The Jim Benning & Management Megathread Part III
- Thread starter hatterson
- Start date
- Status
I don't think people are actively trying to discredit Benning. We are just pointing out all the **** that has gone wrong.
I mean is saying signing Sbisa is bad discrediting Benning? Or is it not ok for us to bring up things like that because that puts him in a bad light.
Pip
Registered User
How restrictive those NTCs are is overblown. Higgins/Hansen wont be tough to move. The importance of getting the lower cap hits was huge. We used up essentially the entire cap to put together that 2011 team.
I think those deals were signed after? They helped us carry Ballard on the 3rd pair/pressbox and Luongo/Schneider in net.
Which is why the ballard situation was annoying at the time.
Kinda like how the Sbisa signing is annoying now.
Pip
Registered User
Yeah my bad on the timing there. Regardless, the NTCs given out to Higgins and Hansen are not an issue.
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
Yes, they are. The teams that would take them right now are teams that would likely be on the NTC list. We have little flexibility here.
Pip
Registered User
They're on good contracts and are good depth players to have. There would be enough demand league wide that they can find a fit.
I would bet that it would be harder to move Dorsett and his cap hit.
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
Exactly.
Gillis was a very level-headed guy who would wear a mistake if necessary, but hated dealing with the media and the way he got his back up gave him an 'arrogant demeanor'.
Benning has more of an 'aw shucks' demeanor but to me is arrogant beyond belief.
To get him an awesome contract that pays him less than Derek Dorsett and Brandon Prust?
Again, how is that contract a bad thing? It's $2.3 million for a guy who scores 30-35 ES points every year with a strong two-way game. It's a great deal.
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..."
Exactly.
At this point it doesn't matter if Gillis was Sam Pollock or Mike Milbury. He had a good stretch, then a bad stretch, then - right or wrong - is gone and we have a new guy.
The new guy should be expected to excel and make quality moves for the franchise regardless of what happened before.
The constant referrals to Gillis are the defense of someone who has no defense for the moves Benning has made.
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
No, Higgins isn't a player you give an NTC to. He's the exact kind of player we need the flexibility to move when their is an internal replacement. Gillis crapped himself after 2011, got scared and he and Gilman signed Higgins to a NTC because they knew they had no internal push to replace him.
Pip
Registered User
People did go on and on about it. Gillis took endless flack here (including from supporters of his like me) for the Ballard and Booth contracts. Big mistakes.
That said, Ballard was a contract that seemed reasonable and that we took on when it seemed he was a good player, and then his play fell off. Sbisa was signed to an absurd deal after we watched him be total garbage for a full season.
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
According to whom? Not the President of this club who apparently made it public that the team has been trying to move Higgins for weeks!
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
Whether we can move him or can't, Chris Higgins is literally the least of this team's problems.
He's on a small contract and has consistently out-performed that contract.
We have almost $20 million tied up in hot garbage and 4th line/7th defender types and people brush that aside to complain about a solid player making $2.3 million. Bizarre.
He's on a small contract and has consistently out-performed that contract.
We have almost $20 million tied up in hot garbage and 4th line/7th defender types and people brush that aside to complain about a solid player making $2.3 million. Bizarre.
Vankiller Whale
Fire Benning
It's all Higgins' fault that we had to sign Miller, Dorsett and Sbisa to awful contracts, trade Kassian+ for Prust, trade Kesler for a return involving mostly lousy or redundant pieces, etc, etc.
Thanks for nothing Gillis
Thanks for nothing Gillis
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
I know you believe Garrison has an albatross contract and is barely an NHL defenseman, but the rest of the hockey world doesn't. Rather ironic he happened to be the third best defensemen on the recent cup finalists.
Since two of the defensemen in that lineup are "out of position." We can just swap them, eliminating your complaint.
Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Vatanen
Garrison - Bieksa
Still a lot better than what we put out.
Santorelli put up 33 points despite his "disappearing act", which is seven less than Bonino, who also pulled a houdini. Perreault put up 41 in 62 games. So it took him 21 less games to outscore Bonino. Yeah, but they're both terrible, awful players.
And since we're talking point totals. Only Edler managed to outproduce Garrison, and by a single ****ing point. He still sucks though, right?
Hiller costs 4.5M and allows us to keep the better Lack as our future starter. Certainly a better alternative than an aging, declining Miller.
Considering both Santorelli and Perreault performed at Bonino's level (or above), I think we easily get by Calgary, especially since Garrison and Vatanen are massive upgrades to Sbisa and Weber. If Santo did struggle, we can easily move Burrows up too.
why would Anaheim trade Vatanen their main PP QB when they want to contend?
We "could" have "maybe" gotten more for Kesler. But Vatanen is not very realistic.
We "could" have "maybe" gotten more for Kesler. But Vatanen is not very realistic.
DL44
Status quo
Said it before last season.. and i'll say now... Higgins is the perfect 3rd liner. If we can get a LWer to push him down the lineup to the 3rd line, its the perfect scenario...
If he's being utilized as a 2nd liner... it screams personnel failure... and its on the GM.
He doesn't have 2nd line scoring production and if we're relying on him in that spot for anything other than an injury replacement or temp stop gap, we'll have issues with secondary scoring - like we have the last couple yts now.
At present... we look like we have Baertschi penciled in ahead of Higgins. If he proves reliable and productive in that spot, then having Higgins contribute from the 3rd line as the utility guy he is is a great scenario for us.
Agree with MS.. Higgins is far from an issue for us..
The only pro of dealing Higgins is gaining a roster spot so Kenins can stay up (which he might anyways)
The con.. our 2-way play in the forwards takes a hit, as does our PK. So overall, it shouldn't be a high priority at this point to move him.
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
Because they're trying to get value. Put him up for a 3rd or 4th and teams will happily take him. Why can't we get value? Because Benning has gifted away so many players, most teams are looking for alternatives first, or just waiting him out.
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
Higgins is fine on a second line that can carry itself. He's a complimentary piece in the same sense Maroon or Bickell are/were. When we had Kesler, it worked because Higgins' only necessary role on the line was dig the puck out and grind. Bonino simply isn't capable of carrying a line, thus the constant struggle all season.
Vatanen only became their PP QB late into this season. He started off a raw prospect, similar to Horvat, but with far less expectations on his shoulders. Bonino was among Anaheim's best players when we acquired him, so the value is comparable. I don't actually dislike Bonino, he's simply not the piece we should have been after.
Higgins' performance at ES over the past couple years is actually that of a solid 2nd line player, especially considering his defense. He's just an AWFUL PP guy and shouldn't be on the 2nd unit.
But yeah, ideally he should be on the 3rd line. But having weak scoring depth on the wings doesn't mean we should just be dumping the best players we have, who are also on good contracts.
Proto
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2010
- 11,523
- 1
What does this have to do with Higgins or his contract, though?
Besides, Dorsett had 1:09 less TOI a game than Higgins at 5v5 last year. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your 2nd and 4th line labels...
- Status
