Should the Canucks have extended Jim Benning?

Should the Canucks have extended Benning?


  • Total voters
    83

SillyRabbit

Trix Are For Kids
Jan 3, 2006
7,525
6,308
The Canucks gave Jim Benning a three year contract extension, through the 2021 NHL season.

Benning first came on board in 2014. After four years with Benning at the helm, there was a lot of discontent about the extension by Canuck fans.

From the Canucks perspective, was this a good move?
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
Given the options I said No because he is a terrible GM but as a fan of a rival team I think 100% they should have extended him. It was a great move!
 

mouz135

Registered User
Apr 27, 2013
1,966
2,113
I'm going to say he's been average at best, but definitely not the worst GM out there. We'll see if he can fix this mess, if not, then he'll be fired before this extension is up.

You'll also get a bunch of trolls voting this was a good move, so there's that. I wouldn't trust this poll
 

pheasant

Registered User
Nov 2, 2010
4,226
1,376
If you think about the situation the team is in, and some of the restrictions Benning is working under, he has done a fine job.

Everyone here thinks it's as easy as trading the Sedin twins and tanking. But the ownership and president don't want a full rebuild, and the Sedin twins won't waive their no-trade clauses. So what can be expected?
 

Rory Mac

Registered User
Mar 30, 2012
3
0
Langley
I think the idea of dim Jim will carry on for quite some time, especially if you put a microphone in front of him. While its obvious he had considerable growing pains and has made some questionable moves, he's gotten better lately. His management team is no longer missing the CBA rules, not haemorrhaging as many draft picks. Why not stand behind him and his vision of the future Canucks? it's not like there's a lineup of better qualified suitors waiting in the wings.

I get the hate, I get the impatience, but being reactionary and firing your management team every 2-4 years is exactly how there's perpetually so many Canadian teams playing golf in April.
 

SillyRabbit

Trix Are For Kids
Jan 3, 2006
7,525
6,308
If you think about the situation the team is in, and some of the restrictions Benning is working under, he has done a fine job.

Everyone here thinks it's as easy as trading the Sedin twins and tanking. But the ownership and president don't want a full rebuild, and the Sedin twins won't waive their no-trade clauses. So what can be expected?

To not botch top 10 draft picks, to not give out awful contracts in both length and dollar amount, to not give away draft picks like they're candy, to not get fleeced in every high profile trade you make, to not fire the team's cap genius and to not fail in acquiring assets for your vets (and subsequently let them walk for free). I think that's reasonable.

I think the idea of dim Jim will carry on for quite some time, especially if you put a microphone in front of him. While its obvious he had considerable growing pains and has made some questionable moves, he's gotten better lately. His management team is no longer missing the CBA rules, not haemorrhaging as many draft picks. Why not stand behind him and his vision of the future Canucks? it's not like there's a lineup of better qualified suitors waiting in the wings.

I get the hate, I get the impatience, but being reactionary and firing your management team every 2-4 years is exactly how there's perpetually so many Canadian teams playing golf in April.

You've set the bar pretty low there my friend.
 

naruto

Registered User
Nov 13, 2017
1,134
867
Jim benning is a bad gm. The only ones worse them him are chia and bergevin. He sucks at drafting.. Virtanen and julovei..... Boeser is ok tho
 
  • Like
Reactions: Etteduag ot Reseob

Jyrki Lumme

Generational User
Mar 5, 2014
2,781
794
No. His drafting has been solid barring a couple exceptions. But when a lot of your good picks are made outside of the high 1st round, I'm more inclined to give credit to the scouting staff than the GM.

So they should have let Benning go, retained their scouting staff who have done a good job, and looked around for a younger Assistant GM. You shouldn't have a problem enticing people to take the job, it should be a pretty simple team to rebuild.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Etteduag ot Reseob

983 others

Registered User
Aug 26, 2009
792
1,064
Benning isn't that bad, the Canucks have some really nice young talent, I bet ownership isn't letting him go full rebuild mode that's the problem.
 

pheasant

Registered User
Nov 2, 2010
4,226
1,376
To not botch top 10 draft picks, to not give out awful contracts in both length and dollar amount, to not give away draft picks like they're candy, to not get fleeced in every high profile trade you make, to not fire the team's cap genius and to not fail in acquiring assets for your vets (and subsequently let them walk for free). I think that's reasonable.
[...]

Well Vancouver has all of their draft picks for the next 3 years, except for a single 4th rounder. And that brought in a pretty good buy-low reclamation project in Pouliot.

He gave too many picks for Gudbranson, and he never should have added to Bonino for Suter. But those are the only bad trades recently. A few trades early in his tenure gave picks away for very little value, I'll give you that.

But he more than made up for it, in my opinion. He did good selling Garrisson, Lack, Bieksa, and Burrows. He made good trades to get Baertschi and Granlund.

The Horvat contract is great. Vanek is paying off for them and could become a pick. There's some other reclamation project players in there with varying success. Only Ericksson stands out as a bad free agent move, and his stats at the time screamed 6x6. He had some real good scoring seasons under his belt, and was a fantastic 2-way player.

I'm not saying he is a great GM. But he is in a very tricky situation in Vancouver. I don't think he's doing bad under the circumstances.
 

lawrence

Registered User
May 19, 2012
15,883
6,620
Hes made some bad moves, Forsling trade was bad, but not bad as in, the other player that went the other way is biting us or could have been doing this blah blah blah for Vancouver type of bad.
Clendenning is no longer a Canuck, Forsling has played more games for the Hawks, a minor win , Forsling is currently in the AHL minor win, but none the less a win.

trading a 2nd round for Linden Vey. A bad trade, but back to my original point, its not like it's a move that we will regret type of move, since that 2nd round was traded again, and the player by the name of Roland Mckeown. Currently not an NHL player.

I don't like think giving up an extra 3rd round pick in the Sutter trade.
But the fact is, we gave up a 3rd round pick. Plus Sutter is still playing for us, not a bad trade, Bonino wasn't playing too well for us.

McCann trade, lets put it this way, Gudbranson has played more games, and even have more ice time for our team then McCann has for Florida, 2nd rounder is a tougher pill to swallow, it can be a good or bad trade depending on how you see it. I think Gudbranson. is more helpful to any NHL team right now then a Jared McCann, who is barely hanging on as a 3rd line player.

despite giving up some extra picks, he's stock piled our prospects pool like we've never seen before. Grandlund Baertchi trades are awesome, Dhalen, Goldobin trades were good trades, Pouliout trade.. well..... what can I say, he's playing for us, he's been scratched despite that, when he does play its around 19 minutes per game, he has more games played for us then Pedan with Pittsburgh a minor win for Vancouver, regardless its a 'win' by virtue of how many games is played for the team.

overall I am glad they extended Benning. Wether people think it's a bad trade or not, none of them has came back and bit them in the butt or anything, the only trade I can think of is Forsling could have been a serviceable dman for us.

good move. quite happy he's sticking around for a few more years at least.
 

bob27

Grzelcyk is a top pairing defenceman
Apr 2, 2015
3,332
1,426
He's left the Canucks in a position where after every three years people will proclaim how great they'll look in three years. They need to build a franchise core from the ground up, and it might take a long time to find those pieces in the draft.
 

Blue Shakehead

because lol Jets
Mar 18, 2011
3,038
1,591
www.becauseloljets.com
There are 31 of these jobs in the world. Tens of millions of successful professionals/executives in the private sector in North America, of which millions would be hockey fans capable of identifying who is good and bad at hockey or more importantly how organizations who have won were constructed and what they did right/wrong to achieve their success or failure. Despite this, its usually somebody's kid or nephew, former player or some other illiterate who gets the job. Colin Campbell can't string together a sentence at the grade 3 level and he's been an NHL executive my whole life.

I have no idea why any GM is extended without a serious track record of success. Were there any teams looking to poach Jim f***ing Benning? Any other businesses in the private sector waiting to give Jim a job as their CEO? No. Jim Benning isn't qualified to manage a 7-11.

So should they have extended him? Absolutely not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SillyRabbit

Trafalgar Sadge Law

Registered User
Nov 8, 2007
11,476
6,873
He's a terrible GM, but he's a significantly better GM than the moron running the hockey team approximately 1000km Northwest of him. If extending Benning reduces the chance that Peter Chiarelli could be employed by your franchise, it's a good move.
 

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
I had assumed the only person stupid enough to extend Benning would be Benning himself, but here we are
 

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
If you think about the situation the team is in, and some of the restrictions Benning is working under, he has done a fine job.

Everyone here thinks it's as easy as trading the Sedin twins and tanking. But the ownership and president don't want a full rebuild, and the Sedin twins won't waive their no-trade clauses. So what can be expected?

He wasn't put in a good position, but that doesn't excuse poor trades, player evaluations, signings and asset management, as well as promoting an air of incompetence with CBA bunglings, constant double-speak, a lack of transparency and clear vision, and by simply sounding like a boob whenever he speaks.
 

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,391
11,074
I’ve like his drafting as of late. Complete whiff on the Virtanen pick. But it’s only worse because if the guys picked after him.

Everyone’s allowed one miss in the top 10.

But yes he’s a terrible GM none the less.
 

Luck 6

\\_______
Oct 17, 2008
10,190
1,783
Vancouver
I’m a Canuck fan who understands why they did, at least for the 3 year term. The guy is half way through a plan, there’s no point in getting in a new person with a new vision every few years. There are enough young pieces that have been added in his 4 year tenure that are working out to justify him getting another 3 year look to see if he can continue the trend and build a competitive young team.

He made some stupid moves in his tenure as GM, but he also made some good ones. I don’t like him, in fact I am a huge Gillis supporter, but I do understand why he needs to be extended to see this process through. Right now he needs to continue drafting and developing. We will bring in a Gillis type GM when it’s time to take another run at the cup once his 3 year tenure is done.
 

7even

Offered and lost
Feb 1, 2012
18,569
14,126
North Carolina
I dont like the No option. I don't think he's an overly bad GM, but I wouldn't trust him to rebuild the team. He doesn't seem to have a clear sense of direction.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->