Is Jim Benning the worst GM in franchise history?

[MS]

And this post illustrates the level of absurdity you have reached. You have equated Benning’s job performance to that of a junky, and those who do not despise him as flat earthers.

You are not interested in discussion. Bye.

LOL.

It’s an analogy to illustrate how flawed your logic is, and when you don’t like how bad that analogy makes your argument look, you have a tantrum and start attacking a strawman.

Any argument that ‘we have good young players so the GM must be doing a good job’ is inherently monstrously flawed because the best way to get good young players is to do a terrible job and then be compensated for your incompetence with free high draft picks.

As for the flat-earther comment, it was referring to one specific poster who absolutely refuses to admit that Benning has to wear Boston’s horrible drafting while he was there despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally building a strawman there or just lack reading comprehension.

 

[Canucko]

LOL.

It’s an analogy to illustrate how flawed your logic is, and when you don’t like how bad that analogy makes your argument look, you have a tantrum and start attacking a strawman.

Any argument that ‘we have good young players so the GM must be doing a good job’ is inherently monstrously flawed because the best way to get good young players is to do a terrible job and then be compensated for your incompetence with free high draft picks.

As for the flat-earther comment, it was referring to one specific poster who absolutely refuses to admit that Benning has to wear Boston’s horrible drafting while he was there despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally building a strawman there or just lack reading comprehension.

I’m not having a tantrum - just not interested in discussing the Canucks with you anymore. I can’t stop you from responding to my posts though.

Cheers.

 

[MS]

I’m not having a tantrum - just not interested in discussing the Canucks with you anymore. I can’t stop you from responding to my posts though.

Cheers.

Feel free to comically mis-interpret an argument, chuck your toys and go home. I assume this means you agree that having a few good young players doesn’t mean the GM is doing a good job.

I will absolutely continue to respond to any posts which fundamentally lack logic.

 

[MS]

I have never discounted it. I am simply not ignoring his success with the Canucks and am (rightly) not placing all of his professional weight on his time in Boston. The irony is they won a cup in Boston - doubt any of you guys would give him an ounce of credit for that though. More double standards.

Also, why are you responding to a direct response to PoM as though it was directed at you, twice in this thread?

 

[sting101]

LOL.

It’s an analogy to illustrate how flawed your logic is, and when you don’t like how bad that analogy makes your argument look, you have a tantrum and start attacking a strawman.

Any argument that ‘we have good young players so the GM must be doing a good job’ is inherently monstrously flawed because the best way to get good young players is to do a terrible job and then be compensated for your incompetence with free high draft picks.

As for the flat-earther comment, it was referring to one specific poster who absolutely refuses to admit that Benning has to wear Boston’s horrible drafting while he was there despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally building a strawman there or just lack reading comprehension.

Just curious.

Does Jim Benning get credit for taking a core like Gillis did and instaed of failing to win a cup actually makes good on it and adds the pieces necessary to be a champion?

Ryder 17 Horton 17 Recchi 14 Kelly 13 Peverley 12 Kaberle 11 Seidenberg 11 Ference 10 Boychuk 9 Seguin 7 Paille 6 McQuaid 4 Campbell 4 = 136
Ehrhoff 12 Higgins 8 Torres 7 Hamhuis 6 Lapierre 5 Samuelsson 3 Rome 1 Hodgson 1 = 43

or was he only drafting as the assistant GM and Chiarelli and Neely looked after player aquisitions?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Jim Benning, formerly director of player personnel, was named assistant general manager, replacing Jeff Gorton, who was fired last month. Don Sweeney, who oversaw the camp, was named director of hockey operations and player development.
"They're both going to get expanded duties," said GM Peter Chiarelli. "Jim's area of expertise is player evaluation. He's going to oversee much of the operation from an assistant GM perspective. Donny's going to continue player development. He's been outstanding in that. Real outstanding. He'll be overseeing it more now and he'll be in the day-to-day operations."..Boston Globe.

He joins Vancouver after serving in the capacity of the Boston Bruins Assistant General Manager for the past seven years. In that role he acted as an advisor to General Manager Peter Chiarelli on all matters pertaining to player evaluation, trades and free agent signings, in addition to assisting the General Manager in overseeing all individuals in their specific duties for the Bruins. Benning initially joined the Bruins as Director of Player Personnel in 2006...NHL.com

Wayne Smith, in his third year with the Bruins, is the new head of amateur scouting. He works with Director of Player Personnel Scott Bradley overseeing the team's amateur scouts. Bradley, was the club's Director of Amateur Scouting for 11 seasons before moving to his current position to start the season...Dobberhockey,2009..

Wayne Smith, in his third year with the Bruins, is the new head of amateur scouting. He works with Director of Player Personnel Scott Bradley overseeing the team's amateur scouts. Bradley, was the club's Director of Amateur Scouting for 11 seasons before moving to his current position to start the season...Dobberhockey,2009..

Again,..while Benning was 'involved' with the Bruins amateur drafting..its a stretch (with all his other responsibilities) to say that all the picks in that era are 'on him'.

 

[Ryp37]

Jim Benning, formerly director of player personnel, was named assistant general manager, replacing Jeff Gorton, who was fired last month. Don Sweeney, who oversaw the camp, was named director of hockey operations and player development.
"They're both going to get expanded duties," said GM Peter Chiarelli. "Jim's area of expertise is player evaluation. He's going to oversee much of the operation from an assistant GM perspective. Donny's going to continue player development. He's been outstanding in that. Real outstanding. He'll be overseeing it more now and he'll be in the day-to-day operations."..Boston Globe.

He joins Vancouver after serving in the capacity of the Boston Bruins Assistant General Manager for the past seven years. In that role he acted as an advisor to General Manager Peter Chiarelli on all matters pertaining to player evaluation, trades and free agent signings, in addition to assisting the General Manager in overseeing all individuals in their specific duties for the Bruins. Benning initially joined the Bruins as Director of Player Personnel in 2006...NHL.com

Second paragraph reminds me of when linden gave benning credit for Marchand Bergeron Lucic etc

 

[I in the Eye]

Does Jim Benning get credit for taking a core like Gillis did and instaed of failing to win a cup actually makes good on it and adds the pieces necessary to be a champion?

Boston gets full credit, Benning included, for getting Gregory Campbell. That one acquisition allowed Boston to win 1 more game over Gillis' team. It was an astute move. If Benning knows one thing, it's the power of nepotism. It's made him millions, and gave him a cup ring. It allowed him to win 1 more game over Gillis, and reap the benefits since.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Second paragraph reminds me of when linden gave benning credit for Marchand Bergeron Lucic etc

Yeah..those guys were drafted a month before JB got the job.

 

[Ryp37]

Yeah..those guys were drafted a month before JB got the job.

Exactly my point

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Trying to keep an unbiased perspective on Benning.. but calling 3 franchise talents like Boeser, EP, and Q Hughes “a few good players” is quite the understatement.

How many elite franchise players did Gillis or Burke or any other previous GM draft without top 3 picks? Like it or not Benning deserves the credit.

 

[sting101]

Boston gets full credit, Benning included, for getting Gregory Campbell. That one acquisition allowed Boston to win 1 more game over Gillis' team. It was an astute move. If Benning knows one thing, it's the power of nepotism. It's made him millions, and gave him a cup ring. It allowed him to win 1 more game over Gillis, and reap the benefits since.

yes see....instead of Lapierre (if Gillis was astute like Jimbo) he could have aquired Gregory Campbell instead of Victor Oreskovich.

someone gets it

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Just curious.

Does Jim Benning get credit for taking a core like Gillis did and instaed of failing to win a cup actually makes good on it and adds the pieces necessary to be a champion?

Ryder 17 Horton 17 Recchi 14 Kelly 13 Peverley 12 Kaberle 11 Seidenberg 11 Ference 10 Boychuk 9 Seguin 7 Paille 6 McQuaid 4 Campbell 4 = 136
Ehrhoff 12 Higgins 8 Torres 7 Hamhuis 6 Lapierre 5 Samuelsson 3 Rome 1 Hodgson 1 = 43

or was he only drafting as the assistant GM and Chiarelli and Neely looked after player aquisitions?

Boston had incredible depth. I was fuming when Gillis passed on paying a 3rd round pick for Richard Peverley who was an elite bottom 6 guy on an incredible contract. Higgins and Lapierre weren’t that good at all.

 

[I in the Eye]

yes see....instead of Lapierre (if Gillis was astute like Jimbo) he could have aquired Gregory Campbell instead of Victor Oreskovich.

someone gets it

I do give Gillis slack though, because he was a rookie GM. He was rather naive... "Turn the other cheek... make them pay on the powerplay", lol.

 

[SillyRabbit]

I do give Gillis slack though, because he was a rookie GM. He was rather naive... "Turn the other cheek... make them pay on the powerplay", lol.

I've mentioned this before but the Bruins employed a very effective strategy of playing just over "the line."

They banked on the referees wanting to keep the Power Play's relatively even, so they would commit a lot of "penalties" knowing that the refs would even it up by calling penalties on the other team or by stopping calling penalties on the Bruins.

It's actually quite brilliant, the edge that the Bruins gained from playing just over the line can't be understated, they really rag dolled the Canucks in the SCF.

In a perfect world, they would've been penalized significantly more, but in the playoffs, and with the knowledge that refs want to keep the PP's relatively even, they knew that once they hit their penalty quota, they could get away with lots of borderline play without consequence, while the Canucks who were trying to play clean, would be at a disadvantage and still get penalties called on them to even out the PP's.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Benning supporters are trying to cancel out his huge misses (Juolevi / Virtanen) by bringing up his hits (EP / Hugh’s). He’s SUPPOSED to draft NHL regulars with top 10 picks. Why is he getting credit for this. I’m not even going to bring up the signings and inability to obtain picks at the deadline , or being the leagues worst team whilst spending the most.

 

[clunk]

Is Quinn Hughes even a 'hit' yet? I keep seeing this being mentioned but calling him a 'hit' when he's only played a handful of NHL games seems pretty silly. Also, he was obvious BPA at the spot he was picked.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Is Quinn Hughes even a 'hit' yet? I keep seeing this being mentioned but calling him a 'hit' when he's only played a handful of NHL games seems pretty silly. Also, he was obvious BPA at the spot he was picked.

lol...Who's side are you on anyway?...Obviously not on Hughes' side?

 

[clunk]

lol...Who's side are you on anyway?...Obviously not on Hughes' side?

Bro, I want him to succeed as much as you.. But calling him a 'hit' already and having the expectation that he'll be a 'franchise' guy is jumping the gun.

I understand you're excited for the young players, but pump the brakes a bit, eh?

 

[logan5]

Benning supporters are trying to cancel out his huge misses (Juolevi / Virtanen) by bringing up his hits (EP / Hugh’s). He’s SUPPOSED to draft NHL regulars with top 10 picks. Why is he getting credit for this. I’m not even going to bring up the signings and inability to obtain picks at the deadline , or being the leagues worst team whilst spending the most.

The one thing that Benning has accomplished is drafting elite talent. He's drafted 2 Calder finalists in a row, which is something no GM in Canucks history has ever done. He can take that drafting record even further if Hughes is a Calder finalist, which most hockey experts think he has a good shot at. You can say that given his draft position, he should be drafting elite talent, which is fair, but like I said other GM's have had consecutive high draft picks and not accomplished what Benning has in the draft. That accomplishment alone puts Benning ahead of the likes of Jack Gordon and Harry Neale, who despite having high draft positions year after year, ran the organization into the ground so badly that it took Pat Quinn until year 5 of his tenure to make the Canucks a winning organization.

I'll ask again. Explain what Jack Gordon and Harry Neale did that made them a better GM than Benning. Anybody?

 

[Melvin]

The one thing that Benning has accomplished is drafting elite talent. He's drafted 2 Calder finalists in a row, which is something no GM in Canucks history has ever done. He can take that drafting record even further if Hughes is a Calder finalist, which most hockey experts think he has a good shot at. You can say that given his draft position, he should be drafting elite talent, which is fair, but like I said other GM's have had consecutive high draft picks and not accomplished what Benning has in the draft. That accomplishment alone puts Benning ahead of the likes of Jack Gordon and Harry Neale, who despite having high draft positions year after year, ran the organization into the ground so badly that it took Pat Quinn until year 5 of his tenure to make the Canucks a winning organization.

I'll ask again. Explain what Jack Gordon and Harry Neale did that made them a better GM than Benning. Anybody?

So the thing about this is that you wouldn't be able to say that about Benning if he were fired after the 2016 draft. You'd be saying that he blew two high draft picks and was easily the worst gm of all time. But because he's been around for far longer than Gordon, he gets to keep trying. And yes, if you get ENOUGH high picks, over the long run you will hit on more of them then you'll miss. That's not an accomplishment. Gordon and Neale got two years. Benning has had six. I guarantee you if Gordon had six years and continued to have terrible teams and high picks like Benning he would eventually have stumbled across elite talent. Put a blind squirrel in a room for two minutes, maybe he finds a nut. Put a blind squirrel in the room for six minutes, he probably does.

 

[logan5]

So the thing about this is that you wouldn't be able to say that about Benning if he were fired after the 2016 draft. You'd be saying that he blew two high draft picks and was easily the worst gm of all time. But because he's been around for far longer than Gordon, he gets to keep trying. And yes, if you get ENOUGH high picks, over the long run you will hit on more of them then you'll miss. That's not an accomplishment. Gordon and Neale got two years. Benning has had six. I guarantee you if Gordon had six years and continued to have terrible teams and high picks like Benning he would eventually have stumbled across elite talent. Put a blind squirrel in a room for two minutes, maybe he finds a nut. Put a blind squirrel in the room for six minutes, he probably does.

Now people are resorting to re-imagining history. Even if we do go to fantasy world and pretend Benning only lasted 2 seasons like Gordon did, it still isn't even close.

In the 2 years Gordon was GM he drafted 4 and 7 overall, and drafted 2 busts in Sandlak and Woodley. Not only that, Gordon made the worst trade in Canucks history when he traded away the 1 good draft pick they had in Cam Neely. The Canucks finished with 59 and 66 points the 2 years he was in charge. Even if you gave Gordon one more year to work with, it wouldn't have amounted to much because he traded their first round draft in '87, along with Neely. God knows what kind of destructive trades would follow if he hung in there. He was rightly fired.

In Bennings first season, the Canucks went from 83 points to 101 points, and at the 2015 draft, he picked Brock Boeser.

Now explain to me how Gordon is not the worst GM of all time.

Anybody?

 

[I am toxic]

Bro, I want him to succeed as much as you.. But calling him a 'hit' already and having the expectation that he'll be a 'franchise' guy is jumping the gun.

I understand you're excited for the young players, but pump the brakes a bit, eh?

"Quinn Hughes is a hit!"

"Well, then what does that make Juolevi?"

"Wait and see!"

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The one thing that Benning has accomplished is drafting elite talent. He's drafted 2 Calder finalists in a row, which is something no GM in Canucks history has ever done.

pat quinn did that

drafted linden in 1988, bure in 89.

 

[logan5]

To be fair, you're being very derogatory to this theoretical junkie. Judging from the IQ Bell Curve, in all likelihood there's a good chance the junkie in question would be more intelligent than Benning. I'm sure most junkies would be insulted being compared to Jim Benning.

Flat earthers have more evidence for their claims than Benning-supporters do for theirs.

Show me how Jack Gordon is not the worst GM in Canucks history. You can't, so instead you resort to hurling insults.