THE All Encompassing Jim Benning Thread Part II

[F A N]

Like Tanev?. He makes $2 million this season. I'd hazard to guess if Stanton cements his position as a #5 - he ain't getting $2+ million on his next contract.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on Sbisa (and Stanton).

Tanev makes $2M this season because he has top 4 potential. He ONLY makes $2M this year because this is a one year contract and his role last year is arguably that of a #5.

Stanton was not the team's #5 last season so there is no "cementing his position" but if he establishes himself as the team's #5, then I can see him getting between $1.5M-2M on a multiyear deal. The key is multi-year. On a one year deal that figure can be significantly lower. Maybe $1.1-1.5M. Like I said, I am not that high on him. I think he's a serviceable defenseman... a good #6. Nothing more.

I am not sure if there is much to disagree with in regards to Sbisa except for his potential. You aren't just disagreeing me, you are disagreeing with Benning as well. Benning said that Sbisa is a guy that the Canucks felt can grow into a top 4 defenseman and in the meantime Sbisa plays the type of physical, heavy game that Benning seems to like with his bottom pairing defensemen. Not sure what Desjardins thinks, but Sbisa is ahead of Stanton on the depth chart and my guess is that Sbisa is going to be a bigger part of the Canucks blueline group than Stanton will be this coming season.

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

Tanev makes $2M this season because he has top 4 potential. He ONLY makes $2M this year because this is a one year contract and his role last year is arguably that of a #5.

Stanton was not the team's #5 last season so there is no "cementing his position" but if he establishes himself as the team's #5, then I can see him getting between $1.5M-2M on a multiyear deal. The key is multi-year. On a one year deal that figure can be significantly lower. Maybe $1.1-1.5M. Like I said, I am not that high on him. I think he's a serviceable defenseman... a good #6. Nothing more.

I am not sure if there is much to disagree with in regards to Sbisa except for his potential. You aren't just disagreeing me, you are disagreeing with Benning as well. Benning said that Sbisa is a guy that the Canucks felt can grow into a top 4 defenseman and in the meantime Sbisa plays the type of physical, heavy game that Benning seems to like with his bottom pairing defensemen. Not sure what Desjardins thinks, but Sbisa is ahead of Stanton on the depth chart and my guess is that Sbisa is going to be a bigger part of the Canucks blueline group than Stanton will be this coming season.

In a way I hope so. That means Sbisa will be playing solid hockey.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

When he had to buy-out Booth and Ballard as well as when he missed the playoffs. And we'll be paying for Luongo forever. And he also left money tied up in goaltending and a defence that didn't fit together while the team couldn't score for three seasons. He left a boatload of money on the table after the cup run imo.

Individual losses mean nothing. in which fiscal year did Gillis lose Aquilini money?

 

[F A N]

IMO the only one he really blew was the Garrison signing. We already had two LH D playing in our top 4 and Tanev well on his way. A 4th long-term contract with a NTC was not smart. It handcuffed the team from improving up front and the group never even worked together despite the investment.

Gillis ultimate undoing was trying to win every transaction. You can't keep hanging onto underachieving/unhappy players and try to fill your needs from the garbage bin to get imaginary "value" later on.

Benning is building a team rather than trying to win every transaction. I like the change.

I disagree with your analysis. Blueline depth was important for Gillis. He essentially replaced Salo with Garrison. Clearly, Gillis believed that one of his defensemen could move over to the right side. He was wrong, but that was his thinking. Besides, Garrison would have been a good transition defenseman given his age. Bieska will be 35 in 2006, Garrison would be 32 and signed for 2 more years. He just didn't think Edler would be that bad without Salo.

I don't agree that Gillis was trying to win every transaction. If anything he didn't. He traded Hodgson for Kassian and he pretty much acknowledged it was about the difficulty of acquiring a player like Kassian when he fully develops, so you got to acquire those guys before they develop if you have a chance. And I am not sure if you can say Benning is trying to build a team but Gillis didn't. I don't see any moves that suggest this. Benning signed Vrbata, Gillis tried to sign Shane Doan. Gillis signed a left side D, Benning trades Garrison and replaced him with another left side D. Gillis likes signing reclamation projects or leave room for waivers, Benning prefers to acquire guys through trade.

 

[Get North]

When he had to buy-out Booth and Ballard as well as when he missed the playoffs. And we'll be paying for Luongo forever. And he also left money tied up in goaltending and a defence that didn't fit together while the team couldn't score for three seasons. He left a boatload of money on the table after the cup run imo.

Torts too.

 

[Lundface*]

I would also add rigid inflexibility regarding Ehrhoff to this list as well. He had a vision of a cost-controlled team (using NTC's to control costs) that seemed to supersede any vision of a team. Let Ehrhoff walk over 500k which was a huge mistake.

Benning wants to create a team, and I agree wholeheartedly with the poster's comments regarding winning every transaction. Doesn't matter if you don't build a roster and fill it with players that complement one another. Regier won every trade for a decade and built a crap team. Gillis was too focused on winning trades and on contracts, and less on implementing a vision for the team.

All your posts on this topic are way out of touch, but your last few lines are gold.

Don't build a roster that complements one another?

Gillis added guys like Torres, Malholtra, Higgins, Lapierre, Hamhuis, Ehrhoff, Samuelsson, Tanev, Rome within a couple of years of getting one win away from winning a cup. Injuries saved you from having to admit that a junk team with no vision whatsoever....found a way to be he best offensive team in the NHL, the best defensive team in the NHL, the best powerplay in the NHL and a top 3 PK in the NHL.

Gillis' lack of vision led to 5 division titles, 2 president trophies and game 7 of the cup final. He built the most dominant team this franchise has seen.

If he's junk so be it. I take it you'll be expecting Benning to win the cup every year with his amazing vision for this team.

 

[me2]

I disagree with your analysis. Blueline depth was important for Gillis. He essentially replaced Salo with Garrison. Clearly, Gillis believed that one of his defensemen could move over to the right side. He was wrong, but that was his thinking. Besides, Garrison would have been a good transition defenseman given his age. Bieska will be 35 in 2006, Garrison would be 32 and signed for 2 more years. He just didn't think Edler would be that bad without Salo.

I don't agree that Gillis was trying to win every transaction. If anything he didn't. He traded Hodgson for Kassian and he pretty much acknowledged it was about the difficulty of acquiring a player like Kassian when he fully develops, so you got to acquire those guys before they develop if you have a chance. And I am not sure if you can say Benning is trying to build a team but Gillis didn't. I don't see any moves that suggest this. Benning signed Vrbata, Gillis tried to sign Shane Doan. Gillis signed a left side D, Benning trades Garrison and replaced him with another left side D. Gillis likes signing reclamation projects or leave room for waivers, Benning prefers to acquire guys through trade.

Gillis also traded for guys, Bernier, Ehrhoff etc. Vrbata=Demitra. Gillis went after Sundin, Benning went after Miller.

Benning has talked a lot about direction ie fast, big, physical etc. That is the same direction Gillis talked about from 2011 before he recanted on his death bed. Benning has done the opposite of what he said and brought in Bonino, Vey instead.

Both GMs talked about one direction or the other but generally have just done whatever whether it fits with that plan or not. It is hard to say if they are at all different based on what we have seen so far.

 

[F A N]

Gillis also traded for guys, Bernier, Ehrhoff etc. Vrbata=Demitra. Gillis went after Sundin, Benning went after Miller.

Benning has talked a lot about direction ie fast, big, physical etc. That is the same direction Gillis talked about from 2011 before he recanted on his death bed. Benning has done the opposite of what he said and brought in Bonino, Vey instead.

Both GMs talked about one direction or the other but generally have just done whatever whether it fits with that plan or not. It is hard to say if they are at all different based on what we have seen so far.

Yep. I think Gillis made the type of mistakes that rookie GMs often make. Like Gillis said, he got caught chasing moving goal posts. When he first became GM, he came an idea of how the team should pay to became successful. When the team hit a roadblock (AKA Chicago Blackhawks), Gillis identified the need to get quicker. As a result, during the Cup finals year, there was arguably no team that moved the puck quicker from our zone to the opponent's. Unfortunately, after the Cup finals lost, Gillis decided that the team needed to get bigger to win in the playoffs. This was true, unfortunately, Gillis couldn't get bigger without sacrificing the team's skill and speed and then Tort's grinding style finally did the team in.

I think Benning does share a similar philosophy with Gillis. Gillis is not shy about spending on bottom 6 forwards and frequently talked about the need for even 4th line forwards to offer something beyond being able to take a regular shift such as penalty killing. Benning has similar ideas and acquired Dorsett who is a 4th line forward who can kill penalties. Even the Kesler trade, Gillis asked for a forward, a defenseman, and a 1st round pick from Pittsburgh. That's exactly what Benning asked for. Benning even kept Gillis' assistants, suggesting that Gillis' assistants shared a similar team building philosophy to Benning.

I was a Gillis supporter but the fact is Benning is in charge and I am glad we have Benning as opposed to someone with a lesser track record of evaluating talent.

 

[kanucks25]

Tanev makes $2M this season because he has top 4 potential. He ONLY makes $2M this year because this is a one year contract and his role last year is arguably that of a #5.

Seriously? Did you come from the main boards or something?

 

[Barney Gumble]

Tanev makes $2M this season because he has top 4 potential. He ONLY makes $2M this year because this is a one year contract and his role last year is arguably that of a #5.

Only reason Tanev came behind Garrison in total icetime per game because the later was gifted too many power play minutes (I'd call them 4a & 4b last season). Guy played well despite the chaos surrounding the team. That in itself is a notable accomplishment.

You aren't just disagreeing me, you are disagreeing with Benning as well. Benning said that Sbisa is a guy that the Canucks felt can grow into a top 4 defenseman and in the meantime Sbisa plays the type of physical, heavy game that Benning seems to like with his bottom pairing defensemen.

I don't expect a GM to come out and say anything but positive things after just acquiring him. I seem to recall Doug Wilson having positive things to say about Patrick White after getting him (note, I'm not comparing Sbisa to White - only giving an example of how a GM is going to try to put a positive spin on the players he received in any trade).

 

[Diamonddog01]

All your posts on this topic are way out of touch, but your last few lines are gold.

Don't build a roster that complements one another?

Gillis added guys like Torres, Malholtra, Higgins, Lapierre, Hamhuis, Ehrhoff, Samuelsson, Tanev, Rome within a couple of years of getting one win away from winning a cup. Injuries saved you from having to admit that a junk team with no vision whatsoever....found a way to be he best offensive team in the NHL, the best defensive team in the NHL, the best powerplay in the NHL and a top 3 PK in the NHL.

Gillis' lack of vision led to 5 division titles, 2 president trophies and game 7 of the cup final. He built the most dominant team this franchise has seen.

If he's junk so be it. I take it you'll be expecting Benning to win the cup every year with his amazing vision for this team.

I guess I should've been more specific, I was referring to the last two years of Gillis, which were abysmal. I actually thought he made some great moves for the few years previous - I didn't particularly like him, but I grudgingly conceded that his moves were largely good.

Regarding my statements concerning his vision - it's clear he went away from that vision and focused more on contracts and winning trades. That's why I brought up Ehrhoff.

So yes, he acquired Ehrhoff, Torres, Malhotra, Lapierre and Samuelsson.

He then let Ehrhoff walk over peanuts, let Torres walk because he didn't want to give him another year, and never replaced Malhotra or Samuelsson. All because he lost his vision and completely lost sight of the bigger picture.

 

[deckercky]

Maybe you just have an unrealistic expectation of what a good GM is?

Holland has been close to as bad as any GM after 2009, when he started losing important staff members. Scotty Bowman was working with Holland until July 2008 when he moved to the Blackhawks. Most recently, he lost another great hockey mind in Jim Nill, when he moved to the Stars.

Holland had the best attribute for a manager - he surrounded himself with smart people and listened to them. Since he lost those smart people, he's really struggled.

All that's keeping the Red Wings afloat now is that they have the best drafting and development system in the NHL. In terms of roster decisions, free agent signings, and trades, Holland is not very good. The amount of resources dedicated to well over the hill veterans like Bertuzzi, Samuelsson, and Cleary, not to mention the blind commitment to a defenceman every bit as bad as Ballard in Quincey. Even the rookies and young players aren't given roles when they deserve them over one of the veterans.

Not saying he's the worst or anything - I give him credit for keeping the right people in place in terms of drafting, which has allowed the team to remain in the playoffs even after Lidstrom's retirement. But overall, he's middle of the pack at best.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

I would also add rigid inflexibility regarding Ehrhoff to this list as well. He had a vision of a cost-controlled team (using NTC's to control costs) that seemed to supersede any vision of a team. Let Ehrhoff walk over 500k which was a huge mistake.

Benning wants to create a team, and I agree wholeheartedly with the poster's comments regarding winning every transaction. Doesn't matter if you don't build a roster and fill it with players that complement one another. Regier won every trade for a decade and built a crap team. Gillis was too focused on winning trades and on contracts, and less on implementing a vision for the team.

I agree with this - assuming the deal MG wouldn't sign, but should have, wasn't a 10 year monstrosity like Ehrhoff ended up getting.

Actually that is quite up for debate, thank you very much. I have yet to see any proof that he was a victim of anything.

I hated the Luongo contract from day one, and stated it would reduce flexibility moving forward. I think given that the NHL was investigating these contracts, and had already expressed displeasure regarding them, it was a very foolish move to sign Luongo to that contract. Punishing these cap-circumvention deals was predictable had people listened to what the NHL was saying at the time.

Gillis, in his characteristic arrogance, went ahead and did anyway and was rightly punished for doing so.

Luongo wasn't signing for ~6m a year, so it was either sign that deal, let him walk, or sign a shorter, higher AAV deal. In any of the other two scenarios they don't see that Stanley Cup run in 2011 without his lower AAV deal.

The cap punishments only hurt because he didn't deal Schneider early. Flip Schneider early, and we're playing out the Luongo contract until he's not good, which would still have recapture, but wouldn't be as bad (depending when he plays to).

Basically what I'm saying is he faced the fallout from 'going all-in' moves. Which I'm okay with, making those type of moves when you have the Art Ross winner(s) and in his prime Luongo is what you do.

 

[deckercky]

let Torres walk because he didn't want to give him another year

I thought letting Torres walk was actually an astute move. Yes, he's a very good player and is a dangerous player to have in the playoffs, but Gillis dropped him just as the NHL was making it clear that his predatory hits wouldn't be acceptable. I have no doubt that Torres would have had more and longer suspensions if he remained with the Canucks, who had a bad reputation.

He let go of Samuelsson at exactly the right time. Samuelsson has been a shell of himself since that season. Booth was a smart player to target, but who just didn't work out.

Ballard was kept too long, and should have been traded for nothing in order to keep Ehrhoff.

But I look at the decline of the team - even before the goalie controversy - as stemming largely from 5 things.
1.) Natural decline: 2011 was a career year for almost everyone on the roster. If not 2011, then one of 2010 and 2011. I think part of this decline is chemistry that was lost after 2011, but overall, they weren't going to be the same team for long.

2.) Second line winger: Samuelsson was amazing in 2010 and 2011 (pity he was injured in the run). Booth was a good piece to bring in for him, but Booth after a good start ran into injuries continuously. This left a hole in the roster that pushed up the depth.

3.) Third line center: After Malhotra's injury, the team had a hole. This was never really filled until Santorelli was brought in (then was quickly pushed up to fill #2). This still hasn't been addressed.

4.) Ehrhoff: He was a special talent. Much like Malhotra, he was an engine that made everything else function. Not only did the Canucks lose him, they didn't get anything comparable to him at any point either.

5.) No prospects: Tanev already showed he was a player in 2011. Since him, Hodgson was the only prospect to show he was an actual NHL player. This meant no cheap roster spots filled. Without many picks, Gillis worked hard to revamp the drafting, and I think it's much improved and the team will benefit from that going forward.

I actually find it amazing that the team made it to game 7 of the SCF without Malhotra and Samuelsson, but at that point, the team was really rolling. I think that winning the President's trophy in 2012 was the worst thing for the team, since it meant 2013 was another year to go for it.

I don't actually think the goalie controversy hurt anything. It certainly didn't help, but Gillis was put in a tough situation.

 

[bo2shink*]

Seriously? Did you come from the main boards or something?

I tried not to even respond to that. I guess he did say "arguably".

 

[Scurr]

Individual losses mean nothing. in which fiscal year did Gillis lose Aquilini money?

You can't be serious? The measure of his performance goes well beyond a)made money b)lost money

I disagree with your analysis. Blueline depth was important for Gillis. He essentially replaced Salo with Garrison. Clearly, Gillis believed that one of his defensemen could move over to the right side. He was wrong, but that was his thinking. Besides, Garrison would have been a good transition defenseman given his age. Bieska will be 35 in 2006, Garrison would be 32 and signed for 2 more years. He just didn't think Edler would be that bad without Salo.

That's the point. It was the second time he spent a bunch of the teams cap dollars (at least it wasn't assets this time) on a defenseman that didn't fit with the group we had. There were a couple arguments in his defence for the Ballard one... he can't get two passes.

I don't agree that Gillis was trying to win every transaction. If anything he didn't. He traded Hodgson for Kassian and he pretty much acknowledged it was about the difficulty of acquiring a player like Kassian when he fully develops, so you got to acquire those guys before they develop if you have a chance. And I am not sure if you can say Benning is trying to build a team but Gillis didn't. I don't see any moves that suggest this. Benning signed Vrbata, Gillis tried to sign Shane Doan. Gillis signed a left side D, Benning trades Garrison and replaced him with another left side D. Gillis likes signing reclamation projects or leave room for waivers, Benning prefers to acquire guys through trade.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. He bought low on an asset (in his opinion) regardless of the teams needs at the time. That's fine... except he never went on to address those needs.

Torts too.

Thanks

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. He bought low on an asset (in his opinion) regardless of the teams needs at the time. That's fine... except he never went on to address those needs.

Except a big, physical, talented winger was definitely a perceived team need at the time. The misfire was the poor evaluation of Pahlsson and what he was still capable of.

 

[Scurr]

Except a big, physical, talented winger was definitely a perceived team need at the time. The misfire was the poor evaluation of Pahlsson and what he was still capable of.

The team desperately needed a top 6 winger and 3rd line centre. Kassian was neither of those. He might be one now... but Gillis didn't fill those needs in the short-term.

 

[Wisp]

I tried not to even respond to that. I guess he did say "arguably".

Seriously? Did you come from the main boards or something?

There's some room for discussion of whether Tanev is just a fringe top 4 or something more. Two big concerns I have is how much more upside does he have and whether he can drive the bus against toughs on his own consistently without Hamhuis stapled to his hip.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

The team desperately needed a top 6 winger and 3rd line centre. Kassian was neither of those. He might be one now... but Gillis didn't fill those needs in the short-term.

In fairness, he traded something that was neither of those things to get Kassian.

 

[bo2shink*]

There's some room for discussion of whether Tanev is just a fringe top 4 or something more. Two big concerns I have is how much more upside does he have and whether he can drive the bus against toughs on his own consistently without Hamhuis stapled to his hip.

Funny thing about top pairing combos, it usually does take 2.

 

[Scurr]

In fairness, he traded something that was neither of those things to get Kassian.

Hodgson filled a role that was needed at the time on the team imo. We had Kesler, Malhotra and Lapierre here to check people... we needed the offence Hodgson was providing. Who cares if it was coming in sheltered minutes? Those goals still count.

 

[vanuck]

IMO the only one he really blew was the Garrison signing. We already had two LH D playing in our top 4 and Tanev well on his way. A 4th long-term contract with a NTC was not smart. It handcuffed the team from improving up front and the group never even worked together despite the investment.

Gillis ultimate undoing was trying to win every transaction. You can't keep hanging onto underachieving/unhappy players and try to fill your needs from the garbage bin to get imaginary "value" later on.

Benning is building a team rather than trying to win every transaction. I like the change.

Why was it a bad signing? The guy was one of the best D-men in the league at driving play for the previous 2 or 3 seasons and he showed that here as well.

Also, not sure how Benning 'building a team' is any different from before.

 

[Scurr]

Why was it a bad signing? The guy was one of the best D-men in the league at driving play for the previous 2 or 3 seasons and he showed that here as well.

The player wasn't the problem. The group never fit together. We already had a first pairing LS shutdown defender in Hamhuis and a second pairing LS defenseman in Edler. We were either paying someone 4.6m+ to play the LS on the third pair or paying them 4.6m+ to play like a 2m dollar defenseman on the RS.

That's not all so bad if your team isn't lacking a top 6 forward and a 3rd line centre for three seasons. Good "value"... bad signing.

Also, not sure how Benning 'building a team' is any different from before.

I tried to explain it... not very well I guess.

 

[Barney Gumble]

The player wasn't the problem. The group never fit together. We already had a first pairing LS shutdown defender in Hamhuis and a second pairing LS defenseman in Edler. We were either paying someone 4.6m+ to play the LS on the third pair or paying them 4.6m+ to play like a 2m dollar defenseman on the RS.

That's not all so bad if your team isn't lacking a top 6 forward and a 3rd line centre for three seasons. Good "value"... bad signing.

...that is unless you dealt the guy who's NTC didn't kick in yet.