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

[arsmaster*]

Of course there is no way to back that up I in the eye. More BS is all.

 

[PM]

Its the Boston model. Trash any players that are traded away and make up **** to justify it.

 

[Ho Borvat]

Yeah, I've seen comments from Benning and Linden about wanting to get players with "character" and "emotion" that are, on reflection, pretty poor descriptive words for a "hockey trait" that they almost require personal interpretation to figure out what the hell they are talking about. Personally, I see it to mean a player who takes hockey seriously, comes prepared and has the competitiveness / drive / determination to struggle past adversity to win. That's my interpretation mostly because of their continued "play hard" comments. That, and the whole "old fashioned prairie work ethic" thing. :|

I would argue that in ~95% of players who make it to the NHL, they would have what would be considered good character.

It takes a lot of hard work, dedication, teamwork and work ethic, all from a very young age to make the NHL.

Sports, by nature develops what I would consider good character. The difference in "character" between 2 random NHL players has got to be pretty minute when you think about it.

 

[Scurr]

Sure you can, but it would mean making your big UFA cash outlays be for premium players at premium positions. Of course you do have to develop more of the players, but you can absolutely do it (or try to). Or making big trades for guys when they do become available.

Yeah, it should be a part of the plan. It probably makes sense to wait on this until you know what you have with your young players. I'm all for a futures package or a big UFA contract… but you can't build a team like that.

It's definitely a different environment, but I don't think it's impossible in hockey to make sure you only over-pay for perceived character when it's for elite players. It's not like a baseball GM is precluded from adding junky "character" players -- AA just doesn't value character enough to add a lot of it at the expense of talent.

He didn't have to because top end talent is so readily available. The Canucks have to have home grown players at the top end of their team to be successful. The Jays don't.

The Canucks might have been able to acquire Hossa back in the day. They could have traded for him when the Pens did, or tried to sign him like the Wings or Hawks did. That would have been a similar kind of move, no? I'm just pointing out if you want to emphasize character in building a club, I'd rather see a UFA overpay/trade overpay for an elite player with character than chewing up extra cap space for ho-hum, bottom-end roster pieces.

Of course. Has that move been available? I think often times you're bidding on middle of the roster players that you shouldn't really want to pay long-term.

Plus we're barely even talking about noteworthy character reputations with the Canucks. Sutter? Sbisa? These aren't hallowed names brought up in character discussions around the league, are they?

Sbisa and his contract are gross.

In the case of Dorsett, Prust and Sutter... I think you're only overpaying slightly. These aren't just "character" guys... they're good bottom of the roster players. Prust and Dorsett have both played important roles on good teams.

If Sutter scores and defends better with better players… even from the 3rd line… I don't mind that contract. I like depth down the middle. I'm willing to overpay some there. IMO it makes sense when building a team because of the affect it has on the wings. People will say he makes his linemates worse… I don't believe that. We'll get a really good read on that when we see him play with familiar faces.

It's really a combination of thinking they're better players than most and believing in character more than just in the margins.

I wouldn't have traded Kassian for Prust. I will admit, though, that when we're talking about things like character…. Benning has more insight.

 

[Proto]

Yeah, it should be a part of the plan. It probably makes sense to wait on this until you know what you have with your young players. I'm all for a futures package or a big UFA contract… but you can't build a team like that.



He didn't have to because top end talent is so readily available. The Canucks have to have home grown players at the top end of their team to be successful. The Jays don't.



Of course. Has that move been available? I think often times you're bidding on middle of the roster players that you shouldn't really want to pay long-term.



Sbisa and his contract are gross.

In the case of Dorsett, Prust and Sutter... I think you're only overpaying slightly. These aren't just "character" guys... they're good bottom of the roster players. Prust and Dorsett have both played important roles on good teams.

If Sutter scores and defends better with better players… even from the 3rd line… I don't mind that contract. I like depth down the middle. I'm willing to overpay some there. IMO it makes sense when building a team because of the affect it has on the wings. People will say he makes his linemates worse… I don't believe that. We'll get a really good read on that when we see him play with familiar faces.

It's really a combination of thinking they're better players than most and believing in character more than just in the margins.

I wouldn't have traded Kassian for Prust. I will admit, though, that when we're talking about things like character…. Benning has a more insight.

Yes, so it's a combination of two things I completely disagree with, which was kind of the entire point I was making. I understand where you're coming from -- I just disagree.

It's definitely harder to add premium talent in hockey, but it's not impossible. It does require some astute gambles and acquiring extra draft picks though. Benning seems to favour low-upside safe acquisitions and thus far hasn't added extra draft picks (despite ostensibly "getting younger"). It's just another of those things I find hard to comprehend about the direction of the team.

It's also a bit hard to square away his emphasis on character when his big swings and misses in recent years have been Evander Kane and Milan Lucic. To me, it seems like the justification for moves (or attempted moves) shifts to meet whatever fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants move the organization has just made.

 

[Canucker]

In the case of Dorsett, Prust and Sutter... I think you're only overpaying slightly. These aren't just "character" guys... they're good bottom of the roster players. Prust and Dorsett have both played important roles on good teams.

1. Why do we need both Prust AND Dorsett? How many top teams feel the need to ice 2 of this type of player?

2. How important is Dorsett's role when its easily replaced by Tanner Glass? The Rangers didn't seem to miss a beat exchanging Dorsett with Glass, who is by all accounts a plug.

Obviously you need some grit and sandpaper in the lineup, but I think the importance of these roles is being overstated and there is a lot of redundancy having both of these guys.

 

[NoShowWilly]

1. Why do we need both Prust AND Dorsett? How many top teams feel the need to ice 2 of this type of player?

2. How important is Dorsett's role when its easily replaced by Tanner Glass? The Rangers didn't seem to miss a beat exchanging Dorsett with Glass, who is by all accounts a plug.

Obviously you need some grit and sandpaper in the lineup, but I think the importance of these roles is being overstated and there is a lot of redundancy having both of these guys.

Daniel Carcillo had 6 majors in 39 games for Chicago
Brendan Morrow had 4 majors for Tampa Bay
Tanner Glass had 10 majors for NewYork Rangers
Tim Jackman, Pat Maroon, Clayton Stoner had 8 majors each for Anaheim Ducks
Kyle Brodziak had 5 majors for Minnesota
Brandon Bollig had 8 majors for Calgary
Chris Thorburn had 8 majors for Winnipeg
Tom Wilson had 12 majors for Washinton
Ryan Reaves had 8 majors for St. Louis
Brandon Prust had 16 majors for Montreal
Justin Abdelkader had 2 majors for Detroit
Paul Gaustad had 6 majors for Nashville
Matt Martin had 10 majors for NYI
Mark Borowiecki had 13 majors for Ottawa
Steve Downie had 8 majors for Pittsburgh
Derek Dorsett had 17 majors for Vancouver

Should be entertaining.

 

[Scurr]

1. Why do we need both Prust AND Dorsett? How many top teams feel the need to ice 2 of this type of player?

Depends what you mean by "this type of player"? You certainly don't need two goons… but I don't think either are. They can both play.

2. How important is Dorsett's role when its easily replaced by Tanner Glass? The Rangers didn't seem to miss a beat exchanging Dorsett with Glass, who is by all accounts a plug.

Obviously you need some grit and sandpaper in the lineup, but I think the importance of these roles is being overstated and there is a lot of redundancy having both of these guys.

http://www.blueshirtbanter.com/2014...glass-new-york-rangers-2014-15-season-preview

The Rangers paid slightly less money to a guy that shouldn't be in the lineup. He's not a glorified goon… he's an actual goon. Terrible NHL results. With Dorsett they had a guy that was playing on one of the very best checking lines in the league who is also at least equally effective in that role.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=997&withagainst=true&season=2013-14&sit=5v5

That's a pretty big difference imo.

 

[Intangibos]

I was thinking, what would have happened if Benning came on board a year earlier? What would the Schneider package have been?

 

[me2]

No the lack of character and related playoff failures stems from the previous management regimes way of building a team.

At least they are bringing in more playoff chokers, that seems to be Benning's definition of character.

 

[Canucker]

Depends what you mean by "this kind of player"? You certainly don't need two goons… but I don't think either are. They can both play.



http://www.blueshirtbanter.com/2014...glass-new-york-rangers-2014-15-season-preview

The Rangers paid slightly less money to a guy that shouldn't be in the lineup. He's not a glorified goon… he's an actual goon. Terrible NHL results. With Dorsett they had a guy that was playing on one of the very best checking lines in the league who is at least equally effective in that role.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=997&withagainst=true&season=2013-14&sit=5v5

That's a pretty big difference imo.

These are the players with the 2nd and 3rd most fighting majors in the league last year, they may not be the goons of old, but they most certainly are "new age" goons. They have the ability to skate and get in on the forecheck better than the big lumbering goons, but other than that the only role they fill is that of a goon...they fight. IMO Prust's role was already occupied by Dorsett and we didn't need another Dorsett...I'd take Kassian with his apparent baggage over a redundant Prust.

 

[Scurr]

These are the players with the 2nd and 3rd most fighting majors in the league last year, they may not be the goons of old, but they most certainly are "new age" goons. They have the ability to skate and get in on the forecheck better than the big lumbering goons, but other than that the only role they fill is that of a goon...they fight. IMO Prust's role was already occupied by Dorsett and we didn't need another Dorsett...I'd take Kassian with his apparent baggage over a redundant Prust.

You're only a goon if you can't play. If you can play and you fight… you're just tough. They've both shown they can be effective players on good teams. They can both play. If that's what you mean by "new age" goon… I'm fine with that.

 

[Canucker]

You're only a goon if you can't play. If you can play and you fight… you're just tough. They've both shown they can be effective players on good teams. They can both play. If that's what you mean by "new age" goon… I'm fine with that.

They can play, on a 4th line in a limited role IMO...but 2 of them are unnecessary. I'd rather see a couple young players fight for an open roster spot than have Prust gifted one.

 

[arsmaster*]

Depends what you mean by "this type of player"? You certainly don't need two goons… but I don't think either are. They can both play.



http://www.blueshirtbanter.com/2014...glass-new-york-rangers-2014-15-season-preview

The Rangers paid slightly less money to a guy that shouldn't be in the lineup. He's not a glorified goon… he's an actual goon. Terrible NHL results. With Dorsett they had a guy that was playing on one of the very best checking lines in the league who is also at least equally effective in that role.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=997&withagainst=true&season=2013-14&sit=5v5

That's a pretty big difference imo.

Did the Rangers use that line as a checking line even?

IIRC, they used Boyle's line to check.

 

[arsmaster*]

Did the Rangers use that line as a checking line even?

IIRC, they used Boyle's line to check.

Ahh, didn't see that Boyle was the most common partner.

I thought you were talking about the Moore line.

 

[Vtownfan]

You're only a goon if you can't play. If you can play and you fight… you're just tough. They've both shown they can be effective players on good teams. They can both play. If that's what you mean by "new age" goon… I'm fine with that.

Can Dorsett play? He is a possession black hole that disappeared when his grit and character was supposed to make a difference. He literally made everyone he played with worse when he was on the ice.

3 guys he played the most ice time with

Horvat 316 mins CF% with Dorsett 39.3 when apart from Dorsett 48.7
Hansen 336 min CF 42.2 with Dorsett 51% when apart
Vey 310 yes even Linden Vey was better without Dorsett 47.4% with 48% apart from Dorsett.

In fact I went through his entire chart and not a sign Canuck had better possession numbers with Dorsett than they did apart.

Then he chickens out of a fight with Ferland and is barely noticeable when his grit and character was supposed to shine.

 

[me2]

IDK about that. The team that had Manny, Salo and Samuelsson was one of the most consistent, best teams I've ever watched. I've been underwhelmed by the team ever since those guys left. They were obviously really good players, too. Like you said… it's hard to quantify. Benning went farther than I would have but imo this is a good science experiment for this. I still think the sum can be greater than the parts.

Benning is trading talent for character, they are not mutually exclusive. That is the problem with the whole "pro-character" argument, it assumes by default that there is an either or element. If you want to add "character" then get a player of the same talent level with the character you like.

You don't have to take 5 steps back in talent to gain 3 steps of character. The whole point should be to stay steady in talent and move 3 steps forward in character.

Secondly, people seem to be blurring the lines between character and playing style an awful lot.

 

[me2]

Depends what you mean by "this type of player"? You certainly don't need two goons… but I don't think either are. They can both play.



http://www.blueshirtbanter.com/2014...glass-new-york-rangers-2014-15-season-preview

The Rangers paid slightly less money to a guy that shouldn't be in the lineup. He's not a glorified goon… he's an actual goon. Terrible NHL results. With Dorsett they had a guy that was playing on one of the very best checking lines in the league who is also at least equally effective in that role.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=997&withagainst=true&season=2013-14&sit=5v5

That's a pretty big difference imo.

Glass must have much better "character" /thread

 

[arsmaster*]

Benning is trading talent for character, they are not mutually exclusive. That is the problem with the whole "pro-character" argument, it assumes by default that there is an either or element. If you want to add "character" then get a player of the same talent level with the character you like.

You don't have to take 5 steps back in talent to gain 3 steps of character. The whole point should be to stay steady in talent and move 3 steps forward in character.

Secondly, people seem to be blowing the lines between character and playing style an awful lot.

Pretty funny that Samuelsson and his "********" after not being a swedish olympian is a high character guy. Didn't he also throw mud at the Canucks after being dealt to Florida?

When you start listing off guys as characters to suit your argument you better have something to back that up.

Salo and Manny...sure, bonafide character guys with leadership skills, Manny more so than Sami, but this is getting a bit much....or was Raffi Torres a "character" guy too?

 

[sting101]

I don't get why fans are such haters of Prust, Dorsett and Sbisa. It's not like you that have to pay them.

Frankly if I gotta pay my big money to watch the Canucks play I want a have a team that's willing to wage war with the opposition not bury their tails at the first sign of rough going.

While I don't advocate the trade for Prust or the deals the other two got I'm glad they're on this team or we would be the softest most mediocre uninteresting group (outside of Horvat and the occasional Sedin magic) in the NHL. I enjoy bone crushing hits and a good scrap.

We aren't contenders get over it. The 3 mentioned make us better entertainment. And don't give me this bull**** they cost us games either and losses aren't entertaining. Didn't stop us last year and Sbisa as bad as him and Bieksa were didn't cost us the series either.

 

[me2]

2 goals, 96 playoff games

20 playoff games, -10

 

[Scurr]

Can Dorsett play? He is a possession black hole that disappeared when his grit and character was supposed to make a difference. He literally made everyone he played with worse when he was on the ice.

3 guys he played the most ice time with

Horvat 316 mins CF% with Dorsett 39.3 when apart from Dorsett 48.7
Hansen 336 min CF 42.2 with Dorsett 51% when apart
Vey 310 yes even Linden Vey was better without Dorsett 47.4% with 48% apart from Dorsett.

In fact I went through his entire chart and not a sign Canuck had better possession numbers with Dorsett than they did apart.

Then he chickens out of a fight with Ferland and is barely noticeable when his grit and character was supposed to shine.

WOWY stats leave out a lot of context. QOT is the single biggest driver in possession stats.

Kenins-Horvat-Hansen
McMillan-Vey-Dorsett

I actually think Vey was pretty decent at center down the stretch but he wasn't nearly as good a player as Horvat at that point. You'd expect that 3rd line to have better results than the 4th line. That's what the numbers do… they represent the strength of the line. Dorsett was perpetually on the 4th line last season. Vey when he was the 4th line center… Horvat when he took over… Vey when Horvat moved up.

I don't think QOT is represented well in those stats… and it's important.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=997&withagainst=true&season=2013-14&sit=5v5

That's a pretty good sample of games with better than average 4th liners. Boyle/Moore were better with Dorsett than without and they played a heavy defensive role.

*I also think playing LW hurt Dorsett some last season.

 

[me2]

Depends what you mean by "this type of player"? You certainly don't need two goons… but I don't think either are. They can both play.

But can they out perform other $2.5m to $2.65m players? I can't give a toss it they out perform $600k 4th liners, that should be automatic, that is not their competition, they need to match/beat $2.5m+ players.

 

[Pip]

I don't get why fans are such haters of Prust, Dorsett and Sbisa. It's not like you that have to pay them.

Frankly if I gotta pay my big money to watch the Canucks play I want a have a team that's willing to wage war with the opposition not bury their tails at the first sign of rough going.

While I don't advocate the trade for Prust or the deals the other two got I'm glad they're on this team or we would be the softest most mediocre uninteresting group (outside of Horvat and the occasional Sedin magic) in the NHL. I enjoy bone crushing hits and a good scrap.

We aren't contenders get over it. The 3 mentioned make us better entertainment. And don't give me this bull**** they cost us games either and losses aren't entertaining. Didn't stop us last year and Sbisa as bad as him and Bieksa were didn't cost us the series either.

The word hater makes me cringe

Nobody hates these players and no I don't have to pay their salaries out of my own pocket but each player makes enough money that they could have been replaced with much better players who would help us win games and not just scrums.

I'm not even a big fan of Franson but he would have been an alright addition and possibly could have been flipped at the deadline. Dorsett + Prust could have been money spent on a good second line player or held onto and used to exploit teams in a cap crunch (like Boston with Boychuk last year).

I don't find any of these players overly entertaining. I don't like watching Sbisa giveaway the puck and make poor plays constantly. I don't find Dorsett or Prust very entertaining although I could see why some think that. All they do generally is rattle the boards and skate real fast around the rink.

Not going to really respond to the last two sentences because everyone knows that's not true.

 

[Scurr]

But can they out perform other $2.5m to $2.65m players? I can't give a toss it they out perform $600k 4th liners, that should be automatic, that is not their competition, they need to match/beat $2.5m+ players.

Depends… do you want to compare them to Jannik Hansen or David Clarkson?