Management Thread - Read OP

[RandV]

This is probably where the biggest disagreements stem from. IMO there was no realistic, conceivable scenario where this team didn't bottom out for a prolonged period of time following Gillis' tenure. The cupboards were beyond barren, and it was a forgone conclusion we were headed for a string of losing seasons.

That's nonsense. It wasn't going to be easy, but there were certainly plausible scenarios to bounce back and the team showed in 2014-15 it could still make it into the playoffs. The team falling off a cliff was entirely Benning's own doing and can easily be mapped out: downgrading Bonino to Sutter, Kassian to Prust, doubling down on Sbisa then overpaying him and Dorsett, and finally having blown the cap space losing needed depth Richardson and Matthias in free agency.

Basically Benning tried to make use 'tougher in the playoffs' over the summer putting his own stamp on the team and as a result we dropped 50 goals and 25 points in the standings. And all we got for our troubles that year was Oli Juolevi, failed to trade anyone at the deadline losing Hamhuis for nothing and then replacing him by wasting good future assets on Erik Gudbransson.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

Very interesting collective refusal to answer a simple question. It says a lot.

I can only surmise that the reason for this refusal is that there are no objective results that would cause most negative posters in this thread to reevaluate their opinion of Benning. We see a lot of this in the political sphere today. Their subjective investment in their own opinions is so deep that no objective reality could overturn it. Meaning that even if the Canucks won the Stanley Cup, they wouldn't reevaluate. They would still argue endlessly that Benning was a bad GM who got lucky, point to other "bad GM's" like Rutherford or Tallon who also won Cups. In other words, the argument would go on and on. Contrary to Benning "supporters" (meaning people who don't view everything he does as terrible), who establish clear criteria for where they would give up defending anything related to Benning, Benning "opposers" appear to have no clear limit to their Benning hate. That's a problem for reasonable discourse.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Benning's own doing and can easily be mapped out: downgrading Bonino to Sutter, Kassian to Prust, doubling down on Sbisa then overpaying him and Dorsett, and finally having blown the cap space losing needed depth Richardson and Matthias in free agency.

The notion that any of these players or their absence had a significant effect on the team's trajectory is self-evidently absurd.

 

[Javaman]

The notion that any of these players or their absence had a significant effect on the team's trajectory is self-evidently absurd.

Hmm. How so?

 

[Hoghandler]

That's nonsense. It wasn't going to be easy, but there were certainly plausible scenarios to bounce back and the team showed in 2014-15 it could still make it into the playoffs. The team falling off a cliff was entirely Benning's own doing and can easily be mapped out: downgrading Bonino to Sutter, Kassian to Prust, doubling down on Sbisa then overpaying him and Dorsett, and finally having blown the cap space losing needed depth Richardson and Matthias in free agency.

Go back and look at the ages of the players on the roster, as well as the pipeline. There was absolutely nothing in the system to sustain long term success and the majority of the impact players were in their 30's. This wasn't lost on Tortorella or even Gillis. Gillis himself went to ownership and said there was no way the system he built could sustain any success going forward. It needed to be torn down and re-built properly with a longterm approach. Ownership didn't believe him, and they were wrong.

No amount of players like Bonino, Kassian, Garrison, Mattias, Lack or the like were going to move this team beyond the Sedins to the next core successfully. Not with the prospect pool that was in place. It was one of the worst prospect pools in the league at that time and didn't even live up to expectations.

And none of this was lost on this fanbase at that time. Everyone and their dog could see dark clouds over the horizon and the need for a new core to be built with lottery picks.

Like I said, 2 things can be true at the same time. Benning has made countless mistakes, didn't acquire anywhere near enough picks and the pro scouting has been dreadful at times. But make no mistake about it, there was a reason Gillis said his own work needed to be torn down. That wasn't an easy admission for a proud manager that told ownership he was following the Detroit model of continued, sustained success from building through the draft.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Go back and look at the ages of the players on the roster, as well as the pipeline. There was absolutely nothing in the system to sustain long term success and the majority of the impact players were in their 30's. This wasn't lost on Tortorella or even Gillis. Gillis himself went to ownership and said there was no way the system he built could sustain any success going forward. It needed to be torn down and re-built properly with a longterm approach. Ownership didn't believe him, and they were wrong.

No amount of players like Bonino, Kassian, Garrison, Mattias, Lack or the like were going to move this team beyond the Sedins to the next core successfully. Not with the prospect pool that was in place. It was one of the worst prospect pools in the league at that time and didn't even live up to expectations.

And none of this was lost on this fanbase at that time. Everyone and their dog could see dark clouds over the horizon and the need for a new core to be built with lottery picks.

Like I said, 2 things can be true at the same time. Benning has made countless mistakes, didn't acquire anywhere near enough picks and the pro scouting has been dreadful at times. But make no mistake about it, there was a reason Gillis said his own work needed to be torn down. That wasn't an easy admission for a proud manager that told ownership he was following the Detroit model of continued, sustained success from building through the draft.

Good post,..Nothing was going to stop the ship capsizing...and conversely, theres no excuse for the poor moves/ ill defined plan in the first 3 years (Sbisa,Gudbranson,Erikksson)...There's plenty of blame to go round.

 

[Hoghandler]

Good post,..Nothing was going to stop the ship capsizing...and conversely, theres no excuse for the poor moves in the first 3 years (Sbisa,Gudbranson,Erikksson)...There's plenty of blame to go round.

Yup. Very few seem willing to acknowledge both these points are true. Many disagreements stem from this.

You can hold the opinion Benning is the worst general manager in history, while also being well aware we needed to take some major steps backwards before having the horses needed to take steps forward again.

You can also hate Benning but believe we are starting to look pretty good moving forward. Those stances aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Very interesting collective refusal to answer a simple question. It says a lot.

I can only surmise that the reason for this refusal is that there are no objective results that would cause most negative posters in this thread to reevaluate their opinion of Benning. We see a lot of this in the political sphere today. Their subjective investment in their own opinions is so deep that no objective reality could overturn it. Meaning that even if the Canucks won the Stanley Cup, they wouldn't reevaluate. They would still argue endlessly that Benning was a bad GM who got lucky, point to other "bad GM's" like Rutherford or Tallon who also won Cups. In other words, the argument would go on and on. Contrary to Benning "supporters" (meaning people who don't view everything he does as terrible), who establish clear criteria for where they would give up defending anything related to Benning, Benning "opposers" appear to have no clear limit to their Benning hate. That's a problem for reasonable discourse.

Can you read?

*edit* You know what? Here's a simple question for you: how many other accounts have you posted under here?

 

[Javaman]

Yup. Very few seem willing to acknowledge both these points are true. Many disagreements stem from this.

You can hold the opinion Benning is the worst general manager in history, while also being well aware we needed to take some major steps backwards before having the horses needed to take steps forward again.

You can also hate Benning but believe we are starting to look pretty good moving forward. Those stances aren't mutually exclusive.

But Benning refused to acknowledge that the Canucks needed to take some major steps backwards in order to ultimately move forward. We don't have the horses to move forward because of Benning. We have the horses to move forward despite Benning.

I'd hazard to suggest that the main concern of Benning critics currently is that he'll find a way to keep moving backwards while trying to move forwards with the horses the Canucks currently have: Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat, Hughes.

 

[RandV]

Can you read?

*edit* You know what? Here's a simple question for you: how many other accounts have you posted under here?

I like how a lot of the premise is on "if the Canucks won the Stanley Cup". Like barring the complete miracle route we're anywhere even close to that.

 

[Hoghandler]

But Benning refused to acknowledge that the Canucks needed to take some major steps backwards in order to ultimately move forward. We don't have the horses to move forward because of Benning. We have the horses to move forward despite Benning.

It's irrelevant what Benning acknowledged. Nobody's opinion was going to change the position we were in in 2014. Ownership or management. We needed a new 4-5 high end pieces to build a foundation from. They weren't in place, with the gift of hindsight we know they weren't in place and usually the only way to get them in place is to draft at the top of the 1st round for a handful of years, at minimum.

We finally have some Horses. And it's not because or despite Benning. It's because of where we were leading up to his hire.

 

[RandV]

No amount of players like Bonino, Kassian, Garrison, Mattias, Lack or the like were going to move this team beyond the Sedins to the next core successfully. Not with the prospect pool that was in place. It was one of the worst prospect pools in the league at that time and didn't even live up to expectations.

Yes a veteran team coming off a lengthy successful stretch isn't likely going to have a good prospect pool (Tampa Bay aside). Though young guys in the system that could contribute to some degree were: Horvat, Kassian, Tanev, Hutton, Markstrom, and Lack, we were going into the draft with a 6th overall pick, and had Kesler as a trade chip. We'll never know what could have been or what the denied Anaheim deadline deal was, but if we landed the Ottawa 1st there it's conceivable that under Gillis we could have come out of that draft with Nylander and Larkin, throw in another season or two out of the playoffs and selling assets and a new young core could be put together in a much tighter time frame and while the Sedin's were still here.

One of the reasons why it's taken so long to get a new young core on the current team is because prior to this draft of the 4 top 10 picks Benning made in 5 drafts he wasted the first two on Virtanen and Juolevi. We also very minimal effort to acquire additional future assets or even keep or own 2nd to 4th round picks over those years.

 

[Javaman]

It's irrelevant what Benning acknowledged. Nobody's opinion was going to change the position we were in in 2014. Ownership or management. We needed a new 4-5 high end pieces to build a foundation from. They weren't in place, with the gift of hindsight we know they weren't in place and usually the only way to get them in place is to draft at the top of the 1st round for a handful of years, at minimum.

We finally have some Horses. And it's not because or despite Benning. It's because of where we were leading up to his hire.

I could not disagree more strongly with everything in this post. As in, there is nothing more relevant to what a GM does than his acknowledgement or opinion of the talent level within the organization.

Part of me wants to address your post point by point. But then I realize your points form an incoherent whole. You do realize that you are arguing in favour of the potato GM in your post, right?

Hindsight? Careful now, you don't want to trigger Melvin.

 

[Hoghandler]

Yes a veteran team coming off a lengthy successful stretch isn't likely going to have a good prospect pool (Tampa Bay aside). Though young guys in the system that could contribute to some degree were: Horvat, Kassian, Tanev, Hutton, Markstrom, and Lack, we were going into the draft with a 6th overall pick, and had Kesler as a trade chip. We'll never know what could have been or what the denied Anaheim deadline deal was, but if we landed the Ottawa 1st there it's conceivable that under Gillis we could have come out of that draft with Nylander and Larkin, throw in another season or two out of the playoffs and selling assets and a new young core could be put together in a much tighter time frame and while the Sedin's were still here.

One of the reasons why it's taken so long to get a new young core on the current team is because prior to this draft of the 4 top 10 picks Benning made in 5 drafts he wasted the first two on Virtanen and Juolevi. We also very minimal effort to acquire additional future assets or even keep or own 2nd to 4th round picks over those years.

The Canucks needed elite pieces to build there next core. None of those guys you listed, Kesler included were going to give you the currency to make that happen. Horvat is the one long term building block left in place. It's next to impossible to cobble together lesser assets and end up with franchise cornerstones.

You're also operating under the assumption that 4 down years is a long time to get a new core. 4 years is not a long time to bottom out in a re-build.

IMO you're underestimating just how much heavy lifting needs to be done to build an organisation from the ground up. It can take 10-15 years to find a franchise, 1st line centre for example. We just don't see eye to eye on how difficult it is to find elite pieces. And IMO you aren't winning anything without them.

 

[Javaman]

...

You're also operating under the assumption that 4 down years is a long time to get a new core. 4 years is not a long time to bottom out in a re-build. ...

Are you asserting that Benning was actively engaged in a rebuild during his tenure?

 

[Hoghandler]

I could not disagree more strongly with everything in this post. As in, there is nothing more relevant to what a GM does than his acknowledgement or opinion of the talent level within the organization.

The topic was about how poor we were set up following Gillis' firing. And the inevitable decline that everyone knew was coming, Gillis, Tortorella, the media, and our own fan base included.

It doesn't matter that ownership demanded the team strive for the playoffs. There was no realistic scenario we were getting out of that mess without bottoming out.

 

[Hoghandler]

Are you asserting that Benning was actively engaged in a rebuild during his tenure?

That's irrelevant. What he intended to do doesn't matter. His opinion doesn't matter. Ownerships opinion doesn't matter.

Those are all just stories. Stories don't impact where we go from here. The assets in place will dictate the future, as well as the moves made going forward.

 

[Javaman]

The topic was about how poor we were set up following Gillis' firing. And the inevitable decline that everyone knew was coming, Gillis, Tortorella, the media, and our own fan base included.

It doesn't matter that ownership demanded the team strive for the playoffs. There was no realistic scenario we were getting out of that mess without bottoming out.

Oh I see. You're trying to drag me into a "But Gillis" argument in some wayward attempt to defend Benning. Yeah, not gonna bite.

If everyone knew the decline was coming, then why didn't Benning respond accordingly?

Or, perhaps more signicantly, why couldn't Benning see what everyone else could see?

And why the hell did the Aquilinis hire him if he couldn't recognize what was obvious to everyone else?

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The topic was about how poor we were set up following Gillis' firing. And the inevitable decline that everyone knew was coming, Gillis, Tortorella, the media, and our own fan base included.

It doesn't matter that ownership demanded the team strive for the playoffs. There was no realistic scenario we were getting out of that mess without bottoming out.

So why would you put your trust in a GM who couldn't see that, assuming it was genuinely the case? Why would you want a GM in charge who looked at a team that was missing elite pieces to contend and tried to contend for five, now going on six years?

 

[Javaman]

That's irrelevant. What he intended to do doesn't matter. His opinion doesn't matter. Ownerships opinion doesn't matter.

Those are all just stories. Stories don't impact where we go from here. The assets in place will dictate the future, as well as the moves made going forward.

This is, like, bizzarro level stuff.

But just to play along... the assets in place likely mean the Canucks miss the playoffs for the 5th consecutive year.

I sincerely hope you are receiving a stipend from Benning for your posts.

 

[Phenomenon13]

The ultimate standard by which Benning is judged around here tends to revert to results. Benning's teams have been very bad for 4 seasons, even though when he was hired, most were expecting/even hoping for these kinds of results.

When it comes to formulating a group evaluation, end results are probably the best measure, because they are objective. Discussions about managerial process and methodology ultimately descend into semantics and bickering.

So I'm wondering, are there any kind of results in the next two seasons that would prompt any of you to reconsider your evaluation of Benning? This is a discussion of hypotheticals that I find interesting. What standard of performance would the Canucks have to reach in the next 2 seasons to make you adjust your opinion of Benning?

By your criteria shouldn't Benning be the worst gm in the league? His end results which form objective evaluation places him at the bottom. What more do you need to see to affirm your evaluation?

 

[Hoghandler]

Oh I see. You're trying to drag me into a "But Gillis" argument in some wayward attempt to defend Benning. Yeah, not gonna bite.

I explicitly stated Benning did a horrible job and the organisation was in a horrible position when he came aboard.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. So many people are having a hard time accepting 2 things can be true at the same time.

You're trying to win a game that is only being played in your head.

 

[Hoghandler]

So why would you put your trust in a GM who couldn't see that, assuming it was genuinely the case? Why would you want a GM in charge who looked at a team that was missing elite pieces to contend and tried to contend for five, now going on six years?

Who said I put my trust in the GM? Who said I want him in charge?

Gillis leaving the team in a mess, and Benning sucking at his job aren't mutually exclusive. Both things are true.

 

[arttk]

I explicitly stated Benning did a horrible job and the organisation was in a horrible position when he came aboard.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. So many people are having a hard time accepting 2 things can be true at the same time.

You're trying to win a game that is only being played in your head.

Stop, the org was not in a horrible position when he joined. When he joined, there was already a 6th overall pick, Kesler as a trade chip, oodles of cap and players like Garrison, Burrows, Bieksa, Hamhuis, Tanev, Richardson that could’ve garnered picks to either draft more young players or used to trade for other players.
The twins were still productive and there were cap and assets to tinker with. Benning basically came in and burn all the assets and cap for the worst return possible.
If you want case studies in the NHL for what not to do when targeting and trading for players, signing players and using cap and assets, they would all be Benning during his Canucks tenure.

 

[Addison Rae]

The idea of the team having more young talent after being the worst team in the league over the past 4 years than it did after it won 5 straight division titles being some sort of revolution is hilarious.

Edmonton and Buffalo have been surrounded with top end talent by being really bad at hockey and accumulating top 10 picks. Their incompetent management teams did a piss poor job of supplementing their good young talent.

Jim Benning in his 5 year tenure has done an abysmal job of pro-scouting. This is the crux of the problem, he’s made some decent picks but has shown absolutely zero ability of how to properly build a winning team.