Jim Benning & Management Megathread -- Leadership Level is over 9000 Edition

[MS]

Eh this just seems like another one of those "**** Benning" things, similar to the perceived share of blame for the Seguin trade around here. He's done enough criticizable things as our GM that there's really no need to speculate about stuff like that to try to prove a point that may or may not be true, kind of cheap IMO.

He was CLEARLY heavily involved in Boston's drafting. This isn't some sort of idle speculation. He was one of the main point guys sitting in their draft room.

We're not doing this again

You brought it up!

Itll be gillis fault for not drafting well or something....

Yup.

And we'll get to hear constantly that this was some sort of intentional tank when it clearly wasn't.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Benning and Gillis are polar opposites. Both their agendas are quite obvious now, so it depends on the type of Canucks you want moving forward.

Gillis:
- modern, out-of the box thinking, finds ways to win (ie. sleep doctors, sports psychiatry, having guest speakers to motivate the room)
- Fast, skilled hockey
- Bargain bin champion (will not pay premium for 4th liners ie. Glass, Oreskovich, Bitz, Volpatti - all acquired for nearly nothing)
- excellent at trades, horrible at drafting
- will use high picks for skill (Hodgson over Beach)

Benning:
- old-school thinking, work hard, meat and potatoes
- want a team that can challenge anyone
- values leadership a lot more
- values grit and toughness a lot more (will pay premium for Dorsett and Prust)
- will pay premium for players that he targets (ie. Sutter, Miller)
- will use high picks for grit, physicality over skill (Virtanen over Nylander)
- excellent drafting so far, horrible trading due to above points

All in all, Benning isn't looking to win any deals, but building his team and getting whatever players he wants. So far, the results speak for itself. A 101 point team and a 2 out of 6 playoff wins. Whether this works out or not really requires time, but he's quickly falling out of favour.

For Gillis, he has the benefit of bringing the team to a cup final, but the last 2 years prior to his firing were a lot worst than the recent Canucks. A team that missed the playoffs with Torts, forced Kesler to be traded, and the goalie fiasco was quite embarassing. Not to mention, we went 1-9 in the playoffs past 2 years losing to LA and SJ. Change was needed.

It's easy to say, 'we want Gillis back', but try to relive the last 2 years right before he was fired and it made sense. Benning at the time was highly sought after and everyone on this board was...well..on board.

Be careful what you wish for.

I disagree. The results are coming off a resurgence from the previous regime's core group. Benning's acquisitions contributed very little to that 101 point finish, Vrbata notwithstanding. We were then ousted by arguably the weakest team to qualify. Thus, I feel this season will be a better benchmark as Benning's influence is far more apparent.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

if by "perceived share of blame" you mean video-tape evidence...then yes

Eh, I'm kind of with Bae on this one. Sure, the video doesn't exactly paint Benning with a fine brush, but we really have more then enough evidence to declare him an idiot. We don't need the speculative stuff.

 

[KeninsFan]

And we'll get to hear constantly that this was some sort of intentional tank when it clearly wasn't.

It's been pretty well established that both Linden and Benning think they've improved this year's team over last years.

Not to mention Benning traded away another 2nd rounder before the season even started.

 

[banme*]

you brought it up again

You brought it up!

I did ya, my bad

I just feel that it takes away from an otherwise strong argument as to Benning being incompetent, may as well not give any reason to question validity. Fair is fair, whether he's a bad GM or not. If there is proof that he was calling the shots on poor picks, then I take back what I said, but I haven't seen enough proof to take away from his drafting record in Buffalo.

I see it as the same thing as the Kassian business, i.e. Richardson says he needs to work on his preparation and Kassian admits to poor preparation after getting traded... therefore Kassian was a party animal. Just not enough confirmation to say that.

 

[Peter10]

Not to mention Benning traded away another 2nd rounder before the season even started.

Thats another point. How can anyone claim Benning wants to build via draft when he is trading away picks like he has done so far?

If you want to build your team by good drafting, you are going to collect as many as you can but you dont trade them for minor "upgrades" in pointless deals.

 

[MS]

I did ya, my bad

I just feel that it takes away from an otherwise strong argument as to Benning being incompetent, may as well not give any reason to question validity. Fair is fair, whether he's a bad GM or not. If there is proof that he was calling the shots on poor picks, then I take back what I said, but I haven't seen enough proof to take away from his drafting record in Buffalo.

I see it as the same thing as the Kassian business, i.e. Richardson says he needs to work on his preparation and Kassian admits to poor preparation after getting traded... therefore Kassian was a party animal. Just not enough confirmation to say that.

Fair enough on Seguin.

On Boston's drafting, it isn't just speculation that he was heavily involved. He was consistently the media point man for anything draft related and was clearly highly involved in the process and decision-making.

http://bruins2011draftwatch.blogspot.ca/2011/06/bruins-assistant-gm-jim-benning-recaps.html

 

[fancouver]

I disagree. The results are coming off a resurgence from the previous regime's core group. Benning's acquisitions contributed very little to that 101 point finish, Vrbata notwithstanding. We were then ousted by arguably the weakest team to qualify. Thus, I feel this season will be a better benchmark as Benning's influence is far more apparent.

You mean the same results where the Canucks missed the playoffs and finished with 12 less wins than Benning's new team?

 

[Ho Borvat]

Thats another point. How can anyone claim Benning wants to build via draft when he is trading away picks like he has done so far?

If you want to build your team by good drafting, you are going to collect as many as you can but you dont trade them for minor "upgrades" in pointless deals.

This.

Not moving UFA's at the deadline (Look what Calgary got for Glencross)

Shipping out Kesler/Bieksa/Lack/Kassian/Forsling and having 6 picks in the top-100 in your first 2 years on the job is unacceptable.

I don't care how good at drafting you are, if you're a rebuilding team you should be accumulating meaningful draft picks.

 

[Ho Borvat]

You mean the same results where the Canucks missed the playoffs and finished with 12 less wins than Benning's new team?

Man, its almost like Benning inherited a 100+ point team who was coming off of a bad year where they fired the coach after 1 season...

- 111 points
- 101 points*
- 83 points**
- 101 points***


*Pace of lockout year
**Torts year
***Bennings 1st year

 

[fancouver]

This.

Not moving UFA's at the deadline (Look what Calgary got for Glencross)

Shipping out Kesler/Bieksa/Lack/Kassian/Forsling and having 6 picks in the top-100 in your first 2 years on the job is unacceptable.

I don't care how good at drafting you are, if you're a rebuilding team you should be accumulating meaningful draft picks.

Vrbata would be our biggest trading chip at the deadline this year.

But if he's having a career year and we're in the playoffs, do you still deal him?

 

[Peter10]

Vrbata would be our biggest trading chip at the deadline this year.

But if he's having a career year and we're in the playoffs, do you still deal him?

If we are in the playoff race, the question should be: do we have any reasonable chance to survive the first round? If the answer is no, then you deal him.

However, this is not how it works in VAN. If the team is anywhere near the playoffs, Vrbata and Hamhuis will be kept in order not to send the "wrong message" to the team and the fans.

Whether that would be a smart decision long term or not is a whole different story though.

 

[Ho Borvat]

Vrbata would be our biggest trading chip at the deadline this year.

But if he's having a career year and we're in the playoffs, do you still deal him?

Too many factors to really give you an honest answer.

1) What would the return be like
2) Are we barely squeeking into the playoffs or are we pretty secure
3) Can we avoid trading him in the West

If you're serious about rebuilding on the Fly, and some team dangles a top-prospect/high draft pick for him I think you have to make that move regardless.

Realistically our odds of making the playoffs are so low, and we have 0 chance of competing so I don't see a scenario where not dealing him is advisable (unless he can be re-signed to a short term deal, which i don't see as likely).

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Vrbata would be our biggest trading chip at the deadline this year.

But if he's having a career year and we're in the playoffs, do you still deal him?

I do. Only the upper echelon teams are securely in the playoffs at the trade deadline.

Regardless, not like this group is going to make much noise even if they were in the playoffs.

Jovo and Ohlund (I know there are others) first come to mind as assets we got nothing for. Benning can't afford that; he's already bleeding assets.

 

[MS]

One thing I'll continually defend Benning on is not trading Matthias at the deadline.

When you're a 100-point team with home ice in the first round, you don't trade your hottest goalscorer at the deadline for a mid-round pick.

Hindsight is 20/20 given how Matthias flopped but that's just not how you run a professional sports team.

Glencross is completely different because his play had fallen off a cliff and had a rift with coaches/management.

 

[fancouver]

Too many factors to really give you an honest answer.

1) What would the return be like
2) Are we barely squeeking into the playoffs or are we pretty secure
3) Can we avoid trading him in the West

If you're serious about rebuilding on the Fly, and some team dangles a top-prospect/high draft pick for him I think you have to make that move regardless.

Realistically our odds of making the playoffs are so low, and we have 0 chance of competing so I don't see a scenario where not dealing him is advisable (unless he can be re-signed to a short term deal, which i don't see as likely).

I think 1 and 3 are correlated. If we can get a 1st+prospect from a Western team instead of just a pick, that's a deal we have to do.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

I think 1 and 3 are correlated. If we can get a 1st+prospect from a Western team instead of just a pick, that's a deal we have to do.

I don't think you'd get even just a first for Vrbata.

Furthermore, I don't think Benning is capable of getting a good return on any asset with what he's shown so far. 

 

[Ho Borvat]

One thing I'll continually defend Benning on is not trading Matthias at the deadline.

When you're a 100-point team with home ice in the first round, you don't trade your hottest goalscorer at the deadline for a mid-round pick.

Hindsight is 20/20 given how Matthias flopped but that's just not how you run a professional sports team.

Glencross is completely different because his play had fallen off a cliff and had a rift with coaches/management.

It really comes down to the return. I agree you don't trade him for the sake of trading him in that situation. If the best you can get is a 4th or something of that nature, you stand pat.

At the very least though, I hope Benning was aggressively shopping these players at the deadline, because if theres every a time to trade players and get picks in return its at the deadline.

 

[Verviticus]

Hindsight is 20/20 given how Matthias flopped .

it's really not 20/20 though. it was painfully obvious that the canucks as a team were over-achieving. you have to agree with that, right? nobody in their right mind would expect them to be likely to repeat that season with that roster

with a good trade there, we might have a kylington, andersson or bracco in our prospect pool right now instead of nothing

 

[MS]

It really comes down to the return. I agree you don't trade him for the sake of trading him in that situation. If the best you can get is a 4th or something of that nature, you stand pat.

At the very least though, I hope Benning was aggressively shopping these players at the deadline, because if theres every a time to trade players and get picks in return its at the deadline.

It isn't 'players' because Richardson was hurt and couldn't be moved. The only pending UFA was Matthias.

It isn't the time when you have a 101-point team.

it's really not 20/20 though. it was painfully obvious that the canucks as a team were over-achieving. you have to agree with that, right? nobody in their right mind would expect them to be likely to repeat that season with that roster

Doesn't matter.

You play the sport to have a good team and a ticket to compete in the playoffs. That is what we had. You don't decide to weaken that team at the deadline when they're playing well and Matthias is a key part.

We had the 8th-best record in the NHL last year. You don't sell on that. Period.

Unfortunately our coaching staff went full ****** in the first round and cost us an opportunity to reach the 2nd round.

If some people here were GM in the spring of 1994, they'd have been selling Diduck and Craven for 2nd rounders at the deadline because we 'weren't elite'.

 

[Peter10]

it's really not 20/20 though. it was painfully obvious that the canucks as a team were over-achieving. you have to agree with that, right? nobody in their right mind would expect them to be likely to repeat that season with that roster

with a good trade there, we might have a kylington, andersson or bracco in our prospect pool right now instead of nothing

Going to side with MS here. I have to admit, at the deadline i thought with a favourable matchup (like Calgary ) we could make it into the 2nd round and with some crazy luck even to the conference finals if the team was running hot at the right time. I guess, others did as well. At that point you dont trade a guy like Matthias who is helping you team a lot but probably wouldnt garner much in a trade. If a team was crazy enough to offer a 1st sure, but i doubt even a 2nd would have been on the table.

 

[Verviticus]

Doesn't matter.

You play the sport to have a good team and a ticket to compete in the playoffs. That is what we had. You don't decide to weaken that team at the deadline when they're playing well and Matthias is a key part.

We had the 8th-best record in the NHL last year. You don't sell on that. Period.

...yes you do. when its a good decision that has a predictably good result, you do the thing. it doesnt matter what the thing is. before the deadline i said: we need to trade matthias. at the deadline i said: we need to trade matthias. now i say: we should have traded matthias. if you look at my reasoning, it was sound. the result would have been better

like look at this line

You play the sport to have a good team

we didnt have a good team. everybody knew this. you're starting with a bad assumption. if you fix this and say "we had a terrible team that was overachieving", the rest of your argument collapses.

 

[MS]

...yes you do. when its a good decision that has a predictably good result, you do the thing. it doesnt matter what the thing is. before the deadline i said: we need to trade matthias. at the deadline i said: we need to trade matthias. now i say: we should have traded matthias. if you look at my reasoning, it was sound. the result would have been better

like look at this line



we didnt have a good team. everybody knew this. you're starting with a bad assumption. if you fix this and say "we had a terrible team that was overachieving", the rest of your argument collapses.

We didn't have an elite team. We did have a good team.

By your reasoning, there should be 26 teams selling at the deadline every year. That isn't how it works.

This stuff doesn't happen in a box. Trading your hottest goalscorer at the deadline sends a horrible message to the season ticket holders (who you promised a playoff team to) and to the veteran players on this team who'd worked their ***** off to have a strong bounce-back season. You can't tell those customers and players that we're going to compete this year and try to win, and then undermine them when they're delivering a good result. It's not how you run any organization.

When you have a 101-point team, you take your ticket and compete with it. You don't sell off, send terrible messages everywhere, and cost your owner money.

 

[tantalum]

we didnt have a good team. everybody knew this. you're starting with a bad assumption. if you fix this and say "we had a terrible team that was overachieving", the rest of your argument collapses.

They had a decent team. Better than most when healthy but less likely to be able to take any significant injury to any major player.

In the end though for this thread, Benning believed they had a good team (and still does) so he isn't going to move a guy at the deadline. And I will back up MS and agree that when in the situation the canucks were in it is hard to move a guy who is proving to be a pretty major piece...and goes against the grain for normal operation in hockey. It's a hard thing to do unless you win that trade.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

And yet we are about to ice a team with only two rookies in the active roster and another entering his sophomore season likely behind an inferior player. How exactly isn't Benning still attempting to force a playoff model when we've filled nearly every slot with veterans? You can cite Higgins' injury as an opportunity, but that only furthers my issue. The only way rookies can get on this roster is if we have injuries. I guarantee once Higgins returns whomever took his spot will either be a healthy scratch or sent down to Utica.

forcing kids that simply aren't ready isn't the recipe for success.
If the kids prove they are ready I'm sure room will be made for them.
I personally think Shink, Gaunce Hutton and maybe even Subban could see NHL ice time this season.