Is Jim Benning the worst GM in franchise history?

[rypper]

Reporters who out their sources tend to not have sources for very long.

 

[Canucko]

*crickets*

Are you kidding? Provide the proof and if it’s legit I’ll gladly agree. I’m not going to go digging for your sources though, that’s not how reality works.

 

[Canucko]

Reporters who out their sources tend to not have sources for very long.

Can you provide a link to the article?

 

[Canucko]

Don't you think the standard should be higher than "at least he's not Jack Gordon"? When you're no better drafting than Dave Nonis, you better excel in other areas of a GM's job.

He’s certainly not the best, that’s for sure. Currently I’d place him near the bottom to be honest. But, this thread is asking if he is the worst in franchise history. He is not in my opinion, and it’s actually not very close.

This franchise was so bad, basically from its inception up to the Quinn era, save for a couple seasons with Roger behind the bench. No hope, no future, and almost no franchise.

Unfortunately this corner of the internet is so toxic that if anyone calls out the nonsense and unsubstantiated crap posted they are labelled a pro-Benning fan.

What does that even mean? I want Benning to succeed because I’m a fan of the Canucks and want them to do well. I don’t get that same impression from this “fan base”. It seems like many want him to fail so he’ll get fired. That is some messed up thinking.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

He’s certainly not the best, that’s for sure. Currently I’d place him near the bottom to be honest. But, this thread is asking if he is the worst in franchise history. He is not in my opinion, and it’s actually not very close.

This franchise was so bad, basically from its inception up to the Quinn era, save for a couple seasons with Roger behind the bench. No hope, no future, and almost no franchise.

Unfortunately this corner of the internet is so toxic that if anyone calls out the nonsense and unsubstantiated crap posted they are labelled a pro-Benning fan.

What does that even mean? I want Benning to succeed because I’m a fan of the Canucks and want them to do well. I don’t get that same impression from this “fan base”. It seems like many want him to fail so he’ll get fired. That is some messed up thinking.

I think you're underestimating the gross incompetence of Benning in certain areas (trades, free agent signings, contract extensions, asset management). If he was amazing at other areas, then sure, I'd agree that he's not a bad GM. His drafting is maybe decent to good...and anything else? Then factor in the changes in the eras, like Benning having a huge budget and is able to spend to the cap, better scouting and coverage in players, more resources at his disposal, and can you really say he's doing a better job than past GMs that were only here for a few seasons? Term is huge in evaluating GMs, I know it sounds obvious but the longer a GM is here, the more that should be expected from him.

 

[y2kcanucks]

The irony being this post makes the ridiculous claim that “not a single person has yet been able to say anything that supports Jim Benning...”

Except it isn’t ridiculous. When you take my quote out of context though you can get to wild conclusions. Try reading my full post. It’s not ridiculous at all.

 

[insomniac]

Sens fan who’s always also been a Canucks fan (born in Vancouver but left before my first birthday, Pavel Bure was my favourite player growing up) chiming in. Haven’t been a fan of Benning for most of his tenure.

I did like the picks of Hughes, Woo, Utunen, and Madden in 2018, and Hoglander and Podkolzin this year. I also like the recent off-season moves, basically adding Myers, Benn, Ferland, and Miller without giving up any quality roster pieces.

The Canucks will be better in 2019-20 than they were in 2018-19. Benning is not the worst GM in Vancouver history - my vote there goes to Burke, but that might be heavily influenced by the Bure trade (and subsequently the Mogilny trade). Best, in my opinion (and in my lifetime), was Gillis.

 

[vanuck]

Are you kidding? Provide the proof and if it’s legit I’ll gladly agree. I’m not going to go digging for your sources though, that’s not how reality works.

If you've really been lurking around here for as long as you say you have then you would've seen them reiterated time and time again by MS in the management threads. But of course you already knew that...

 

[Canucko]

If you've really been lurking around here for as long as you say you have then you would've seen them reiterated time and time again by MS in the management threads. But of course you already knew that...

It should be easy to dig up then, correct?

 

[Canucko]

Except it isn’t ridiculous. When you take my quote out of context though you can get to wild conclusions. Try reading my full post. It’s not ridiculous at all.

I don’t believe I’m misquoting you or taking you out of context.

Not a single person has yet been able to say anything that supports Jim Benning that hasn’t been debunked.

This is the full sentence. According to you, not a single argument can be made for Benning. They have literally all been debunked.

Nothing in the rest of your post qualifies this as only being the case in specific circumstances.

 

[mathonwy]

I don’t believe I’m misquoting you or taking you out of context.



This is the full sentence. According to you, not a single argument can be made for Benning. They have literally all been debunked.

Nothing in the rest of your post qualifies this as only being the case in specific circumstances.

You got it dude.

 

[RandV]

Yes because everyone keeps their own organized portfolio of links from the past 5 years of things that were discussed at the time to the point that they're basically common knowledge just so when troll account #236 comes around demanding evidence that this thing actually happened they can whip it out showing what everyone already knows. Which actually accomplishes nothing because troll account simply ignores and moves on.

 

[Canucko]

Yes because everyone keeps their own organized portfolio of links from the past 5 years of things that were discussed at the time to the point that they're basically common knowledge just so when troll account #236 comes around demanding evidence that this thing actually happened they can whip it out showing what everyone already knows. Which actually accomplishes nothing because troll account simply ignores and moves on.

Hold up one minute. You concede, because it was made so long ago, that it would be difficult to find. Yet I’m told to go look it up. Hypocritical.

And since when has not agreeing with you equal being a troll?

 

[Canucko]

You got it dude.

Exactly. A ridiculous claim.

 

[Melvin]

Honestly John, training camp has started. Go back to work.

 

[MS]

precisely.

Well, no.

It was unsubstantiated speculation back a year ago when a bunch of us here were speculating that this was the case based on the large amount of circumstantial evidence.

Then a credible Canucks-accredited media member independently confirmed exactly what we were speculating ... which makes it the very definition of ‘substantiated’.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

Honestly John, training camp has started. Go back to work.

But he's from Harvard and knows everything about hockey. Why he and his minions have the need to educate the plebs in HFBoards?

(As a sidenote, love when a new account with Benning pom-pons signes here and all those "positivity older accounts" start liking every single post of the new account. It appears they have a plan in motion. Not a very intelligent one, but a plan. At least, if they could make a plan for the Canucks as rudimental as this one, we would be in a much better state).

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Well, no.

It was unsubstantiated speculation back a year ago when a bunch of us here were speculating that this was the case based on the large amount of circumstantial evidence.

Then a credible Canucks-accredited media member independently confirmed exactly what we were speculating ... which makes it the very definition of ‘substantiated’.

No it’s not..You have never proven that JB didn’t want to draft EP..and never proven that JB was in charge of the Bruins drafting.

A bunch of negative posters here speculating does not equal fact..lol

It’s just ‘rumour mongering’ at its finest.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Reporters who out their sources tend to not have sources for very long.

So essentially they can make up whatever they want and we have to go along with it even if it’s fake news?

 

[MS]

No it’s not..You have never proven that JB didn’t want to draft EP..and never proven that JB was in charge of the Bruins drafting.

It’s just ‘rumour mongering’ at its finest.

You can never definitively ‘prove’ something like that unless Benning admits it out of his own mouth, which would never happen. But when a credible media source confirms what we’d been speculating, that’s ‘substantiated’. It’s no longer pure speculation.

Additionally, a very credible poster here had it confirmed by his own source, so it’s been independently substantiated twice ... although I understand if that is given less credibility.

But keep sticking your head in the sand if you want.

Likewise, there was an article from a Boston paper linked here multiple times which confirmed that Benning oversaw Boston’s scouting, and it should be pretty damned obvious that he was - he was the only guy in their front office with a scouting background, by his own admission he was constantly on the road amateur scouting, and he was the media point man for the draft for Boston explaining the picks they made.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

You can never definitively ‘prove’ something like that unless Benning admits it out of his own mouth, which would never happen. But when a credible media source confirms what we’d been speculating, that’s ‘substantiated’. It’s no longer pure speculation.

Additionally, a very credible poster here had it confirmed by his own source, so it’s been independently substantiated twice ... although I understand if that is given less credibility.

But keep sticking your head in the sand if you want.

Likewise, there was an article from a Boston paper linked here multiple times which confirmed that Benning oversaw Boston’s scouting, and it should be pretty damned obvious that he was - he was the only guy in their front office with a scouting background, by his own admission he was constantly on the road amateur scouting, and he was the media point man for the draft for Boston explaining the picks they made.

Your Benning not wanting to draft EP theory has been debunked every time here.

Please show me the links from the Boston newspaper..thanks.

 

[MS]

Your Benning not wanting to draft EP theory has been debunked every time here.

Please show me the links from the Boston newspaper..thanks.

The newspaper article was about Chiarelli leaving and referenced how he ‘lost his right-hand man who oversaw drafting’ when Benning left a year previous. It was linked here multiple times 3-4 years ago and I’m sure many people remember it but I can’t find it anymore - old articles like this sometimes disappear, or become incredibly hard to find when searching ‘Benning + Drafting’ gives 1000s of results about his time in Vancouver.

And again - common f***ing sense. The ex-head scout who is the only guy in their front office with a scouting background (Chiarelli is a business guy) who is the guy explaining their draft picks to the media wasn’t overseeing the draft? Really? You honestly think that?

The Pettersson stuff hasn’t been remotely debunked. Even a little bit. Care to show your work there?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The newspaper article was about Chiarelli leaving and referenced how he ‘lost his right-hand man who oversaw drafting’ when Benning left a year previous. It was linked here multiple times 3-4 years ago and I’m sure many people remember it but I can’t find it anymore - old articles like this sometimes disappear, or become incredibly hard to find when searching ‘Benning + Drafting’ gives 1000s of results about his time in Vancouver.

And again - common ****ing sense. The ex-head scout who is the only guy in their front office with a scouting background (Chiarelli is a business guy) who is the guy explaining their draft picks to the media wasn’t overseeing the draft? Really? You honestly think that?

The Pettersson stuff hasn’t been remotely debunked. Even a little bit. Care to show your work there?

Links to the article please..

 

[Hodgy]

Links to the article please..

All of this stuff was posted years ago, and it was pretty clear that Benning oversaw or what at least highly involved in Boston's drafting. Here is one article: Bruins go conservative on Day 2 of draft

 

[MS]

Links to the article please..

Canucks Managerial Thread | 9

It was linked here. The article no longer exists but quotes from the article including direct quotes from Chiarelli are given.