Management Thread III (MOD Warning Post # 67)

[Bleach Clean]

Why no credit for the captain at 9th overall for a goalie with 68 NHL starts.

Horvat for Schneider has been a landslide in Vancouver’s favour.

Its one of the greatest trades in franchise history.


Why no credit for fitting an elite team under the cap.

It’s just so funny the levels here. Disparage Gillis for being unable to win one extra game in June.

Praise Benning for fitting a 22 man roster under the salary cap 6 years into the job, while being nearly the worst team over the preceding 4 seasons.

Gillis took over a team that was floundering, despite this great stock of talent some say he was gifted with, and he took them to heights never before achieved. All without nearly any draft help.

But it’s completely fair to rip Gillis for his drafting. He has to own it regardless.

If the standard of criticism was the same for Benning and his pro scouting + moves, there would be protests outside of the arena. As Gallagher mentions though, the bar has become so unbearably low for GM competence here. It’s a strange occurrence.

 

[Hoghandler]

Gillis took over a team that was floundering, despite this great stock of talent some say he was gifted with, and he took them to heights never before achieved. All without nearly any draft help.

But it’s completely fair to rip Gillis for his drafting. He has to own it regardless.

Some say? I think the hall of fame will have the say on that matter.

Wouldn't the 'draft help' be the multiple hall of famers, star 2nd line centre, elite netminding, stud dmen etc...?

I'm as big a fan of Gillis as most. Would fire Benning and have Gillis step into a President role in a heartbeat. But like you alluded to, ripping his drafting is more than fair. If we write off Benning's biggest draft successes because he was 'gifted' top picks, it seems fair to hold Gillis to that same standard. If he wasn't 'gifted' the best goaltending tandem in the sport, he doesn't draft a single above replacement level talent in 6 years.

 

[F A N]

Wouldn't the 'draft help' be the multiple hall of famers, star 2nd line centre, elite netminding, stud dmen etc...?

I think he/she was referring to Gillis' drafts not producing any help aside from Hodgson. Gillis was brilliant but it's hard to overcome unproductive drafts.

 

[Intangibos]

I think he/she was referring to Gillis' drafts not producing any help aside from Hodgson. Gillis was brilliant but it's hard to overcome unproductive drafts.

It really isn't when you apply context.

 

[F A N]

It really isn't when you apply context.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Intangibos]

What do you mean by that?

Just rereading it and I misunderstood the conversation. This place has me on edge.

 

[me1ch]

Some say? I think the hall of fame will have the say on that matter.

Wouldn't the 'draft help' be the multiple hall of famers, star 2nd line centre, elite netminding, stud dmen etc...?

I'm as big a fan of Gillis as most. Would fire Benning and have Gillis step into a President role in a heartbeat. But like you alluded to, ripping his drafting is more than fair. If we write off Benning's biggest draft successes because he was 'gifted' top picks, it seems fair to hold Gillis to that same standard. If he wasn't 'gifted' the best goaltending tandem in the sport, he doesn't draft a single above replacement level talent in 6 years.

It's not that Benning was gifted top picks. People are dismissive because you are expected to draft NHL ready players with top-10 picks. To his credit, he didn't whiff on a majority of the top-10 picks, but so far his drafting seems iffy outside of first round.

Also, to keep harping on giving him credit for top picks ignores that Benning's management is a direct cause of Canucks sucking for the last 4 seasons.

 

[Numba9]

It's not that Benning was gifted top picks. People are dismissive because you are expected to draft NHL ready players with top-10 picks. To his credit, he didn't whiff on a majority of the top-10 picks, but so far his drafting seems iffy outside of first round.

Also, to keep harping on giving him credit for top picks ignores that Benning's management is a direct cause of Canucks sucking for the last 4 seasons.

The last 4 years the Canucks were going to suck no matter who the GM was; this almost isn't even debatable. In fact if a GM followed the HFBC "play all the kids" rebuild plan they likely would have been the worst team in the history of the NHL, yet the same people bring up the record of the last 4 years like it means anything at all. The writing was on the wall, it's incredible that certain people still choose not to see it.

 

[RobertKron]

The last 4 years the Canucks were going to suck no matter who the GM was; this almost isn't even debatable. In fact if a GM followed the HFBC "play all the kids" rebuild plan they likely would have been the worst team in the history of the NHL, yet the same people bring up the record of the last 4 years like it means anything at all. The writing was on the wall, it's incredible that certain people still choose not to see it.

SO IF THEY WERE GOING TO INEVITABLY BE BAD, WHY DIDNT THE f***ING GM REALIZE THAT AND STOP GIVING AWAY FUTURES AND STOP SIGNING VETS TO OVERPRICED LONG TERM DEALS

 

[me1ch]

The last 4 years the Canucks were going to suck no matter who the GM was; this almost isn't even debatable.

You have to plan around that. Benning and the Canucks didn't. They wouldn't have traded draft picks and sign vets otherwise.

In fact if a GM followed the HFBC "play all the kids" rebuild plan they likely would have been the worst team in the history of the NHL, yet the same people bring up the record of the last 4 years like it means anything at all.

And the on ice product in the last 4 years was good? Their bottom 6 forwards were below replacement and they had no depth. So playing kids would be about the same.

The writing was on the wall, it's incredible that certain people still choose not to see it.

Again, the Canucks didn't. And they couldn't pull a Doug Wilson in San Jose either.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Yeah, it's always interesting that people who support Benning by throwing out the old "Well the team was destined to suck anyway and only an idiot couldn't see that!" excuse never seem to be able to follow the logic through to where it just makes Benning look worse.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The last 4 years the Canucks were going to suck no matter who the GM was; this almost isn't even debatable. In fact if a GM followed the HFBC "play all the kids" rebuild plan they likely would have been the worst team in the history of the NHL, yet the same people bring up the record of the last 4 years like it means anything at all. The writing was on the wall, it's incredible that certain people still choose not to see it.

If they were going to suck regardless, then why all the huge pro scouting misses? Why the terrible contracts? Why trade away futures?

Can you answer the above while still maintaining a semblance of integrity in your argument?

 

[Intangibos]

Hey the team is going to suck no matter what I do, but lets just trade some picks and prospects away and tell the fans we're going all in to win now.

 

[Hoghandler]

The last 4 years the Canucks were going to suck no matter who the GM was; this almost isn't even debatable. In fact if a GM followed the HFBC "play all the kids" rebuild plan they likely would have been the worst team in the history of the NHL, yet the same people bring up the record of the last 4 years like it means anything at all. The writing was on the wall, it's incredible that certain people still choose not to see it.

Spot on. I find it mind-boggling that some people can't wrap their head around this. Funnily enough, the people most critical of the record over the previous 4 years are the same ones that wanted to tear the team down and go through a re-build; because they could see the writing on the wall that dark days were ahead, due to the exceptionally poor drafting; and the down cycle that often trails prolonged success.

This doesn't absolve any poor decisions made by Benning. Moving too many futures, hanging onto too many veterans, poor salary negotiations, troublesome pro-scouting and the list goes on. There are countless criticisms directed Benning's way that are completely deserved.

The team was going to suck over the last handful of seasons regardless of who the GM was. The GM didn't do a great job during those seasons. Both things can be true at the same time.

 

[Jack Burton]

Jim Bennings drafting you say, this is how I see things and will only include the 1st and 2nd round picks as I believe players picked from the 3rd round on, if they actually become NHL players, I give most of the credit to the player development side of things.

2014-1st round: Virtanen vs Nylander and McCann vs Goldobin

2nd round: Demco

2015-1st round: Boeser

2016-1st round: OJ vs Tkachuk

2017-1st round: Pettersson vs Glass

2nd round: Lind vs Hague

2018-1st round: Hughes vs Boqvist vs Bouchard vs Dobson

2nd round: Woo vs Wilde

2019-1st roundod vs Boldy

2nd round: Hoglander

Conclusions/predictions.......

2014: Virtanen vs Nylander: failure. Everyone knew Nylander was the BPA but we fell in love with the home town boy who's hockey IQ matched his jersey #

McCann vs Goldobin: Correct. I really liked Goldobin but also really liked McCann and was a little surprised he was still available.

Demco: Correct. He was the only guy I was looking at with that 2nd rounder.

2015: Boeser: Correct. Still in shock he available!

2016: OJ vs Tkachuk: failure. We all knew it the second it was announced! Not only was he the BPA but was exactly what this team needed at the time...gifting him to the Calgary Flames was just more salt in the wound!

2017: Pettersson vs Glass: Wash. I think we're god damn lucky Pettersson has turned out the way he did. The way he was trending in his draft year and to pick him over Glass was a huge gamble on our part...still think Pettersson was a PR pick given our Swedish ties to this organization and that nobody in Canuck land knew who he was till we got Dahlen in the Burrows trade. Glass is the real deal and I can't wait for these 2 to go head to head and see who comes out on top

Lind vs Hague: failure. Hague fell straight into our lap due to his foot speed but his smarts and offensive ability far outweigh that. Vegas got a rock solid #3/4 Dman that will haunt this team for years to come. Good luck Lind.

2018 1st round: The pick of the litter draft as I like to call it. The most telegraphed pick in Canucks history: Unknown.
Well it's going to be Hughes vs Boqvist for me moving forward. At the time of the draft, if this team was going to go with a small puck moving Dman then I was hoping it would be Boqvist over Hughes so we'll see how that shakes out over the years but personally, I wouldn't have picked either one of them. I was hoping for Dobson first and foremost but would have been fine with Bouchard or Wahlstrom if it was a winger.
It's going to be interesting who actually comes out on top...still think it will be Dobson but we'll see.

Woo vs Wilde: Unknown. HM to McLeod who I would have also picked over Woo.

2019: Pod vs Boldy: Unknown but OMG we picked Pod! I never would have touched Pod and I'm still in shock that Brackett couldn’t get Boldy into a Canucks uniform. HM to Caufield and Newhook who again, I would have picked over Pod.

Hoglander: Correct. Was really hoping 1 of Lavoie, Kaliyev or Brink would fall.

So what do I think of Jim Bennings drafting? I think he sucks but is more likely to be below average at best. Those blowen picks in 14 & 16 are now biting this team in the a**. I also highly doubt Hughes, Woo and Pod will be any better than the competition.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Spot on. I find it mind-boggling that some people can't wrap their head around this. Funnily enough, the people most critical of the record over the previous 4 years are the same ones that wanted to tear the team down and go through a re-build; because they could see the writing on the wall that dark days were ahead, due to the exceptionally poor drafting; and the down cycle that often trails prolonged success.

This doesn't absolve any poor decisions made by Benning. Moving too many futures, hanging onto too many veterans, poor salary negotiations, troublesome pro-scouting and the list goes on. There are countless criticisms directed Benning's way that are completely deserved.

The team was going to suck over the last handful of seasons regardless of who the GM was. The GM didn't do a great job during those seasons. Both things can be true at the same time.

Then it shouldn’t matter if Benning makes the playoffs this year. He should be fired regardless.

If the record is not indicative of GM competence, and Benning has proven to be incompetent in nearly all other aspects, then making the playoffs should mean nothing in that determination.

Agree or disagree?



Edit: Oh, and the same ones wanting to tear it down are the same ones advocating for an accrual of futures. This is not incongruent. Might be why you’re having trouble unpacking it?

 

[MS]

SO IF THEY WERE GOING TO INEVITABLY BE BAD, WHY DIDNT THE ****ING GM REALIZE THAT AND STOP GIVING AWAY FUTURES AND STOP SIGNING VETS TO OVERPRICED LONG TERM DEALS

Yeah, it's always interesting that people who support Benning by throwing out the old "Well the team was destined to suck anyway and only an idiot couldn't see that!" excuse never seem to be able to follow the logic through to where it just makes Benning look worse.

Yup.

If it was so obvious that the team could do nothing but suck from 2014-2019, anyone who believes this should pretty much automatically be of the opinion that Benning is an incompetent moron who should be fired out of a cannon, because he sure as hell didn’t realize it. And threw away assets and cap space like candy for 5 years because he didn’t realize it.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Spot on. I find it mind-boggling that some people can't wrap their head around this. Funnily enough, the people most critical of the record over the previous 4 years are the same ones that wanted to tear the team down and go through a re-build; because they could see the writing on the wall that dark days were ahead, due to the exceptionally poor drafting; and the down cycle that often trails prolonged success.

This doesn't absolve any poor decisions made by Benning. Moving too many futures, hanging onto too many veterans, poor salary negotiations, troublesome pro-scouting and the list goes on. There are countless criticisms directed Benning's way that are completely deserved.

The team was going to suck over the last handful of seasons regardless of who the GM was. The GM didn't do a great job during those seasons. Both things can be true at the same time.

That's because you're either ignoring or dishonestly mischaracterizing our argument. You seem to think we want Benning gone just because the team's been bad and not why. You've introduced the new wrinkle of saying that although Benning made a whole pile of bad decisions it somehow doesn't affect how long and how badly the team was going to suck, and we think that's complete horse shit. To say the team was predestined by fate to be horrible is still to absolve Benning for his endless series of bad signings, throwing away an entire draft's worth of picks pursuing this idiotic age gap theory, repeatedly letting assets walk for nothing, piss-poor pro scouting, and major blunders whiffing on the Virtanen and Juolevi picks. If Aquaman had replaced Gillis with a competent gm who hadn't done all that the Canucks would've been a lot better a lot sooner. Hell, even now in year 6 of the Benning regime, the team's maxed out its cap space, has no first round pick in one of the next two seasons, has a first round pick from last year who won't be around for at least another two years...and all this for a team that *might* be good enough to sneak into a wild card spot *if* everything goes right. That's because of poor planning and poor execution, not because the last guy only left Benning with his current captain, two top dmen and starting goalie without whom the team would be lucky to win 20 games.

This is not the work of destiny.

 

[me1ch]

Spot on. I find it mind-boggling that some people can't wrap their head around this. Funnily enough, the people most critical of the record over the previous 4 years are the same ones that wanted to tear the team down and go through a re-build; because they could see the writing on the wall that dark days were ahead, due to the exceptionally poor drafting; and the down cycle that often trails prolonged success.

This doesn't absolve any poor decisions made by Benning. Moving too many futures, hanging onto too many veterans, poor salary negotiations, troublesome pro-scouting and the list goes on. There are countless criticisms directed Benning's way that are completely deserved.

The team was going to suck over the last handful of seasons regardless of who the GM was. The GM didn't do a great job during those seasons. Both things can be true at the same time.

1. Benning didn't realize it.
2. It certainly wasn't inevitable. The sucking started with the Canucks going into the 2015-2016 season with Henrik Sedin, Brandon Sutter, Bo Horvat (19 years old), and Jarred McCann (18 years old) as centres. That was by choice.

 

[RobertKron]

Like for f*** sakes, if it was obvious the team was for sure inevitability going to be bad, wouldn’t you want the guy to f***ing try to maximize the benefit of being bad?

 

[SillyRabbit]

Wait are the Benning defenders trying to argue that we’re upset that the team sucked for the past four years?

We’re upset because the assets he acquired during those four years are roughly half of what he should’ve acquired.

He blew numerous draft picks including extremely easy top 10 picks that the TSN monkey could’ve done a better job on.

He traded away picks, prospects and futures.

He failed to trade off veterans to acquire picks, prospects and futures.

No one here would care if we sucked the past four years if we had stockpiled a bunch of great young players and prospects. We’d be a team on the upswing.

Our organization has the assets of a team that is halfway through a rebuild but it’s taken five years. Now the rebuild is being declared “finished” as we’ve acquired our “final pieces” in Tyler Myers and JT Miller.

Benning thinks this team is ready to compete for a playoff spot while the rest of us are looking at a half finished product and fully aware that we lack several key pieces needed to develop into a contender and possess no reliable way to acquire them.

 

[LaVar]

if the team was going to suck then why did we trade more draft picks than we acquired

 

[Hit the post]

if the team was going to suck then why did we trade more draft picks than we acquired

Drafting gurus don't need extra picks.

 

[carrotshirt]

Like for **** sakes, if it was obvious the team was for sure inevitability going to be bad, wouldn’t you want the guy to ****ing try to maximize the benefit of being bad?

Don’t want to develop a losing culture! Being the SECOND worst team in the league over that span helped our young guys learn how to win.

Mentorpede segments Prust, Dorsett and Eriksson also kept us from becoming the Deadmonton Coilers.

 

[Hoghandler]

Then it shouldn’t matter if Benning makes the playoffs this year. He should be fired regardless.

If the record is not indicative of GM competence, and Benning has proven to be incompetent in nearly all other aspects, then making the playoffs should mean nothing in that determination.

Agree or disagree?

I didn't want Benning to get the contract extension, but that's not really relevant to the point I'm making.

You can acknowledge the team was headed for a woeful few seasons after Gillis was fired, while also acknowledging Benning did a poor job since being hired.