I never once said it was a good deal. I am just giving facts that a lot.of people likes the signing and a lot of peoole were wrong. That link has over 40 pages. I am that's a fair sample size and a lot user like the signing.
My comprehensive Benning criticism
- Thread starter Edge27
- Start date
I never once said it was a good deal. I am just giving facts that a lot.of people likes the signing and a lot of peoole were wrong. That link has over 40 pages. I am that's a fair sample size and a lot user like the signing.
And a lot of users hated the signing.
Bottom line: Benning f***ed up, end of story, period.
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,159
- 16,012
Fans here voted him #7 on the prospects list before the draft....He wasn't my first, or second choice..but hardly a stretch.
HF Canucks Draft List - Pick 8
Benning and Linden (and other people in the media) telegraphed that they were going to take a D if their guy (PLD) wasn't there.
me2
Go ahead foot
He was on the radar for #5 the same way Dylan Stroke was on the radar for #1 in 2015.
Notice how OJ got only about half the vote compare to Tkachuk?
And how people debated which is better Dubois or Tkachuk then someone made a joke about how Dim Jim will pick OJ and try to justify the pick with bullshit?
Like I said, just like how he f***ed up the Eriksson deal, Benning f***ed up the OJ pick too. While I'm not ruling out OJ's possibility of becoming an NHLer completely, the trend is not giving anyone any confidence at all. While Tkachuk is already a PPG winger.
And no, OJ is not a better playoff performer...
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,159
- 16,012
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,159
- 16,012
I'm not saying OJ was the 'right' pick...I'm saying that it wasn't a stretch to pick him at 5...and where did I say he was a better playoff performer than Tkachuk ?Notice how OJ got only about half the vote compare to Tkachuk?
And how people debated which is better Dubois or Tkachuk then someone made a joke about how Dim Jim will pick OJ and try to justify the pick with bull****?
Like I said, just like how he ****ed up the Eriksson deal, Benning ****ed up the OJ pick too. While I'm not ruling out OJ's possibility of becoming an NHLer completely, the trend is not giving anyone any confidence at all. While Tkachuk is already a PPG winger.
And no, OJ is not a better playoff performer...
You didn't, that was a prophylactic measure against a laughably idiotic argument made by a certain poster in an attempt to discredit Tkachuk's achievements. I know this argument, however moronic it may be, will be brought up again.
And you're ignoring how OJ got only half the vote of confidence compared with Tkachuk.
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,159
- 16,012
Not at all..everybody wanted Tkachuk at 5 (myself included),....There's no debate there..All I'm saying is that OJ was not a huge 'reach' at 5..He was well within the ballpark.
The books not closed on this player yet...
Like I said, I am ruling him out yet, but he's trending towards being one of the worst picks in the hands of this so-called draft GOD of Jim Benning.
And what I'm saying is that OJ is a f***ed up pick, period, and a lot of people at the time knew that.
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
Alot of people still think Benning should keep his job.
Alot of people are not that invested in the inner workings of the team.
He was only in the ballpark who considered to draft for position and even then Chychrun was voted ahead of Juolevi in the Canucks board draft poll. Again that 2016 had a crystal clear top 5 and Juolevi was not among it. Even in all the rankings of the draft guides etc there was only one which had Juolevi in the top five. That one is out of business in the meantime btw. Now tell me again Juolevi wasnt reach.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 23,162
- 6,838
Juolevi was absolutely a reach. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda. I very much doubt there was a single other team in the league that would have taken him at 5th OA. In fact, if the Canucks hadn't selected him it wouldn't have surprised me to see Juolevi go outside the top 10.
I am toxic
. . . even in small doses
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,159
- 16,012
In 2014 there was a consensus 5..Micheal Dal Colle and Sam Bennett were in that group of 5...In 2016,there was the big 3..Puljijarvi was in that group...You'd be foolish to completely subscribe to the BPA to the tee.
How many rankings and draft guides have Elias Pettersson ranked at#5.?..I'd say Juolevi was ranked closer to 5 than EP was?...Bob McK had OJ at 7 (so did everybody here)..Its the same Canuck scouting staff that picked OJ,that picked EP,neither pick followed the BPA
"According to three scouts surveyed this week, all see Juolevi in the top eight in the NHL draft in June and say that he’s in the mix to be the fourth or fifth player selected. (The first three picks are conceded to be Auston Matthews, Patrik Laine and Jesse Puljujarvi.) And barring injury and with an expected deep run by the Knights, Juolevi figures to have more of an opportunity to raise his stock than Chychrun and Sergachev. Which even he didn’t see coming.".Sportsnet,March 30,2016
We had that very same discussion a while ago, so I am not going through all that again. Your first question: at least 2 had him at five, HockeyProspects.com and CanucksCentral which are rather good ones I would say.
As to the other point, even if Juolevis average ranking was better than Pettersson (which I am not sure it was but might have been), it doesnt make him a lesser reach. What makes Juolevi are far bigger reach than Pettersson is context. 2016 had a clear cut top 5 and wide open after that, considering the Canucks pick was in the top 5 and they picked one not ranked in the top 5 thats a reach. 2017 had a clear top 2 in Hischier and Patrick and white open afterwards, with Vancouver having the #5 pick there were many options but non obvious one.
Bojack Horvatman
IAMGROOT
- Jun 15, 2016
- 4,108
- 7,225
If a GM should always pick BPA even if it's not consensus. CBJ didn't agree with consensus and viewed Dubois as BPA. Good work by their scouting staff. If a GM doesn't pick consensus, they absolutely deserve criticism if their pick flops and gift a team a better player. (In our case it was a division rival)
Pettersson was a reach but was in the same tier as Glass, Vilardi and Middlestadt. They picked the most skilled player that fell because he was skinny. One Gm even would of took him first. While Juolevi was a reach from a tier down and, picked because of Positon. Tkachuck was the obvious BPA unlike 2017 where it was a debate of multiple players.
Shareefruck
Registered User
It can't be considered beating a dead horse if the horse is still alive and active and still has a vocal hoard of defenders.
Hell, I'm not even sure that most casual fans aren't still just drinking his Kool-Aid without looking into it.
It's always worth re-stating what demands to be known. Especially considering that Aquilini seems reluctant to do anything about it unless there's a public outcry, for whatever reason.
Hell, I'm not even sure that most casual fans aren't still just drinking his Kool-Aid without looking into it.
It's always worth re-stating what demands to be known. Especially considering that Aquilini seems reluctant to do anything about it unless there's a public outcry, for whatever reason.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
New shiny toy in each of the past two seasons (Boeser the year before and EP this season) have kept the mob at bay). Maybe Hughes will be able to distract the plebs for another season?
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,790
- 16,249
yup
like next year when florida LTIRs luongo, there will probably be a handshake deal where he "earns" his money by working for the team for free as a consultant. basically, he'll be an unpaid intern watching and learning and seeing if he's good at and/or likes any of those jobs. in return, the team keeps on a former superstar and fan favourite and can trot him out at press conferences and publicity events.
problem for linden was he had a blood feud with the people he conceivably could have learned from (gillis and co) and after they cleaned house there was no one for him to learn from anymore. i mean, can you imagine? "okay trevor, this pettersson kid, you want to trade him for steve francis. you can never have enough team players."
For what it is worth here's my comprehensive appraisal of Benning regime.
Drafting - Based on ability to play at NHL level and success compared to draft position. Does not include players who are still in the system and, as yet, untried at pro levels. Does include players drafted but left unsigned
Positives
Pettersson, Boeser, Gaudette, Tryamkin, Demko, McCann, Forsling
Negatives
Joulevi, Virtanen, Lind, Gadojovich, Brassard, Gunnersson, MacKenzie, Abols, Stukel, Candella, Olsen, Neill, Zhukenov, Stewart, Pettit,
Nothing much at all out of later picks
On the fence
Brisebois
Analysis
Could say the team has been right as much as they have been wrong in the higher picks, but you need to factor in that these were mostly very high picks and should end up good NHL players. After 5 years the only established players are Pettersson, McCann and Boeser. Should also be noted that getting players at lower draft positions is a struggle for all teams. Yet other organizations do this and the Benning has generally not. Lack of draft choices seems a factor here.
Trades (not considering minor leaguer for minor leaguer). Assessments could obviously change.
Positives
Garrison + 7th + Costello for 2nd
Bieksa for 2nd
Shinkaruk for Granlund
Hansen for Goldobin
Burrows for Dahlen
Subban for Dowd
Vanek for Motte
Holm for Leipsic
Carcone for Levio
Del Zotto for Schenn
Gudbranson for Pearson
Lack for 3rd
Negatives
2nd for Vey
Forsling for Clendenning
3rd + Mallet for Pedan
Kassian + 5th for Prust
Bonino + Glendenning + 2nd for Sutter
5th for Larsen
McCann + 2nd + 4th for Gudbranson
Pedan + 4th for Pouliot
7th for Mazanec
Open to Question
Dorsett for 3rd
Kesler for Bonino, 1st, and Sbisa
Jensen for Etem
Dahlen for Karlsson
Gagner for Spooner
2nd for Baertschi
Chaput for Kero
Nilsson + Archibald for McKenna, Pyatt and 6th.
Analysis
Overall works out about evenly between good and bad deals but really not much accomplished thru trade. With these types of trades, the team remains in a holding pattern. Moreover, these trades indicate just how many draft choices have been wasted on players that did little to nothing for the team and, given the need to rebuild, the team should been looking to pick up rather than losing draft choices. Ultimately, it seems, Benning has not been able to meaningful upgrade the team thru trades.
Players lost with no return – all of the following were let go for nothing and went on to have NHL careers elsewhere establishing that they had value
Hamhuis (Dallas)
Weber (Nashville)
Miller (Anahiem)
Dowd (Washington)
Vrbata (Arizona, etc)
Bartkowski (Calgary, etc)
Cracknell (Dallas, etc )
Matthais (Toronto, etc)
Richardson (Arizona)
Santorelli (Toronto, etc)
Sestito (Pittsburg)
Dalpe (Buffalo, Minnesota, etc)
Conacher (Tampa Bay)
*Fedun (Dallas)
*not sure he was ever officially signed but did play game for the team.
Others Assets that might have been used better
H. Sedin
D. Sedin
Higgins
Dorsett
Corrado
Leipsic
O’Reilly
Tryamkin
Analysis
Perhaps the worst aspect of Benning record has been his inability to get value for roster or NHL level players at or before the trade deadline. Beyond not acquiring assets that might have been very important to the rebuilding of the team, players not moved often contributed to useless late season wins that hurt draft position. Likelihood is that we will see others like Granlund have the same fate.
Contracts – not including minor league deals (Utica signed players, etc..) Does consider contracts of players that were traded and whether these players ultimately became NHL caliber players and thus whether the contracts, given their compensation, were justified .
Positives – compensation not badly out of line. Also considers what players contributed, potentially could contribute or, if retained could have contributed.
Vrbata
Tanev
Markstrom
Biega
Hutton
Vanek
Horvat
Roussel
McEwen
Stecher
Tryamkin
Gaudette
Sautner
Motte
Virtanen
Kassian
Bartkowski
Cracknell
Weber
Negatives –in hindsight paid too much and/or player never panned out for the team. In some cases may have seemed justified at the time but, in the end, were not. Some might be justified based on the need to get players for Utica.
Miller
Sbisa
Sutter
Eriksson
Larsen
Gudbranson
Gagner
Del Zotto
Schaller
Granlund
Beagle
Pouliot
Nilsson
Shore
Megna
Grenier
Vey
Burmistrov
Etem
Wiercoich
Rodin
Kenins
Cannata
LaBate
Pedan
Zelewski
Subban
Questionable
Baertschi
Gaunce
Dorsett
Archibald
Skille
Leighton
To Be Determined Contracts/Signings
Depietro
Brisebois
Dahlen
Lind
McEneny
Joulevi
Eliot
Carcone
Corrado
Rafferty
Teves
Keilly
Demko
Poor Prospect Signings – didn’t pan out at all.
LaPlante
Blumstrand
Lain
Molino
Chatfield
Cederholm
Garteig
Rendulic
Cassels
Stewart
Blain
Fox
Friesen
Jones
Holm
Palmu
Analysis
While the Horvat contract was excellent, there have been too few key re-signings, to date, to be overly positive about contract signings. Mostly the decent contracts have been simply been raises or decisions dictated, more or less, by the players agreement. And few have been absolute bargains. Beyond that, there have been some very bad contracts where players have been severely overpaid creating possible cap issues. In addition, some players signed as prospects have been amazingly awful (such as LaPlante and Stewart). These have taken up possible roster spots and call into question player assessment by the team. Finally the team has proven, too often, unable to pick up high end NCAA or overseas free agents.
Overall
I think it is hard to justify Benning’s record. It was clear the team needed to rebuild and Benning has simply passed up or messed up too many chances to do this. He was clearly unable or unwilling to take on that difficult task and in far too many cases bailed on the team and sought some quick fix to patch over situations. And in most cases these moves did nothing to make the team much better now while hurting long term chances for success. This is most patently indicated by his willingness to give up draft choices for immediate help (which often wasn’t even that ) and his unwillingness to move out people to gain prospects and draft choices seemingly b/c he wanted to eke out a few more late season wins to save face.
He has added a couple of pieces but the team is still very dependent on the players, such as Markstrom (a player Benning waived), Edler Tanev, and Horvat, that were here before Benning arrived.
And most important the team has made little progress under Benning. Even though Benning is into his fifth year, the team remains very much a bottom feeder. Moreover, there is every chance the team remains in the lower third of the League moving ahead. When you consider what could have been done – moving out players for drafts and prospects, making trades that did not sacrifice the future for the present, making better drafts, signing better free agents at better prices – it illustrates how far Benning has fallen short.
Finally, there have also been some glaring examples of what have to be described as foolish statements and actions by Benning. He has gotten into trouble with glib and unprofessional comments about players under contract to other teams, allowed clumsy and mean-spirited dismissals of people such as Gilman and Linden, used the age gap drivel and other meaningless justifications for obviously ill-conceived, short term moves, stated outrageous and silly comparisons of players like Sutter to Bergeron, and made the fumbling, frequently incoherent communication with the public and media. None of this did anything to improve the professional image of the team or make it more likely high level players would be attracted here
I think Benning has to be considered a failure at this point.
Drafting - Based on ability to play at NHL level and success compared to draft position. Does not include players who are still in the system and, as yet, untried at pro levels. Does include players drafted but left unsigned
Positives
Pettersson, Boeser, Gaudette, Tryamkin, Demko, McCann, Forsling
Negatives
Joulevi, Virtanen, Lind, Gadojovich, Brassard, Gunnersson, MacKenzie, Abols, Stukel, Candella, Olsen, Neill, Zhukenov, Stewart, Pettit,
Nothing much at all out of later picks
On the fence
Brisebois
Analysis
Could say the team has been right as much as they have been wrong in the higher picks, but you need to factor in that these were mostly very high picks and should end up good NHL players. After 5 years the only established players are Pettersson, McCann and Boeser. Should also be noted that getting players at lower draft positions is a struggle for all teams. Yet other organizations do this and the Benning has generally not. Lack of draft choices seems a factor here.
Trades (not considering minor leaguer for minor leaguer). Assessments could obviously change.
Positives
Garrison + 7th + Costello for 2nd
Bieksa for 2nd
Shinkaruk for Granlund
Hansen for Goldobin
Burrows for Dahlen
Subban for Dowd
Vanek for Motte
Holm for Leipsic
Carcone for Levio
Del Zotto for Schenn
Gudbranson for Pearson
Lack for 3rd
Negatives
2nd for Vey
Forsling for Clendenning
3rd + Mallet for Pedan
Kassian + 5th for Prust
Bonino + Glendenning + 2nd for Sutter
5th for Larsen
McCann + 2nd + 4th for Gudbranson
Pedan + 4th for Pouliot
7th for Mazanec
Open to Question
Dorsett for 3rd
Kesler for Bonino, 1st, and Sbisa
Jensen for Etem
Dahlen for Karlsson
Gagner for Spooner
2nd for Baertschi
Chaput for Kero
Nilsson + Archibald for McKenna, Pyatt and 6th.
Analysis
Overall works out about evenly between good and bad deals but really not much accomplished thru trade. With these types of trades, the team remains in a holding pattern. Moreover, these trades indicate just how many draft choices have been wasted on players that did little to nothing for the team and, given the need to rebuild, the team should been looking to pick up rather than losing draft choices. Ultimately, it seems, Benning has not been able to meaningful upgrade the team thru trades.
Players lost with no return – all of the following were let go for nothing and went on to have NHL careers elsewhere establishing that they had value
Hamhuis (Dallas)
Weber (Nashville)
Miller (Anahiem)
Dowd (Washington)
Vrbata (Arizona, etc)
Bartkowski (Calgary, etc)
Cracknell (Dallas, etc )
Matthais (Toronto, etc)
Richardson (Arizona)
Santorelli (Toronto, etc)
Sestito (Pittsburg)
Dalpe (Buffalo, Minnesota, etc)
Conacher (Tampa Bay)
*Fedun (Dallas)
*not sure he was ever officially signed but did play game for the team.
Others Assets that might have been used better
H. Sedin
D. Sedin
Higgins
Dorsett
Corrado
Leipsic
O’Reilly
Tryamkin
Analysis
Perhaps the worst aspect of Benning record has been his inability to get value for roster or NHL level players at or before the trade deadline. Beyond not acquiring assets that might have been very important to the rebuilding of the team, players not moved often contributed to useless late season wins that hurt draft position. Likelihood is that we will see others like Granlund have the same fate.
Contracts – not including minor league deals (Utica signed players, etc..) Does consider contracts of players that were traded and whether these players ultimately became NHL caliber players and thus whether the contracts, given their compensation, were justified .
Positives – compensation not badly out of line. Also considers what players contributed, potentially could contribute or, if retained could have contributed.
Vrbata
Tanev
Markstrom
Biega
Hutton
Vanek
Horvat
Roussel
McEwen
Stecher
Tryamkin
Gaudette
Sautner
Motte
Virtanen
Kassian
Bartkowski
Cracknell
Weber
Negatives –in hindsight paid too much and/or player never panned out for the team. In some cases may have seemed justified at the time but, in the end, were not. Some might be justified based on the need to get players for Utica.
Miller
Sbisa
Sutter
Eriksson
Larsen
Gudbranson
Gagner
Del Zotto
Schaller
Granlund
Beagle
Pouliot
Nilsson
Shore
Megna
Grenier
Vey
Burmistrov
Etem
Wiercoich
Rodin
Kenins
Cannata
LaBate
Pedan
Zelewski
Subban
Questionable
Baertschi
Gaunce
Dorsett
Archibald
Skille
Leighton
To Be Determined Contracts/Signings
Depietro
Brisebois
Dahlen
Lind
McEneny
Joulevi
Eliot
Carcone
Corrado
Rafferty
Teves
Keilly
Demko
Poor Prospect Signings – didn’t pan out at all.
LaPlante
Blumstrand
Lain
Molino
Chatfield
Cederholm
Garteig
Rendulic
Cassels
Stewart
Blain
Fox
Friesen
Jones
Holm
Palmu
Analysis
While the Horvat contract was excellent, there have been too few key re-signings, to date, to be overly positive about contract signings. Mostly the decent contracts have been simply been raises or decisions dictated, more or less, by the players agreement. And few have been absolute bargains. Beyond that, there have been some very bad contracts where players have been severely overpaid creating possible cap issues. In addition, some players signed as prospects have been amazingly awful (such as LaPlante and Stewart). These have taken up possible roster spots and call into question player assessment by the team. Finally the team has proven, too often, unable to pick up high end NCAA or overseas free agents.
Overall
I think it is hard to justify Benning’s record. It was clear the team needed to rebuild and Benning has simply passed up or messed up too many chances to do this. He was clearly unable or unwilling to take on that difficult task and in far too many cases bailed on the team and sought some quick fix to patch over situations. And in most cases these moves did nothing to make the team much better now while hurting long term chances for success. This is most patently indicated by his willingness to give up draft choices for immediate help (which often wasn’t even that ) and his unwillingness to move out people to gain prospects and draft choices seemingly b/c he wanted to eke out a few more late season wins to save face.
He has added a couple of pieces but the team is still very dependent on the players, such as Markstrom (a player Benning waived), Edler Tanev, and Horvat, that were here before Benning arrived.
And most important the team has made little progress under Benning. Even though Benning is into his fifth year, the team remains very much a bottom feeder. Moreover, there is every chance the team remains in the lower third of the League moving ahead. When you consider what could have been done – moving out players for drafts and prospects, making trades that did not sacrifice the future for the present, making better drafts, signing better free agents at better prices – it illustrates how far Benning has fallen short.
Finally, there have also been some glaring examples of what have to be described as foolish statements and actions by Benning. He has gotten into trouble with glib and unprofessional comments about players under contract to other teams, allowed clumsy and mean-spirited dismissals of people such as Gilman and Linden, used the age gap drivel and other meaningless justifications for obviously ill-conceived, short term moves, stated outrageous and silly comparisons of players like Sutter to Bergeron, and made the fumbling, frequently incoherent communication with the public and media. None of this did anything to improve the professional image of the team or make it more likely high level players would be attracted here
I think Benning has to be considered a failure at this point.
I would add Forsling for sure to your list and also Demko. I say this to Comets posters. Generally speaking, most draft picks spend 2 years post-draft in juniors/college/overseas before they even get to the AHL. The fact that Lind and Gadjovich were in the AHL last season is more the exception rather than the norm. So if you're expecting established NHL players, I don't think it's fair to use 5 drafts as the measure. With that said, it is disappointing that the post 5th round Dmen we drafted aren't even worth signing. I'm not sure our late round drafting has improved.
Those trades for "prospects" who are NHL ready or close to NHL ready have not worked out other than Baertschi. Recent trades for more established guys like Leivo and Pearson appear to be working out.
I agree although in reality the Canucks' draft position hasn't really been hurt at all. It's really the draft lottery that has hurt the Canucks draft position.
Pretty sure you included a couple of signings that weren't Benning's but I digress. I think Benning's UFA contracts have been overpayments and have largely not worked out. I think his contracts for RFAs have mostly been solid and he has been conservative in extending RFAs.
In terms of picking high end NCAA or overseas free agents, I think you're being unfair. Benning did sign Stetcher and were finalists for a a couple of other college free agents. You're essentially competing with 30/31 teams. I don't blame Gillis for not landing DeKeyser either.
His plan to retool on the fly did fail. Do I think he deserves to be fired? Yes I do. Do I think he has gotten better? I do. I do like the way he drafts and I I think he has the right idea in terms of the players he's looking for. It really comes down to execution. Being right about a player vs not goes a long way to determining how things end up.
- Jun 25, 2007
- 2,355
- 2,454
This is the summary I've been waiting for. There are a few mistakes (e.g. Jensen for Etem includes a 6h round pick going to the Rangers, which pushes the trade into the "bad" column, IMO) but overall it is excellent.
Bottom line: the Canucks have been an awful team for the last 4 years and should have been making aggressive moves to turn aging vets into prospects or picks. From Benning's own statements ("re-tool", "I can't stand losing"), it's clear he's been trying to make the playoffs every year that he's been here. It's only because he's failed so miserably that the Canucks have had the high draft picks to acquire Pettersson and Hughes (while blowing the Virtanen and Juolevi picks). Other statements that Benning has made indicate he has an antiquated mind-set ("draft picks take 5 to 6 years before they can play in the NHL").
I am toxic
. . . even in small doses
Well written, thank you for such a comprehensive post.
I think you have to mention Henning and Utica. In a cap world, and with the Canucks facing the worst travel schedule and inevitable injuries, I think our farm system is another critical element to the team's long-term success. Reading Bad Goalie's posts is painful, none of it is hindsight, the dismantling and neglect of the Comets is not good.
