The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby ESQ » Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:05 pm

The battle has waged on many fronts (like, literally every thread on this board), so I thought I'd try to bring it all in one place.

Certain people have been critical of Benning since the Linden Vey trade. Some people turned on him with the Dorsett and Sbisa signings. And still others (myself included) like the moves he's made and the direction of the franchise as it transitions to a new core.

The last time a Canucks core was dissassembled, from the WCE era of the early-2000s, it took several years and only Luongo came the other direction:

- Jovo left in 2006 as a UFA with nothing in return
- Bertuzzi was traded in 2006 for Luongo
- Naslund left in 2008 as a UFA
- Morrison left in 2008 as a UFA
- Matt Cook traded in 2008 for Matt Pettinger
- Ohlund left in 2009 as a UFA

Through that stretch, the Canucks missed the playoffs in both years they held on to pending-UFAs - 2006 and 2008.

Benning came in 2 seasons ago with the intent of transitioning what Torts called a "Stale" core. His moves:
- 2014 draft: Garrison for a 2nd round pick
- Kesler and a 3rd for Sbisa (24), Bonino (25) and a 1st (McCann)
- 2nd round pick for Vey (22)
- 2015: Forsling (18 - a 5th RP) for Clendening (22)
- 2015 deadline: 2nd round pick for Baertschi
- 2015 draft: Lack for a 3rd and 7th
- Bieksa for a 2nd
- Kassian and a 5th for Prust
- 2016: Jensen (22) and a 7th for Etem (23)
- Shinkaruk for Granlund

He's let the following players walk or be claimed on waivers: Frank Corrado, Sestito, Matthias, Booth, probably Vrbata and possibly Hamhuis.

Unlike the Nonis regime, Benning has turned over about 25% of the roster each season, and has acquired younger players and picks in return. Nonis never got anything for any assets.

Gillis really did not turn over the roster much during his tenure. He did extremely well in acquiring a high-1st round pick for backup/1B goalie Schneider, and White +Rahimi for Ehrhoff remains one of the best trades in Canucks history. He picked up Tanev as a college free-agent, which was an excellent find. However, Gillis' legacy will be the Luongo trade, especially if Luongo retires early and the Canucks get hammered with cap recapture.

So far, Benning has brought in more draft picks for core players than his predecessors. Those picks are already paying off in roster players. Benning's team has had more rookies make the cut than any Canucks team since the 2004-05 lockout.

IMESHO, Benning is undergoing one of the better rebuilds of recent memory. The only comparable performance was the Philedelphia rebuild after shipping out Richards and Carter for younger roster players who have evolved into stars - Voracek, Simmonds, and B Schenn. However, poor drafting and poor trades (like JVR for L Schenn) have left them still in limbo. Colorado got 2 top-2 picks in 3 seasons, but also traded a 1st for Varlamov and lost the chance to draft Filip Forsberg. The Avs are likely going to miss the playoffs for the 5th time in 6 years.

Looking at the panic in this market from missing the playoffs twice in 3 years, its hard to imagine this team going through a lengthy playoff drought (LA 6 years, Pittsburgh 4 years, Chicago 9 out of 10 years). With the number of young players trending upwards, I feel like there's an excellent chance the Canucks return to the post-season next year. By the time a player like Boeser is ready for the NHL, there will probably only be the Sedins, Edler and Tanev left from the old core.
ESQ
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Topper » Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:18 pm

You missed the Bonino/Sutter trade, but that only reinforces the fact that Benning is a genius.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby SKYO » Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:29 pm

Good thread ESQ!

I'm pro Benning, obviously.

Torts was right, team needed major transition, the "stale" vets were done here for the most part, a major shakeup was needed, even with NTC's in all - JB has gone about this process with the utmost respect to contracts and the business to rebuild (shed vets, get picks)
retool (trade for rookies/young guys).

More depth, more prospects, youth movement in full effect all while remaining competitive in this fickle/wound up market that bashes every transaction, what a tight rope act by JB.

Sure they're are some misses in GM's repertoire, but that comes with the business when wheeling and dealing, trying to get the right parts for your team, but with that the team feels fluid and ready for any deal that may pop up out of nowhere, a stark difference than past GM's where it was core for life! no player traded if it wasn't a slam dunk win.

It's only year two but this team feels lighter in a sense, doesn't have that aging/depressing feel to it, a lot of optimism for the immediate future.

Got to think UFA's this July will see that this team is in transition to a good young team on the upswing, and with the Sedins here, all that much more better to accomplish some good things here in the future.
Canucks 2017/18
A NEW HOPE
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7773
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:43 pm

Topper wrote:You missed the Bonino/Sutter trade, but that only reinforces the fact that Benning is a genius.

And then the boat anchor contract for a third line player cemented Benning as a mongoloid.The trade itself was fine , though there was no need to throw in a higher draft pick.
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7615
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Strangelove » Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:13 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Topper wrote:You missed the Bonino/Sutter trade, but that only reinforces the fact that Benning is a genius.

And then the boat anchor contract for a third line player cemented Benning as a mongoloid.The trade itself was fine , though there was no need to throw in a higher draft pick.


Sutter has averaged more minutes-per than Bonino over their careers.

And Sutter is trending up while Bonino (one year older I might add) is trending down.

If you can't tell Sutter is the vastly superior player in this trade I don't know what to tell you bub.

In fact the only reason the cap-crunch Pens did the deal is because Sutter had earned a raise.

Do you think Bonino will ever get a raise? :mex:

That "higher draft pick" will be what... ~68th to ~57th??

This is why people call you "The Urinator"...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 13975
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Aaronp18 » Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:18 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:The trade itself was fine , though there was no need to throw in a higher draft pick.


Well there was if Benning actually wanted to acquire Sutter. Bonino is crap, Clendenning has seen more teams this year than the Oiler's scouts. Those two for Sutter and a 3rd would've been anal rapery.
User avatar
Aaronp18
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:04 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Topper wrote:You missed the Bonino/Sutter trade, but that only reinforces the fact that Benning is a genius.

And then the boat anchor contract for a third line player cemented Benning as a mongoloid.The trade itself was fine , though there was no need to throw in a higher draft pick.


Sutter has averaged more minutes-per than Bonino over their careers.

And Sutter is trending up while Bonino (one year older I might add) is trending down.

If you can't tell Sutter is the vastly superior player in this trade I don't know what to tell you bub.

In fact the only reason the cap-crunch Pens did the deal is because Sutter had earned a raise.

Do you think Bonino will ever get a raise? :mex:

That "higher draft pick" will be what... ~68th to ~57th??

This is why people call you "The Urinator"...

You read as well as the dude. I said the trade itself was fine. It's the bloated log term contract I don't like.
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7615
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:07 pm

Aaronp18 wrote:
Blob Mckenzie wrote:The trade itself was fine , though there was no need to throw in a higher draft pick.


Well there was if Benning actually wanted to acquire Sutter. Bonino is crap, Clendenning has seen more teams this year than the Oiler's scouts. Those two for Sutter and a 3rd would've been anal rapery.

I meant to say no draft picks should have been included. Clendenning and Bonino should have been enough for helping Pittsburgh out with their cap problem. Bonino had averaged more than .5 points a game over the last two years and was making substantially less coin. As I said the trade wasn't too bad it's the contract that stinks.
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7615
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby ESQ » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:07 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Topper wrote:You missed the Bonino/Sutter trade, but that only reinforces the fact that Benning is a genius.

And then the boat anchor contract for a third line player cemented Benning as a mongoloid.The trade itself was fine , though there was no need to throw in a higher draft pick.

Is that Sutter? He will likely continue to get the 2nd most icetime of centers, is under contract until the ripe old age of 32 with a modified NTC in the final 3 years.

Really the contract barely exceeded cap inflation over the past 2 seasons (9.9%, salary increased by 25%).

From the games I saw, Sutter was very effective and had he not been hobbled by freak-accident Salo-esque injuries, he'd probably be in the top 5 scorers on this team.
ESQ
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:15 pm

I think if he's getting the second most ice time of the centres for the next five years this won't be a very good team. A useful toolsy player but not a second line centre on a good team.
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7615
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Meds » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:20 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Topper wrote:You missed the Bonino/Sutter trade, but that only reinforces the fact that Benning is a genius.

And then the boat anchor contract for a third line player cemented Benning as a mongoloid.The trade itself was fine , though there was no need to throw in a higher draft pick.


Sutter has averaged more minutes-per than Bonino over their careers.

And Sutter is trending up while Bonino (one year older I might add) is trending down.

If you can't tell Sutter is the vastly superior player in this trade I don't know what to tell you bub.

In fact the only reason the cap-crunch Pens did the deal is because Sutter had earned a raise.

Do you think Bonino will ever get a raise? :mex:

That "higher draft pick" will be what... ~68th to ~57th??

This is why people call you "The Urinator"...


Doc, quit justifying a player's contract with his minutes played. Who gives a shit how much he plays, especially on a shitty team (like ours). Sure, he's getting top-6, or top-4, minutes, but on a good team he's not. The goal is to BECOME a good team.

Jury is out on Sutter, he was hurt for most of this season.

Sbisa and Dorsett are terrible players. On a good team their minutes would be quite a bit less than they are here.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 5374
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Island Nucklehead » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:38 pm

Oh goodie, his own thread. My views on his trade (in)ability and negotiating skills are no secret, but maybe I'll try something different and stick with what's positive.

Like his drafting. He needs to get more picks and take advantage of that. It might be one thing that sets him apart from other GM's. Baertschi has been a nice addition, still not sure if he'll be a top-6 fixture, but we can't keep dumping draft picks for mediocre guys that need waivers soon.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7241
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Iceman2014 » Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:02 pm

Overall, I'm liking Benning and what he has been doing. This last trade deadline day really shook my faith in him but there will never be a GM that gets awesome results all the time.

I think Benning did overpay Sbisa and Dorsett. Sutter probably got a bit too much but not a ton over market for a 20 goal scorer. I like what Dorsett brings and we need that guy. Sbisa...no...he can be painful to watch. You see his upside then it all goes to hell when he makes one of his classic bonehead moves. He has the tools but lacks the tool box. Maybe that will come around...one day...

Benning has already acquired more young NHL players than Gillis ever did. The Gillis years left the Canucks without any youth or future - he should've been fired a couple years earlier. Nonis made a few good moves but really didn't load up on the youth either.

Here's a breakdown on Nonis:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/noni ... r-canucks/

Here's old Baggy Eyes:
http://www.nucksmisconduct.com/2013/5/1 ... he-canucks

Benning hasn't been here long but he's already managed to add more NHL players to the Canucks than Gillis and Nonis. Benning isn't perfect but I am liking what I'm seeing... for the most part :sly: .
Iceman2014
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:13 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Strangelove » Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:26 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Strangelove wrote:This is why people call you "The Urinator"...


You read as well as the dude. I said the trade itself was fine. It's the bloated log term contract I don't like.


Yeahno, you said "there was no need to throw in a higher draft pick"

... and yours truly responded to dat dere.

It is what it is and you are what you are. :mex:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 13975
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Postby Strangelove » Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:31 pm

Meds wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Sutter has averaged more minutes-per than Bonino over their careers.

And Sutter is trending up while Bonino (one year older I might add) is trending down.

If you can't tell Sutter is the vastly superior player in this trade I don't know what to tell you bub.

In fact the only reason the cap-crunch Pens did the deal is because Sutter had earned a raise.

Do you think Bonino will ever get a raise? :mex:

That "higher draft pick" will be what... ~68th to ~57th??

This is why people call you "The Urinator"...


Doc, quit justifying a player's contract with his minutes played. Who gives a shit how much he plays, especially on a shitty team (like ours). Sure, he's getting top-6, or top-4, minutes, but on a good team he's not.


UMMM Blobby and I were comparing the two players in question.

And what part of... "over their careers"... did you not understand?

(were the Pittsburgh Penguins not "a good team") :D

Meds wrote:Sbisa and Dorsett are terrible players. On a good team their minutes would be quite a bit less than they are here.


You're carrying the discussion over from another thread

... in which I had brought up career minutes.

(were the Anaheim Ducks and NY Rangers not "good teams")
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 13975
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Next

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests