Management Thread III (MOD Warning Post # 67)

[Dr Good Vibes]

Oh yes I will be here laughing at the naysayers.

Bold move cotton, let’s see how this plays out.

 

[Canucko]

So your evidence that there isn't a fact-based argument to support Jim Benning as being a good GM, is to point to a group of prospects that were drafted high in the NHL draft?

Nope. My evidence that there is a fact based argument to show Benning is decent at evaluating amateur talent is the Vancouver Canucks’ prospects and roster.

Again, this claim is in direct response to your assertion that there is not a single positive argument for Benning put forth that has not been debunked.

There is no doubt Benning lacks in many areas, but there is no need to be so absolute and suggest he is a total failure in all a aspects of the job. It is quite untrue and ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[Dr Good Vibes]

Is Jim Benning worse than Fenton?

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

My evidence is the Canucks prospects and young players that are under contract. I don’t need any other evidence. Arguing that the general manager of the Canucks shares no responsibility for this is ridiculous in my opinion.

Jake “needs a rest cos he can’t pass the fitness test” Virtanen.

Solid point.

 

[Canucko]

Jake “needs a rest cos he can’t pass the fitness test” Virtanen.

Solid point.

I’m sorry, but is there a point here or are you simply agreeing with me. Obviously not every pick will be a home run - anyone with the slightest bit of interest in hockey would know this.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Nope. My evidence that there is a fact based argument to show Benning is decent at evaluating amateur talent is the Vancouver Canucks’ prospects and roster.

Again, this claim is in direct response to your assertion that there is not a single positive argument for Benning put forth that has not been debunked.

There is no doubt Benning lacks in many areas, but there is no need to be so absolute and suggest he is a total failure in all a aspects of the job. It is quite untrue and ridiculous in my opinion.

What is your feeling of Benning as the GM? Did he deserve to be extended?

There is also video evidence that proves Benning didn't even know who some of our 2nd or 3rd round picks were while sitting at the draft table. So to suggest he has much to do with our drafting is speculative at best.

Finally, do you seriously think that the Canucks wouldn't have a good group of young players based on how many high picks they've had over the Benning tenure, if they had any other GM? Granted, you could make the argument that most other GM candidates would have put together better teams so we wouldn't have been in the position we were for as long as we were, but that's beside the point.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

I’m sorry, but is there a point here or are you simply agreeing with me. Obviously not every pick will be a home run - anyone with the slightest bit of interest in hockey would know this.

Benning’s track record with drafting isn’t anything exceptional, particularly given his gaffes with high draft positions. A GM lauded as a ~*~ talent whisperer ~*~ should have an incredible cupboard full of prospects, not what we have.

 

[Spur1]

Jake “needs a rest cos he can’t pass the fitness test” Virtanen.

Solid point.

No.....2 points...goals no less tonight says different. Shotgun.

 

[geebaan]

No.....2 points...goals no less tonight says different. Shotgun.

In a meaningless preseason game no less! Give him the Rocket trophy now!

 

[Spur1]

In a meaningless preseason game no less! Give him the Rocket trophy now!

Ah...you poor naysayers.....

 

[Motte and Bailey]

2019

Boeser: career 35g/82gp, $5.87m, $167k/g, expires RFA

Matthews: career 43g/82gp, $11.62m, $271k/g expires UFA

Marner: career 76p/82gp, $10.83m, $143k/pt, expires UFA

2017-2018

Horvat: last 3y = 57p/82gp, $5.5m, $96k/pt

Nylander: last 3y = 56p/82gp, $6.9m, $123k/p

The Leafs have been consistently paying their stars 30-60% more for goals and assists. But most self appointed internet experts claim Dubas is smart and Benning is a fool! I wonder if it has anything or everything to do with how they sound in interviews? I wonder how much of it is based on their actual results. Doesn’t seem like much.

Sure Benning has a penchant for leadership qualities and is apt to pay a premium for veterans with good attitudes so the kids have good professional role models but these guys were never given enough term to interfere with the cap during the next playoff window when 40, 43, 6, 53 mature. So I can’t really blame Benning for that because I think it’s a sound strategy.

It seems that Benning would rather be overspending on veterans who will be retiring when the next window is open the widest anyway and it seems like Dubas would rather be overspending on young stars for the entirety of their next window. Since hockey is a team game, the best strategy is the one that gives a team the most depth when it matters most. That seems to be the strategy that Benning went with. From an outsider’s perspective of course.

 

[rypper]

2019

Boeser: career 35g/82gp, $5.87m, $167k/g, expires RFA

Matthews: career 43g/82gp, $11.62m, $271k/g expires UFA

Marner: career 76p/82gp, $10.83m, $143k/pt, expires UFA

2017-2018

Horvat: last 3y = 57p/82gp, $5.5m, $96k/pt

Nylander: last 3y = 56p/82gp, $6.9m, $123k/p

The Leafs have been consistently paying their stars 30-60% more for goals and assists. But most self appointed internet experts claim Dubas is smart and Benning is a fool! I wonder if it has anything or everything to do with how they sound in interviews? I wonder how much of it is based on their actual results. Doesn’t seem like much.

Sure Benning has a penchant for leadership qualities and is apt to pay a premium for veterans with good attitudes so the kids have good professional role models but these guys were never given enough term to interfere with the cap during the next playoff window when 40, 43, 6, 53 mature. So I can’t really blame Benning for that because I think it’s a sound strategy.

It seems that Benning would rather be overspending on veterans who will be retiring when the next window is open the widest anyway and it seems like Dubas would rather be overspending on young stars for the entirety of their next window. Since hockey is a team game, the best strategy is the one that gives a team the most depth when it matters most. That seems to be the strategy that Benning went with. From an outsider’s perspective of course.

Where are you getting your numbers from, that doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Where are you getting your numbers from, that doesn't make any sense at all.

The numbers are from some quick google searching and some napkin math but they are simple calculations to check. I’d encourage everyone to look at the numbers for themselves to see if they get the same result.

 

[vanuck]

Something is clearly wrong with the current state of the average Canuck fan. Im still a bit shocked how casual fans were with giving up a first rounder when we've been a lottery team for the last 4 years.

Pretty much. We gave up an unprotected 1st for a guy who isn't even the sort of impact player you give up 1st rounders for and it almost went under the radar.

For a team that's drafted in the top 10 for 4 years running I'm surprised there hasn't been more concern about this move as it has the biggest potential to hurt us more than anything else Benning has done like the trade that landed BOS Seguin/Hamilton.

 

[4Twenty]

My evidence is the Canucks prospects and young players that are under contract. I don’t need any other evidence. Arguing that the general manager of the Canucks shares no responsibility for this is ridiculous in my opinion.

Couldn't you say that about every General Manager in the NHL? They all have good prospects and young players under contract. I mean you're mostly basing this on the fact they've had high picks and the opportunity to land these players. Hell, the 31st picking GM might've had Elias Pettersson 1st overall, we just don't know.

The team was going to pick at the draft regardless of whether Jim Benning was the GM. People can't seem to grasp that. Don't get me wrong, I'm really happy the team has been able to land some really talented players at the top of the draft, but I don't think enough has been done here. I don't think they've got enough coming. And they haven't exactly nailed all their top 10 picks.

 

[Canucko]

Couldn't you say that about every General Manager in the NHL? They all have good prospects and young players under contract. I mean you're mostly basing this on the fact they've had high picks and the opportunity to land these players. Hell, the 31st picking GM might've had Elias Pettersson 1st overall, we just don't know.

The team was going to pick at the draft regardless of whether Jim Benning was the GM. People can't seem to grasp that. Don't get me wrong, I'm really happy the team has been able to land some really talented players at the top of the draft, but I don't think enough has been done here. I don't think they've got enough coming. And they haven't exactly nailed all their top 10 picks.

Again, there is a double standard applied by many on here that basically attributes any blame when possible, and discounts all successes.

The Canucks prospect pool is considered one of the better ones in the NHL. This is despite having a couple of supposed swing and misses (there is still hope) and also having GMJB trade away picks, have terrible asset management, and always push for the playoffs when it was obvious it would hurt us. Isn’t that the narrative ? (and bad contracts, but not really applicable here).

How amazing that despite all of these factors the team has managed to build up a respectable prospect pool, all the while never getting a number 1.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

After watching last night's games, where is this influx of young talent we're drowning in thanks to Jesus Elmer Christ?

 

[4Twenty]

Again, there is a double standard applied by many on here that basically attributes any blame when possible, and discounts all successes.

The Canucks prospect pool is considered one of the better ones in the NHL. This is despite having a couple of supposed swing and misses (there is still hope) and also having GMJB trade away picks, have terrible asset management, and always push for the playoffs when it was obvious it would hurt us. Isn’t that the narrative ? (and bad contracts, but not really applicable here).

How amazing that despite all of these factors the team has managed to build up a respectable prospect pool, all the while never getting a number 1.

What is the double standard? I've already told you I don't think GM draft anyway.

The Canuck prospect pool is considered one of the better ones and IMO it's largely based on the top end of the pool. And the top of the pool is driven from having top 10 picks. It's not a deep pool IMO.

Narrative? Why does it have to be a narrative? Why can't we just talk?

Prospect pools are built at the draft....being a bad team and the NHL rewarding you with high selections where the top talents are available IMO is not a sign of eye for talent....those are the easy choices (at least they're supposed to be).

"all these factors" - you forgot the biggest one - bad team = NHL rewards you with high picks. I'm not even going to touch "never getting a number 1" thing....not even worthy of discussion.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Ah...you poor naysayers.....

Looks like we found...Pastor’s...alt account..

 

[Balls Mahoney]

What prospect pool?

 

[Canucko]

What is the double standard? I've already told you I don't think GM draft anyway.

The Canuck prospect pool is considered one of the better ones and IMO it's largely based on the top end of the pool. And the top of the pool is driven from having top 10 picks. It's not a deep pool IMO.

Narrative? Why does it have to be a narrative? Why can't we just talk?

Prospect pools are built at the draft....being a bad team and the NHL rewarding you with high selections where the top talents are available IMO is not a sign of eye for talent....those are the easy choices (at least they're supposed to be).

"all these factors" - you forgot the biggest one - bad team = NHL rewards you with high picks. I'm not even going to touch "never getting a number 1" thing....not even worthy of discussion.

What do you mean by “I don’t think GM draft anyway.” Of course the GM does not drive to all the rinks and spend countless hours watching video and talking to coaches, family, teammates etc. Is there ever an argument that they do?

Anyways, there are plenty of 2nd and 3rd round picks that are considered solid prospects in our system, with Gaudette and some others with potential in there. It’s not all 1st rounders.

The “narrative” is that even a junky from the DTES could draft this well given how poorly the team has been in every single other facet possible known to humanity. You have simply wrapped it up with a different bow. Same line though.

 

[MS]

1. Any notion that 'we have some good young players so management must be good!' is absurdly flawed logic since the best way to get the best young players is to have horrible management that runs the team into the ground to harvest the free high picks given out by the league. By this metric, the Oilers (forever) and McLean-era Blue Jackets were well-managed teams.

Literally any idiot off the street could have been running the team for the last 5 years, done a crappy job, and then taken an excellent prospect with a high pick using the THN Draft guide (and then another good prospect with the high 2nd rounder). And no matter who we'd taken (within reason) we'd have a great group of young players and a good-looking system right now.

This is not an argument.

2. Any notion that Benning is some sort of 'great talent evaluator' is completely destroyed by the fact that the guy is singularly incapable of even figuring out which established NHLers play hockey well. Our pro scouting has been the most incompetent in the NHL under his watch, and the idea that someone couldn't figure out that Luca Sbisa and Eric Gudbranson were bad players but is a genius at projecting teenagers 5 years into the future is like watching someone fumble through simple addition counting on their fingers but then giving them credit for having the ability to do nuclear physics. It's nonsense. We've seen and heard this guy make and explain moves for 6 years now and it's blatantly obvious he has no ability to evaluate talent whatsoever.

And this is borne out by the fact that Boston had the worst drafting record in the NHL from 2007-2013 when he was heading their scouting department.

So this is not an argument either.

If anyone is capable of framing an argument that Jim Benning is a good GM without resorting to either of these worn-out, completely illogical tropes, I'd absolutely love to hear it.

 

[Canucko]

1. Any notion that 'we have some good young players so management must be good!' is absurdly flawed logic since the best way to get the best young players is to have horrible management that runs the team into the ground to harvest the free high picks given out by the league. By this metric, the Oilers (forever) and McLean-era Blue Jackets were well-managed teams.

Literally any idiot off the street could have been running the team for the last 5 years, done a crappy job, and then taken an excellent prospect with a high pick using the THN Draft guide (and then another good prospect with the high 2nd rounder). And no matter who we'd taken (within reason) we'd have a great group of young players and a good-looking system right now.

This is not an argument.

2. Any notion that Benning is some sort of 'great talent evaluator' is completely destroyed by the fact that the guy is singularly incapable of even figuring out which established NHLers play hockey well. Our pro scouting has been the most incompetent in the NHL under his watch, and the idea that someone couldn't figure out that Luca Sbisa and Eric Gudbranson were bad players but is a genius at projecting teenagers 5 years into the future is like watching someone fumble through simple addition counting on their fingers but then giving them credit for having the ability to do nuclear physics. It's nonsense. We've seen and heard this guy make and explain moves for 6 years now and it's blatantly obvious he has no ability to evaluate talent whatsoever.

And this is borne out by the fact that Boston had the worst drafting record in the NHL from 2007-2013 when he was heading their scouting department.

So this is not an argument either.

If anyone is capable of framing an argument that Jim Benning is a good GM without resorting to either of these worn-out, completely illogical tropes, I'd absolutely love to hear it.

I’m still waiting on a source.

 

[MS]

I’m still waiting on a source.

For what? Also, I thought you weren't interacting with me anymore?

 

[VanillaCoke]

I’m still waiting on a source.

Just go away already. Its only a matter of time anyways and you have no argument with any evidence behind it. So basically you're only wasting everyone's time.

For what? Also, I thought you weren't interacting with me anymore?

For some dumb minutia or other irrelevant thing as usual. Whatever it takes to move the goalposts and or completely ignore the facts and keep reporting garbage. Petey and boes = gr8 gm draft guru.