Is Jim Benning the worst GM in franchise history?

[Melvin]

This is a really good point. There may be no more universal experience in hockey than looking at a team that's been bad for while, noting they have a lot of upcoming young players (as they almost inevitably do) and saying that they will be really good soon as a kind of generic encouragement. Among the less noxious fans on the main boards here it's almost cliché as a pick-me-up for fans of bad teams made by fans of good teams. It's just what the system does and is designed to do, and I'd say it's a very hockey-ish phenomenon given the lower impact of the draft in football/baseball and the more sudden impact of it in basketball.

Still, it's....

Like I remember during the Burke era. At or near the end of his time in Vancouver, people were discussing the job he did. And it was entirely centered around "before Burke the canucks were a disaster. Then he came along and now they're great." even as a teenager this struck me as very shallow analysis and I wished people would go deeper. I still am not sure I'm comfortable assessing Burke as a GM because I've heard very little more than this. Oh and that he drafted the Sedins of course.

Was he a good gm? Maybe? But I know that simply appearing at the lowest point and then drafting the Sedins with 2 and 3 overall doesn't alone make him some sort of genius.

 

[Spur1]

The cup window at the time was closed. Gillis knew that. It was Aquilini that didn't. Gillis likely could have made much different moves if he wasn't intent on making sure he got young assets back in the deals. The deal that Luongo nixed to the leafs the players the canucks were sniffing around were Bozak, Gardiner, Frattin, and first round picks. Likely were not going to land all of them but that was the ask at the draft and the type of players he was looking at. Heck the Hodgson trade...he could have traded him for vets and more immediate help but he was exclusively targeting other young assets.

That isn't to say Gillis didn't think he could open the window back up as he did, but even before the Torts hiring he knew the team needed to at least rebuild on the fly. And that could have happened, IMO, with a competent management group. Instead we got Lindenning.

But I see that once again the defense of this managment group has reverted back to "But Gillis..."

You obviously didn’t read all the posts. I was asked what I thought of Gillis and it had absolutely nothing to do with Benning.

 

[tantalum]

You obviously didn’t read all the posts. I was asked what I thought of Gillis and it had absolutely nothing to do with Benning.

There are also more posts than yours in the thread...

Admittedly my mistake In not clearly delineating the last line of my post as a general sum up of other posters.

 

[Spur1]

I really get a kick out of those in here arguing that because the majority in here voted that JB is the worst GM somehow makes it true in real life. It does not make one iota of difference.
The only person that really matters just extended his contract for 3 more years plus the year left on his old contract.
I think I will go with his boss on this one.

 

[MS]

Still, it's....

Like I remember during the Burke era. At or near the end of his time in Vancouver, people were discussing the job he did. And it was entirely centered around "before Burke the canucks were a disaster. Then he came along and now they're great." even as a teenager this struck me as very shallow analysis and I wished people would go deeper. I still am not sure I'm comfortable assessing Burke as a GM because I've heard very little more than this. Oh and that he drafted the Sedins of course.

Was he a good gm? Maybe? But I know that simply appearing at the lowest point and then drafting the Sedins with 2 and 3 overall doesn't alone make him some sort of genius.

On Burke (to go off on a tangent), he was the right guy at the right time. The team was a mess off-ice for the couple years prior and he came in and gave leadership and direction and a plan. And people knew where the buck stopped, and his obnoxious alpha personality was a perfect fit (much as I can't stand the guy) to act as a lightning rod when the team was going through a difficult ownership situation. And when an organization has leadership and direction, it fosters an environment where people succeed and excel.

In terms of his actual moves and the nuts and bolts of the GM job he did, it was average at best. The Sedin move was his one brilliant play and outside of that I'd give him a middling C grade. But the real success of his regime was taking an off-ice floundering mess and turning it back into a tight ship with direction that merited respect.

____________

Back to your points, what I find fascinating as that people can recognize the 'lottery picks don't equal good management' thing when they look at the Oilers and mock the Oilers and it's obvious to them that the Oilers sucking and getting McDavid/Draisaitl/RNH/Nurse doesn't mean that team has been well run. But are completely blind to it when it comes to us, to the point that these people are constantly using moves that are *identical* to what the Oilers did as evidence that we're not the Oilers.

"We had to overpay Beagle so we didn't turn into the Oilers like when they overpaid Eric Belanger as a depth center!"

 

[Melvin]

On Burke (to go off on a tangent), he was the right guy at the right time. The team was a mess off-ice for the couple years prior and he came in and gave leadership and direction and a plan. And people knew where the buck stopped, and his obnoxious alpha personality was a perfect fit (much as I can't stand the guy) to act as a lightning rod when the team was going through a difficult ownership situation. And when an organization has leadership and direction, it fosters an environment where people succeed and excel.

In terms of his actual moves and the nuts and bolts of the GM job he did, it was average at best. The Sedin move was his one brilliant play and outside of that I'd give him a middling C grade. But the real success of his regime was taking an off-ice floundering mess and turning it back into a tight ship with direction that merited respect.

____________

Back to your points, what I find fascinating as that people can recognize the 'lottery picks don't equal good management' thing when they look at the Oilers and mock the Oilers and it's obvious to them that the Oilers sucking and getting McDavid/Draisaitl/RNH/Nurse doesn't mean that team has been well run. But are completely blind to it when it comes to us, to the point that these people are constantly using moves that are *identical* to what the Oilers did as evidence that we're not the Oilers.

"We had to overpay Beagle so we didn't turn into the Oilers like when they overpaid Eric Belanger as a depth center!"

I can't figure it out either and I feel exhausted trying.

 

[4Twenty]

I mean, if you want your measuring stick for Gordon to be number of players with 600+ games, then we'll have to wait quite a few years for Bennings picks to get there, but 3 (it's not 4) 600+ players isn't much. Plus trading Cam Neely and the #3 overall pick in the '87 draft.

You're right it's 3, Sandlak only got 549. 4 - 500+ games players out of 2 drafts is pretty good.

I'm talking about drafting not trades. The guy had four 549+ game NHL players. That's more than Pat Quinn had in his first THREE drafts.

PS.....he drafted a HALL OF FAMER IN THE 11th round. Forgive me if I find that more impressive than Nikita Tryamkin.

 

[Dr Good Vibes]

I said no. It's a tough question. I've been a Canucks fan since I was a wee lad. I was like five years old when I went to my first game and I remember Alex Mogilny was my favourite player. Sitting up in the nosebleeds he moved so fast and he was so exciting. I remember more about the WCE, the Sedins era, the Willie era, and now this, the Jim Benning era.

Here's the thing. I don't love Jim Benning. I'm not a supporter. I want him gone, actually, I believe there's better options out there, and I think trading our first for Miller has a very high chance of backfiring. It's a move that wreaks of desperation and I hate it.

I'd rate Jim's performance as about a 5/10.

The thing is, I remember how hopeless being a Canucks fan used to be. And maybe the Sedins era is too recent, but I haven't felt quite as hopeless during Jim's era. As many things as he f***s up, at least we're not missing on all our draft picks. In all fairness, this is the highest spat of picks in my existence as a Canucks fan so it's probably easier to hit on them. But I am thankful to Jim for picking Pettersson, he wasn't on my radar at all.

I think Nonis was worse, and that's just among the GMs I can remember. I can hardly remember Burke. The WCE were really disappointing. We had a great top line and Naslund was sick but no depth. We lost to Avs and Detroit over and over. Hopeless times. Before that, there were decades of dark eras.

So no, I don't think he's the worst GM ever, but he's up there. He's probably top five for worst all time but honestly I don't know enough about the guys who came before to say. He's worse than anyone besides Nonis in my memory.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Closing this thread down.

Further discussion of Jim Benning can occur in the Management thread, although some of you need to remember the rules as they pertain to Flaming and Trolling;


1) Flaming: Critique the opinion, not the person. Personal attacks against members are not permitted. Report flaming, do not respond to it. Counter-flaming is also prohibited.
2) Trolling: Do not make posts that could be interpreted as though they were made to cause an argument or provoke others. Making generalizations about other posters is a common form of trolling. Posting questionable content on team boards, particularly those of rivals, is likely to be seen as trolling.