Management Thread - Read OP

[Hoghandler]

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.

All this can be true, while also needing to bottom out for a few years to get the cornerstone pieces in place. And I would say both are true.

Gillis had all of those pieces at his disposal too. Yet he believed the team needed to strip it down and take major steps backwards before taking steps forward. IMO he was correct in that evaluation.

 

[arttk]

All this can be true, while also needing to bottom out for a few years to get the cornerstone pieces in place. And I would say both are true.

Gillis had all of those pieces at his disposal too. Yet he believed the team needed to strip it down and take major steps backwards before taking steps forward. IMO he was correct in that evaluation.

Problem is not with bottoming out, problem is doing it while Benning was trying to compete. That is just straight up mismanagement. Nevermind the fact we had fewer draft picks than almost every team in the league when we were bottoming out. Look at the so call cupboards, we have nobody outside of Juolevi they can graduate this year, and then almost nobody other than maybe Woo next year. That’s f***ing pathetic considering how bad we have been in the past years. It’s not like we graduated that many kids to the big team either, we have a total of 5 players after finishing at the bottom for 4 years straight. Look at other teams who started their rebuild later than us and how many kids they have competing down in the A.
This is one of the, if not the worst run operation in the whole league. We as fans have to endure a level of incompetence that rival the same crap the Oilers fans have.

 

[tyhee]

Interesting (in perhaps a symptomatic way) how all of you avoided my question, except Melvin to some degree, though he altered the question somewhat in his answer. Perhaps you simply misunderstood it. So here it is again:



I don't want more rhetoric and rehashing. I just want a clear statement of what objective results would force you to reconsider your opinion. I mean if the Canucks somehow won a Stanley Cup, you would be forced to reconsider your opinion, wouldn't you? How about if they advanced to the second round in year 1 or 2? Or are there no actual results that would make you reconfigure your opinion?

I think the answer from the other side is pretty easy. If the Canucks miss the playoffs in both of the next two seasons, the Benning regime is clearly an objective disaster of epic proportions and indefensible in sum.

Your approach smacks as that of someone who can't go over the individual criticisms and argue objectively against them and who doesn't have objective results on his side, so wants to paint those who are willing to give reasons for their opinions as lacking objectivity. It is a nonsnensical approach.

If you want to argue Benning's competence, argue it. Face the reasons for those with opposing views and meet those views. Don't ask people to create a fantasy hypothetical situation. It's nonsense.

In my case, I didn't become convinced Benning was incompetent until late in the 2014-15 regular season, a season in which the Canucks had to that stage been quite successful. Earlier decisions brought doubt but the 2015 Sbisa and Dorsett extensions were so ridiculous that I couldn't see any intelligent person negotiating those on behalf of the team. I criticized the Sbisa extension as way too much money (I didn't think he was worth a qualifying offer) and term and the Dorsett extension as somewhat too much money for a crazy term, given Dorsett's style of play.

As I suggested at the time would happen, Sbisa was never worth his contract and Dorsett didn't stay healthy long enough to fulfill his.

Obviously Benning's then good results (his last to date) didn't form my opinion.

There are probably quite a few of us that have formed our opinions based on decisions made more than results. For me and I think quite a few others the results have reinforced my opinion which was based on the team management making what I considered poor decisions. For some of those decisions "poor" is too weak an adjective.

Results have confirmed my view of Benning, in that the decisions have by and large had the effect I expected and which were largely predicted by many on this board.

The Canucks winning the Stanley Cup would have the same effect on my opinion of him as a general manager as the Bruins winning in 2011 has on my view of Chiarelli as a general manager. It WOULD cause me to review the decisions that got them there with a view to analyzing whether what appeared to me to be mistakes were actually shrewd moves.

 

[Hoghandler]

Problem is not with bottoming out, problem is doing it while Benning was trying to compete.

Bottoming out is exactly what the disagreement was. People were saying we bottomed out because of Benning. That's false.

Everything else you said is correct. Countless mistakes were made.

 

[RandV]

All this can be true, while also needing to bottom out for a few years to get the cornerstone pieces in place. And I would say both are true.

Gillis had all of those pieces at his disposal too. Yet he believed the team needed to strip it down and take major steps backwards before taking steps forward. IMO he was correct in that evaluation.

We know that Gillis wanted to rebuild after the San Jose loss. Beyond that we don't know exactly what the plan was or the expected time frame, and "rebuild" can be a bit of an ambiguous term because there's a number of ways to go about it. So feel free to correct me if there was a quote or interview somewhere I missed in which he does speak like that but otherwise from what I recall the bolded statement there would be your own invention, not Mike Gillis'.

 

[Intangibos]

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.

I reevaluate my opinion of Benning every decision he makes and it generally gets worse. For years posters here have hoped he would suddenly "get it" but have long given up hope.

If Benning starts making good moves then we'll be happy, but as it is now he has been objectively awful at his job. If Milbury got hired here and immediately started sucking, like before, would you be making "gotcha" posts about posters not being willing to reevaluate Milbury if he suddenly decides to stop being bad?

You're acting as if he have a personal vendetta against Benning like he ran over the dogs over every poster here rather than accepting the obvious fact that we just think he's bad at this job. Yeah, if he makes some good moves we take them with a grain of salt because they're preceded and proceeded by bad moves, but we're talking about a GM where his supporters actually name Granlund as one of his "wins". It doesn't take a personal distaste of the guy to rag on his ability to manage a sports franchise.

What an awful post. Give your head a shake, man.

 

[Dump Itch]

I feel like everyone here expects Benning to be THE PERFECT GM, to have the perfect draft, the perfect pro/amateur scouting, to have perfect trades,, etc. No GM is perfect. Ya'll gotta just chill and realize no GM in this league is perfect.

 

[Intangibos]

I feel like everyone here expects Benning to be THE PERFECT GM, to have the perfect draft, the perfect pro/amateur scouting, to have perfect trades,, etc. No GM is perfect. Ya'll gotta just chill and realize no GM in this league is perfect.

What? I would be thrilled to have above-average and at this point I would settle for mediocre.

 

[Melvin]

I feel like everyone here expects Benning to be THE PERFECT GM, to have the perfect draft, the perfect pro/amateur scouting, to have perfect trades,, etc. No GM is perfect. Ya'll gotta just chill and realize no GM in this league is perfect.

That's not even close to true. It would be nice if he were even average at any of those things.

 

[tyhee]

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.

Your question and approach seem to me to be those of someone who wants to dismiss all the litany of criticisms without being able to argue against them, so who wants to say he doesn't want a rehash and wants to frame things in a fantasy world. Since you can't argue the points that posters raise, you want to frame things in a fantasy way even though dismal results hasn't changed the view of the Benning supporters.

I refuse to get involved in such nonsense. If you want to know the reason for my opinion, ask, but don't ask me to change it based on partial hypotheticals.

 

[Melvin]

Your question and approach seem to me to be those of someone who wants to dismiss all the litany of criticisms without being able to argue against them, so who wants to say he doesn't want a rehash and wants to frame things in a fantasy world. Since you can't argue the points that posters raise, you want to frame things in a fantasy way even though dismal results hasn't changed the view of the Benning supporters.

I refuse to get involved in such nonsense. If you want to know the reason for my opinion, ask, but don't ask me to change it based on partial hypotheticals.

Yes, he wants to control the discussion by asking loaded questions and dismiss thoughtful responses as nonresponsive because they didn't conform to the deliberate parameters he chose.

It's a clever gambit designed to back one into a corner of agreeing that Benning making the playoffs in the next two years forces one to concede that he knew what he was doing all along, which is of course rubbish.

 

[The Drop]

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.

It’s pathetic and sad. You’d think he’s being paid.

Literally cant answer a question and just deflects

 

[Scott Stevens]

Following up on yesterday's teaser, here's the season finale. As always, click through twice to enlarge:

Alright.

Gilman as foe of the nightman

“I WANT TO DRAFT TYLER MYERS”

Just the thing where Benning speaks in all caps

 

[arttk]

Bottoming out is exactly what the disagreement was. People were saying we bottomed out because of Benning. That's false.

Everything else you said is correct. Countless mistakes were made.

We bottomed out because our D was one of the worst in the league and we couldn’t score.
Why is the D one of the worst? Because we had nobody beyond Edler and Tanev. The guys Benning acquired were a collection of the worst defenders you could get. Sbisa, Bartowski was a thing, then Pouliot and Gubrandon, then you had Holm, Clendenning and a whole bunch of crap in between that I have purged from my memory.
Why can’t we score? Because we went from Kesler to Bonino to Sutter. Sutter is pretty much an instant offense killer and we have had him for like 3 years already. We paid a boat load for Ericsson and he can barely put up 10 goals. We also acquired Granlund and put him in the 2nd and 1st line to boost his points and sink everyone else’s points. Then we have a collection of 4th liners spread like peanut butter across all 4 lines, which were all acquired by Benning.
To top all that off, Benning kept Willie around for like 3 years and that contributed to us defending one goal losses.
Make no mistake about this, this team is bad because Benning f***ed up in every way possible.

 

[Melvin]

It’s pathetic and sad. You’d think he’s being paid.

Literally cant answer a question and just deflects

Last time he was here, someone said "I'm surprised he didn't just go with JT Miller as a username." so he does exactly that.

I give John credit, he has a sense of humour.

 

[clunk]

Oh, RM* is back. Welcome back 800th RM* alt.

 

[Hoghandler]

We bottomed out because our D was one of the worst in the league and we couldn’t score.

Make no mistake about this, this team is bad because Benning ****ed up in every way possible.

The team Benning inherited was the lowest scoring team in Canucks franchise history.

There is 1 forward playing in the NHL right now that was drafted in the 7 years leading up to Benning being hired. Michael Grabner and Bo Horvat the only forwards in the NHL from the past 15 Canuck drafts.

You might want to cast that net a bit wider.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I feel like everyone here expects Benning to be THE PERFECT GM, to have the perfect draft, the perfect pro/amateur scouting, to have perfect trades,, etc. No GM is perfect. Ya'll gotta just chill and realize no GM in this league is perfect.

4 consecutive years out of the playoffs, team is now slammed up against the salary cap with Boeser still to sign, roster is pretty much locked in for the next two seasons...no, we don't expect Benning to be THE PERFECT GM considering he's presided over one of if not the worst stretch in franchise history. We're still waiting to see if he can achieve any results beyond piss-poor.

The team Benning inherited was the lowest scoring team in Canucks franchise history.

There is 1 forward playing in the NHL right now that was drafted in the 7 years leading up to Benning being hired. Michael Grabner and Bo Horvat the only forwards in the NHL from the past 15 Canuck drafts.

You might want to cast that net a bit wider.

 

[Javaman]

We bottomed out because our D was one of the worst in the league and we couldn’t score.
Why is the D one of the worst? Because we had nobody beyond Edler and Tanev. The guys Benning acquired were a collection of the worst defenders you could get. Sbisa, Bartowski was a thing, then Pouliot and Gubrandon, then you had Holm, Clendenning and a whole bunch of crap in between that I have purged from my memory.
Why can’t we score? Because we went from Kesler to Bonino to Sutter. Sutter is pretty much an instant offense killer and we have had him for like 3 years already. We paid a boat load for Ericsson and he can barely put up 10 goals. We also acquired Granlund and put him in the 2nd and 1st line to boost his points and sink everyone else’s points. Then we have a collection of 4th liners spread like peanut butter across all 4 lines, which were all acquired by Benning.
To top all that off, Benning kept Willie around for like 3 years and that contributed to us defending one goal losses.
Make no mistake about this, this team is bad because Benning ****ed up in every way possible.

Just clarify, the Cancks suck because Canaucks' fans irrationally hate Benning's moves? Is this really how we introduce reasonibility into these discussions?

 

[arttk]

The team Benning inherited was the lowest scoring team in Canucks franchise history.

There is 1 forward playing in the NHL right now that was drafted in the 7 years leading up to Benning being hired. Michael Grabner and Bo Horvat the only forwards in the NHL from the past 15 Canuck drafts.

You might want to cast that net a bit wider.

Yeah they are out of the league because they retired, doesn’t mean they were useless when Benning inherited them. 7 years is a freaking long time in sports.
Hell Garrison, Bieksa, Burrows fetched assets when they were traded. Hamhuis would’ve gotten something bad Benning not f***ed up. And no the team that Benning inherited was not the lowest scoring team in franchise history, Benning turned that team into the lowest scoring team in franchise history by assembling the lowest scoring D in the league and misallocating cap so hard that he had Granlund in the top line.
Anyway, no point debating with someone that is here just to defend Benning and have no intention to have an honest discussion.

 

[Hit the post]

The team Benning inherited was the lowest scoring team in Canucks franchise history.

1st year of the Benning regime, the Sedins still managed to *BOTH* get in the top 10 in points.

But Gillis!

 

[Hoghandler]

1st year of the Benning regime, the Sedins still managed to *BOTH* get in the top 10 in points.

But Gillis!

So was I wrong?

 

[arttk]

So was I wrong?

Of course you are wrong

 

[Hoghandler]

And no the team that Benning inherited was not the lowest scoring team in franchise history, Benning turned that team into the lowest scoring team in franchise history by assembling the lowest scoring D in the league and misallocating cap so hard that he had Granlund in the top line.

So there had been a lower scoring team in Canuck history at the time of Benning's hiring? Which team?

And we won't even get into the futility of this franchises history.

 

[Hoghandler]

Of course you are wrong

So which team was it?