Ranking the worst Benning moves

[pgj98m3]

Actually the worst move for the Canucks was when Benning accepted job.

 

[lawrence]

Hard to choose from. So many solid choices.

 

[VanJack]

I'm torn...voted the Gudbranson trade....but hard to overlook selecting Juolevi ahead of Tkachuk. It's like picking out a toilet in a row of outhouses.

 

[MS]

This is more difficult decision with more quality options than trying to pick the best Beatles song.

 

[infinitemile]

fantastic poll.

For me gotta go with the Guddy trade. We acquired a player that was worse than replacement level and gave up two critical pieces, one top line winger and one effective 3C. Completely and entirely indefensible. Juolevi pick is a close second though, especially if he never cracks the NHL (legitimate possibility!).

 

[canucksfan]

Jesus. 90% of his transactions have been terrible.

That’s why I dont understand how some fans can still support him. Most of his good moves are his first round draft picks and that’s because he gets high picks due to his crappy team. Furthermore, credit goes to the scouts, mainly Judd, and not him.

And it’s a five year track record!

 

[me2]

Tough choices. Some you could argue a degree of unknown (draft picks), or various mild/severe overpays around things that had some logic, some were just a kick in balls (Sbisa).

For mine I would argue it was the Miller non-trade is arguably his worst because he demonstrated a complete failure to understand his team's needs while costing the team significant assets he could have received.

 

[ginner classic]

You guys are fretting about Loui Eriksson? Who ****ing cares about a bad UFA signing in the grand scheme of things.

Benning just traded a 1st pick with no lottery protection after missing the playoffs and being a lottery team for four years.

And he did the the Lightning a massive favour by taking on a contract that they needed to dump. Potential lottery pick for a middle 6 forward??

Hello?

This is hands down the worst deal that Benning has made. Fans could be talking about this trade for the next twenty years.

You could argue trading high 2nds early in what should have been a rebuild is more impactful than dealing an unknown 1st late in that rebuild. How about not getting 1sts in Hamhuis or Miller trades?

So many choices and all of them are good (bad).

 

[Canucks1096]

Macann and the 33 for me is the worst trade.

Canucks have no offence on the 3rd and 4th lines. Macann can get 15 goals on the third line. The second might be a roster player as well however JB drafting Debrincat probably was a low chance happening since JB never drafted a forward outside of the 1st round that have more than 5 nhl goals ( Gaudette )

Eriksson is only money, No assets given, also Canucks are not trading away young players because of his contract.

Miller I don't think it will end up being a bad trade. The pick is going to be in 17 to 20 range. Still a little bit overpayment but that I can live with.

Forsling for Clendending, I though it was really bad move but Forsling is an nhl player but his upside is not that high. A number 5 D is not a big loss.

 

[Canucks1096]

I will cut JB some slack on the Virtanen pick. He was only a few months on the job. That pick he probbaly have much say in it. The scouts decided on that pick.

 

[Canucks1096]

Becoming GM of the Canucks.

You need to blame the most popular player in franchise history for hiring him.

 

[orcatown]

Taking Joulevi above Tkachuk has to be the worst in terms of team development. I mean other stuff like the Gudbanson mess, the 2nd for Vey, etc... was bad but just isn't as significant.

Would say the sloppiest and worst optically was the whole Hamhuis fiasco.

 

[Addison Rae]

It’s hilarious that Jim Benning has been saved from even worse moves.

Lucic for 2015 1st +

Team would have Milan Lucic on an albatross instead of Brock Boeser right now.

PK Subban for Bo Horvat, Christopher Tanev, 5th overall

Subban is really good but this move would have been awful for a team in the Canucks state in 2016.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Not going to vote. I picked one lousy time to give up drinking.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I completely understand as to *why* the Gudbranson trade was made (ie the Canucks desperately needed, and still need, a young right side top 4 defenseman), and so the rationale behind making this move was ok in my opinion, but they simply targeted the wrong player. Pro Scouting effed up big time here.

However, I think the Juolevi mistake was a bigger one as of this writing. Things can change, but Matthew Tkachuk was basically a “sure thing”.....and the Canucks elected to draft by positional need. Very big gaffe by management’s part here. Things can change obviously, but the Juolevi gaffe gets my vote because even though things can change, I completely disagree with the RATIONALE behind the thought process (ie positional needs > BPA).

 

[Havre]

The criticism of the Juolevi pick got me thinking a bit. Personally I think the criticism is way over the top and a classic example of confirmation bias.

If you make a pick that is not the "consensus" pick (like Juolevi) you are heavily criticized if you get it wrong, but are you equally praised if you get it right?

I picked 5 random rankings from both those drafts (TSN, Draft Analyst, Hockey Prospect, Future Considerations and ISS - not really knowing too much about how respected they are - and what they base their rankings on - might be good reasons to add or take away one/some of them - up for discussion).

Juolevi's average ranking was 8.6 (ruined by ISS who had him 20th). He was taken 5th of course. A bit of a reach it seems. And Tkachuk was ranked above Juolevi among all five at an average of 4.6.

Then come Pettersson. His average was 9.4 (similar to Juolevi he had one outlier, ISS, which had him at 20th) - again taken 5th. Both Mittelstadt and Vilardi at 5.6 and 6 were ranked ahead of Pettersson.

Personally I think both picks are well within "reason" as too how far off the board you should go (personally I think scouting top picks are silly - you are better off basing yourself on these kind of averages - maybe even just using HF consensus). Just a random comment made by a Canucksfan at the time on HF: "The Finnish puck-moving defenseman looks like the best all around defenseman in the draft."

I have no issue with the Canucks trying to find a good D in that draft. If Juolevi had turned out to be the best D in that draft the Canucks would have looked pretty promising by now (obviously Tkachuk would have helped as well, but a proper 1D would have been something completely different to Tkachuk).

Again. I think Benning is a fool, but I don't think picking Juolevi is even close to his worst decision (consequences might be up there, but that is something different in my opinion). His reign is more death by a thousand paper cuts in general you might say.

 

[President of Hockey]

You should also do a "Best Benning move" poll.

Options:
Getting rid of Guddy
Period

 

[Ace of Hades]

Trading a 2nd for Linden Vey was pretty bad too.

 

[Kel Varnson]

It's the Gudbranson trade followed closely by the Eriksson signing with the Virtanen pick coming in 3rd.

 

[Jyrki21]

This is more difficult decision with more quality options than trying to pick the best Beatles song.

Some options:

• I Want to Hold Your Hand (through the Tryamkin Signing Process)
• Yesterday (I Tampered on Live TV)
• Hello Goodbye (An Ode to Nick Bonino)
• All My Loving (is Reserved for a Number Six Defender)
• Lucic in the Sky with Diamonds
• Ticket to Ride (but not for Two Years so I Sold it to Fill the Age Gap)
• Obla-di Obla-da (is what I Hear when you say "Underlying Numbers")
• Here Comes the Son (of one of the Sutters, Get my Bank Card Ready)

 

[tantalum]

I chose Gudbranson and not sure how it's not winning by a majority. If singing him to an extension was up there it would have been a tough choice!

But honestly, the worst is yet to come. Benning has a few good young players and based on the Boston model he grew up in he's going to continue throwing away futures for the now. Problem is that this time the management team doesn't have Jeff Gorton setting things up by signing a perennial Norris candidate, signing a good center in Marc Savard (pre-Cooke), bringing in Rask, Kessel, Marchand and Lucic in his 105 days as GM (he was also involved in drafting Bergeron and Krecji as well as signing Thomas).

 

[LaVar]

.

The difference is the outrage when we picked OJ was next level. Like anyone with half a brain wanted Tkachuk. When we picked Pettersson, I believe most had Vilardi ranked higher at the time but at least they weren't drafting by positional need + there was confidence w/ Gradin being involved...

Then there's the whole Benning comparing OJ to Lidstrom ****...indefensible

 

[tantalum]

I have no issue with the Canucks trying to find a good D in that draft. If Juolevi had turned out to be the best D in that draft the Canucks would have looked pretty promising by now (obviously Tkachuk would have helped as well, but a proper 1D would have been something completely different to Tkachuk).

Again. I think Benning is a fool, but I don't think picking Juolevi is even close to his worst decision (consequences might be up there, but that is something different in my opinion). His reign is more death by a thousand paper cuts in general you might say.

You should have an issue with it. You take the BPA. You do not draft by position. You have not way of truly predicting what you need 2-4 years down the road that drafting by position is almost always a mistake. If you have two players you truly think are equal then maybe you draft by position but you don't draft based on the organization but rather the importance of the position...you take the Center and D-man over the winger.

The major issue isn't simply well his average ranking indicates he wasn't much a reach...the problem is there was clear drop difference in quality moving from the top 5 to the rest of the top 15. It was an obvious miss. I mean I hope Juolevi does well and actually starts to develop but it was a clear miss from day 1. The gasps throughout the entire arena when they said "from the London Knights....Juolevi" says it all.

Gudbranson is still the worst move. It sums up every problem with this GM...inability to assess blueline talent, throwing away youth and picks, being too enamored with the cut a guys jib rather than if that guy actually wins you games.

 

[Havre]

You should have an issue with it. You take the BPA. You do not draft by position. You have not way of truly predicting what you need 2-4 years down the road that drafting by position is almost always a mistake. If you have two players you truly think are equal then maybe you draft by position but you don't draft based on the organization but rather the importance of the position...you take the Center and D-man over the winger.

The major issue isn't simply well his average ranking indicates he wasn't much a reach...the problem is there was clear drop difference in quality moving from the top 5 to the rest of the top 15. It was an obvious miss. I mean I hope Juolevi does well and actually starts to develop but it was a clear miss from day 1. The gasps throughout the entire arena when they said "from the London Knights....Juolevi" says it all.

Gudbranson is still the worst move. It sums up every problem with this GM...inability to assess blueline talent, throwing away youth and picks, being too enamored with the cut a guys jib rather than if that guy actually wins you games.

The world is never that clear I would argue. Confirmation bias to me. How long did it take for McAvoy to become the best D from that group? Your "clear" drop wasn't so clear after all. Same with the "clear" top 3 being Matthews, Laine and Puljujarvi. And I guess Puljujarvi is included in your "top 5" which wasn't all that good in hindsight.

BPA is such an illusion. Within weeks people might change their opinion on ranked players. If you got Juolevi at 49.9999% being BPA and Tkachuk at 50.0001% I really have no issue with the D being taken.

I would have picked Tkachuk, but too much is made out of that pick. He reached. They all do occasionally. He missed, but pretending it was that obvious when it happened is revisionist in my opinion.

Take 2019 as an example. I don't know what the "top something" ended up being in the end (consensus-wise), but Seider certainly wasn't in it. Yzerman a fool for making that pick? Bigger fool than Benning (not that I'm arguing one action makes a GM good or bad) taking Juolevi a priori at least.

 

[Havre]

The difference is the outrage when we picked OJ was next level. Like anyone with half a brain wanted Tkachuk. When we picked Pettersson, I believe most had Vilardi ranked higher at the time but at least they weren't drafting by positional need + there was confidence w/ Gradin being involved...

Then there's the whole Benning comparing OJ to Lidstrom ****...indefensible

Like the videos of Blackhawks-fans being "outraged" by picking York over Caufield. Arrogant of me to say, but my guess is 90-95% of those fans have really no clue about either player - other than maybe seeing Caufield scoring some nice goals.

So maybe some of those fans with "half a brain" just got sucked into the general mood?

That time they were right, but I'm not sure if it proves much.