I actually can't decide between Juolevi draft, Eriksson contract, Kesler trade and Gilman firing. The last one is probably the most macro, except I don't think Benning was listening to him anyway.
Ranking the worst Benning moves - #2
- Thread starter ginner classic
- Start date
ginner classic
Dammit Jim!
I wonder what kind of a list r/Canucks has? Probably all sins of omission...
Not offering two 1sts to Nashville for Subban
Not offering cap max for Tavares
...
Not offering two 1sts to Nashville for Subban
Not offering cap max for Tavares
...
Hansen
tyler motte simp
ginner classic
Dammit Jim!
I take issue with you on your Juolevi point. In 2014 Jim overruled both his Euro scouts (Nylander) and NA scouts ( Ehlers) to draft Virtanen. You can't blame the scouts for aomething like that. Given he repeated the same pre draft media interviews (need a d) as he did in 2014 (need size, physicality and speed), it seems likely that Juolevi was a need pick and not BPA. Tkachuk was a unanimous choice. I am not sure casting aspersions at the amateur scouts makes sense on this one. It seems pretty clear Jim was running circles around himself logically.
Really? It looked awful from the word go, given his age and health and – above all – the fact that it was evident the Canucks were going to be terrible throughout his tenure. I tweeted this within minutes of the signing (before realizing the deal was buyout proof):
There was a lot of trepidation over the signing well before it even happened.
I think Jim is an absolute moron and no doubt he spoke highly about Juolevi but I don't remember anything about our amateur scouts preferring tkachuk instead.
Wildcarder
Registered User
It's possible I just remembered it differently based on what I was reading. I thought the contract was an overpayment for sure, but didn't think it was as bad right off the bat as I did some of the other moves like the Gubdranson extension (or the imminent Myers signing) for example.
I thought Eriksson could still be a useful player even if overpaid. God was I wrong.
xtra
Registered User
Also can we clarify did t we sign guds when we first traded him? So weren’t there 2 guds contracts?
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,224
- 16,126
It's an option set by the poll creator. Sometimes people don't turn it on
SillyRabbit
Trix Are For Kids
- Jan 3, 2006
- 8,222
- 7,579
I think people are forgetting how awful the Kesler trade was:
Kesler was under contract. He had a NMC with a list of five teams he wanted to be traded to. Anaheim was his number one choice.
Benning did not have to trade him immediately. There were rumours he wanted out, but he was not going to sit out.
Benning targeted Bonino, Sbisa and the 24th pick in the draft.
He should’ve targeted Theodore or Vatanen instead of Sbisa (who he then went on to overpay, and is one of the options for worst moves on this list) and he should’ve targeted the 10th overall pick that the Ducks had, not the 24th.
To me, this is less about the players involved and more about the mindset.
At the time, he demonstrated a failure to recognize what to target and what had value.
That trade, along with the Virtanen pick, and his early interviews, set the tone for what his tenure would be with the Canucks.
A large faction of fans turned against him after this trade, even ones who were willing to overlook the Virtanen blunder (which hadn’t yet looked as bad as it would in the future).
I voted the Kesler trade because it set the tone for everything that came after it. It left no doubt in anyone’s mind as to what we had in Jim Benning.
Kesler was under contract. He had a NMC with a list of five teams he wanted to be traded to. Anaheim was his number one choice.
Benning did not have to trade him immediately. There were rumours he wanted out, but he was not going to sit out.
Benning targeted Bonino, Sbisa and the 24th pick in the draft.
He should’ve targeted Theodore or Vatanen instead of Sbisa (who he then went on to overpay, and is one of the options for worst moves on this list) and he should’ve targeted the 10th overall pick that the Ducks had, not the 24th.
To me, this is less about the players involved and more about the mindset.
At the time, he demonstrated a failure to recognize what to target and what had value.
That trade, along with the Virtanen pick, and his early interviews, set the tone for what his tenure would be with the Canucks.
A large faction of fans turned against him after this trade, even ones who were willing to overlook the Virtanen blunder (which hadn’t yet looked as bad as it would in the future).
I voted the Kesler trade because it set the tone for everything that came after it. It left no doubt in anyone’s mind as to what we had in Jim Benning.
Melvin
21/12/05
You're right.
1) Was the first indication of what we now know without a shadow of a doubt: Benning hates to negotiate and will take the first offer he's given to "avoid headache." He didn't want to apply pressure to Kesler and didn't want to haggle with Anaheim. Eric Crawford had to literally tell him to add a 3rd to the deal which he reluctantly did so they could send it for Dorsett.
2) Was the first indication of the "age gap" mentality, that we didn't want to target futures because we wanna win noooowwwww.
3) Was the first indication that he couldn't evaluate talent for beans, thinking Luca Sbisa was a top-4 defender.
You are right; I kinda liked that deal because I liked Bonino, but that trade absolutely was the tent-pole that set up the nightmare that was to come.
Agree with this. It was the unveiling of how Jim Benning's mind worked, and it was terrifying to see how it worked.
Have changed my vote to the Kesler trade as it set the tone for everything to come.
ginner classic
Dammit Jim!
I badly want to know what Anaheim was prepared to offer up for Kesler. It's been speculated that we targeted Sbisa over the other D-men, but has this been confirmed by anyone?
Puck Ingrate
Registered User
Gonna go with the Hamhuis non-trade because it was the easiest possible decision to not screw up.
To recap, they didn't approach Hamhuis about a trade until a week or so before the trade deadline, maneuvered themselves into a situation where they shrunk the market for their own player, and then with a trade offer on the table at the last minute...somehow decided to not take the deal.
You can use the uncertainty of prospect trajectories to ever so slightly rationalize the Juolevi pick, but you have to make a series of completely inexplicable decisions to have Hamhuis walk away for nothing.
To recap, they didn't approach Hamhuis about a trade until a week or so before the trade deadline, maneuvered themselves into a situation where they shrunk the market for their own player, and then with a trade offer on the table at the last minute...somehow decided to not take the deal.
You can use the uncertainty of prospect trajectories to ever so slightly rationalize the Juolevi pick, but you have to make a series of completely inexplicable decisions to have Hamhuis walk away for nothing.
nowhereman
Registered User
These moves are all pretty garbage but none too disastrous (death by a 1000 papercuts). But, for me, the LE contract and the Juolevi pick are really tough to swallow. IMO, the Juolevi pick is worse because, as much distaste as I have for Eriksson (who is an entitled, lazy chump collecting a retirement paycheck) all he's doing is taking up cap space on a retooling/rebuilding team. That deal looks a lot worse if we were actually trying to compete.
Tkachuk will haunt the Canucks for years.
That said, I think firing Gilman should get some consideration. As I said, most of these moves weren't franchise altering, outside of a few. But I doubt half of these options would be in the poll, had they kept Gilman and allowed him a major voice in management. It didn't help hiring Weisbrod either.
Tkachuk will haunt the Canucks for years.
That said, I think firing Gilman should get some consideration. As I said, most of these moves weren't franchise altering, outside of a few. But I doubt half of these options would be in the poll, had they kept Gilman and allowed him a major voice in management. It didn't help hiring Weisbrod either.
Pearson was a good pick-up, especially for the garbage we offloaded to get him. His contract is a tad rich but the guy posted an average of 42 points the previous two seasons and was part of a Cup-winning second line.
Last edited:
Melvin
21/12/05
There was an article with Bob Murray where he clearly stated that he would do what it takes to get a legit 2nd line centre behind Getzlaf and Rakell, Vatanen, Perrault, Palmeri, Etem, Sbisa, 10th and 24th were all in play to accomplish the goal.
The speculation at the deadline in 14' was that Ducks offered their 1st, 2nd, Vatanen, and un unnamed prospect for Kesler too.
ginner classic
Dammit Jim!
If I am not mistaken, Bob Murray indicated that they would not be willing to pay as much for Kesler in the 2014 off-season as they had been the previous deadline when Gillis was eliciting offers from Pittsburgh and Anaheim. Am I remembering this wrong?
Pip
Registered User
Bonino also held a ton of value and was a good target if we were competing for the cup. His contract was insanely good and he could play up and down the lineup. As we know he went on the be an important piece for the Penguins. I really doubt that Anaheim wanted to move Bonino and would have definitely contributed to their window.
I think we could have got a really good futures package to kickstart this rebuild but, you know, Benning.
I think we could have got a really good futures package to kickstart this rebuild but, you know, Benning.
TruKnyte
On the wagon
Went with drafting Juolevi ahead of Tkachuk.
Benning is supposed to be good at drafting. Absolutely zero excuses for such a massive failure. Taking Tkachuk probably prevents future bad decisions as well.
The saddest thing is that there are so many legitimate reasons to pick so many of the options in the poll.
I blame Gillis for getting himself fired....
Benning is supposed to be good at drafting. Absolutely zero excuses for such a massive failure. Taking Tkachuk probably prevents future bad decisions as well.
The saddest thing is that there are so many legitimate reasons to pick so many of the options in the poll.
I blame Gillis for getting himself fired....
SillyRabbit
Trix Are For Kids
- Jan 3, 2006
- 8,222
- 7,579
This is like assuming that someone who is ugly has a good personality.
People saw that Benning was terrible in all aspects of being a GM that they assumed he had to be good at something so they jumped on the “but he’s a draft guru” bandwagon because it was the only thing that couldn’t be immediately disproven.
But it’s been five years and it’s not only has he not lived up to this “draft guru” expectation, he’s proven to actually be quite a bad drafter overall.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,510
- 20,527
There was an article about the trade with a quote from Bob Murray where he admitted that everything was on the table with the exception of the 10th overall pick.
