THE All Encompassing Jim Benning Thread Part II

[Scurr]

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

Meh. You're still left with two very similar LS defensemen in Hamhuis and Garrison. You're right though, he could have fixed his mistake. Probably couldn't get enough "value".

 

[vanuck]

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.

Some very good points in here. And another thing that hurt us was Luongo running his mouth to the media letting the world know he wanted out.

 

[vanuck]

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.



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

He played very well with Hamhuis on the right side though. His defensive + play-driving ability was on par with that of a top pairing D. I find it hard to believe signing someone like that is ever a bad move, especially at the cap hit he got. Disagree that they lacked a top 6 forward at the time though.

As for the team building thing, it's not like Gillis' vision was much different: a fast, uptempo team. Benning has talked about the same thing and he just hired a coach to play that way as well.

 

[opendoor]

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.

We're talking about a guy who put up 11 points in his final 33 games that season and who Vigneault wouldn't trust to actually play in the playoffs. He wasn't going to provide anything for the Canucks so they might as well have sold high on him. Seeing what guys like Sam Gagner and Derek Roy are going for these days, it was probably an astute move.

 

[Scurr]

We're talking about a guy who put up 11 points in his final 33 games that season and who Vigneault wouldn't trust to actually play in the playoffs. He wasn't going to provide anything for the Canucks so they might as well have sold high on him. Seeing what guys like Sam Gagner and Derek Roy are going for these days, it was probably an astute move.

All true. They never found anyone as good or better, though.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

even benning's supporters have to admit that his moves have looked completely arbitrary right?

 

[kanucks25]

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.

Yup, the one who was playing like "a dog's breakfast" for the first third of the season was the one carrying that pairing.

 

[Wilch]

even benning's supporters have to admit that his moves have looked completely arbitrary right?

Then they wouldn't be Benning supporters would they?

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

even benning's supporters have to admit that his moves have looked completely arbitrary right?

Perhaps they look that way to some degree. We don't have the full picture though.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

even benning's supporters have to admit that his moves have looked completely arbitrary right?

What do you mean arbitrary, moving Kesler was a must, not some random decision.

 

[Scurr]

He played very well with Hamhuis on the right side though. His defensive + play-driving ability was on par with that of a top pairing D. I find it hard to believe signing someone like that is ever a bad move, especially at the cap hit he got. Disagree that they lacked a top 6 forward at the time though.

That leaves you with Edler/Bieksa or one of them on the bottom pairing. None of them could help make the PP go, either. It was a disaster.

As for the team building thing, it's not like Gillis' vision was much different: a fast, uptempo team. Benning has talked about the same thing and he just hired a coach to play that way as well.

What was Gillis "vision"? The 2011 team had vision… everything after was a hodgepodge of whatever Gillis thought he was getting a good deal on.

 

[Wisp]

even benning's supporters have to admit that his moves have looked completely arbitrary right?

I'm kind of perturbed it's been a couple months and we're already dividing into us vs them camps.

 

[deckercky]

What do you mean arbitrary, moving Kesler was a must, not some random decision.

 

[RandV]

Some very good points in here. And another thing that hurt us was Luongo running his mouth to the media letting the world know he wanted out.

To put things into perspective, Edmonton made it to the Stanley Cup finals in 2006. That summer Chris Pronger demands a trade and... well they've been Edmonton ever since. Not exactly the same situation, but the point is it's never a good situation for a team when a star player demands a trade.

 

[Wisp]

Garrison was very good at times, but he's also been battling ongoing groin issues since the lockout. The margin between play driving defensemen and hot garbarge for him is very thin, literally a single lost step.

For a team who has to cross their fingers on a lot of their roster rebounding, removing that liability is certainly not arbitrary.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

What do you mean arbitrary, moving Kesler was a must, not some random decision.

i mean what he got back. between bonino, sbisa, vey, miller, vrbata, dorsett, virtanen, the "it is what it is guy," the goalie of the future, and the giant russian guy, i just don't see a "culture" or a discernible direction. not saying that they are bad moves (though maybe i do believe that some of them are pretty bad), but that's beside the point. the point is, the accusation was thrown down at gillis that his moves missed the forest for the trees while "Benning is building a team rather than trying to win every transaction."

we obviously don't have the full picture yet, but i mean, can anyone here articulate for me the defining characteristics or direction of the "team" benning is building?

 

[VanillaCoke]

I'm kind of perturbed it's been a couple months and we're already dividing into us vs them camps.

It's the nature of the position. Either you're a fan of what Benning has done so far or you're not.

I'm not. But it's an ongoing evaluation that'll change with each move and how well the team does, atleast how well they compete.

 

[JA]

To put things into perspective, Edmonton made it to the Stanley Cup finals in 2006. That summer Chris Pronger demands a trade and... well they've been Edmonton ever since. Not exactly the same situation, but the point is it's never a good situation for a team when a star player demands a trade.

They were in a position to make the playoffs in the 2006-07 season. They traded Ryan Smyth, and thereafter lost 17 of their final 19 games that season, including 11 consecutive games immediately following the trade (although they picked up one point against St. Louis on March 17, 2007). They lost 33 potential points after the trade deadline.

Their record was 30-27-6 prior to trading Ryan Smyth. They finished the season with a record of 32-43-7. Their only 30-goal scorer that season was Smyth. After that, Petr Sykora had 22 goals and then third-best was Ales Hemsky with 13 goals. It was a one-line team centered around Smyth. The previous season, they barely squeaked into the playoffs but they were a buyer.

 

[vanuck]

That leaves you with Edler/Bieksa or one of them on the bottom pairing. None of them could help make the PP go, either. It was a disaster.

Why would that be the case? Garrison played the right side and he did so to great effectiveness.

What was Gillis "vision"? The 2011 team had vision… everything after was a hodgepodge of whatever Gillis thought he was getting a good deal on.

The vision remained the same, despite the results. I agree it was a mistake to not move Ballard if it was possible but the 2012 team still featured skill and speed. You're not going to find 12 forwards and 6 D who all fit this so-called identity to a tee i.e make what you can with what you have.

 

[Scurr]

Garrison played the right side and he did so to great effectiveness.

I strongly disagree with that. He did have a good run with Hamhuis while playing the right side. Other than that… he wasn't effective at all on the right side.

The vision remained the same, despite the results. I agree it was a mistake to not move Ballard if it was possible but the 2012 team still featured skill and speed. You're not going to find 12 forwards and 6 D who all fit this so-called identity to a tee i.e make what you can with what you have.

I couldn't see it. Gillis lost his way imo.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

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

The claim was that "Gillis lost Aquilini money". My response is: In what fiscal year did Gillis, as GM and President lose the Aquilini's money?

 

[Scurr]

The claim was that "Gillis lost Aquilini money". My response is: In what fiscal year did Gillis, as GM and President lose the Aquilini's money?

Phew… I thought my boss was going to be pissed that I sold my buddy that brand new car for $1… but I didn't lose him any money... I'm in the black this year.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Phew… I thought my boss was going to be pissed that I sold my buddy that brand new car for $1… but I didn't lose him any money... I'm in the black this year.

Not even touching that. Gillis turned this franchise into one of the largest grossing hockey franchises in the world. The proof has been documented. Gillis made the Aquamen racks. Racks on racks.

 

[Scurr]

Not even touching that. Gillis turned this franchise into one of the largest grossing hockey franchises in the world. The proof has been documented. Gillis made the Aquamen racks. Racks on racks.

A bad deal is a bad deal. A loss is a loss. Paying Booth, Ballard and Luongo to not play hockey for us cost Aqua man money. Real money and future cap dollars. Lost. Forever.

 

[Wisp]

It's the nature of the position. Either you're a fan of what Benning has done so far or you're not.

I'm not. But it's an ongoing evaluation that'll change with each move and how well the team does, atleast how well they compete.

it's not so black and white. I like some things and disliked others. I'm sympathetic of a very volatile situation Benning walked into and like you say, it's an ongoing evaluation. I'm less than impressed to see people starting to paint others with a brush.