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

[Ronning's Ghost]

The big picture shows that Benning has accumulated more good young prospects than at any time in this franchise's history.

Is that your own personal assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool, or can you cite some outside expert observer ?

(Not to imply that there's anything wrong with just posting your opinion, but I wonder if the opinion is widely shared outside this board.)

[Blob Mckenzie]

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

-8

Fans are also ticked about constantly coughing up and extra picks and long term bloated contracts to average players like Eriksson and Sutter. It's called death by a thousand cuts.

[Island Nucklehead]

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.

Again, he didn't come in here with a stated aim of rebuilding. He came in to "transition" but "remain competitive". If he had come in here and said "we're going to rebuild", people would still be concerned about his execution (ie Vey/Sutter/Gudbranson/Eriksson aren't rebuilding moves), but at least he'd be correct when it came to roster assessment. The fact he's tried to do it both ways (and his moves back this up) supports the notion he's never intended to rebuild.

People aren't focusing on the Linden Vey deal in isolation, they point to it as the worst example of his tendency to trade picks/prospects for older players, filling his "age gap" with players that are more stop-gap than new-core. Again, this goes against traditional rebuilding models, and plenty of ink has been spilled at the cost of acquiring these stop-gaps vs. the players they replaced and the teams talent level at the end of it all. If a potato was the GM of your Vancouver Canucks, we'd likely be in a similar spot (ie the basement), but have more prospects to show for it.

As far as "handling a rebuild", if simply surviving one (like Edmonton has done with the paper bags and jersey tossing) is considered handling it, we should have nothing to worry about.

[ESQ]

Is that your own personal assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool, or can you cite some outside expert observer ?

(Not to imply that there's anything wrong with just posting your opinion, but I wonder if the opinion is widely shared outside this board.)

Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004 (the furthest back I could find on their rinky-dink website):
2016 - 14
2015 - 18
2014 - 24
2013 - 26
2012 - 29
2011 - 29
2007 - 15 (on strength of Schneider, Edler, Bourdon, Patrick White LMFAO and Grabner!)
2006 - 26
2005 - 24
2004 - 23

[SKYO]

Well the team is rebuilding, isn't that what you want?

Started too late you say? Well when JB first got hired it seemed pretty clear it wasn't to tear down and rebuild, but even then JB saw that the team had a glaring weakness of prospects and young guys, therefore he traded some picks to get some young guys who were further along in their development, players that should have been there if the prior GM knew how to draft and trade assets for picks/prospects before the team became stale & crusty.

In any case now that we are in a full rebuild I'm happy to have a GM that knows how to scout/draft well, that's what a rebuild is all about, selling veterans, acquiring picks and prospects, for which Benning has done a commendable job ala Hansen and Burrows deals.

I still think hiring another assistant GM or senior advisor would be beneficial if they can work well together, lessen the load a tad for JB.

[ESQ]

Fans are also ticked about constantly coughing up and extra picks and long term bloated contracts to average players like Eriksson and Sutter. It's called death by a thousand cuts.

How are Eriksson and Sutter holding back the re-build?

The team is still incorporating more rookies than at any time in its history, and still getting a lottery pick, and still improving its talent pipeline.

Its also called, two steps forward, one step back.

Again, he didn't come in here with a stated aim of rebuilding. He came in to "transition" but "remain competitive". If he had come in here and said "we're going to rebuild", people would still be concerned about his execution (ie Vey/Sutter/Gudbranson/Eriksson aren't rebuilding moves), but at least he'd be correct when it came to roster assessment. The fact he's tried to do it both ways (and his moves back this up) supports the notion he's never intended to rebuild.

While doing the Vey/Sutter/Gudbranson/Eriksson moves, he still turned over 75% of the roster in 3 years, got younger, and developed more rookies than any other GM.

Vey was 22, and almost tied Horvat for team rookie scoring.

Sutter was 26 and locked up to age 32. They traded an older player, a scrub dman prospect, and a 2RP for a 3RP.

Gudbranson was 24 and top-4 d, and will hopefully be locked up through his prime years. It was a steep price, for sure - McCann, 2nd and a 4th.

I would say that all of those moves were consistent with a re-build. Look at Vey - they only gave up a 2nd. Would you have preferred they left his spot open for some other prospect to take his place? Unfortunately, the cupboard was completely bare at that time, and there was nobody in the organization to take that spot.

LA received that 2nd-rounder - how's their re-build coming along?

I'll grant you Eriksson, however looking at the UFA forward markets in the coming years, and the fact that the only thing given up is cap space, I can live with it. If Eriksson continues his production, then it will be a disaster.

Again, in three years - 75% roster turned over, 5 rookies becoming roster players, plus Boeser, Goldobin, and Virtanen with sniffs at the NHL, 2 lottery-picks, made the playoffs once.

After year 4, there's a pretty good chance that only one D-man will remain from the team Benning inherited, 3 more rookies are developed, only 1 or 2 players over 30, and the team still has Gaudette, Juolevi, Demko, and Dahlen in the pipeline.

That's a rebuild.

They aren't smooth, they aren't pretty, and every move and pick doesn't always work out. I think people's reactions to the inevitable uncertainty is what makes others say "Vancouver can't handle a re-build".

[Blob Mckenzie]

Brian Burke used to bring in veterans on two and three year contracts. Guys like Baron, Cassels, Essensa etc. These five and six year deals for average players is stupid to say the least and yes there are some damn good forwards who will be available in the 2018 and 2019. We are never going to agree on this so I'll stop here. At least you actually are willing to debate unlike some others on this board.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004

Credible or otherwise, HF is a legitimate 3rd party observer, i.e., not just a bunch more Canucks fans.

Since it's only reasonable to expect a weak performance from the on-ice product during a rebuild, I submit that one useful measure of the job Benning is doing will be whether the general assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool continues to rise.

[5thhorseman]

Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004

Credible or otherwise, HF is a legitimate 3rd party observer, i.e., not just a bunch more Canucks fans.

Since it's only reasonable to expect a weak performance from the on-ice product during a rebuild, I submit that one useful measure of the job Benning is doing will be whether the general assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool continues to rise.

On the other hand, the Canuck's weakness may allow prospects to "graduate" to the NHL sooner than normal, thus not contributing to the ranking anymore and eroding the usefulness of this measure.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004

Credible or otherwise, HF is a legitimate 3rd party observer, i.e., not just a bunch more Canucks fans.

Since it's only reasonable to expect a weak performance from the on-ice product during a rebuild, I submit that one useful measure of the job Benning is doing will be whether the general assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool continues to rise.

On the other hand, the Canuck's weakness may allow prospects to "graduate" to the NHL sooner than normal, thus not contributing to the ranking anymore and eroding the usefulness of this measure.

I agree this is a possibility. However, I would argue that one of the other things a successful rebuilding GM should be doing is signing veterans to short-term contracts (to be flipped at the deadline), and these veterans should keep prospects from graduating before they are ready.

[Island Nucklehead]

Again, in three years - 75% roster turned over, 5 rookies becoming roster players, plus Boeser, Goldobin, and Virtanen with sniffs at the NHL, 2 lottery-picks, made the playoffs once.

After year 4, there's a pretty good chance that only one D-man will remain from the team Benning inherited, 3 more rookies are developed, only 1 or 2 players over 30, and the team still has Gaudette, Juolevi, Demko, and Dahlen in the pipeline.

That's a rebuild.

If Benning had done none of the deck chair shuffling, or trading younger assets for "age gap" players, just moved out vets, played the waiver wire, and stockpiled picks/prospects, you could still say the same thing, and I'd be satisfied that this was an actual rebuild. You are right, we'd still have the pain, but we'd be following a coherent plan. For a team that has been relatively putrid since he got here, you'd expect a better and deeper prospect pool, and some of that has to do with his willingness to move picks for (very poor) short-term results.

We'll have to agree to disagree ESQ, but if your definition of "rebuild" is acceptable, why has Linden refused to acknowledge the rebuild by using the word "rebuild"? Does he believe it has negative connotations? I don't consider rebuilding to be a bad thing, but a necessary period of the generally boom-bust cycle of pro-hockey.

I suspect your definition is closer to Lindening's "transition" (roster turnover), but without the "remaining competitive bit". By your definition, the Oilers were extremely successful at rebuilding, as they seemed to do it 2-3 times over the past 10 years...

[ESQ]

Brian Burke used to bring in veterans on two and three year contracts. Guys like Baron, Cassels, Essensa etc. These five and six year deals for average players is stupid to say the least and yes there are some damn good forwards who will be available in the 2018 and 2019.

I'd say Eriksson, Sutter, Miller are all much better than Baron, Cassels and Essensa. I don't remember Baron's contract, but he was on the Canucks for a really bad 5-year stretch. Cassels was for sure a great pick-up, better than the comparable Demitra and better than Eriksson's no doubt. That was quite a different era though when it comes to contract length.

The 2018 potential UFAs can't be extended until July 1 this year, I'd wager we won't see Fowler, Tavares, Turris, Neal, Perron make it to UFA status. The cream of that crop would probably be Stastny, E Kane, JVR, Josh Bailey.

This year's top UFAs are probably Oshie and Radulov, 50+ point players coming off career seasons at age 30. Will they get over $6 mil/6 years? I bet they will but we shall see soon enough.

[ESQ]

If Benning had done none of the deck chair shuffling, or trading younger assets for "age gap" players, just moved out vets, played the waiver wire, and stockpiled picks/prospects, you could still say the same thing, and I'd be satisfied that this was an actual rebuild. You are right, we'd still have the pain, but we'd be following a coherent plan. For a team that has been relatively putrid since he got here, you'd expect a better and deeper prospect pool, and some of that has to do with his willingness to move picks for (very poor) short-term results.

Its looked pretty coherent to me - every season he's made drastic changes to the lineup by trading vets and bringing along prospects, only in 15-16 did he let the vets walk as UFAs.

We'll have to agree to disagree ESQ, but if your definition of "rebuild" is acceptable, why has Linden refused to acknowledge the rebuild by using the word "rebuild"? Does he believe it has negative connotations?

I actually could care less about this issue of Linden not saying re-build. Nobody agrees what a re-build actually is, so its totally meaningless.

I suspect your definition is closer to Lindening's "transition" (roster turnover), but without the "remaining competitive bit". By your definition, the Oilers were extremely successful at rebuilding, as they seemed to do it 2-3 times over the past 10 years...

Well, were the Oilers successful at rebuilding? Is that what a rebuild is to you? They got their lottery pick, they're back in the playoffs, their future is bright thanks solely to McDavid, and its taken them 10 years to get to that point.

What is a successful rebuild? Chicago had to win a lottery to do it. Pittsburgh won the ultimate lottery. If those are your successful re-builds, you should bear in mind that they were in the toilet far longer than the Canucks have been thus far. Pittsburgh had 5 years in the wilderness and had 2 first-overalls and 2 second-overalls. Chicago had a decade with one playoff appearance, and got Toews at 3rd and Kane at 1st.

We're 2 years in the toilet. If Benning does it in 5, without drafting a Crosby, Kane or McDavid at 1st overall, he is truly a genius.

[SKYO]

Well, were the Oilers successful at rebuilding? Is that what a rebuild is to you? They got their lottery pick, they're back in the playoffs, their future is bright thanks solely to McDavid, and its taken them 10 years to get to that point.

What is a successful rebuild? Chicago had to win a lottery to do it. Pittsburgh won the ultimate lottery. If those are your successful re-builds, you should bear in mind that they were in the toilet far longer than the Canucks have been thus far. Pittsburgh had 5 years in the wilderness and had 2 first-overalls and 2 second-overalls. Chicago had a decade with one playoff appearance, and got Toews at 3rd and Kane at 1st.

We're 2 years in the toilet. If Benning does it in 5, without drafting a Crosby, Kane or McDavid at 1st overall, he is truly a genius.

Yup some of the best teams today Penguins and Blackhawks had to tank to get a 1st overall pick, along with some key trades, good picks later in draft, the right UFA's.

Only the Bruins, Ducks and Kings won with size and talent, with no 1st overall picks (iirc) even though Doughty was a 2nd overall.

Getzlaf and Kopitar were great latter draft choices for their top centers, big slower guys but a lot of skill, why I wouldn't mind Vilardi if we lose the draft lotto.

Bergeron/Krejci were both 2nd rounders for the bruins top centers, but their key player was a UFA with Chara, *(forgot ducks key dman was also a UFA S. Niedermayer & uber trade for Pronger) so there are other ways to win a Cup with the key being superb drafting, all the more reason to keep Benning, be helpful to win a 1st overall for once/first time in Vancouver history.

[ESQ]

The Kings are an outlier in many respects - which is why I was so shocked that they were able to repeat!

Two cups, and haven't won the Division since 1990/91! Won the Cup as 8th-seed!

Their window was similar to the Canucks, though it came after missing the playoffs for 7 years. The obvious difference is they won it all in their window, where we came oh-so-close.

One thing LA had in both its championships was unreal health/durability. They went on deep playoff runs with a full, healthy roster and managed to not lose anyone to injury.

But now, I suppose we can take solace in the fact that we have one more playoff win in the past 3 seasons than the Kings do