Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CBJ] Canucks acquire F Tyler Motte, Jussi Jokinen for F Thomas Vanek

[ChefBoiRD]

I hear a lot about not becoming the Oilers, since Benning was hired they have drafted guys like Draisaitl, McDavid, Puljujarvi and Yamamoto. You brag about a prospect pool that futures Boeser and Pettersson, if anything that should give you an idea that a couple of top end guys don't absolve an incompetent GM

Do Boeser and Pettersson give you any hope?

 

[Peter10]

Do Boeser and Pettersson give you any hope?

I love them both but that doesn't mean it makes the man who drafted them any special. However, I would easily trade both for McDavid and Yamamoto who were taken by the Oilers in the same drafts but still think that Chiarelli is at least as bad as Benning. Drafting doesn't make a good GM, it's just one of several important parts of of the job and Benning is failing most of them.

 

[ChefBoiRD]

I love them both but that doesn't mean it makes the man who drafted them any special. However, I would easily trade both for McDavid and Yamamoto who were taken by the Oilers in the same drafts but still think that Chiarelli is at least as bad as Benning. Drafting doesn't make a good GM, it's just one of several important parts of of the job and Benning is failing most of them.

Would have you preferred Roslovic instead of Boeser and lets say Vilardi instead of Pettersson?

 

[CanaFan]

circling back to the sarcasm of the original "failings" post?

Did I read the original post wrong? Did I sense sarcasm? Or did my senses tell me wrong?

There's sarcasm in this post? I honestly didn't see it as it actually seems quite rational and correct. Good catch by you I guess.

He's completely failed his way into one of, if not the strongest prospect pool in hockey and a couple of potential superstars in Boeser and Pettersson.

Just awful.

 

[nowhereman]

To be fair, it's hard to argue a losing position without resorting to those tactics. I cut them a lot of slack because truthfully, I'm not sure I'd even know how to argue a pro-Benning position. I'd probably bring up a long-ago fired GM a lot to try to make it seem like my guy is better and hope the other side takes the bait.

To be honest, anyone arguing too hard in any one direction, pro or anti-Benning, is just grasping. The guy has been at the helm for only four years. In his defense, he inherited a team full of aging veterans with NTCs, lead by two career-Canucks who were absolutely unmovable. In the 6 years prior to him joining the Canucks, Vancouver boasted one of the worst drafting records in all of professional sports. But anti-Benning zealots expected him to rebuild Rome in a day, even though he was the equivalent of a back-up goalie coming in at 5 to 0. On the other hand, pro-Benning posters ignore the mistakes he's made on his pro-scouting and trades, along with a horrible Loui Eriksson contract.

Like most things Canucks-related, those who subscribe to either end of the extremes are wrong. He's somewhere in the middle... He's missed on some draft picks and hit homeruns on others, building up one of the best prospect pools in the NHL. He's fleeced a few teams, on the trade front, and has also been on the losing side a few times. He's brought in some great signings and a few albatroses, as well.

At the end of the day, Benning has been a competent general manager. Nothing to really right home about. But as his draft picks start to make the NHL, we'll see if his vision is really going to work. At this point, it's still too soon to judge. I defend Benning's drafting record because it's one of the feathers in his cap and it peeves me to see the anti-Benning crew ignoring that and proclaiming that "every team has prospects as good as the Canucks". Just swallow your damn pride and admit that he has done a few things right.

But being level-headed and patient is not something most Canucks fans can wrap their head around.

There's sarcasm in this post? I honestly didn't see it as it actually seems quite rational and correct. Good catch by you I guess.

It's obviously sarcasm. The Canucks made the playoffs the year they drafted Boeser and Pettersson was a tremendous pick, even at #5 (it could have been Glass, Rasmussen, Tippett, etc.)

 

[Kryten]

To be honest, anyone arguing too hard in any one direction, pro or anti-Benning, is just grasping. The guy has been at the helm for only four years. In his defense, he inherited a team full of aging veterans with NTCs, lead by two career-Canucks who were absolutely unmovable. In the 6 years prior to him joining the Canucks, Vancouver boasted one of the worst drafting records in all of professional sports. But anti-Benning zealots expected him to rebuild Rome in a day, even though he was the equivalent of a back-up goalie coming in at 5 to 0. On the other hand, pro-Benning posters ignore the mistakes he's made on his pro-scouting and trades, along with a horrible Loui Eriksson contract.

Like most things Canucks-related, those who subscribe to either end of the extremes are wrong. He's somewhere in the middle... He's missed on some draft picks and hit homeruns on others, building up one of the best prospect pools in the NHL. He's fleeced a few teams, on the trade front, and has also been on the losing side a few times. He's brought in some great signings and a few albatroses, as well.

At the end of the day, Benning has been a competent general manager. Nothing to really right home about. But as his draft picks start to make the NHL, we'll see if his vision is really going to work. At this point, it's still too soon to judge. I defend Benning's drafting record because it's one of the feathers in his cap and it peeves me to see the anti-Benning crew ignoring that and proclaiming that "every team has prospects as good as the Canucks". Just swallow your damn pride and admit that he has done a few things right.

But being level-headed and patient is not something most Canucks fans can wrap their head around.


It's obviously sarcasm. The Canucks made the playoffs the year they drafted Boeser and Pettersson was a tremendous pick, even at #5 (it could have been Glass, Rasmussen, Tippett, etc.)

I applaud your centrist view but even with taking that stance there is a clear slant to the side of bad gm, the needle is not in the middle for him

 

[Peter10]

To be honest, anyone arguing too hard in any one direction, pro or anti-Benning, is just grasping. The guy has been at the helm for only four years. In his defense, he inherited a team full of aging veterans with NTCs, lead by two career-Canucks who were absolutely unmovable. In the 6 years prior to him joining the Canucks, Vancouver boasted one of the worst drafting records in all of professional sports. But anti-Benning zealots expected him to rebuild Rome in a day, even though he was the equivalent of a back-up goalie coming in at 5 to 0. On the other hand, pro-Benning posters ignore the mistakes he's made on his pro-scouting and trades, along with a horrible Loui Eriksson contract.

And who exactly did that? Nobody in his right mind if you ask me. However, there is one guy who thought we would be right up there with the elite team even this year or latest next year, you probably have heard of him...

Like most things Canucks-related, those who subscribe to either end of the extremes are wrong. He's somewhere in the middle... He's missed on some draft picks and hit homeruns on others, building up one of the best prospect pools in the NHL. He's fleeced a few teams, on the trade front, and has also been on the losing side a few times. He's brought in some great signings and a few albatroses, as well.

Which teams did he fleece besides Ottawa and even in this he didnt fleece anyone as Dorion gave Benning an "untouchable" list of his prospects and pretty much asked Benning to pick one from the remaining.

I give you the Boeser pick as an home run but I wouldnt even be so sure that this is one of the best prospect pools in the league even if its promising but it better damn be after selecting top 6 3 times in the last four years.

What are the great signings you speak of? I cant find any. Stecher was nice but far from great. Vanek...well yeah he helped us to get Motte, now that was awesome.

At the end of the day, Benning has been a competent general manager. Nothing to really right home about. But as his draft picks start to make the NHL, we'll see if his vision is really going to work. At this point, it's still too soon to judge. I defend Benning's drafting record because it's one of the feathers in his cap and it peeves me to see the anti-Benning crew ignoring that and proclaiming that "every team has prospects as good as the Canucks". Just swallow your damn pride and admit that he has done a few things right.

He really isnt, he has failed at some of the most basic tasks of a GM.

Speaking of the draft record under his tenure, it is above average at least (of course impacted by the high picks) but even giving him that, of what use is it if he tends to give away his good picks or run them to russia (Forsling/Tryamkin). Good drafting helps nothing if you are failing at every aspect of being a GM.

 

[CanaFan]

To be honest, anyone arguing too hard in any one direction, pro or anti-Benning, is just grasping. The guy has been at the helm for only four years. In his defense, he inherited a team full of aging veterans with NTCs, lead by two career-Canucks who were absolutely unmovable. In the 6 years prior to him joining the Canucks, Vancouver boasted one of the worst drafting records in all of professional sports. But anti-Benning zealots expected him to rebuild Rome in a day, even though he was the equivalent of a back-up goalie coming in at 5 to 0. On the other hand, pro-Benning posters ignore the mistakes he's made on his pro-scouting and trades, along with a horrible Loui Eriksson contract.

Like most things Canucks-related, those who subscribe to either end of the extremes are wrong. He's somewhere in the middle... He's missed on some draft picks and hit homeruns on others, building up one of the best prospect pools in the NHL. He's fleeced a few teams, on the trade front, and has also been on the losing side a few times. He's brought in some great signings and a few albatroses, as well.

At the end of the day, Benning has been a competent general manager. Nothing to really right home about. But as his draft picks start to make the NHL, we'll see if his vision is really going to work. At this point, it's still too soon to judge. I defend Benning's drafting record because it's one of the feathers in his cap and it peeves me to see the anti-Benning crew ignoring that and proclaiming that "every team has prospects as good as the Canucks". Just swallow your damn pride and admit that he has done a few things right.

But being level-headed and patient is not something most Canucks fans can wrap their head around.


It's obviously sarcasm. The Canucks made the playoffs the year they drafted Boeser and Pettersson was a tremendous pick, even at #5 (it could have been Glass, Rasmussen, Tippett, etc.)

And yet you still can't acknowledge that the #5 pick came from the failures of being a 29th place team. That makes having a reasonable conversation impossible, no matter how "level headed" you claim to be.

And i've never denied he's "done a few things right". That's the annoying part of the position that posters like you take. You completely ignore the times that Benning actually does get praised for doing something right (Dahlen trade, Petterson pick, Boeser pick) and pretend that "the haters" are completely unfair and unjust. It's why so many discussions just end up spiralling down into ad hominems going back and forth. Benning has done A LOT of things poorly. No one is saying he has done 100% of things poorly. But to read your post above it seems like you only see that latter.

 

[Hit the post]

So..... what do we have in Motte?

 

[Peter10]

So..... what do we have in Motte?

Looks like a young Patty Kane to me

 

[VanJack]

So..... what do we have in Motte?

Can't understand all the 'haters' on this thread....if by some miracle Jimbo had extracted a draft pick for Vanek, it wouldn't have been much more than a fourth or fifth rounder....can anyone contemplate how long it takes for a kid selected that late in the draft to actually show up in the NHL, if at all?....3-4 years of development time, and likely at least a couple of years in the AHL.

If all Motte turns out to be is a solid player for Utica and a depth call-up to the Canucks, then so what?....all the Jackets are getting is two months of Vanek anyway....it's not like they're ever going to re-sign him. The Benning-baiters have lots of ammo with other trades, but surely not with this one.

 

[CanaFan]

Can't understand all the 'haters' on this thread....if by some miracle Jimbo had extracted a draft pick for Vanek, it wouldn't have been much more than a fourth or fifth rounder....can anyone contemplate how long it takes for a kid selected that late in the draft to actually show up in the NHL, if at all?....3-4 years of development time, and likely at least a couple of years in the AHL.

If all Motte turns out to be is a solid player for Utica and a depth call-up to the Canucks, then so what?....all the Jackets are getting is two months of Vanek anyway....it's not like they're ever going to re-sign him. The Benning-baiters have lots of ammo with other trades, but surely not with this one.

Because getting a 3rd or 4th for Vanek wouldn't have been a "miracle" for another GM probably. And we've seen the Motte type trades to the point where we know how it is likely to end. Same as Vey, Pedan, Clendenning, Etem, Pouliot, etc etc. Can't we just for once try a draft pick? I've been told Benning has the best prospect pool in the league because of his drafting. Just saying it might be worth a shot from time to time, no?

 

[vcanuck]

lmao why is this thread still being bumped by Benning haters?

this topic has been beaten to death. Vanek is gonna retire in a year or two from now ffs MOVE ON

 

[2011 still hurts]

lmao why is this thread still being bumped by Benning haters?

this topic has been beaten to death. Vanek is gonna retire in a year or two from now ffs MOVE ON

"why do people keep criticizing bennings shit moves???? what, is he mainly responsible for managing the team and getting value out of transactions or something???"

 

[vcanuck]

"why do people keep criticizing bennings **** moves???? what, is he mainly responsible for managing the team and getting value out of transactions or something???"

how is getting an assest for a 35 yr old pending UFA that will probably retire soon a shitty move?

 

[timw33]

how is getting an assest for a 35 yr old pending UFA that will probably retire soon a ****ty move?

If he retires in a year or two, or after this year, it doesn't matter at all to his value at the time of the deadline.

Hell, he had value *because* he was a pending UFA, and was a rare legit offensive talent available at the deadline where mid round picks were flying around for AHL/NHL tweener players. And only last year Vanek had returned a 3rd round pick putting up similar numbers.

The problem is he got a dime a dozen low upside player who you can find on UFA market and waiver wire for "free" an in large quantities instead of taking a pick that gives us an extra shot at getting a player that could be better than a 4th line NHLer, and frees up a roster spot in the short term for college/CHL FAs.

And the greater problem is the argument has been used since 2014 when we started picking up Vey's, Etem's, Pedan's, etc. instead of using those picks which would have DEVELOPED by now and would be in our pro system and a few might be ready for the NHL.

 

[vcanuck]

If he retires in a year or two, or after this year, it doesn't matter at all to his value at the time of the deadline.

Hell, he had value *because* he was a pending UFA, and was a rare legit offensive talent available at the deadline where mid round picks were flying around for AHL/NHL tweener players. And only last year Vanek had returned a 3rd round pick putting up similar numbers.

The problem is he got a dime a dozen low upside player who you can find on UFA market and waiver wire for "free" an in large quantities instead of taking a pick that gives us an extra shot at getting a player that could be better than a 4th line NHLer, and frees up a roster spot in the short term for college/CHL FAs.

And the greater problem is the argument has been used since 2014 when we started picking up Vey's, Etem's, Pedan's, etc. instead of using those picks which would have DEVELOPED by now and would be in our pro system and a few might be ready for the NHL.

sigh.... here we go again with the pick argument. please provide me ONE source supporting the argument that he could've gotten a pick for Vanek. just one.

Craig Button, McKenzie etc has backed up preety much what JB said that there were no draft picks being offered for him. yet i keep hearing this fake news from the benning haters.

I already pointed out all the scenarios that JB could've done with Vanek in this thread. His critics will find a way to whine about the decision regardless of what he did with Vanek.

 

[nowhereman]

"I think we should give the rebuild time. Benning's made some great moves, some good moves, some mediocre moves and some terrible moves. That's be expected from a rookie GM. But the team is getting younger and we're starting to see the fruits of the rebuild. Time will tell if we're on the right path."

Cue the anti-Benning zealots grabbing their pitchforks and lighting them ablaze.

"You're wrong because you don't agree with us! Benning is a fool! Fire Benning! Fire Linden! Fire Fin! Fire everyone!"

Why am I not surprised that, in the age of intellectual laziness, the vocal extremists won't even except a neutral, more-measured outlook? Everything must be fire and brimstone because... well, we said so!

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Can't understand all the 'haters' on this thread....if by some miracle Jimbo had extracted a draft pick for Vanek, it wouldn't have been much more than a fourth or fifth rounder....can anyone contemplate how long it takes for a kid selected that late in the draft to actually show up in the NHL, if at all?....3-4 years of development time, and likely at least a couple of years in the AHL.

If all Motte turns out to be is a solid player for Utica and a depth call-up to the Canucks, then so what?....all the Jackets are getting is two months of Vanek anyway....it's not like they're ever going to re-sign him. The Benning-baiters have lots of ammo with other trades, but surely not with this one.

Yea, why would we care about trading Raphael Diaz for a lowly 5th round pick, guy is a depth D on an expiring contract looks to be retiring soon. What, like we are going to draft somebody useful with a 5th like Gaudette? Its going to take YEARS for him to develop anyways, not worth it. Much rather have a 23 years old AHL'er. Amirite?

 

[MS]

He's completely failed his way into one of, if not the strongest prospect pool in hockey and a couple of potential superstars in Boeser and Pettersson.

Just awful.

Uh, yes. This is basically exactly what happened. He tried to build a team to make the playoffs, thought he'd built a team to make the playoffs and was so hopelessly incompetent at his job that the team accidentally tanked to bottom-3 finishes. And the NHL rewards failure with high draft picks, which are automatically excellent prospects that Jim Benning never wanted or thought he needed if things had gone according to his plan.

Oh, and also he was saved from his own stupidity on multiple occasions :

2014 - overrules his scouts to take Jake Virtanen over Ehlers and Nylander and wanted to draft Connor Bleackley ahead of McCann/Pastrnak/Kempe but was saved when Colorado drafted him right in front of us.

2015 - tried trading the Boeser pick (plus other futures) for 1 year of Milan Lucic but was saved when Boston liked the goalie LA was offering more.

2016 - had a deal in place to trade Horvat and the Juolevi pick for PK Subban but was saved when Columbus took Dubois who Montreal wanted with the pick.

So basically, without a bit of good luck (or bad luck in Benning's eyes) he would have found a way to gut that entire prospect pool by turning Horvat, Nylander, McCann, Boeser, and Juolevi into not a single asset under the age of 29 other than Jake Virtanen. What a wizard!

 

[MS]

"I think we should give the rebuild time. Benning's made some great moves, some good moves, some mediocre moves and some terrible moves. That's be expected from a rookie GM. But the team is getting younger and we're starting to see the fruits of the rebuild. Time will tell if we're on the right path."

Cue the anti-Benning zealots grabbing their pitchforks and lighting them ablaze.

"You're wrong because you don't agree with us! Benning is a fool! Fire Benning! Fire Linden! Fire Fin! Fire everyone!"

Why am I not surprised that, in the age of intellectual laziness, the vocal extremists won't even except a neutral, more-measured outlook? Everything must be fire and brimstone because... well, we said so!

Because your statement is just wrong.

He's made a whole whack of terrible moves, a few average moves, and like 2 good moves. He has no plan, can't evaluate talent, and has failed as a GM in every possible aspect of his job.

 

[Peter10]

Why am I not surprised that, in the age of intellectual laziness, the vocal extremists won't even except a neutral, more-measured outlook? Everything must be fire and brimstone because... well, we said so!

Well, how about stating which teams he fleeced, which where the great trades? If you critize the "intellectual laziness" why not take the first step and name actual examples of it instead of throwing around some random phrases that mean all and nothing?

And what do you think about Bennings projection that this team should be close to "elite" by know?

 

[Lindgren]

Because your statement is just wrong.

He's made a whole whack of terrible moves, a few average moves, and like 2 good moves. He has no plan, can't evaluate talent, and has failed as a GM in every possible aspect of his job.

I think he does indeed have a plan. It's a bad one, and it's been badly executed, for the most part. There's too much consistency in the kind of player the team has acquired (and what's been given up) for it to be coincidence rather than plan.

 

[me2]

"I think we should give the rebuild time. Benning's made some great moves, some good moves, some mediocre moves and some terrible moves. That's be expected from a rookie GM. But the team is getting younger and we're starting to see the fruits of the rebuild. Time will tell if we're on the right path."

Cue the anti-Benning zealots grabbing their pitchforks and lighting them ablaze.

"You're wrong because you don't agree with us! Benning is a fool! Fire Benning! Fire Linden! Fire Fin! Fire everyone!"

Why am I not surprised that, in the age of intellectual laziness, the vocal extremists won't even except a neutral, more-measured outlook? Everything must be fire and brimstone because... well, we said so!

How do you rationalise building through the draft with Benning trying and occasionally succeeding in trading away most of his firsts and a 33nd overall. The one area that has gone reasonably well for the canucks is the one area Benning has had the least effect.

 

[CanaFan]

"I think we should give the rebuild time. Benning's made some great moves, some good moves, some mediocre moves and some terrible moves. That's be expected from a rookie GM. But the team is getting younger and we're starting to see the fruits of the rebuild. Time will tell if we're on the right path."

Cue the anti-Benning zealots grabbing their pitchforks and lighting them ablaze.

"You're wrong because you don't agree with us! Benning is a fool! Fire Benning! Fire Linden! Fire Fin! Fire everyone!"

Why am I not surprised that, in the age of intellectual laziness, the vocal extremists won't even except a neutral, more-measured outlook? Everything must be fire and brimstone because... well, we said so!

It’s hard to take you seriously when this is the quality of response you give to the criticisms of Benning. Rather than engage in actual discussion, you post lazy crap like the bolded and then have the gaul to accuse the other side of intellectual laziness.

Like seriously, re-read your post here and ask yourself if you’re part of the problem here.

Edit:
Err, sorry that was my phone autocorrecting everything. What I really meant to type was obviously “Fire Benning!!! Everything he does is terrible!!! Awful!!! I’m right, you’re wrong! Agree with meeeeeeeeee!!!! Sky is falling!! Blaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!”