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".