The GM Jim Benning & Team Management Discussion Part IX (MOD Warning post #1)

[The Stig]

Alright. No more referring to Jim Benning as any kind of mentally handicapped. It's offensive but. Anyone who refers to him as such from here on out, will be threadbanned and infracted. This got old really fast. No more "Dim Jim" or anything like that. It's just spam at this point. This is not specific to this thread.



4) Offensive Posts, Links or Images: No NSFW content. NSFW ("Not Safe For Work") is defined as anything that most people would not want their bosses, parents, and/or teachers to see. Do not use profanity, racial, ethnic, religious, or other slurs and stereotypes, or post sexually-oriented material, masturbatory and excretory references, or any other offensive material

Click to read more...

 

[vanuck]

Right, so you misunderstood the second question completely.

So you think we're heading to the bottom of the standings, because that's Benning's "real" strategy and you support it.

Yet, you're more interested in overpaying hard-working character players on long-term contracts to help us now, rather than taking on short-term cap dumps along with valuable picks that will help support that drop to the bottom now, but help us later?

Yeah, supporting a GM who is making this team worse runs contrary to the aforementioned desire to see more "character players" who'll help us win now. Something doesn't add up here.

 

[Scurr]

The problem with picking up 22 year olds who haven't cracked the NHL and hoping they make an impact is that by the time they actually become top-6/top4, odds are you don't have much team control anyway.

Even one or two years of team control on a top 6 forward or top 4 defenseman is gravy. There is the potential for more. You can usually turn that into a nice mid to long term deal. In the meantime these players provide depth.

You're giving up the high upside you have with a pick, especially in the second/third round, that a player makes the NHL early and gives you legitimate value through 5-7 years of value.

But you're also eliminating the potential for a player in that range to bust before they progress to this level. You lose the 1% (less?) chance that you get an elite player to eliminate the 60% chance that you don't even get a good AHL player.

I do agree that a team in this position should be taking advantage of that possibility, however slim. That's why it was so important to replace those picks.

And you're picking up guys with almost no NHL experience and having to force feed them minutes because they are waiver eligible almost as soon as they enter your organization.

I don't look at it this way. You need replacement level players on the fringe of your NHL roster. IMO it makes a lot more sense for a team to give those minutes to a young guy than some cheap NHL retread. You're likely to get close to the same play with a lot more potential for better.

(I also think its misleading to say Clendening cost a fifth. I doubt Chicago makes that trade for a fifth - Forsling was a tangible prospect with more value than a fifth when traded).

I think you're right here. What kind of value would you put on Forsling to that point? 3rd? 2nd? I don't think it matters much to the point I was making.

 

[pitseleh]

Even one or two years of team control on a top 6 forward or top 4 defenseman is gravy. There is the potential for more. In the meantime these players provide depth.

The problem is that the way this team is set-up, if they get there, these guys will become cost controlled top-6/top-4 players when this team has no top level talent, thus the value they provide is lost.

The team needs to focus on concentrating value, not spreading it out over a longer period of time.

But you're also eliminating the potential for a player in that range to bust before they progress to this level. You lose the 1% (less?) chance that you get an elite player to eliminate the 60% chance that you don't even get a good AHL player.

I do agree that a team in this position should be taking advantage of that possibility, however slim. That's why it was so important to replace those picks.

I think there is little to no value in having a prospect turn into an AHL player/NHL depth player. This team needs top-end talent more than anything, and I'd rather have twice as many picks than the same number through 'replacing' them.

(I think churning out those players is a reflection of good drafting, but they don't have value in and of themselves).

I don't look at it this way. You need replacement level players on the fringe of your NHL roster. IMO it makes a lot more sense for a retooling to give those minutes to a young guy than some cheap NHL retread. You're likely to get close to the same play with a lot more potential for better.

I agree with that. I just don't think you spend quality assets to acquire those fringe players. Those types of players are available for free on waivers every year.

 

[Scurr]

The problem is that the way this team is set-up, if they get there, these guys will become cost controlled top-6/top-4 players when this team has no top level talent, thus the value they provide is lost.

The team needs to focus on concentrating value, not spreading it out over a longer period of time.

I think the team is hoping to hit on those guys in the Sedin window. I know that's not popular but it's a viable plan imo. If it doesn't work... you end up in the basement when those guys leave.

I think there is little to no value in having a prospect turn into an AHL player/NHL depth player. This team needs top-end talent more than anything, and I'd rather have twice as many picks than the same number through 'replacing' them.

(I think churning out those players is a reflection of good drafting, but they don't have value in and of themselves).

I disagree. You need these guys for cheap depth and the potential they offer.

I agree with that. I just don't think you spend quality assets to acquire those fringe players. Those types of players are available for free on waivers every year.

I've never been much of a bargain bin shopper. IMO it makes more sense to go get your guys rather than taking whatever is left.

 

[MS]

I've never been much of a bargain bin shopper. IMO it makes more sense to go get your guys rather than taking whatever is left.

Except what they're doing is paying high prices to bargain bin shop.

Vey, Clendening, Pedan, Baertschi were all assets that their previous teams had watched for years and were basically giving up on, as they were being passed by other players in those organizations.

Basically selling for some value before waiver eligibility made them worthless.

 

[pitseleh]

I think the team is hoping to hit on those guys in the Sedin window. I know that's not popular but it's a viable plan imo. If it doesn't work... you end up in the basement when those guys leave.

They've done a crappy enough job with the rest of the roster that the idea of a Sedin window to me is laughable at this point. They've pissed away any value they could get from these guys in 2-3 years on other crappy contracts.

I disagree. You need these guys for cheap depth and the potential they offer.

Good depth is cheap in the NHL if you're smart about it.

I've never been much of a bargain bin shopper. IMO it makes more sense to go get your guys rather than taking whatever is left.

The Canucks are bargain bin shopping with these guys.

 

[Scurr]

Except what they're doing is paying high prices to bargain bin shop.

Vey, Clendening, Pedan, Baertschi were all assets that their previous teams had watched for years and were basically giving up on, as they were being passed by other players in those organizations.

Basically selling for some value before waiver eligibility made them worthless.

If you wait for waivers then you only get who everybody else passed on. IMO Benning is likely to find at least one top 6 forward or top 4 defenseman out of this group though I'm pretty high on Baertschi and Pedan (who still has a year of waiver eligibility)

 

[MS]

They've done a crappy enough job with the rest of the roster that the idea of a Sedin window to me is laughable at this point. They've pissed away any value they could get from these guys in 2-3 years on other crappy contracts.

There might have been a 'Sedin window' but it's gone now.

The retool had to be spot-on. You can't piss away the Kesler trade, deal away quality top-4 defenders for nothing, and deal your best goalie away for nothing and still have that window be there.

This looks to me like an 85 point team next year.

 

[Scurr]

They've done a crappy enough job with the rest of the roster that the idea of a Sedin window to me is laughable at this point. They've pissed away any value they could get from these guys in 2-3 years on other crappy contracts.

Yeah. I'm still holding out hope they can get rid of Sbisa and Miller before their contracts end... blind optimist is probably accurate at this point. That part of their plan clearly sucks... the part that included Baertschi etc is sound imo.

Good depth is cheap in the NHL if you're smart about it.

Yeah but these guys offer potential that others don't. Andrew Ebbett as a depth player in Anaheim was fine because he still offered some potential... but the Andrew Ebbett we carted out was a waste of the chance to try and develop someone with some untapped potential.

The Canucks are bargain bin shopping with these guys.

IMO there is a pretty big difference between giving up assets for players you feel strongly about and waiting to see who you can get for nothing on waivers. Benning jumped on some players he liked and is likely to find a player or two imo.

 

[vanuck]

If you wanted surefire NHL'ers who are still young yet eliminate the risk of busting why not just sign 27/28-year old UFA's? Guys like Raymond, Winnik, Santorelli etc. are available for bargains every year and these guys are actually good players too.

This franchise needs top-end talent more than anything right now and losing the potential high upside that you get with draft picks doesn't help achieve that.

 

[Scurr]

If you wanted surefire NHL'ers who are still young yet eliminate the risk of busting why not just sign 27/28-year old UFA's? Guys like Raymond, Winnik, Santorelli etc. are available for bargains every year and these guys are actually good players too.

This franchise needs top-end talent more than anything right now and losing the potential high upside that you get with draft picks doesn't help achieve that.

You're hoping for a top 6 player or top 4 defenseman... not Santorelli, Winnik or Raymond. Those players (Baertschi etc) don't offer the 6 or 7 years of NHL team control that elite players do but they still have considerable upside.

 

[vanuck]

You're hoping for a top 6 player or top 4 defenseman... not Santorelli, Winnik or Raymond. Those players don't offer the 6 or 7 years of NHL team control that elite players do but they still have considerable upside.

But in regards to your original post, your desire was to eliminate as much risk of busting as possible. Why not just take that one step further and sign established NHL'ers who also make your team better? It's taking advantage of a market inefficiency to allow you to focus your picks elsewhere.

As to the considerable upside part, you should look up the research done by tc23 on the odds of players who spent 3 years in the AHL turning out to be top 6 forwards. Can't remember if he looked at D-men, but it was in one of the Baertschi threads as he himself falls under that category - I think you'll find it interesting.

 

[MS]

But in regards to your original post, your desire was to eliminate as much risk of busting as possible. Why not just take that one step further and sign established NHL'ers who also make your team better? It's taking advantage of a market inefficiency to allow you to focus your picks elsewhere.

As to the considerable upside part, you should look up the research done by tc23 on the odds of players who spent 3 years in the AHL turning out to be top 6 forwards. Can't remember if he looked at D-men, but it was in one of the Baertschi threads as he himself falls under that category - I think you'll find it interesting.

Our problem was that we lacked under-25 core players, not under-25 players in general.

The age of the depth players on your roster is irrelevant. They're unlikely to be around long regardless of how old they are.

 

[RandV]

There might have been a 'Sedin window' but it's gone now.

The retool had to be spot-on. You can't piss away the Kesler trade, deal away quality top-4 defenders for nothing, and deal your best goalie away for nothing and still have that window be there.

This looks to me like an 85 point team next year.

I really think we could have been primed for a good run in 2016-17. My ideal team would have been a core of:

#1 Daniel-Henrik-
#2 Ehlers*-Horvat-
#1 Edler-Tanev
#2 Hamhuis-Vatanen*
#1 Lack
#2 Markstrom

With the best mix of our other vets (Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, etc) and promotion of our best prospects/youth (Kassian, Kenins, Corrado, Shinkaruk, Gaunce, etc) to fill out the team. Keep the cap space lean and keep the draft picks coming in, and you'd have a lot of flexibility to further fill out depth with outside acquisitions.

Now though we're going to have Miller instead of Lack, maybe Virtanen is the right pick in the long run but he's going to take longer to develop and won't make an impact by then, our defense will likely be a mess, and all our wasted cap space will limit FA options.

So we're likely on our way to an unintentional tank instead. To some people that's a good thing, but what they're overlooking is that any idiot can tank a team. This way is more likely to be a free fall plummet, not a controlled bounce back.

 

[pitseleh]

Yeah. I'm still holding out hope they can get rid of Sbisa and Miller before their contracts end... blind optimist is probably accurate at this point. That part of their plan clearly sucks... the part that included Baertschi etc is sound imo.

That's fair that you have to separate the two.

I think it was poor decision-making on their part to try and maximize the Sedin window in 2016-2018 than in 2014-2016.

(I actually like the Baertschi trade much more than the others - less of an issue of taking a flyer on a recent top prospect who looks like he was mishandled than on guys who play for good organizations who simply haven't cracked the NHL roster because they aren't good enough.)

Yeah but these guys offer potential that others don't. Andrew Ebbett as a depth player in Anaheim was fine because he still offered some potential... but the Andrew Ebbett we carted out was a waste of the chance to try and develop someone with some untapped potential.

Depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to win, then you find the depth players who are good to eliminate holes, regardless of age.

If the point was to try to maximize the Sedin window, this is what they should have done this past season and next.

IMO there is a pretty big difference between giving up assets for players you feel strongly about and waiting to see who you can get for nothing on waivers. Benning jumped on some players he liked and is likely to find a player or two imo.

At the end of the day, the question is value. If you are getting value in your trade, then jump on it, but see what you can get for free.

 

[MS]

I really think we could have been primed for a good run in 2016-17. My ideal team would have been a core of:

#1 Daniel-Henrik-
#2 Ehlers*-Horvat-
#1 Edler-Tanev
#2 Hamhuis-Vatanen*
#1 Lack
#2 Markstrom

With the best mix of our other vets (Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, etc) and promotion of our best prospects/youth (Kassian, Kenins, Corrado, Shinkaruk, Gaunce, etc) to fill out the team. Keep the cap space lean and keep the draft picks coming in, and you'd have a lot of flexibility to further fill out depth with outside acquisitions.

Now though we're going to have Miller instead of Lack, maybe Virtanen is the right pick in the long run but he's going to take longer to develop and won't make an impact by then, our defense will likely be a mess, and all our wasted cap space will limit FA options.

So we're likely on our way to an unintentional tank instead. To some people that's a good thing, but what they're overlooking is that any idiot can tank a team. This way is more likely to be a free fall plummet, not a controlled bounce back.

Exactly.

If we keep Lack/Markstrom, get Vatanen/Theodore in the Kesler deal, and draft Nylander/Ehlers, you have a really nice high-upside young core at every position.

It could have been done, but wasn't.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

Our problem was that we lacked under-25 core players, not under-25 players in general.

The age of the depth players on your roster is irrelevant. They're unlikely to be around long regardless of how old they are.

Au contraire mon frere.

We now have the ☆Super-Talent-Evaluator-3000☆ so all our depth players will be core-level depth players.

 

[vanuck]

Our problem was that we lacked under-25 core players, not under-25 players in general.

The age of the depth players on your roster is irrelevant. They're unlikely to be around long regardless of how old they are.

Yeah, you can just sign undervalued UFAs as placeholders for depth in the meantime. Meanwhile we've acquired bad players and gave them term while pissing away good players for poor value in return. Hell we just gave away a young future core piece.

I've never understood the arbitrary desire to fill that supposed "age gap" by this regime. Seems like you're just getting the worst of both worlds in terms of upside and established players by dealing draft picks for guys who historically don't show that well if they struggle to make it out of the AHL after 3 years.

 

[groovygoodwine]

Cross post from my poll selection
We're in the no-mans land of CGY from a couple seasons ago, except I don't think the aquilinis/linden/benning recognize this or are willing to rebuild even if they do realize.

Positives:
On paper, in theory, some of his draft selections look reasonably solid.

Problems: Asset management, contract negotiations, pro talent evaluation

Organizational Problems:
Aquilini playoff expectation / revenue business
Linden the PR puppet (not a Linden fan in terms of executive role)
Trying to compete and make the playoffs while adding youth (impossible unless you have the foundation)

 

[Verviticus]

Exactly.

If we keep Lack/Markstrom, get Vatanen/Theodore in the Kesler deal, and draft Nylander/Ehlers, you have a really nice high-upside young core at every position.

It could have been done, but wasn't.

****, even if you just got the rights to hiller and perrault in the kesler deal and signed them we're infinitely further ahead.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I really think we could have been primed for a good run in 2016-17. My ideal team would have been a core of:

#1 Daniel-Henrik-
#2 Ehlers*-Horvat-
#1 Edler-Tanev
#2 Hamhuis-Vatanen*
#1 Lack
#2 Markstrom

With the best mix of our other vets (Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, etc) and promotion of our best prospects/youth (Kassian, Kenins, Corrado, Shinkaruk, Gaunce, etc) to fill out the team. Keep the cap space lean and keep the draft picks coming in, and you'd have a lot of flexibility to further fill out depth with outside acquisitions.

Now though we're going to have Miller instead of Lack, maybe Virtanen is the right pick in the long run but he's going to take longer to develop and won't make an impact by then, our defense will likely be a mess, and all our wasted cap space will limit FA options.

So we're likely on our way to an unintentional tank instead. To some people that's a good thing, but what they're overlooking is that any idiot can tank a team. This way is more likely to be a free fall plummet, not a controlled bounce back.

That core would have been just as disappointing. We're going nowhere if 36 year old Sedins are still our top line.

 

[racerjoe]

****, even if you just got the rights to hiller and perrault in the kesler deal and signed them we're infinitely further ahead.

This is something that gets undersold. No Sbisa, no Bonino, but those two and Theodore, would think you could get the 10th, but for this just say the 24th.

 

[MS]

Yeah, you can just sign undervalued UFAs as placeholders for depth in the meantime. Meanwhile we've acquired bad players and gave them term while pissing away good players for poor value in return. Hell we just gave away a young future core piece.

I've never understood the arbitrary desire to fill that supposed "age gap" by this regime. Seems like you're just getting the worst of both worlds in terms of upside and established players by dealing draft picks for guys who historically don't show that well if they struggle to make it out of the AHL after 3 years.

You fill that 'age gap' by making deals for guys like Saad/Hamilton/O'Reilly. Under-25 core players. But Benning isn't even in on those sorts of deals.

Patching your roster with depth players you overpay for just because they're young is not some sort of solution and accomplishes nothing.

 

[vanuck]

****, even if you just got the rights to hiller and perrault in the kesler deal and signed them we're infinitely further ahead.

I'm thinking more and more that even just the rights to Perreault was one of the things we should've targeted. Couple that with one of their young D-men like Theodore and the 24th overall and we'd still be so much better off as a team.