cannata
Bachman

Capped out, can't return Sutter from IR


Feel free to correct things I got wrong or missed.

 

[tantalum]

The reason Calgary moved Russel was because he wants to test the open market. They tried to re-sign him right up until deadline day if I heard Burke correctly yesterday. So no guarantee he signs in Dallas.

That said, Dallas is a wonderful city. People who move there don't seem to even leave.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

Could the Canucks send McCann or Virtanen back to juniors to make cap space for Sutter? Or are the CHL leagues considered affiliated with the NHL?

A trade would be another option wouldn't it?

It's just bizarre that they didn't paper anyone down. I wonder if they forgot, or just didn't realize they needed to do it. They papered a bunch of guys down last season, but maybe that was Gilman's work, and his replacement didn't realize the necessity.

 

[I am toxic]

Could the Canucks send McCann or Virtanen back to juniors to make cap space for Sutter? Or are the CHL leagues considered affiliated with the NHL?

A trade would be another option wouldn't it?

It's just bizarre that they didn't paper anyone down. I wonder if they forgot, or just didn't realize they needed to do it. They papered a bunch of guys down last season, but maybe that was Gilman's work, and his replacement didn't realize the necessity.

I believe that ship has sunk.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

The reason Calgary moved Russel was because he wants to test the open market. They tried to re-sign him right up until deadline day if I heard Burke correctly yesterday. So no guarantee he signs in Dallas.

That said, Dallas is a wonderful city. People who move there don't seem to even leave.

Speaking of resigning.

Resigning Hamhuis is something that needs a bit more airtime I feel. Not in trying to dump him and resign but as in what effort has been made this year to resign Hamhuis? To me it seems like none or near enough none.

So why would Hamhuis owe anything to the Canucks or trust that leaving Van 3 months before off season isnt in fact leaving Vancouver 3 months earlier than testing UFA in the summer.

 

[coldsteel79]

Speaking of resigning.

Resigning Hamhuis is something that needs a bit more airtime I feel. Not in trying to dump him and resign but as in what effort has been made this year to resign Hamhuis? To me it seems like none or near enough none.

So why would Hamhuis owe anything to the Canucks or trust that leaving Van 3 months before off season isnt in fact leaving Vancouver 3 months earlier than testing UFA in the summer.

Hamhuis is not gonna be resigned, the only way I see him being resigned is if another dman is traded either edler or Sbisa

 

[Snatcher Demko]

Hamhuis is not gonna be resigned, the only way I see him being resigned is if another dman is traded either edler or Sbisa

Agreed, and that's why Edler needs to be traded at the draft.

He's the only marketable asset we have back there - otherwise too much is being spent on the LH side.

If we can trade Edler and get a 1st and prospect then they should pull that trigger.

It would 'somewhat' salvage this situation.