The Jim Benning and Management Megathread - A step back towards the playoffs

[Jack Tripper]

i don't think there's a for/against divide on the board, but in my view there's definitely a dearth of legitimate arguments defending benning's moves this offseason (and last offseason in retrospect)

those who defend benning's direction often say 'wait for the result of the moves', while those criticising the direction say we don't need to wait for the results because the underlying logic behind the moves are flawed

i can respect those who want to take a 'wait and see approach' as long as they acknowledge that the justifications for many of these moves are, for lack of a better term, idiotic...even if they make overly optimistic predictions that aren't likely to happen, you can't fully disprove them because the results haven't actually happened yet and there's still the 1-2% probability that benning's the smartest gm in the nhl

what i don't have any patience for are boarders who take the same 'wait and see approach' and use dishonest arguments backing the moves, or argue that you can't say the justifications for the moves are bad because the season hasn't started yet

 

[Scouter]

So I guess his philosophy is to have a balanced roster, I mean people say that he can't have it both ways, but other teams do the same, I mean I think he is doing as much rebuilding as he can, because we all know the Sedins are going nowhere, they are what's holding the rebuild back and he's just doing his best with what he can. The one thing this team is in desperate need of is more D and D prospects, it seems to get weaker every year, in the pipeline right now it's like all forwards, time to trade for some D, or maybe sign Franson, something. IMO this is not a playoff team ATM, Dallas got better and will likely make it, LA will likely be in too, but their off ice issues may have a say in it.

 

[Ainec]

If we had cap space we could have signed Franson to a short term deal and put him on the PP with the Sedins. Let him rack up the points and then trade at him at the TDL for futures this is what a certain Canadian team in the East has been doing but no

 

[dave babych returns]

Are you suggesting the teams coaching staff and management was holding kassian back from playing physically? Kassian didn't fight- and it wasn't because people were too intimidated lol that's not how things work. Fighters jobs are on the line, intimidation does not factor in a lot here.

I agree with this, but I think you have to agree that Kassian no longer needs to fight to bolster his reputation. Actual hockey players get a lot less boisterous after the whistle when Zack turns up and they know he can back it up with his fists if he has to.

He's absolutely not a Milan Lucic, Nathan Horton throw-punches-once-a-game powerforward (thug IMO), but he doesn't have to fight to support his teammates the way a guy like Dorsett does.

Maybe Prust will be even better at it since he's a bit less of a terrier than Dorsett and is willing to go spear a goaltender or what have you, but I'd take the cheaper younger better player personally.

 

[arsmaster*]

So I guess his philosophy is to have a balanced roster, I mean people say that he can't have it both ways, but other teams do the same, I mean I think he is doing as much rebuilding as he can, because we all know the Sedins are going nowhere, they are what's holding the rebuild back and he's just doing his best with what he can. The one thing this team is in desperate need of is more D and D prospects, it seems to get weaker every year, in the pipeline right now it's like all forwards, time to trade for some D, or maybe sign Franson, something. IMO this is not a playoff team ATM, Dallas got better and will likely make it, LA will likely be in too, but their off ice issues may have a say in it.

I promise not to post much in this rendition of the management thread, but I have to comment to the bold.

He is certainly not rebuilding as much as he can. You don't keep a 35 year old with $12m remaining on his contract when you had two good young NHL caliber (hopefully Markstrom is) goalies in the system. Keeping Miller, after telling us they could have traded him is not rebuilding as much as he can. Sorry that's flat out wrong.

And then there is the acquisition of 31 year old 4th line enforcer, Brandon Prust. I could see adding one player of this ilk to aid the young players transition to the show, but we had one already. To acquire this one we needed to move a 24 year old player who had 36 ES point in his last 80 games, coming mainly from the 3rd line.

Zack Kassian is from the same draft as the "young" Linden Vey and he's one year older than Baertschi. So Baertschi for Kassian is pretty much lateral, Prust replaces the 27 year old Shawn Matthias, and Linden Vey looks unlikely to hold down a regular spot on the team, definitely not a top 9 forward spot.

TL;DR, I call BS on anyone who thinks he's "rebuidling as much as he can". He's not. And not only that, but I felt this team was set up pretty well to retool on the fly with shrewd management of contracts and salaries...now I feel like the rest of you who still feel the bottom out is coming after the Twins are gone. It's sad. 3 years of mediocrity coming before we wallow near the bottom.

 

[Jyrki21]

I heard Benning say on siriusxm today that they traded for Prust because of his courage.

Is that a quantifiable trait for hockey?

Yes, there are four ferlands (fd) in a dorsett (dt), and six dorsetts to the messier (mr).

Little known fact: In his Hart-winning 1991-92 season, Mark Messier's own courage was measured at 13.2 kilomessiers. It's rare to surpass 11.4.

 

[Scurr]

i don't think there's a for/against divide on the board, but in my view there's definitely a dearth of legitimate arguments defending benning's moves this offseason (and last offseason in retrospect)

those who defend benning's direction often say 'wait for the result of the moves', while those criticising the direction say we don't need to wait for the results because the underlying logic behind the moves are flawed

i can respect those who want to take a 'wait and see approach' as long as they acknowledge that the justifications for many of these moves are, for lack of a better term, idiotic...even if they make overly optimistic predictions that aren't likely to happen, you can't fully disprove them because the results haven't actually happened yet and there's still the 1-2% probability that benning's the smartest gm in the nhl

what i don't have any patience for are boarders who take the same 'wait and see approach' and use dishonest arguments backing the moves, or argue that you can't say the justifications for the moves are bad because the season hasn't started yet

If you don't put any stock in things like character, leadership and commitment… then the equations don't add up… you're right. If you do believe in those things... you know that they are often hard to predict… sum being greater than the parts and all that.

I do believe in those things.

 

[drax0s]

i don't think there's a for/against divide on the board, but in my view there's definitely a dearth of legitimate arguments defending benning's moves this offseason (and last offseason in retrospect)

those who defend benning's direction often say 'wait for the result of the moves', while those criticising the direction say we don't need to wait for the results because the underlying logic behind the moves are flawed

Personally, I think a lot / most of Benning's trades and contract signings are actually really hard to defend. He's made a few good ones (SvenBae, Vrbata, Tanev, etc) but some really bad ones (Sbisa, Sutter, Lack & Kassian trades). I think the ONLY reason I'm taking the wait and see approach is that I have seen the merits of a strong culture in my own life when bringing in new guys. That said, I'm not 100% confident because while I've seen it work amazingly in some instances, I have also seen it fail spectacularly. That's why this season is really make or break for me.

I'll go on record here -- If we have young guys (Virtanen, Corrado, SvenBae) come in and succeed like Horvat did while we also prune away some UFA vets for futures at the deadline (Hamhuis, Vrbata), I'll probably be content with giving Benning another season. If we don't achieve BOTH of those objectives (or.. win the cup), then I'm on board with us needing a new GM.

 

[DL44]

Yes, there are four ferlands (fd) in a dorsett (dt), and six dorsetts to the messier (mr).

Little known fact: In his Hart-winning 1991-92 season, Mark Messier's own courage was measured at 13.2 kilomessiers. It's rare to surpass 11.4.

I wonder what it was for gm 7 of the '94 ECF.

 

[rune74]

i don't think there's a for/against divide on the board, but in my view there's definitely a dearth of legitimate arguments defending benning's moves this offseason (and last offseason in retrospect)

those who defend benning's direction often say 'wait for the result of the moves', while those criticising the direction say we don't need to wait for the results because the underlying logic behind the moves are flawed

i can respect those who want to take a 'wait and see approach' as long as they acknowledge that the justifications for many of these moves are, for lack of a better term, idiotic...even if they make overly optimistic predictions that aren't likely to happen, you can't fully disprove them because the results haven't actually happened yet and there's still the 1-2% probability that benning's the smartest gm in the nhl

what i don't have any patience for are boarders who take the same 'wait and see approach' and use dishonest arguments backing the moves, or argue that you can't say the justifications for the moves are bad because the season hasn't started yet

What you just said there as long as everyone agrees with what you say then you are ok with them waiting to see....agree with you and everything is good otherwise they are wrong.

 

[NoShowWilly]

I wonder what it was for gm 7 of the '94 ECF.

the scale wasn't built to go that high. we'll never truly know.

 

[Zaddy91]

Dorsrtt over paid for 25 points and 120 hits.

Stupid

 

[VanillaCoke]

Yes, there are four ferlands (fd) in a dorsett (dt), and six dorsetts to the messier (mr).

Little known fact: In his Hart-winning 1991-92 season, Mark Messier's own courage was measured at 13.2 kilomessiers. It's rare to surpass 11.4.

 

[arsmaster*]

If you don't put any stock in things like character, leadership and commitment… then the equations don't add up… you're right. If you do believe in those things... you know that they are often hard to predict… sum being greater than the parts and all that.

I do believe in those things.

Another cop-out. Like we didn't have not only adequate "leadership, character and commitment".

The Sedin Twins are the most committed players on the team, their leadership example is 2nd to none in the entire NHL, the courage and leadership that was already present was palpable.

Ryan Miller has never been known as a leader, a high character guy.

Luca Sbisa doesn't tick any of the boxes either.

Dorsett is a good example of effort...we had tons before.

Prust is redundant with Dorsett on the books.

Sven Baertschi exudes literally ZERO of these traits. Same with Linden Vey.

Sutter seems to have these traits...did Bonino not? I never once read you make claims that Bonino didn't.

I think nearly everyone believes in those things to a point, but folks like yourself and this regime have placed an unfounded precedent on these things, instead of real hockey stuff.

 

[MS]

If you don't put any stock in things like character, leadership and commitment… then the equations don't add up… you're right. If you do believe in those things... you know that they are often hard to predict… sum being greater than the parts and all that.

I do believe in those things.

Nobody is downplaying character.

People just realize that this is a team that already had character, one of the most respected veteran cores in the NHL, and has been one of the most successful teams in the league over the last 5-7 years. This isn't Toronto or Edmonton.

Adding another 4th line goon isn't going to take us to some other magical level. And certainly not in comparison to the way the talent on this team is being gutted.

 

[Proto]

Character is good when it's supplemental or you're only paying a miniscule on-ice/field/court penalty for it. Otherwise, building that sort of culture is like an additional thing you look for.

Josh Donaldson is probably the 2nd best position player in baseball this year and he's credited routinely by the Jays manager John Gibbons for building team camaraderie, being a great teammate, and just doing a lot of things "in the clubhouse that don't get noticed". That's great because it's in addition to the other great things he does. It probably makes him more valuable than any superstar would be. It's probably worth a bit of an extra "character tax" on his contract (or, in an uncapped league like baseball, an even bigger one if you can afford it). I don't think there's much dispute there.

The issue with the Canucks management is they seem to be eschewing large amounts of on-ice talent/results for these intangible elements. I don't think that's a recipe for success, nor can I think of many (any?) examples of professional sports teams where that's been successful.

 

[Zaddy91]

Nobody is downplaying character.

People just realize that this is a team that already had character, one of the most respected veteran cores in the NHL, and has been one of the most successful teams in the league over the last 5-7 years. This isn't Toronto or Edmonton.

Adding another 4th line goon isn't going to take us to some other magical level. And certainly not in comparison to the way the talent on this team is being gutted.

If you watched that playoff series and think our team had character i dont know what to tell you


They dont and calgary bent us over a barrel from hard work alone


Prob why u dont like prust or sutter u think higgins and bonino have character

 

[Jyrki21]

I'll downplay it. I think things like "character and leadership" are far more meaningful in, say, an office setting where you have to figure out from scratch how to get a project done, than in a sports setting where there is a pretty basic objective of putting a ball or disc in a net. I think most of our conclusions about who has what in these nebulous categories in sports are based on superficial things and prejudice like body language and nationality.

 

[arsmaster*]

Character is good when it's supplemental or you're only paying a miniscule on-ice/field/court penalty for it. Otherwise, building that sort of culture is like an additional thing you look for.

Josh Donaldson is probably the 2nd best position player in baseball this year and he's credited routinely by the Jays manager John Gibbons for building team camaraderie, being a great teammate, and just doing a lot of things "in the clubhouse that don't get noticed". That's great because it's in addition to the other great things he does. It probably makes him more valuable than any superstar would be. It's probably worth a bit of an extra "character tax" on his contract (or, in an uncapped league like baseball, an even bigger one if you can afford it). I don't think there's much dispute there.

The issue with the Canucks management is they seem to be eschewing large amounts of on-ice talent/results for these intangible elements. I don't think that's a recipe for success, nor can I think of many (any?) examples of professional sports teams where that's been successful.

2004 Red Sox, maybe? But they were also talent rich, but guys like Millar and Mueller and Dave Roberts I guess were the character guys....to a lesser extent, Jed Lowrie?

It doesn't really happen in professional sports....talent comes first.

Look at the "character" on the last 3 cup winners: Voynov (wife beater), Stoll (drugs), Richards (controlled substance), Lucic ("do you know who I am" ball-pitchforker), and Patrick Kane (investigation ongoing).

 

[Disappointed EP40]

I'm probably going to try to follow Montreal this year, just because I think Kassian has the potential to be one of the most exciting players in the league if he puts it together. Even if he doesn't, he's still an exciting 2nd line player to watch. I just know that I'll get so ****ing bitter watching him put up 45+ points this season in a Habs uniform while Prust sucks in ours.

I'm also on board with this. I'd like to see Kassian crush it there and he's going to get every opportunity. I liked his chances better when Semin wasn't there, but now I've thought about it, they may even work well together.

My buddy who has season tickets is bringing signs to the tune of " You traded me when you traded Kassian. " & "Canucks fan giving up on this team, like you did on Kassian" (He's livid as Kassian was his fav.)

 

[Ho Borvat]

If you don't put any stock in things like character, leadership and commitment… then the equations don't add up… you're right. If you do believe in those things... you know that they are often hard to predict… sum being greater than the parts and all that.

I do believe in those things.

Nobody is downplaying character.

Adding another 4th line goon isn't going to take us to some other magical level. And certainly not in comparison to the way the talent on this team is being gutted.

The issue with the Canucks management is they seem to be eschewing large amounts of on-ice talent/results for these intangible elements. I don't think that's a recipe for success, nor can I think of many (any?) examples of professional sports teams where that's been successful.

Jonathan Toews is one of the most well regarded players in the league, when it comes to "intangibles", "leadership", "character" etc.

So, if you should be paying a financial premium for players with these characteristics in a salary cap world why did him and Patrick Kane (other end of the spectrum) get the exact same contract as Jonathan Toews?

Should Toews not be paid more than Patrick Kane if this is the case? Obviously being a good person/teammate is something you want in your players.

My jobs not going to pay me more than someone else because I am the kind of person who makes a fresh pot of coffee when its empty...

 

[Ho Borvat]

I'll downplay it. I think things like "character and leadership" are far more meaningful in, say, an office setting where you have to figure out from scratch how to get a project done, than in a sports setting where there is a pretty basic objective of putting a ball or disc in a net. I think most of our conclusions about who has what in these nebulous categories in sports are based on superficial things and prejudice like body language and nationality.

Its funny you posted this, basically the same time I was typing up the below post

Jonathan Toews is one of the most well regarded players in the league, when it comes to "intangibles", "leadership", "character" etc.

So, if you should be paying a financial premium for players with these characteristics in a salary cap world why did him and Patrick Kane (other end of the spectrum) get the exact same contract as Jonathan Toews?

Should Toews not be paid more than Patrick Kane if this is the case? Obviously being a good person/teammate is something you want in your players.

My jobs not going to pay me more than someone else because I am the kind of person who makes a fresh pot of coffee when its empty...

 

[banme*]

Character is good when it's supplemental or you're only paying a miniscule on-ice/field/court penalty for it. Otherwise, building that sort of culture is like an additional thing you look for.

Josh Donaldson is probably the 2nd best position player in baseball this year and he's credited routinely by the Jays manager John Gibbons for building team camaraderie, being a great teammate, and just doing a lot of things "in the clubhouse that don't get noticed". That's great because it's in addition to the other great things he does. It probably makes him more valuable than any superstar would be. It's probably worth a bit of an extra "character tax" on his contract (or, in an uncapped league like baseball, an even bigger one if you can afford it). I don't think there's much dispute there.

The issue with the Canucks management is they seem to be eschewing large amounts of on-ice talent/results for these intangible elements. I don't think that's a recipe for success, nor can I think of many (any?) examples of professional sports teams where that's been successful.

OT but curious who is first (haven't been able to follow much baseball this year)? Harper? I feel like I remember him leading the league in WAA a while back, so he's the first guy that came to mind. Seems to have lived up to his hype pretty quickly.

 

[dave babych returns]

OT but curious who is first (haven't been able to follow much baseball this year)? Harper? Guy seems to have lived up to his hype pretty quickly.

Gonna guess he's thinking of Trout.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

i don't think there's a for/against divide on the board, but in my view there's definitely a dearth of legitimate arguments defending benning's moves this offseason (and last offseason in retrospect)

those who defend benning's direction often say 'wait for the result of the moves', while those criticising the direction say we don't need to wait for the results because the underlying logic behind the moves are flawed

i can respect those who want to take a 'wait and see approach' as long as they acknowledge that the justifications for many of these moves are, for lack of a better term, idiotic...even if they make overly optimistic predictions that aren't likely to happen, you can't fully disprove them because the results haven't actually happened yet and there's still the 1-2% probability that benning's the smartest gm in the nhl

what i don't have any patience for are boarders who take the same 'wait and see approach' and use dishonest arguments backing the moves, or argue that you can't say the justifications for the moves are bad because the season hasn't started yet

Bingo. It's like they're just here to argue, using invalid, baseless arguments. Some people just like to take the minority side just to stand out.