Is Jim Benning the worst GM in franchise history?

Is Jim Elmer Benning the worst GM in franchise history?


  • Total voters
    176
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,288
14,030
Hiding under WTG's bed...
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.
Ron Delorme --> Michael Grabner.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
You don’t think playing in a league where 4 of the top 5 teams from the Smythe making the playoffs skew things a bit?

1986 Smythe Standings: 23-44-13 59 points. Made the playoffs.

Hoorah.
That's not far off from the Canucks over the last 6 years when you consider the point inflation that OTLs and shootouts provide.

The Canucks' average standings position in those 9 years was 16.4 out of 21 teams, which is roughly equivalent to finishing 23rd-24th in a 30-31 team league. In the last 6 years the Canucks' average standings position is 23.5, and that's being propped up heavily by them finishing 10th in 14-15. So the last 6 years have been, on average at least, every bit as bad as those 9 years.

Making the playoffs isn't really good measuring stick given that 16 of 21 teams made it back then compared to 16 of 31 now. Of course, by that same token neither is ".500" hockey relevant in an era where nearly 80% of the league hits that mark due to OTLs and shootouts.

The team's ranking relative to the rest of the league as well as their cumulative results compared to other teams is the best way to compare across eras, and in that respect this is probably the worst span in franchise history. In the 5 years that PoM mentioned in post #13, the Canucks were 20th out of 21 teams in pts over that period and dead last in GF. In the last 4 years they're 29th out of 30 teams in pts and dead last in GF. But the last 4 years have been in a league with 50% more teams, so finishing 2nd to last or last is even more of a dubious achievement than it was in the '80s.


Found these well thought out posts in the "is this the worst era of the canucks" thread. Provides better context.

Now I know this will be where the previous regime gets blamed for Benning's record. I'm not here to debate that, I just thought I'd provide an some information that compares the Benning era and the 80's era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: racerjoe

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
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.
Who brought up flat earthers? It certainly wasn't mentioned in the post you quoted. This is why people are calling you out....you're arguing in bad faith. You created a strawman: the flat earther bit and are now arguing that, instead of the actual post.

And reading this over the weekend, you argue in bad faith a lot ....see your quote of Y2k's post that left out the end to a sentence, so you could argue something he wasn't even saying.

So while you can sit here and talk about others not being interested in discussion, I don't really see you showing interest in it either at least not discussions in good faith.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
Show me how Jack Gordon is not the worst GM in Canucks history. You can't, so instead you resort to hurling insults.
Drafted a hockey hall of famer in the 11th round. Not the worst. 2 drafts - four 600+ game NHLers.

Drafting guru.

Acquired a better Sutter than Benning!!!!
 

logan5

Registered User
May 24, 2011
5,953
4,135
Vancouver - Mt. Pleasant
Who brought up flat earthers? It certainly wasn't mentioned in the post you quoted. This is why people are calling you out....you're arguing in bad faith. You created a strawman: the flat earther bit and are now arguing that, instead of the actual post.

And reading this over the weekend, you argue in bad faith a lot ....see your quote of Y2k's post that left out the end to a sentence, so you could argue something he wasn't even saying.

So while you can sit here and talk about others not being interested in discussion, I don't really see you showing interest in it either at least not discussions in good faith.

FacepalBenning can't answer my question, he can only hurl insults, so I'll ask you. How is Jack Gordon not the worst GM in Canucks history?
 

Balls Mahoney

2015-2016 HF Premier League World Champion
Aug 14, 2008
20,402
1,922
Legend
FacepalBenning can't answer my question, he can only hurl insults, so I'll ask you. How is Jack Gordon not the worst GM in Canucks history?

That didn't even relate to anything I quoted or said. You're also ignoring other posts in this thread explaining why.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
FacepalBenning can't answer my question, he can only hurl insults, so I'll ask you. How is Jack Gordon not the worst GM in Canucks history?
Read my next post....also, 1994 cup run never happens if Gordon doesn't trade Neely.....no Linden if there is a Neely.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
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?

Obviously some good stuff happened in Boston and when Benning was hired I was optimistic that he had driven some of that.

After watching him here for almost 6 years and seeing his completely non-existent grasp on planning/talent evaluation/salary cap, I find it hard to believe anything other than that that success happened in spite of him.

It does seem like a massive part of his role was overseeing the team's drafting ... which was awful.
 

Jyrki21

2021-12-05
Sponsor
FacepalBenning can't answer my question, he can only hurl insults, so I'll ask you. How is Jack Gordon not the worst GM in Canucks history?
Well, let’s see: did he just make mistakes, or did he make mistakes in the face of piles of statistical or video evidence? Did he fire the people who pointed out those mistakes? Did he keep his inner circle limited to cronies while other teams found innovative new ways to approach the game? Did he manage the not-yet-existent cap well?

You can’t make absolute comparisons because the conditions were completely different. (As has been explained numerous times in this thread and its companion). It is much harder these days to make the elementary mistakes that were once far greater shots in the dark or far more limited by budget, transportation and communications technology.

If you don’t do this, you end up deciding that Benning is also smarter than Galileo, since Galileo didn’t even know how to drive a car or send an e-mail.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
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.

When the hell did Boeser and Hughes become 'elite franchise talents'?

Pettersson looks like he could very well be, but even that is still TBD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timw33

Motte and Bailey

Registered User
Jun 21, 2017
3,692
1,556
When the hell did Boeser and Hughes become 'elite franchise talents'?

Pettersson looks like he could very well be, but even that is still TBD.

I define elite franchise talent as someone you would pay money to see play by themselves. Worth the price of admission type guys. Brock was certainly that in his rookie season. Petey definitely is. Quinn’s talent is too elite, dynamic, and exciting to exclude him from that category even though he has only played 5 games.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
I define elite franchise talent as someone you would pay money to see play by themselves. Worth the price of admission type guys. Brock was certainly that in his rookie season. Petey definitely is. Quinn’s talent is too elite, dynamic, and exciting to exclude him from that category even though he has only played 5 games.

An 'elite franchise talent' is a Crosby or MacKinnon or McDavid or Doughty.

Pettersson may be that. Boeser looks like he'll be something in between an Eberle and a Vanek which is absolutely not a 'franchise talent'. Hughes has played 5 NHL games and projects as a 2nd pairing defender/PP ace, which is also not a 'franchise talent'.
 

Motte and Bailey

Registered User
Jun 21, 2017
3,692
1,556
An 'elite franchise talent' is a Crosby or MacKinnon or McDavid or Doughty.

Pettersson may be that. Boeser looks like he'll be something in between an Eberle and a Vanek which is absolutely not a 'franchise talent'. Hughes has played 5 NHL games and projects as a 2nd pairing defender/PP ace, which is also not a 'franchise talent'.

Brock is an elite scorer. He’s worth the price of admission.

Hughes is an elite skater and thinker. He’s also worth the price of admission.

Being extremely entertaining is what makes a franchise player and Brock and Quinn bring that.

Maybe elite, franchise talent would be the better term because I’m not putting Brock on the level of Crosby/McK/McD obviously.

They are both elite talents and franchise talents but not in the upper echelon of franchise talents like Petey is/will be.
 

logan5

Registered User
May 24, 2011
5,953
4,135
Vancouver - Mt. Pleasant
You can’t make absolute comparisons because the conditions were completely different. (As has been explained numerous times in this thread and its companion). It is much harder these days to make the elementary mistakes that were once far greater shots in the dark or far more limited by budget, transportation and communications technology.

If you don’t do this, you end up deciding that Benning is also smarter than Galileo, since Galileo didn’t even know how to drive a car or send an e-mail.

If you can't make comparisons then how can you declare Benning worst all time? Yet you have, so I think it's more than fair to ask for proof that he is worse than Gordon. So what's your answer?
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
Brock is an elite scorer. He’s worth the price of admission.

Hughes is an elite skater and thinker. He’s also worth the price of admission.

Being extremely entertaining is what makes a franchise player and Brock and Quinn bring that.

Maybe elite, franchise talent would be the better term because I’m not putting Brock on the level of Crosby/McK/McD obviously.

They are both elite talents and franchise talents but not in the upper echelon of franchise talents like Petey is/will be.

Maxim Afinogenov was a franchise player? Is Tyson Barrie?

I'm pretty sure nobody in any other city in the NHL thinks Brock Boeser is worth the price of admission, and there's no f***ing way he's a 'franchise player' by any definition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timw33

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
Maxim Afinogenov was a franchise player? Is Tyson Barrie?

I'm pretty sure nobody in any other city in the NHL thinks Brock Boeser is worth the price of admission, and there's no ****ing way he's a 'franchise player' by any definition.

Pettersson is the $11 million guy. Boeser is the $7-8 mil guy. A good player that will likely be a star and can move the needle but, ya, he's not a franchise player. He's on a tier below.
 

Motte and Bailey

Registered User
Jun 21, 2017
3,692
1,556
Maxim Afinogenov was a franchise player? Is Tyson Barrie?

I'm pretty sure nobody in any other city in the NHL thinks Brock Boeser is worth the price of admission, and there's no ****ing way he's a 'franchise player' by any definition.

Afinogenov? Really? The guy who was mediocre for his entire career other than 2 seasons at age 25 and 26.. is who you’re going to compare to Boeser who basically scored 30 as a 19 year old rookie and barely lost the Calder?

I would compare Boeser to a young Vanek who was certainly considered a franchise talent in his first few years.

With Hughes, he’s way more dynamic than Barrie was as a young early 20s guy. But we’ll have a better idea of how Hughes stacks up to Barrie after he plays his first season or two. I don’t think anyone went to buy tickets to see Tyson Barrie play but I know many who have and will do so for Quinn Hughes.
 

Canucko

Registered User
Sep 6, 2019
300
113
Who brought up flat earthers? It certainly wasn't mentioned in the post you quoted. This is why people are calling you out....you're arguing in bad faith. You created a strawman: the flat earther bit and are now arguing that, instead of the actual post.

And reading this over the weekend, you argue in bad faith a lot ....see your quote of Y2k's post that left out the end to a sentence, so you could argue something he wasn't even saying.

So while you can sit here and talk about others not being interested in discussion, I don't really see you showing interest in it either at least not discussions in good faith.

This is honestly like talking to a flat-earther.

Please show me how i misrepresented what he was saying. He made the blanket statement that everything argued on these forums that supported Benning had been debunked. The meaning or argument was not changed at all by me leaving out a section of the quote. Please show me otherwise.

It is quite interesting that the first point of your post is clearly wrong, but regardless you use it as a jumping off point to justify further claims. It summarizes the arguments made by many here quite nicely.

It pretty damn obvious that Benning has made some huge errors. Everyone can point to evaluation (lack of) professional talent. But, if he takes credit for those mistakes, he then surely takes credit for the drafting. Nope, not according to many here.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
Please show me how i misrepresented what he was saying. He made the blanket statement that everything argued on these forums that supported Benning had been debunked. The meaning or argument was not changed at all by me leaving out a section of the quote. Please show me otherwise.

It is quite interesting that the first point of your post is clearly wrong, but regardless you use it as a jumping off point to justify further claims. It summarizes the arguments made by many here quite nicely.

It pretty damn obvious that Benning has made some huge errors. Everyone can point to evaluation (lack of) professional talent. But, if he takes credit for those mistakes, he then surely takes credit for the drafting. Nope, not according to many here.
You referenced the post you quoted as having a suggestion to flat earthers, didn't see it in there. He's actually talking to somebody other than you in the flat earther thing, but interesting you felt like he was adressing you in a post conversing with Pastor of Muppetz.

Why did you leave a section of Y2k's quote out?

First quote wasn't wrong, the post you quoted said that was the post that illustrated that those who disagree are flat earthers....that post didn't illustrate that.

He can have credit for drafting all he wants. I have a different opinion than most when it comes to GM's and drafting, but sure, if we want to give him credit for the drafting, he gets a failing grade in every other aspect of the job. The aspect of the job that is dependent on a staff more than anything else is scouting/drafting. I've learned over the years that overvaluing a GM based on drafting is a mistake, it shouldn't be the basis of measuring that persons ability in the position.

If the General Manager wears the credit/blame for the draft....why is that I've had to read on a multitude of online platforms for 5+ years now, that this current GM doesn't have to wear any blame for the teams record over his tenure? And if you try and tell me he has, why is there always a "but gillis", "but linden", "but ownership", "but the sedins".
 
Last edited:

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
Everything the Canucks do is a team effort. That's very convenient that you can give Benning no credit for drafting but put all the blame on Benning for free agent signings, or not making the play-offs the last 4 years, which is a spill over effect from the last GM in charge giving him nothing to work with except 2 aging stars close to retirement.
Well then you have to be consistent in your application of credit/blame. You're here trying to heap all the credit for drafting on Benning, but you're making excuses for the things that don't look so good on first glance. If it's all a team effort as you say, then the effort from everyone sucks...and if everyone is involved in a flawed process, it should be reflected on the general manager (this is where a bunch of folks will say Linden was Benning's boss, and POM may even come up with that silly statement that Benning and Aquilini didn't even speak until Linden was gone...LOL).
You cannot pick and choose which part of the team you want to give Benning credit for.

Beside the fact that Benning is in charge of hiring the scouting staff, he also does scouting himself to see in person the probable first round selections. Obviously the first round is the most important round as these players are going to be the ones that bring the team the most success. About a third of team is made up of 1st rounders.

Jim Benning back from Swiss scouting trip

Bleary-eyed Canucks GM Jim Benning back from Swiss scouting trip

The team’s general manager is mapping out a way to squeeze in visits to several junior hockey rinks to get a first-hand look at the 2016 draft class

https://www.tsn.ca/hectic-road-trip-ahead-as-benning-begins-sizing-up-2016-draft-class-1.387461

Vancouver Canucks GM Jim Benning is in Europe this week to do some scouting

Vancouver Canucks: Jim Benning is wrong about European stereotypes
Again, be consistent. You can't pick and choose what he gets credit for. You're heaping praise for drafting but excusing everything else that has gone into being the lowest scoring NHL roster over the past 4 years, and 1 single point from having the worst record....the worst part is he thought he had a playoff team 2 out of those 4 years and the were the 2nd and 3rd worst team in the entire league those years.
 

Cheeks Clapinski

Registered User
Sep 26, 2017
719
1,233
I have pointed to his drafting and evaluation of amateur talent as a positive. I believe this to be true and his record as Canucks GM reflects that. However, if the absolute need to discount the Canucks drafting exists, then the same can be done for all of the poor trades and contracts.
I don't agree with this. I think that most people value the various aspects of management differently.

I would rather have a GM that is proficient at signing value contracts and asset management than one who is better at drafting. This is because I have the sense that drafting is too random, and feel that there is better opportunity for tangible improvement in other areas.

You can 100% devalue drafting without having to do the same for trades and signing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hit the post
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->