The Great Jim Benning Debate! (And personal insult thread)

[Meds]

Most fans I have talked to wanted a rebuild and didn't need to see expensive FA's come in. I think Benning had to do that to sell his belief in the team to the veteran players (Twins, Edler, Miller, etc.) and to ownership.

Selling it to the vets is a valid point.

I keep hearing this... "most Canuck fans wanted a rebuild" stuff... and I always want to say:

It's easy to say you want to go through a very painful process

... muuuuuch more difficult to actually go through it.

"You can't handle a rebuild"

And yet we are going through it anyhow. The BS is nothing but a failed epidural in this case.

Kesler would not have sat out, he would have created a toxic environment (already begun that process by requesting the trade), and push comes to shove Kesler would have expanded his list.

Kesler would not have sat out, he would have created a toxic environment (already begun that process by requesting the trade), and push comes to shove Kesler would have expanded his list. I'm sure that Anaheim, LA, and SJ, would all have been a green light if they all showed interest. Given proximity to home Chicago, Pittsburgh, Washington, and Detroit, would also have been considered had they been interested.

LOL oh okay!

I know it's a hard thing for you, but try not cherry picking part of something.

Kesler wanted out to go play for a contender. He thought that was Anaheim at the time, and so did many pundits. Make him stay for a couple of months and he probably starts saying OK to a couple of those other teams too.

[Meds]

If Benning didn't think this team was a legit contender when he took the reigns in 2014, then full rebuild should have been on his mind. He should have kept Kesler, let the distraction put the team into basement, and rolled the dice on the McEichel lottery that everyone knew was coming a year later. One of the strongest drafts in a long time rolls around and he could have done a lot better there. It could have been a one-year tank. Hit the bottom, get a high pick, and then the following year rebound with a young star in the mix. An intentional tank in 2014-15, and a lottery that landed us either of McDavid or Eichel would have had us looking like..... Sedin - McEichel - Horvat, down the middle in 2015-16.

And, Kesler would have waived his NTC at the deadline that year for any contender and probably seen us with another prospect and a 1st that maybe lets us snag Boeser anyhow. It's all hypothetical hindsight though lol.

It's all hypothetical WILD FANTASY

So is the majority of what we talk about round these parts. Hypotheticals, speculation, and fantasy.

[Strangelove]

So is the majority of what we talk about round these parts. Hypotheticals, speculation, and fantasy.

But you took it to a whole new level!



Also, Kess would not have expanded his trade list

... he would have withdrawn his trade request and eventually walked as a UFA.

NOW what do you do Armchair-with-a-time-machine!

[Ronning's Ghost]

Kesler would have played out his last 2 seasons and walked as a UFA, nice asset management, nice rebuild.

And, Kesler would have waived his NTC at the deadline that year for any contender and probably seen us with another prospect and a 1st that maybe lets us snag Boeser anyhow.

The longer it festered the worser the return, thank you NTC

He said he ultimately realized that he was never going to get fair value for Kesler even if he expanded his list.

So is the majority of what we talk about round these parts. Hypotheticals, speculation, and fantasy.

This is the limitation of many discussions on this board. None of us can speak with certainty on what Kesler, or other GM's around the NHL presented with the opportunity to trade for Kesler, would have done.

Regardless, I think Jim should get a pass on this one from both sides. At this point I feel like it was kind of a neutral move. It will be absolute shit though if Gudbranson doesn't pan out or is lost to expansion.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply it was an "F", just maybe somewhat short of an "A+".

Perhaps a more fruitful topic of discussion can be found in what might be a point of disagreement between two posters who seldom contradict one another:

IMO it was always "a longer-term rebuild".

The "retool-on-the-fly" bullshit was just that.

"A GM's gotta say what a GM's gotta say"

He could ill afford the Kesler situation hanging over him like a cloud, or hanging over a team he thought could still make the playoffs and be competitive.

Doc, HW, do you in fact disagree on Benning's perception of his mission in his first year?

For my part, I find Benning's actions in his first two years more consistent with a man who believed (or was instructed by his employers to act as though he believed) that a short-term turnaround was possible, and worth attempting.

[Hockey Widow]

They called it a transition from day one. Get younger, more skilled, all while staying competitive. Benning has never waivered from that. People think he's changed his mind and is now in a rebuild. Why? Because he traded Burrows and Hansen.

Do I think he miscalculated first year? No, not really. We had a good season, made the playoffs, then shit the bed. Would I have, in retrospect using 20/20 vision, have liked he went a little further in the tear down/rebuild/transition? Ya, maybe.

So much rests on the assumption we could have had McJesus or Eichle or Matthews or Laine, if only Jim had shit the bed more. But we did shit the bed last year and got bumped in the draft. So the argument fails.

Fighting for the playoffs, vets mentoring kids, solid goaltending, are never a bad thing. And ya I'd love McJesus or Eichle or Matthews or Laine. But we simply cannot assume we would have been in a better position to draft one of them.

Both Toronto and Edmonton got huge boosts to their rebuild because of one player they each drafted. Without that generational franchise type player they are not far removed from Arizona or Colorado or Buffalo or Carolina or New Jersey or.......

Benning did the right thing trading Kesler. Maybe what Benning could have done is go for picks and prospects and forgoing Sbisa and Bonino, maybe gotten that second first. But I can't see how that one extra pick could have made a difference. Doc is right, we are rebuilding and people can't stand a rebuild.

[SKYO]

Did you know the Maple leaves for Lou Lamoriello he has two Assistant GM's and an assistant.



So why can't the Canucks hire Dean Lombardi as an assistant GM or as senior advisor (demoting Stan Smyl to just director, player development).

Other GM's who have taken roles in other organizations off the top is McPhee with the Islanders as a special advisor before getting hired by vegas, and Don Maloney is a Flames scout.

DL can give more wealth of info and connections for JB/JW to help with the rebuild.
Lombardi for example could come in be like I was about deal Muzzin for so and so, so you could deal Tanev/Edler for this package.

[Topper]

The GMMG management model

[SKYO]

nah, I think bringing in Lombardi as a senior/special advisor would be pretty rad, to help with trades anyways.

[Island Nucklehead]

So much rests on the assumption we could have had McJesus or Eichle or Matthews or Laine, if only Jim had shit the bed more. But we did shit the bed last year and got bumped in the draft. So the argument fails.

Who is making that assumption? Rebuild =/= tanking. For many, it had nothing to do with getting a 1st overall pick (although that would've certainly helped).

Both Toronto and Edmonton got huge boosts to their rebuild because of one player they each drafted. Without that generational franchise type player they are not far removed from Arizona or Colorado or Buffalo or Carolina or New Jersey or.......

The Canucks are arguably in worse shape than all those teams.

Doc is right, we are rebuilding and people can't stand a rebuild.

Seems to me Management are the ones that can't stand even saying "rebuild".

In 2015, Benning's stated plan was apparently:

He has said from day one

* no re-build, it's a transition from the old core to the new core. FAIL

* He wants to remain playoff competitive FAIL

* He wants a team that will compete every game and have a chance to win every night FAIL

*he doesn't want to rush new core players into the NHL but does want to make room each year for some of these youngsters Virtanen/McCann not rushed? + Painfully Generic

* he wants to create a winning culture HARD FAIL

* he wants to protect and shelter the younger players Very mixed results

* he will identify players that he does not see fitting the long term plan and move them out Or let them walk as UFA

He has said

* no tear down full rebuild True, a slow, painful, unintentional march to the basement instead

* no lean years of not making the playoffs FAIL

* transition at every position Generic, imagine advocating the inverse

* he will move vets to make room for young players Generic, imagine advocating the inverse

* he will ask players with NTC to waive if he deems it the right move. True

People like Doc are assuming that we're in the midst of one because they look at the standings and think this is part of the plan. I think the original plan was closer to the one above. The one being peddled now, that this is all some sort of long term super-plan, is nonsense. More likely, management (and/or ownership) has been forced to realize their original plan was a complete pipe-dream.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Doc is right, we are rebuilding and people can't stand a rebuild.

This gets repeated on here constantly yet it is never backed up. Who are these people that can't handle a rebuild? I've been screaming for one for five years .

[Topper]

mirror Bubbles

[Blob Mckenzie]

mirror Bubbles

Straw man Beard man

[2Fingers]

mirror Bubbles

Hey Top, why don't you and Doc once in a while actually answer the question being asked?

Can the fans handle a rebuild, that depends on what handling means?

In a city where housing costs are crazy it is not like people have a lot of disposable income so why would they spend the $$$ the Nucks charge to watch what we saw this year. There is minimal corporate head offices in Vancouver so not like they are buying tickets.

Vancouver also has a million other things to do so people are wise where they spend the money.

Every team except a few will see fans leave when the team sucks unless they have something to cheer for. This is not unique to Vancouver.

[ESQ]

We've been rebuilding since Benning got here. Every year, he's turned over 1/4 of the roster. Now, after 3 seasons, we have 4 players left from 2011. That, my friends, is a RE-BUILD!

Now, what does this mean to say "fans can't handle a re-build? What is it to handle a re-build?

One aspect is filling the arena every night. Even the Coilers in their tiny Rexall Place couldn't maintain a sellout streak through their re-build, and they're probably the highwater mark for a fanbase "handling" a re-build. I would argue that it didn't do the franchise any good to have such a loyal fanbase go along with a terrible terrible hockey team for so long, but if that's what it means to "handle" a re-build, then Edmonton is probably the prime example.

Another aspect of "handling a re-build" is patience with management and not panicking after every move or non-move the GM makes. This is where the Vancouver fans really get a failing grade. If you go through a Re-build, there will be pain. If you tank, there will be pain. For a re-building team, as with any team, some trades and draft picks won't work out.

I would say to handle a re-build, you have to look at the ability to see the long-term big picture. The big picture shows that Benning has accumulated more good young prospects than at any time in this franchise's history. He's taken the oldest team in the league and made it one of the youngest (once the Sedins retire, probably the youngest).

Meanwhile, large swaths of the fanbase on this board and calling in to Team 1040 are still fixated on giving up a 2nd rounder for Linden Vey.

[TDA Rum]

We've been rebuilding since Benning got here. Every year, he's turned over 1/4 of the roster. Now, after 3 seasons, we have 4 players left from 2011. That, my friends, is a RE-BUILD!

Now, what does this mean to say "fans can't handle a re-build? What is it to handle a re-build?

One aspect is filling the arena every night. Even the Coilers in their tiny Rexall Place couldn't maintain a sellout streak through their re-build, and they're probably the highwater mark for a fanbase "handling" a re-build. I would argue that it didn't do the franchise any good to have such a loyal fanbase go along with a terrible terrible hockey team for so long, but if that's what it means to "handle" a re-build, then Edmonton is probably the prime example.

Another aspect of "handling a re-build" is patience with management and not panicking after every move or non-move the GM makes. This is where the Vancouver fans really get a failing grade. If you go through a Re-build, there will be pain. If you tank, there will be pain. For a re-building team, as with any team, some trades and draft picks won't work out.

I would say to handle a re-build, you have to look at the ability to see the long-term big picture. The big picture shows that Benning has accumulated more good young prospects than at any time in this franchise's history. He's taken the oldest team in the league and made it one of the youngest (once the Sedins retire, probably the youngest).

Meanwhile, large swaths of the fanbase on this board and calling in to Team 1040 are still fixated on giving up a 2nd rounder for Linden Vey.

+1