The Jim Benning & Management Megathread Part IV (MOD WARNING POST #554, #801)

[biturbo19]

You can't expect GMs to always make decisions that lead to results, but their decisions should always have logic behind it.

Competent executives take intelligent risks and accept sensible failures.

Several of Benning's decisions have little reason or merit behind them right off the bat, and are quite often high risk low reward.

I'm not sure how anyone sensible can support someone making such blatantly bad decisions.

Forest for the trees. Look for it.

 

[Bleach Clean]

And is that a bad thing? Giving a GM a great opportunity to actually shape a team in their mold is somehow a bad thing?

It's a terrible thing if there's no accountability along the way, yes.

That's part of change. You want to build a team of "your guys", sometimes the league-wide "value" on the guys you don't want, is going to be crappy - probably for a lot of the same reasons they aren't guys you want to keep. Weird how that works...

Non Sequitur.

Make some gambles in that transition period with fringe players and low rent picks? Yeah...some of them are going to come up bust. That's not a catastrophe...that's...normal and predictable.

If it ultimately ends up with a marginal product then no...that's not okay. But the "ends" isn't one year out, it takes time to reorganize an organization. That's years and years out. You can derisively quotation "transition phase" all you want...but it's the reality of a cap and parity NHL. And especially true, when moving from one head of state to another, and yet more true and apparent when the philosophy of these subsequent GMs is so radically different as it was from Gillis to Benning.

Not if they're poor 'gambles' out of the gate.

When is the transition over? Or, is that arbitrary too?

You seem to scoff at this idea of giving a GM 5 years to really build "their team". I don't understand this notion at all. You don't just turn a team around overnight...especially one in this unavoidable and undeniably declining middleground of the Canucks right now.

Benning is walking into a radically different situation than Gillis did. The latter was handed the core of a cup team, and did a pretty great job of filling in some pieces around them to get them ever so close that one year. He took what was there, and filled it out pretty well. Benning on the other hand...inherited a team in which Gillis had managed to add approximately...2 core players (Bo and Tanev?), with his former "Cup Core" on the wrong side of 30 as a group...and tasked with producing a "New Core" for "The Future". That's a massively more difficult and long-term task.

coax a cup-calibre core to the finals vs completely rebuild a team. different.

They can be as different as apples to oranges. It's about accountability along the way. Nobody here will, or should, wait 5 years in order to critique Benning's work now. They can critique it now _and_ later.

If i'm a GM taking on a job, i definitely want to know that i'm going to get my 5 years to build "My Team", not just tweak the last dude's blueprint and be condemned a year out despite delivering a pretty solid team that made the playoffs comfortable after being a bottom-10 team the year before. It's a good deal of time to commit to a GM, but if you're not willing to commit that time to their vision of a team, then honestly, why bother? Why even fire Gillis, if all you want is "more Gillis doings"?

5 years is a long time, but in organizational development terms...that's a very reasonable window. That's a reasonable window to justify a completion of a GM's contributions on. Gillis got his 5 years...he done good. But when his 5th was regression, and his 6th was an unwatchable turd of a season, that's not fickle...that's a guy who couldn't seem to bring the results in the seasons where it's completely and totally "Your Team".

I'd say judging a GM on 1 year vs 5 is pretty fickle. Gillis's larger track record proved his competence. But the completely fair thing that's happening here is that VAN fans are impartial. It took 1 bad year for Gillis to get ousted. It took 1 year for them to turn on Benning. Pretty fair I'd say.

It's not "knowledgeable" fans. It's fans who read a lot of "advanced stats" stuff. It's a fickle and superficial fanbase who ticket-wise, are already bailing like mad. Forum-wise here, are jumping from the bandwagon because it's no fun if the team isn't dominant, or dominantly rebuilding. It's knowledge of Corsi results, HERO charts, and "advanced stats", and the portrayal of them by the media.

It's a fanbase building their consensus on fundamentally...how many shots for/against the team had. Which is completely insane. You call it "Corsi" and people abide by this like its the law. You call it...shots for/against, and it's the most goofy thing to base a fundamental impression of a team around. Yet that's what it is...it's as "advanced" as the much derided "Zone Time" statistic...probably even less advanced, as it is fundamentally a rough approximation of the latter Zone Time stat by other means.

Knowledgeable is not the same as "reads a lot of press", "follows them blogs", and "can go to corsi providing sites on the internet".

You can't be serious? This is an appalling denunciation of a group of people. It's a subjective mess of an opinion.

First, knowledge and advanced stats can coincide. Your first two sentences are drivel: Not knowledgeable, but stats users... Ummm they are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Second, there are knowledgeable fans on here that are not advanced stats users who disagree with the work Benning has done. Stats don't even enter into it for them. They still see Benning as incompetent. Does that opinion matter more because it comes from a non-stats user?

Third, if you have an issue with advanced stats, then you have that issue. It doesn't invalidate the utility of those stats. You just don't ascribe to them. However, many, many people do.

Lastly, the Summer Summit and the media critique of the Lack and Kassian trades were wake up calls for management. Notice has been served. That's why TL is running down fans to talk to them at all... Why the damage control? It's up to Benning to improve. If he doesn't, he'll get hammered here because that's the way it's always worked in VAN. It won't matter if you consider the critique as originating from a worthy enough source or not.

 

[biturbo19]

It's a terrible thing if there's no accountability along the way. yes.

Accountability "along the way"...that's exactly what i'm suggesting is a foolhardy evaluation measure.

You don't decide what the finished product is a year into the process. That's impatient and short-sighted.

Non Sequitur.

Not even remotely a non-sequitur. Guys you don't value as part of "Your Team" holding disappointing or little value around the league, is the logical result if you're right in not highly valuing them...the converse only a logical conclusion, if your value of "players you want" is on the wrong track. Ie. If the play you don't "value" much is somehow highly valued around the league...they're gonna have some substantial value in trade. Other GMs want the players they want.

The only reason you disagree with this and call it a non-sequitur, is because you don't value the same players that Benning (and the rest of the league) do, in the same way as the actual consensus of logic based on results and what players are actually signed for and traded for, in reality.

Not if they're poor 'gambles' out of the gate.

Gambles are gambles. They're all "poor" in some iteration, that's what makes them "gambles". Sure things cost a lot more. When you gamble, either you've got a horseshoe up your ass, or you win some, you lose some. And that win some/lose some divide, is something Benning has thus far been skirting pretty well.

When is the transition over? Or, is that arbitrary too?

It's not "arbitrary" at all...it's directly tied to the whole "5 year" thing you seem unwilling to accept. By that point...it's clearly "Your Team"...that's what ought to be judged.

They can be as different as apples to oranges. It's about accountability along the way. Nobody here will, or should, wait 5 years in order to critique Benning's work now. They can critique it now _and_ later.

It's fair to make critiques along the way of individual moves...it's fair to look at those moves along with others in a broader picture and have some issues if you fundamentally disagree with them.

But the reality is...until we see the "end product" of what Benning produces out of what is essentially a "poison pill" roster that is expiring shortly...it just isn't fair to add up a whole bunch of pennies in the now, relatively to what could be dollars in the future. If people aren't willing to wait 5 years to see what a GM is trying to build and critique them on "The Roster" at that point...then fans are ****ing fickle and impatient, and/or that GM never should've been hired and the onus falls squarely on ownership and the figurehead President.

I'd say judging a GM on 1 year vs 5 is pretty fickle. Gillis's larger track record proved his competence. But the completely fair thing that's happening here is that VAN fans are impartial. It took 1 bad year for him to get ousted. It took 1 year for them to turn on Benning. Pretty fair I'd say.

Who is the one judging a GM on 1 year here? I wasn't among the "fire Gillis" fickle idiot chanters. I didn't hate what Gillis did on the whole...though there were some very very concerning trends emerging with him. You're accusing me of evaluating a GM on "1 year vs 5", when i'm simply suggesting that the guy should be given a chance to present his team over time. Ya'll the ones suggesting Benning is a lame duck GM one year in. I don't really understand the mathematical gymnastics required to arrive at that, and somehow call out the person unwilling to condemn a guy after ONE single season as the "fickle" one.


Outsting Gillis after 1 bad year. Calling for Benning's head after 1 year...who is really fickle here? I haven't been on board with either really...

Ridiculous and undeniably "fickle" that we had these "Fire Gillis" chants echoing through the normally uncomfortably quiet Rogers Arena, and now a year later have this massive remorse where people long for the sort of management style Gillis represented. It's super stupid. But even more stupid to not give the "new guy" a chance to build his team the way he wants, and rip him for not doing "what Gillis would've done". Given...the chants to turf the guy.

You can't be serious? This is an appalling denunciation of a group of people. It's a subjective mess of an opinion.

First, knowledgeable fans and advanced stats users can coincide. Your first two sentences are drivel: Not knowledgeable, but stats users... Ummm they are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Second, there are knowledgeable fans on here that are not advanced stats users that disagree with the work Benning has done. Stats don't even enter into it for them. They still see Benning as incompetent.

Third, if you have an issue with advanced stats, then you have an issue. It doesn't invalidate the utility of those stats. You just don't ascribe to them. However, many, many people do.

Knowledgeable fans and advanced stats users CAN coincide...but the way this terminology was used in the post i was responding to...along with the way these terms tend to be used here..."knowledge" is equated with "i read some Corsi stuff". And to deny this, is ignorant of the reality. That is quite simply, what "knowledgeable" is generally equated to in this modern environment of hockey discussions here. To quoth the bible Corsi is Canon, to step outside this gospel is not "knowledgeable", the ignorant unwashed masses who doesn't do some Maths to evaluate their hockey games. It's garbage, and a mass denunciation of people who don't base their hockey evaluations around a stupidly simplistic shots for/against dichotomy.

Lastly, the Summer Summit and the media critique of the Lack and Kassian trades were wake up calls for management. Notice has been served. It's up to Benning to improve. If he doesn't, he'll get hammered here because that's the way it's always worked in VAN. It won't matter if you consider the critique as originating from a worthy source.

You mean...the mass momentum critique that has clearly emerged in opposition to the Management here...the one brought to power by the last big mass momentum critique that got the last guy in charge in Gillis kicked to the curb? The guy who apparently the mass consensus wants every single moved measured against...

Now who is fickle?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Accountability "along the way"...that's exactly what i'm suggesting is a foolhardy evaluation measure.

You don't decide what the finished product is a year into the process. That's impatient and short-sighted.

Not even remotely a non-sequitur. Guys you don't value as part of "Your Team" holding disappointing or little value around the league, is the logical result if you're right in not highly valuing them...the converse only a logical conclusion, if your value of "players you want" is on the wrong track. Ie. If the play you don't "value" much is somehow highly valued around the league...they're gonna have some substantial value in trade. Other GMs want the players they want.

The only reason you disagree with this and call it a non-sequitur, is because you don't value the same players that Benning (and the rest of the league) do, in the same way as the actual consensus of logic based on results and what players are actually signed for and traded for, in reality.

Gambles are gambles. They're all "poor" in some iteration, that's what makes them "gambles". Sure things cost a lot more. When you gamble, either you've got a horseshoe up your ass, or you win some, you lose some. And that win some/lose some divide, is something Benning has thus far been skirting pretty well.

There are good gambles and bad gambles (probability).

You think Benning has won more gambles than he has lost? Very interesting. Please support this notion.

I don't need to see the finished product in order to judge Benning's transactions now. I thought the Garrison trade was poor. Do I need to see the team 5 years from now in order to judge it as such? No. You even admit to as much below with "It's fair to critique individual moves".

Can you describe what "actual consensus of logic based on results" means?

I absolutely believe in precedent - it's a reason Benning is getting killed in the media right now. They are estimating what he should have gotten, and have found his moves wanting.

It's not "arbitrary" at all...it's directly tied to the whole "5 year" thing you seem unwilling to accept. By that point...it's clearly "Your Team"...that's what ought to be judged.

It's fair to make critiques along the way of individual moves...it's fair to look at those moves along with others in a broader picture and have some issues if you fundamentally disagree with them.

But the reality is...until we see the "end product" of what Benning produces out of what is essentially a "poison pill" roster that is expiring shortly...it just isn't fair to add up a whole bunch of pennies in the now, relatively to what could be dollars in the future. If people aren't willing to wait 5 years to see what a GM is trying to build and critique them on "The Roster" at that point...then fans are ****ing fickle and impatient, and/or that GM never should've been hired and the onus falls squarely on ownership and the figurehead President.

If it's fair to critique along the way, what's the issue? That's exactly what's happening here.

Who is the one judging a GM on 1 year here? I wasn't among the "fire Gillis" fickle idiot chanters. I didn't hate what Gillis did on the whole...though there were some very very concerning trends emerging with him. You're accusing me of evaluating a GM on "1 year vs 5", when i'm simply suggesting that the guy should be given a chance to present his team over time. Ya'll the ones suggesting Benning is a lame duck GM one year in. I don't really understand the mathematical gymnastics required to arrive at that, and somehow call out the person unwilling to condemn a guy after ONE single season as the "fickle" one.

Outsting Gillis after 1 bad year. Calling for Benning's head after 1 year...who is really fickle here? I haven't been on board with either really...

Ridiculous and undeniably "fickle" that we had these "Fire Gillis" chants echoing through the normally uncomfortably quiet Rogers Arena, and now a year later have this massive remorse where people long for the sort of management style Gillis represented. It's super stupid. But even more stupid to not give the "new guy" a chance to build his team the way he wants, and rip him for not doing "what Gillis would've done". Given...the chants to turf the guy.

I don't think I called you fickle...?

Benning has to earn that reprieve. He needs some good moves after those Lack and Kassian deals... Confidence levels in him are really low across the board. This really doesn't have anything to do with Gillis. It's just how Benning is being judged.

Knowledgeable fans and advanced stats users CAN coincide...but the way this terminology was used in the post i was responding to...along with the way these terms tend to be used here..."knowledge" is equated with "i read some Corsi stuff". And to deny this, is ignorant of the reality. That is quite simply, what "knowledgeable" is generally equated to in this modern environment of hockey discussions here. To quoth the bible Corsi is Canon, to step outside this gospel is not "knowledgeable", the ignorant unwashed masses who doesn't do some Maths to evaluate their hockey games. It's garbage, and a mass denunciation of people who don't base their hockey evaluations around a stupidly simplistic shots for/against dichotomy.

That's your perception of reality. It's also your interpretation of the word "knowledgeable".

There are posters here who have reasoned opinions that do not ascribe to advanced stats (arsmaster off the top), that also do not like what Benning has done.

You mean...the mass momentum critique that has clearly emerged in opposition to the Management here...the one brought to power by the last big mass momentum critique that got the last guy in charge in Gillis kicked to the curb? The guy who apparently the mass consensus wants every single moved measured against...

Now who is fickle?

Don't know about wanting moves judged against Gillis's own, but by and large, the VAN fanbase is fickle. They got Gillis ousted after one poor season. If the Summer Summit is any indication, they're already on Benning. He's on their radar. If he doesn't improve, maybe you see another Rogers Arena outcry for Benning? Who knows, but that's what Benning has to deal with - like it or not.

 

[biturbo19]

There are good gambles and bad gambles (probability).

You think Benning has won more gambles than he has lost? Very interesting. Please support this notion.

We're not talking straight probability here. We're talking wildly unpredictable weighted probabilities.

And in that market...Benning has basically managed to tread water on the whole so far...with key results pending?

You gamble on these things, and more than just to hit some interesting small money like Vey who played an NHL season for us, or a Pedan who head issues aside, looks like a solid gamble...you're hoping for a jackpot. Hitting it big on a gamble, can easily outweight a few low wager misses, some kind of middling returns.

As far as these real "gambles"...we've seen some assorted picks for a spare forward with issues but still some upside if he can get stronger, a defence prospect with some interesting upside if his head checks out, a defence prospect who has some major flaws, but has at least some small PP niche upside at this point, i'd throw rolling with Markstrom over Lack in there really...remains to be seen how that pans out, and of course Bae who has looked dynamite since being brought into the Canucks organization.

It's not huge wins, but it's also not clear losses at this point...it's treading water, we'll see who sinks or swims. And ultimately, it comes down to trying to hit that one jackpot. If one of these guys rings the bells as a key contributor in the NHL...that's a win overall, even if the whole rest of the slate chip in only a few bits here and there and mostly bust out completely.

If someone like say...Baertschi manages to become a legitimate top-6 forward for us...the whole program is a success as far as i'm concerned. That's worth it...you trade so many marginal picks for a young top-6 forward easily. Obviously that's not a thing yet...and as such, i'm not going to start waving the victory flag on it just yet...but that's just the same as i'm not going to start saying Benning has "lost" more gambles than he's won at this point either.

I don't need to see the finished product in order to judge Benning's transactions now. I thought the Garrison trade was poor. Do I need to see the team 5 years from now in order to judge it as such? No. You even admit to as much below with "It's fair to critique individual moves".

Great, you thought the Garrison trade was poor...based on ONE YEAR of results.

Take a gander at the Tampa forums, and how they're looking at the length of that Garrison contract now...when it comes down to re-upping Stamkos and the Triplets. They're happy with Garrison for now, as most Canucks fans were for the time being...but before that contract is up, it's gonna get in the way of some things.

And the flip side is Vey...disappointing rookie season. But it's hardly time to close the book on him completely...there's still room for improvement on our short end of the trade...the Tampa side...that's just going to get worse from here. That's why it's silly to make broad sweeping conclusions about a management team on the whole, based on one single year of results.

Can you describe what "actual consensus of logic based on results" means?

In this particular context as applied? Essentially...it's the acceptance of reality. For example...That when trades happen, they happen because they're awfully darn close to what two parties will agree on. That a perceived difference in value might not always be completely down to something as basic as "used car salesman negotiating prowess"...and is in fact often times, simply a case of a player being traded for what a player is worth.

It's in reference to frequent distortions of reality made to suit an agenda here. "Ryan Stanton is a top-4D on a tremendously cheap contract this is an outrage" ---> ain't nobody want him apparently.

"Jakub Markstrom is going to be lost for nothing on waivers this is such stupid asset management" ---> spends the season developing in Utica.

"Mike Santorelli is a top-6 forward how could we let him go" ---> signs a tiny 1-year contract and then bounces around right back to unsigned again this year.

i could go on and on, but that's the gist of it.

I absolutely believe in precedent - it's a reason Benning is getting killed in the media right now. They are estimating what he should have gotten, and have found his moves wanting.

Precedent in the fanbase and media as a "consensus" is an extremely dangerous thing to rely on. Rarely does it seem to align with the reality. Each team values its own players over others...it's natural. But it can also be very misleading, and often ends up being completely removed from what "actual values" are in trade for example.

If it's fair to critique along the way, what's the issue? That's exactly what's happening here.

It is fair to critique along the way. And i've been quite active in that. I think there's a lot of interesting discussion to be had in a lot of those critiques along the way.

But that's a far reach from condemning an entire regime one year in based on the critiques of individual moves, independent of the "overarching goals".

Benning has to earn that reprieve. He needs some good moves after those Lack and Kassian deals... Confidence levels in him are really low across the board. This really doesn't have anything to do with Gillis. It's just how Benning is being judged.

Why, because fans thought those were some pretty cool dudes and now they're all mad?

I mean yeah...it takes either some real cajones or some real ignorance to ship out a pair of fan-favourites like that. I'm more inclined to think it's the former, they don't appear surprised by the backlash. They're clearly not doing this stuff purely to piss off fans or something. It's cliche...but sometimes, the right think isn't the popular thing.

Frankly, i didn't particularly like either of those moves. I would've kept the better and more proven goaltender in Lack as i said many times. I would have hoped for and tried to press for a more futures-based return for Kassian. But there is still plenty of reasonable logic behind these moves that i can accept and see how they play out...even if the "value" was very disappointing and poor. The book isn't closed on these deals the day after the papers are faxed through to head office. That's not where this team is headed...

That's your perception of reality. It's also your interpretation of the word "knowledgeable".

There are posters here who have reasoned opinions that do not ascribe to advanced stats (arsmaster off the top), that also do not like what Benning has done.

That's not my definition of the world "knowledgeable", that's the apparent consensus here.

When it comes to very well reasoned posters who do not ascribe to advanced stats (or even those who do, who at least don't present that in default as the opening remarks in some for or another), i've had a great number of real interesting discussions borne out of that. Disagreement and discussion needn't be so adversarial...i like to think there's something to be learned, or at least thought about in those kind of discussions. But when it's just a blurb of advanced stats, or a plain ol' regurgitated standard response based on those numbers...there often just isn't much to talk about. It's presented as "fact" - despite being extremely far from it.

I try my best to provide reasoned and concrete points outside of "thems the corsis and stuff", and to respond to reasoned and concrete discussion points in turn. And i really and truly wish more would extend the same apparent courtesy.

Don't know about wanting moves judged against Gillis's own, but by and large, the VAN fanbase is fickle. They got Gillis ousted after one poor season. If the Summer Summit is any indication, they're already on Benning. He's on their radar. If he doesn't improve, maybe you see another Rogers Arena outcry for Benning? Who knows, but that's what Benning has to deal with - like it or not.

I think this is definitely a characteristic of the Canucks fanbase on the whole. There is some inherent fickleness there, it's something other fanbases have long ago picked up on about the group in general. Not that everyone is such...but there seems to be a momentum generating segment representing that.

What that means for Benning and the way the Summer Summit clearly showed a very oppositional tone in many of the questions...i really hope it's not something that pressures ownership into another firing. As i've said...you want a "long-term vision", i think you've gotta be willing to commit to "long-term evaluation". To hire someone on a 5 year agenda...and fire them in year 2 for not being finished yet...it's just fickle and nonsensical.


I mean, it's weird...when Benning was first hired, i kind of groaned and thought, "here we go...we've got the Bruins castoff buckle up", and despite Benning basically herping and derping his way to some goofy Meat and Taters memes in the media and making some fairly offensive looking deals contract/trade wise at times...somehow, i've oddly found that there's a logic in it that i really identify with. It may be ass backwards to the Corsi brigade and even "asset management" at times, and more than a few times i've completely disagreed with the specific players or pieces involved...But underneath it all, there's a reasoning i can get behind and i really am interested in seeing where it ends up when it's a full on "Jim Benning Team". If that team is garbage and the the prospect pool in an inevitable rebuild at that point is also garbage and there's just no hope at all...then yeah, imma break out my pitchfork. But as it stands now...it's been ONE YEAR. Crazy fickle how quickly opinion has seemed to shift based on a lot of moves that really are not in the books just yet as "finished".

 

[BuzzBuzz]

http://grantland.com/features/aj-preller-mlb-san-diego-padres-national-league-west/

Reminds me a bit of Bennings & Co. Not the same extent (yet).

He came to San Diego after a decade with the Texas Rangers, where he worked his way up to assistant GM while establishing a reputation as a player development guru who would let nothing deter him from finding the best players possible, not even the rulebook.

For a player development expert, Preller’s focus on the quick and obvious fix last winter was surprising and even somewhat disturbing. It also was disastrous.

Today, the Padres are a bad team saddled with bad contracts

But you can’t rebuild a franchise as fast as you can torch it. Preller isn’t getting nearly as much talent in a sell-off as he gave up in his reckless attempt to remodel his roster.

 

[Barney Gumble]

But as it stands now...it's been ONE YEAR. Crazy fickle how quickly opinion has seemed to shift based on a lot of moves that really are not in the books just yet as "finished".

Benning doesn't help himself by supplying ammo to the people in the peanut gallery.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Defending Benning by clinging to the notion it's only been one year and the end game isn't clear yet sounds like the biggest nonsense cop out.

Basically it's saying all these poor value transactions don't matter and are beyond criticism because the team MIGHT be good in 5 years.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Defending Benning by clinging to the notion it's only been one year and the end game isn't clear yet sounds like the biggest nonsense cop out.

Basically it's saying all these poor value transactions don't matter and are beyond criticism because the team MIGHT be good in 5 years.

Clearing house means you are going to get poor value a couple times. no biggy for me.

 

[racerjoe]

Clearing house means you are going to get poor value a couple times. no biggy for me.

What moves has he done that are good value?

 

[Scurr]

What moves has he done that are good value?

I think this is why we have to wait. Baertschi, Pedan, Clendenning, Vey and Markstrom have to be where Benning gets his 'value' from. If he can get two or three significant contributors (top 6 F/top 4 D/Starter) out of that group, it will be a huge return given the investment made.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

^ he didn't acquire markstrom; you're thinking of miller.

 

[Wisp]

Again: Benning's moves aren't made in a vacuum. Their is tons of precedence around this league to contrast his body of work against.

Their is no reason to let this experiment run his course, especially when their is enough data on hand to determine it is likely going to kill his subject.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Again: Benning's moves aren't made in a vacuum. Their is tons of precedence around this league to contrast his body of work against.

Their is no reason to let his experiment run his course, especially when their is enough data on hand to determine he's likely going to kill his subject.

What do you mean by the first statement? There are other teams around the league in our position to compare to?

 

[Wisp]

I mean there are a thousand trades and transactions in the last five years to contrast his too.

Are you trying to suggest our situation is unique, and can't be compared against? if so, that's poppycock. we aren't the first expiring team to arrogantly believe we could retool on the fly and likely won't be the last.

 

[Scurr]

^ he didn't acquire markstrom; you're thinking of miller.

No he didn't acquire him but he kept him as a low cost asset. He got him through waivers to rehab him as an asset and then passed on the 5th round? evaluation of other GM's and traded Lack instead. If we're going to hold it against him that he sold low on Lack (I think he did), then it also makes sense to credit him for his evaluation of Markstom (should he become a player).

Markstrom + 3rd > Lack + 5th?

That's the bet Benning made. If Markstrom turns out to be as good a starter (or better) as Lack, the 'value' starts to look much better.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Again: Benning's moves aren't made in a vacuum. Their is tons of precedence around this league to contrast his body of work against.

Their is no reason to let this experiment run his course, especially when their is enough data on hand to determine it is likely going to kill his subject.

I mean there are a thousand trades and transactions in the last five years to contrast his too.

Are you trying to suggest our situation is unique, and can't be compared against? if so, that's poppycock. we aren't the first expiring team to arrogantly believe we could retool on the fly and likely won't be the last.

the situation of this team is that we are one of the oldest in the NHL who rode a core built of players drafted in the 90s until they couldn't gallop any further. The window of the team was slammed shut to the disbelieving eyes of fans and ownership. That is where we stand today, at the start of a long road.

If you can find me the comparable a in listening.

 

[Wisp]

Hogarth: Off the top of my head, the Sutter-Feaster run Flames and The Burke-Nonis run Maple Leafs. They all arrogantly believed they could side-step an aggressive rebuild. and it blew up in their face.

Even the much-overrated-and-over-celebrated-Detroit-Red-Wings have been ramming their head against futility for the last six years with nothing to show for it. Acquiring prospects and trying to compete year to year? They're still middling with a capital M, and that's with D and Z on the roster. Babcock didn't even believe in them.

The Canucks aren't special butterflies in this regard. Detorit are good drafters and player developers, and even if they have spent six years spinning their wheels, I don't know what chance we have.

That's even without dissecting Benning's individual moves. We know he's not getting enough out of his transactions and that he's effing up BECAUSE we can compare his transactions against the others around the league. We know he's under-performing relative to his peers in terms of value.

I'm not going to humour you anymore on this. It's pretty obvious.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Luongo never "came around"...he was stuck here - what was he going to do, refuse to report so the Canucks could just terminate his million year contract? He festered here...ultimately part of the locker room discord, until it all finally came to a head he was traded (read, dumped) for a goaltending project and effectively a one-year rental, 100% easily replaceable bottom-6 player..WITH salary retention, on a deal that is inevitably going to come back to bite us in the ass with cap recapture penalties, completely out of the control of whoever is the GM here when Luongo decides to pack it in.

Rumors ran abound he was indeed coming around. Regardless, his play didn't suffer despite supposed locker room discord, which was the crux of my point. Keeping Kesler would not have suddenly resulted in his play deteriorating as he'd only hurt himself in the the long haul. Lu got exactly what he wanted by "sucking it up," though under different circumstances.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Great, you thought the Garrison trade was poor...based on ONE YEAR of results.

Take a gander at the Tampa forums, and how they're looking at the length of that Garrison contract now...when it comes down to re-upping Stamkos and the Triplets. They're happy with Garrison for now, as most Canucks fans were for the time being...but before that contract is up, it's gonna get in the way of some things.

And the flip side is Vey...disappointing rookie season. But it's hardly time to close the book on him completely...there's still room for improvement on our short end of the trade...the Tampa side...that's just going to get worse from here. That's why it's silly to make broad sweeping conclusions about a management team on the whole, based on one single year of results.

What Vey becomes does not change the paradigm. We traded a good defenseman, one of our continual needs, for a fringe prospect LA had to move or risk losing on waivers. People are upset by the aforementioned context. Even if Vey develops into a decent player, it doesn't mean the initial trade was good. We could have acquired him using our own second.

And as a direct consequence on Benning's lack of a proper contingency, we struggled on defense all season. Criticism for the trade Garrison would be far less damning had we signed or acquired an adequate replacement. Instead, we chose to gamble on Sbisa - signing him to an extension despite his woefully inept results.

Context is why people are condemning Benning. Not simply the trade itself.

Precedent in the fanbase and media as a "consensus" is an extremely dangerous thing to rely on. Rarely does it seem to align with the reality. Each team values its own players over others...it's natural. But it can also be very misleading, and often ends up being completely removed from what "actual values" are in trade for example.

This sets a dangerous precedent. GMs are just as fallible as media or fans. In fact, I would go so far as to claim many overrate the supposed knowledge GMs have. By all accounts Benning values Sbisa as a potential top four defenseman, yet no metric provides any reason why beyond his own subjective opinion. In essence, he is no different than fans of this board incessantly valuing Santorelli as a second line center.

It is fair to critique along the way. And i've been quite active in that. I think there's a lot of interesting discussion to be had in a lot of those critiques along the way.

But that's a far reach from condemning an entire regime one year in based on the critiques of individual moves, independent of the "overarching goals".

Condemnation derives from a lack of confidence. Benning has yet to earn any leeway, thus he's granted none. Gillis made mistakes along the way, but his overall success bought him some wiggle room.

Say we trade Vrbata and/or Hamhuis for a favorable good return this coming deadline. Opinions will change because Benning has done something to earn praise. As of now, we have only some rather pedestrian moves to assess, resulting in the overall negative result.

I mean yeah...it takes either some real cajones or some real ignorance to ship out a pair of fan-favourites like that. I'm more inclined to think it's the former, they don't appear surprised by the backlash. They're clearly not doing this stuff purely to piss off fans or something. It's cliche...but sometimes, the right think isn't the popular thing.

Reports say otherwise. More than a few media sources claimed Linden and Benning were already frustrated over fan vitriol. They may not have been surprised per se, but they certainly didn't appreciate it.

Frankly, i didn't particularly like either of those moves. I would've kept the better and more proven goaltender in Lack as i said many times. I would have hoped for and tried to press for a more futures-based return for Kassian. But there is still plenty of reasonable logic behind these moves that i can accept and see how they play out...even if the "value" was very disappointing and poor. The book isn't closed on these deals the day after the papers are faxed through to head office. That's not where this team is headed...

No, however we can look assess the value based on context. Let's use Kassian/Prust. We know...

- Kassian is a struggling 24 year old physical playmaker, whose inability to maintain consistency has seen repeated demotions. His strides once elevated to the top six suggest he has plenty of talent, yet his past season was spent being maligned on a depth line being molded into a "banger" type player.

- Prust is an aged veteran with a notable injury history, which has declined his career in recent years. Even at his peek, he essentially mirrors Dorrsett, though probably shouldn't be used on a third line.

Taking those two evaluations into account. An inconsistent Kassian is a better player than Prust. Hence why people rip Benning for the trade, especially once you include the younger narrative management perpetuates. Context suggests it's downright awful from a skill perspective. Prust's only actual advantage is the arbitrary "leader/mentor" attribute - a role already filled by others.

We do not need to wait five years to determine the poor value of this trade.

In the end, you may feel Benning as earned some leeway. But that's a subjective view not everyone will share. They aren't anymore wrong or fickle. They simply disagree Benning deserves "benefit of the doubt" based on results so far.

 

[I in the Eye]

No he didn't acquire him but he kept him as a low cost asset. He got him through waivers to rehab him as an asset and then passed on the 5th round? evaluation of other GM's and traded Lack instead. If we're going to hold it against him that he sold low on Lack (I think he did), then it also makes sense to credit him for his evaluation of Markstom (should he become a player).

Markstrom + 3rd > Lack + 5th?

That's the bet Benning made. If Markstrom turns out to be as good a starter (or better) as Lack, the 'value' starts to look much better.

I think you have to factor Miller into the equation, as well. Benning had the option of trading Miller, and keeping both Lack and Markstrom, so I think Miller needs to be in the equation. Benning is betting that:

Markstrom + 3rd + Miller + $7.4m cap cost (or whatever it is, around this) > Lack + 5th* + Markstrom + $2.6m cap cost (or whatever it is, around this).

* I'll assume that Miller could have returned a 5th. Benning said he could have traded Miller, so I assume 5th, 6th, or 7th. If Benning could have received a 5th for an unproven, younger NHL goaltender... I'll assume that Benning could have gotten a 5th, or 6th, or 7th, for a veteran #1 NHL goaltender, despite a NTC and making $6m. But, if need be, the 5th (or any value attached to Miller can be taken out, IMO, if the need to eat cap hit can also be taken out of the equation). To make things nicer, I think it can be assumed that Miller just disappears... no remnants that he was here.

The bet that Benning made, is not only that Markstrom turns out to be a good starter (or better) than Lack, but that the combo of Miller and Markstrom will bring to the team more value than the combo that Lack and Markstrom would have. If Markstrom and Lack both turn out to be excellent goaltenders, I don't think Benning necessarily wins here in the value equation. It depends on Miller, as well.

I don't buy that Benning couldn't have traded Miller, and was forced to trade one of Lack or Markstrom (making it a nicer value equation)... and Benning said as much at the Summer Summit, himself. Therefore, I think Miller has to be in this value equation... It complicates the equation, and brings more assumptions, but I think it's a factor that needs to be included (and thought about). And then, once you look at the cap space, that then introduces needing to look at other moves that were done for cap considerations. Some parts of the value is going to be clear-cut winner or loser, but other parts of the value is going to be highly debatable.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

No he didn't acquire him but he kept him as a low cost asset. He got him through waivers to rehab him as an asset and then passed on the 5th round? evaluation of other GM's and traded Lack instead. If we're going to hold it against him that he sold low on Lack (I think he did), then it also makes sense to credit him for his evaluation of Markstom (should he become a player).

Markstrom + 3rd > Lack + 5th?

That's the bet Benning made. If Markstrom turns out to be as good a starter (or better) as Lack, the 'value' starts to look much better.

that's fair.

but my question isn't "does markstrom ride last year's momentum moving forward or stagnate?" it's "do we even get the opportunity to find out with miller in the way?"

 

[Captain Bowie]

what a bunch of awesome ****ing names in that list too, huh. that definitely has the potential to be one of those "shanahan for stevens" looking trades

Really? To each his own I guess. I wouldn't take anyone on that list over McCann.

 

[biturbo19]

Defending Benning by clinging to the notion it's only been one year and the end game isn't clear yet sounds like the biggest nonsense cop out.

Basically it's saying all these poor value transactions don't matter and are beyond criticism because the team MIGHT be good in 5 years.

The thing is, that's what a rebuild ultimately is. It's doing things that you hope in the end, might make you a better team in 5 years.

That end result is what really matters. There's a fixation in what you're saying, with evaluating "value" based on what we got for players who are no longer here, no longer part of the team, and on individual pieces of a larger and as yet incomplete whole.

There have been multiple instances of apparent "poor value" with Benning in trades/signings...but ultimately, the goal is, and should be, to build a future Canucks team, not to "win" every trade or signing the day of.

And in that regard...it's crazy to close the book on a total regime one single year into their project.

Evaluate on what is being put together, not what is being torn apart imo.

 

[Huggy]

If benning isnt trying to win a cup next year why are trades like vey. And contractslike sbisa. At all an indication of his talent. I look at things like moving bieksa and drafting virtanen over nylander as the things u know signal a championship is close