ginner classic
Dammit Jim!
- He got pretty much every core player to sign for an AAV that was below market value.
- He made trades to fill out the roster that gave us the depth we needed to go deep.
The Jim Benning & Management Megathread Part III
- Thread starter hatterson
- Start date
- Status
Proto
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2010
- 11,523
- 1
Yeah, but Gillis was smart enough to keep the right guys, jettison the wrong ones, and put together a team that was one of the best teams in the league over a 5-year period. They came within a game of winning a cup despite a horrendous run of injuries in the final.
Despite how he's portrayed, Gillis prioritized process over ego. He didn't fire AV because he wasn't "his guy"; he spent time with him, figured out what the plan would be moving forward, and kept him on board. He didn't axe everyone in sight because they didn't agree with him. He recognized his weaknesses and sought complementary managers like Gilman to handle specific areas (namely, the cap). Hell, he even changed his minds (seemingly) on the Sedins, ate some crow, and went to Sweden to keep them in Vancouver -- at Gilman's prodding, IIRC.
It's a stark contrast to Benning, who was either too stubborn to adjust his initial assessment of Lack (only a back-up, needs a veteran starter), or -- even more damning -- too bloody egotistical and defensive to admit he made a mistake and move the old goaltender with the onerous contract.
That said, I'm all for people hitching their wagons to Double Down Jim. We'll see how it goes
Last edited:
The Stig
Your hero.
Why is it so important to discredit Benning? My feelings about it are that Gillis has a bit of that "ex girlfriend" syndrome going on where people sit there and go "oh we used to have it soooo good". Gillis was fine but the people acting like he was a hockey god and savior to the unwashed masses is getting tiresome.
The Stig
Your hero.
Do you believe that if the perception of Gillis was different (ie. from hockey god to slimeball) that the moves Jimbo has done would be seen in a different light?
Yeah, but Gillis was smart enough to keep the right guys, jettison the wrong ones, and put together a team that was one of the best teams in the league over a 5-year period. They came within a game of winning a cup despite a horrendous run of injuries in the final.
Despite how he's portrayed, Gillis prioritized process over ego. He didn't fire AV because he wasn't "his guy". He didn't axe everyone in sight because they didn't agree with him. He recognized his weaknesses and sought complementary managers like Gilman to handle specific areas (namely, the cap).
It's a stark contrast to Benning, who was either too stubborn to adjust his initial assessment of Lack (only a back-up, needs a veteran starter), or -- even more damning -- to bloody egotistical and defensive to admit he made a mistake and move the old goaltender with the onerous contract.
That said, I'm all for people hitching their wagons to Double Down Jim. We'll see how it goes
IDK about that. Finding "value" was his MO. He seemed unable (unwilling?) to forgo value, even when it would have been in the best interest of the team.
What would have happened with the team if he'd have dumped Ballard, paid Ehrhoff, traded Hodgson for a "now" return and settled the Luongo fiasco in a timely manner?
Last edited:
That's like saying "among the students who failed, he had the best score". Still doesn't excuse all the poor moves he did after the cup final.
which is why Quinn imo is a better GM than Gillis.
Gillis let it fall apart because he couldn't draft, once the core he inherited aged, well our success declined.
Which shows how the team was mismanaged. The fact that the team "had" to rebuild" is a sign it was mismanaged.
Its like a business that needs restructuring. It must have poor decisions to get to that point.
Vankiller Whale
Fire Benning
The Stig
Your hero.
No its two separate people. I just dont like how people are harsh on one but not the other.
With the other side being essentially the same arguement. 'The previous student did worse so I'm really not THAT bad.'
Not really an apt parallel. A hockey team's life cycle is nothing like a business'.
Vankiller Whale
Fire Benning
He's just as good as Bonino/Vey and he'd have been free to retain. 1.75m is hardly "2nd line player" money
So what does throwing Gillis under the bus and saying he didn't even add a core player accomplish in regards to a discussion about Benning? Does this make Benning a better or worse GM somehow?
vanuck
Now with 100% less Benning!
- Dec 28, 2009
- 16,800
- 4,019
Ehrhoff was one of them, yes. Malhotra and Hamhuis were huge to our success as well. You could even add Samuelsson in there.
Proto
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2010
- 11,523
- 1
It's more like a sports team that had to rebuild because they'd only drafted in the top 20 once in 7 years or whatever and had spent draft capital (2nd to 4th round picks) to pursue a championship. Pretty normal behaviour for a veteran-laden club.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that Gillis had a good drafting history. Unless 2012 and 2013 produce a 100% hit rate on "possible" NHLers such as Gaunce, Subban, Shinkaruk, Cassels, and so on, his overall drafting record is going to be sub-standard. That's not much of a debate. But it's also not entirely unexpected based on where the Canucks were drafting.
The point, though, is that people keep tossing Gillis in the gutter and bringing up the handful of mistakes he made (and he did make them) to counter Benning's one-year parade of ongoing mistakes. It's irrelevant -- and, moreover, not particularly compelling or damning of Gillis. More than anything it serves to highlight just how many blunders Benning has made in a compressed window.
Why don't people just defend Benning on what he's done? I presume because it gets a bit cumbersome to have to list the number of things people don't agree with and try to explain the possible tortured logic that this management group went through to get there: "I don't agree with A, but I can see how in some light, if you looked at it this way, maybe there's a way Benning thought..."
PM
Glass not 1/2 full
- Apr 8, 2014
- 9,869
- 1,664
None of Bennings brain dead moves can possibly be defended so the people who defend him at all cost have to bash his predecessor. There are more posts about Gillis in here than Benning. I don't remember the Gillis management thread being half full with Nonis posts. I guess Benning is so truly awful that the only defense for him is the last guy was worse, which he wasn't, not by a long shot. But whatever helps people sleep at night.
The Stig
Your hero.
You asked for context when throwing Gillis under a bus. I gave you some context.
Theres also a laundry list of players who didnt work out. Mats Sundin (although he did help the Sedins develop, that contract though...), Pavol Demitra, Brad Lukowich, Steve Bernier, Kyle Wellwood.
It's more like a sports team that had to rebuild because they'd only drafted in the top 20 once in 7 years or whatever and had spent draft capital (2nd to 4th round picks) to pursue a championship. Pretty normal behaviour for a veteran-laden club.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that Gillis had a good drafting history. Unless 2012 and 2013 produce a 100% hit rate on "possible" NHLers such as Gaunce, Subban, Shinkaruk, Cassels, and so on, his overall drafting record is going to be sub-standard. That's not much of a debate. But it's also not entirely unexpected based on where the Canucks were drafting.
The point, though, is that people keep tossing Gillis in the gutter and bringing up the handful of mistakes he made (and he did make them) to counter Benning's one-year parade of ongoing mistakes. It's irrelevant -- and, moreover, not particularly compelling or damning of Gillis. More than anything it serves to highlight just how many blunders Benning has made in a compressed window.
Why not just defend Benning on what he's done? I presume because it gets a bit cumbersome to have to list the number of things they don't agree with and try to explain the possible tortured logic that this management group went through to get there: "I don't agree with A, but I can see how in some light, if you looked at it this way, maybe there's a way Benning thought..."
I never used it to counter anything Benning did.
Go to any of my posts and find that.
But at least you can see that Gillis had sub-standard drafting.
I've called Benning a terrible GM, why do I need to defend him?
I could be wrong... but I remember many, many arguments in that thread about who deserved "credit" for those early Gillis' teams. I don't think it's uncommon to compare the new GM to the guy that just left.
Last edited:
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
Hardly... despite what some may now feel it's not a foregone conclusion that Gillis was doing a bad job and needed to be fired. Only one chant popped up at a game and it was rather small, and on here there were as many, if not more, people on here that supported him as there were that wanted him gone. Or as I like to view the latter, our fans who started buying the drivel trolls from Edmonton and Toronto had been spewing out for a while.
Either way for what its worth Gillis still probably had more support on here in his final days than Benning does. Would've been even higher if people knew he wanted to start retooling in 2013 but was blocked by ownership.
If you defend anything that Benning does and/or trash Gillis... you are on #teamBenning. It's not all that fair... but they can certainly use the manpower.
vanuck
Now with 100% less Benning!
- Dec 28, 2009
- 16,800
- 4,019
^ What's funny is that 3 of those guys weren't even there for the Cup run.
Just because someone isn't signed at this point in the season doesn't mean they aren't a good player. It's a fallacy to appeal to the authority of the GM community when you once had even someone like Manny Malhotra trying out in training camp for the Sharks. He was a well-known veteran with lots of leadership and two-way experience who was even more established as a forward than Santorelli, yet nobody even signed him until September. Why is that?
Just because someone isn't signed at this point in the season doesn't mean they aren't a good player. It's a fallacy to appeal to the authority of the GM community when you once had even someone like Manny Malhotra trying out in training camp for the Sharks. He was a well-known veteran with lots of leadership and two-way experience who was even more established as a forward than Santorelli, yet nobody even signed him until September. Why is that?
Actually I asked a very specific question which you quoted and then didn't answer.
, Benning had a great 2015 draft 
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,477
- 8,575
Sundin was a wash on-ice, but a few of the core guys later credited him with helping them take a step.
Demitra was more than solid until he missed most of a year with a shoulder injury.
Lukowich was a dump in the Ehrhoff trade who they packed off to the AHL and didn't extend. He was part of the move that brought in Ehrhoff for Pat White and Daniel Rahimi. They didn't later sign him to a 3mil contract. This wasn't a negative.
Bernier didn't work out as planned, but was still a useful player.
Wellwood was a waiver pickup who scored 18 and 14 goals for ~1million each year.
- Status
