Jim Benning Discussion -- Part II

[Verviticus]

How did you arrive at this stupid conclusion?

he's good, and dorsett is bad

 

[Pump n Dump]

It will be very interesting to see what happens in the summer with the goaltending if Lack keeps up his current performance level and carries it into the playoffs. I can't see Miller being satisfied as a back-up and it will be very difficult to get Lack on an extension as a pending free agent next year if he is the back-up.
JB has been very vocal about being willing to ask players to waive their NTCs. But that was for players he didn't sign. Will he be equally as willing to ask Miller to waive? If things continue the way they are with Lack, trading Miller is the most prudent thing to do, if not the most likely.

Benning doesn't have to ask Miller to waive. It's up to Miller to decide what he wants to do if the team chooses Lack as the starter. While this was something of a disaster with Luongo the contracts are vastly different.

However, I think it more likely that Lack gets traded and Markstrom gets a chance to develop into an NHL goalie.

 

[iceburg]

Benning doesn't have to ask Miller to waive. It's up to Miller to decide what he wants to do if the team chooses Lack as the starter. While this was something of a disaster with Luongo the contracts are vastly different.

However, I think it more likely that Lack gets traded and Markstrom gets a chance to develop into an NHL goalie.

I hope you're right that Markstrom can develop into an NHL goaltender but it's much higher risk trading Lack.

 

[tantalum]

Santorelli - unlike Vey - isn't useless if he's not putting up points (eg., the former can play a far more effective role in the bottom six than a guy that needs to be spoon fed minutes/have sheltered minutes). Vey can't even match up well against J. Schroeder right now.

I'm not comparing the players....and I don't disagree (CF% are nearly identical for the two players and CF for teammates I believe go up without them but for Santorelli it appears that the lines are better defensively with him unlike Vey). My comment was simply one that similar to the Ehrhoff situation this wasn't really a case of the organization choosing Vey over Santorelli. The choice they made along with 29 other teams was not to offer a 2 year deal.

Regardless of Santorelli being on the roster or not, I think Benning makes the deal for Vey. He wanted to bring guys in that fit in that age group. Guys like Vey and Clendenning were always going to be added for the pieces given up to get them. It was part of the strategy. It, btw, is not a strategy I particularly like. I don't believe teams ever have "too many" young players to incorporate into the lineup. If a younger guy is good enough he'll be on the team because he's cheaper, typically healthier etc. So guys like Vey and Clendenning are concerns because they have failed to force their way onto a roster and the teams they are on have decided that player+waiver eligible = burden. Sometimes I'm sure you can hit gold (hopefully Baertschi) but it's going to be an outlier.

My comment on Santorelli's production was perhaps a bit of a reality check that he isn't some overlooked messiah. He is what he is. The canucks have several guys like him (Higgins, Burrows, Hansen...though they all have a better fancy stats I believe). A decent NHL player but likely an NHL player that again might have trouble finding a multi-year deal if he continues to put up goose eggs down the stretch and in the playoffs.

 

[Barney Gumble]

The canucks have several guys like him (Higgins, Burrows, Hansen...though they all have a better fancy stats I believe). A decent NHL player but likely an NHL player that again might have trouble finding a multi-year deal if he continues to put up goose eggs down the stretch and in the playoffs.

None of those guys are centers. The reason why Vey has been played so much this season (not as a result of any coaching bias but rather because Willie had no better alternative to use because of injuries).

That's what makes Santo so valuable (though obviously not a core player). He's a swiss army knife type of player. Not great any single thing but has the ability to play a number of different roles without being out of place (at least on a short-term basis) - whether it be at center, wing, PK, PP, etc.,

I think Benning makes the deal for Vey.

I've always maintained that I agreed with this acquisition back when the trade was made.

Sometimes I'm sure you can hit gold (hopefully Baertschi) but it's going to be an outlier.

Never had a problem with this trade either - though you hope Benning would avoid acquiring anymore waiver eligible players in the short-term (can only gaurantee so many roster spots with this team).

 

[F A N]

It is interesting to compare Benning's approach to that of Gillis when it comes to these 22-26 year old players. Benning acquires players he has scouted and liked and doesn't want to risk having some other team snap them up. Gillis likes to look for deals and acquires players with more NHL experience. Either he looks for guys to bounce back or he would trade for guys like Bernier and Dalpe and scoured the waiver wire for guys like Stanton and Wellwood. Except for Bernier, Gillis acquires players who he believes will fill a role but hopefully develop into something more. Benning pays more to acquire guys who haven't been able to crack the NHL and places the expectation of development on them immediately.

I think if Gillis was still the GM, he wouldn't have traded for a 2nd for Vey. He would have waited to see what the Kings do with him after training camp and give up less for him and then say that Vey is a guy they have targeted for some time. He might have traded a 2nd for Baertschi and then put him in the NHL immediately.

I think Benning's approach is definitely higher risk higher reward. He is getting players who may be on the brink of making the NHL and when they do and look to realize their potential these guys cannot be acquired.

 

[me2]

It is interesting to compare Benning's approach to that of Gillis when it comes to these 22-26 year old players. Benning acquires players he has scouted and liked and doesn't want to risk having some other team snap them up. Gillis likes to look for deals and acquires players with more NHL experience. Either he looks for guys to bounce back or he would trade for guys like Bernier and Dalpe and scoured the waiver wire for guys like Stanton and Wellwood. Except for Bernier, Gillis acquires players who he believes will fill a role but hopefully develop into something more. Benning pays more to acquire guys who haven't been able to crack the NHL and places the expectation of development on them immediately.

I think if Gillis was still the GM, he wouldn't have traded for a 2nd for Vey. He would have waited to see what the Kings do with him after training camp and give up less for him and then say that Vey is a guy they have targeted for some time. He might have traded a 2nd for Baertschi and then put him in the NHL immediately.

I think Benning's approach is definitely higher risk higher reward. He is getting players who may be on the brink of making the NHL and when they do and look to realize their potential these guys cannot be acquired.

part of it is background ie Benning probably scouted a lot of these guys when he was with Boston, so he's relying on non-GM knowledge that he brought with him from his last job. It will be interesting to see how this progresses over the next 3 or 4 years as Benning will have more time eaten by GM stuff.

 

[fancouver]

By the most arbitrary definition (top 180 forwards in ES point production), sure they are. No idea how you say ZK isn't one when he's produced like one over his last 2 seasons. The coach benching him for dumb reasons doesn't erase that.

Vey isn't very good for the ice time he gets spoonfed, to put it simply. Right now that 2nd round pick looks like it's gone to waste.

There are cheap 2nd/3rd liners available in free agency every year. Not saying you should build a team around them but then again you wouldn't want to build a team around the likes of Vey either...

Again, Higgins has 1 goal in the last a million games. If the GM of the team thinks that's fine for top 6 production on a contending team, then surely we need a new GM.

As much as everyone on this board (including myself) love Kassian, he simply is not a top 6 forward at this time. AV (Jack Adams winner), Torts (Cup Winner) and Desjardins (won at every level) all have the same train of thought. This isn't 1 coach being against Kassian, but several. In fact, his teammates (Henrik and Richardson) have subtly called him out too. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Kassian has a ways to go with consistency before being a legit top 6.

The team made a strategic decision to get younger, presumably a decision led by Benning and supported by Linden. Absolutely Santorelli would be more effective than Vey. But, in three years when the Sedins are gone (or at least lower minute PP specialists) the team would be hooped.
It's not an isolated decision on this player is better than that player. It's a strategy to be competitive now and better in three years. One can agree with the overall strategy or not but to disagree with an individual component of the strategy isn't fair IMO.

Exactly, we need to look at the decisions as a whole and how they impact the team moving forward. This roster isn't only built for this year, but for several. Vey is a direction moving forward. It MAY or MAY NOT work out, but these moves were necessary. You can't keep patching up holes with journeymen if you want to be a long-term contender, and Santorelli is a journeyman.

 

[Pip]

Torts (cup winner)

Therefore all of his decisions were correct.

 

[F A N]

part of it is background ie Benning probably scouted a lot of these guys when he was with Boston, so he's relying on non-GM knowledge that he brought with him from his last job. It will be interesting to see how this progresses over the next 3 or 4 years as Benning will have more time eaten by GM stuff.

I heard that Benning has been pretty active in getting out and scouting. I don't think much will change except that he will have less time scouting the AHL.

 

[Scurr]

Great managers know when to admit mistakes and cut losses, even if it means taking criticism and wearing the mistake.

Which is why I'm VERY curious to see how Benning handles Vey this offseason. That move has been a failure and he doesn't look remotely like a player of value moving forward other than the fact that his junior coach loves him. Makes no sense to be trying to develop both Vey and Baertschi (and Virtanen and Horvat and Kenins) next year.

I haven't been the biggest Benning supporter, but if he has the balls to wear his mistake and get rid of Vey after a year, my opinion of him will go up considerably.

What we saw with Gillis was that he was able to be decisive coming in and making changes to someone else's roster, but not nearly so much with his own acquisitions. Hopefully that pattern doesn't repeat.

Vey is a replacement level player… playing replacement minutes… for replacement money. Comparing his situation to Ballard is… absurd.

 

[Caspian]

Vey is a replacement level player… playing replacement minutes… for replacement money. Comparing his situation to Ballard is… absurd.

Benning still paid a 2nd round pick to acquire this mediocre asset. Who knows if he's ready to cut loose on one of Willie's favourites.

Same deal with Sbisa, a piece from the Kesler trade.

Benning has done nothing to impress me thus far. I pray he's willing to recognize his mistakes and move on.

 

[Lundface*]

Vey is a replacement level player… playing replacement minutes… for replacement money. Comparing his situation to Ballard is… absurd.

I agree. Vey should be extremely, EXTREMELY, easy to cut ties with. Cost a 2nd round pick, isn't signed long term, has no NHL pedigree. If Benning doesn't move on from him, it's a very bad sign.

Ballard was a horrible trade by Gillis, and I thought so at the time too. But I can see why someone might be tricked by Ballard. Had a decent pedigree and decent NHL success. I can understand why Gillis gave him some time to get his **** together, but he didn't mesh with AV. Overall, he definitely should have cut ties earlier.

Bennings Ballard situation is Miller. The Miller signing was horrible at the time and given the implications (having to lose Lack), may end up worse than the Ballard blunder. Let's see if Benning can realize a massive mistake he made and try to get out of the jam he created.

 

[thepuckmonster]

I agree. Vey should be extremely, EXTREMELY, easy to cut ties with. Cost a 2nd round pick, isn't signed long term, has no NHL pedigree. If Benning doesn't move on from him, it's a very bad sign.

Ballard was a horrible trade by Gillis, and I thought so at the time too. But I can see why someone might be tricked by Ballard. Had a decent pedigree and decent NHL success. I can understand why Gillis gave him some time to get his **** together, but he didn't mesh with AV. Overall, he definitely should have cut ties earlier.

Bennings Ballard situation is Miller. The Miller signing was horrible at the time and given the implications (having to lose Lack), may end up worse than the Ballard blunder. Let's see if Benning can realize a massive mistake he made and try to get out of the jam he created.

Ballard was also acquired before we knew we were getting Hamhuis. In retrospect it looks like a god awful trade but at the time we needed another LHD to play top 4.

 

[Lundface*]

Ballard was also acquired before we knew we were getting Hamhuis. In retrospect it looks like a god awful trade but at the time we needed another LHD to play top 4.

True. But even without using hindsight I thought it was an overpayment. Who knows what Ballard would have amounted to if he was given a bigger role to start, but personally I didn't like it at the time either.

 

[thepuckmonster]

True. But even without using hindsight I thought it was an overpayment. Who knows what Ballard would have amounted to if he was given a bigger role to start, but personally I didn't like it at the time either.

Oh yeah it was still overpayment, but he was probably the best DMan available for trade.

Sucks that it didn't work out. What a painful 3 years, woof.

 

[RandV]

Ballard career path is a really weird. Two years before Vancouver paid a bunch to get him, he was the key piece in the Florida/Phoenix trade for Oli Jokinen, back when Jokinen was still a top line center. He had 33 goals 149 points in his first 5 NHL seasons, played 82 GP in 4 of the 5, and playing second pairing minutes.

Then he comes to us for 3 seasons , comes down with a sudden case of Saloitis, and scores 3 goals and 16 points while playing 6/7th minutes. Maybe he was getting more time than he deserved playing on bad teams, I mean even Cam Barker had one good season in the NHL to earn a big contract, but Ballard did it over 5 years on two different teams and I'm not sure how many coaches. I recall him being pretty highly regarded as a prospect for Colorado, a former 11th overall pick with better numbers than Ben Hutton in college.

Then we get him and a combination of AV and injuries just kills him. I recall more 'eye-test' savvy posters talking about how Ballard like to play a specific puck rushing which AV simply wouldn't allow, forcing him to play a game he wasn't suited for and wasn't effective at instead.

 

[Barney Gumble]

Then we get him and a combination of AV and injuries just kills him. I recall more 'eye-test' savvy posters talking about how Ballard like to play a specific puck rushing which AV simply wouldn't allow, forcing him to play a game he wasn't suited for and wasn't effective at instead.

Kind of reminds me of the Keith Carney trade but in reverse. We get a defensive defenseman when we had a coach like Crawford he tried to use him as an offensive defenseman (the type of D we actually needed as well).

 

[MS]

Vey is a replacement level player… playing replacement minutes… for replacement money. Comparing his situation to Ballard is… absurd.

He's a player that we invested significant assets in and (unlike Ballard) the coach loves him.

The player might not be exactly the same, but the circumstances are - a move is clearly a mistake a year after making it, and the GM can either show some balls, make the tough decision and wear the mistake ... or keep hoping things turn around, to the detriment of the team.

Miller is another comparable situation, but with the NTC in place there I think he'll be nearly impossible to move whether Benning wants to make the tough decision or not.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

He's a player that we invested significant assets in and (unlike Ballard) the coach loves him.

The player might not be exactly the same, but the circumstances are - a move is clearly a mistake a year after making it, and the GM can either show some balls, make the tough decision and wear the mistake ... or keep hoping things turn around, to the detriment of the team.

Miller is another comparable situation, but with the NTC in place there I think he'll be nearly impossible to move whether Benning wants to make the tough decision or not.

That's news to me and many others.

Your hatred for Benning is clouding your ability to make fair assessments of the talent he's brought in. Vey is a young developing asset, the idea that he has been a detriment to the team is wildly unfair.


The Miller signing, as I said in the past, is not my favourite move. I understood why they did it, but Miller was not the player I would've targeted. The thinking was sound, the implementation less so.

 

[Barney Gumble]

Vey is a young developing asset

He won't be developing much sitting on the bench next season with baertschi being given those minutes (can't see Willie giving both of them top six minutes with regularity). Vey is a top six guy or bust.

 

[Scurr]

He's a player that we invested significant assets in and (unlike Ballard) the coach loves him.

The player might not be exactly the same, but the circumstances are - a move is clearly a mistake a year after making it, and the GM can either show some balls, make the tough decision and wear the mistake ... or keep hoping things turn around, to the detriment of the team.

Miller is another comparable situation, but with the NTC in place there I think he'll be nearly impossible to move whether Benning wants to make the tough decision or not.

A team needs replacement level players. Sure, Benning could have signed a replacement level player like Ebbett was for Gillis without giving up a pick but then you wouldn't be also getting the chance that player can improve. 27 year old free-agent replacement level players don't come with that.

Ballard was tying up cap space filling the role of 7th defenseman. Vey is paid exactly what you'd expect a replacement level player to make. The situations aren't remotely the same.

 

[Scurr]

He won't be developing much sitting on the bench next season with baertschi being given those minutes (can't see Willie giving both of them top six minutes with regularity). Vey is a top six guy or bust.

He's been the 13th forward all season and played a ton.

 

[Barney Gumble]

He's been the 13th forward all season and played a ton.

Aren't those two statements contradictory?

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

Aren't those two statements contradictory?

Not when, like every other year, you are ravaged with injuries. I'm certainly glad we had him to insert in the lineup instead of Jensen. If you think Vey is top 6 or bust, Jensen and Baertschi are way more bustable than Vey.

What really happened is that Kassian slept walked through the first half of the season and people were pissed that Vey got his ice time during that time, so now Vey is completely crapped on and accused of being a detriment to the team, despite the fact that he's been asked to play all over the lineup and in different positions.

Has he been in over his head at times this year? Absolutely. Does it mean he's making no progress and is hurting the team? I guess that is apparently the argument some will make.