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

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7930
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Island Nucklehead » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am

Hockey Widow wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:00 pm
I see no change of plan. Transition =Rebuild on the fly. Same difference.

But his methodology has not changed much from one year to the next. How he managed that philosophy changed based upon the needs from year to year, his approach shifted. But his goals have remained unchanged.
There is nothing "on the fly" about this rebuild. We've been in the basement three straight seasons, and our prospect pool has drastically improved because of it. It's not rocket science, and not a sign of genius. It's a sign of a bad hockey team being able to pick the better players each season. That Benning has been able to select good players in later positions is a sign of his drafting ability, something few disagree with.

I would say from the time he got here, until the Summer of Loui, you could certainly argue he was hoping for (and working towards) a shorter term turnaround. You don't trade prospects like McCann, target players like Vey with higher-end picks, or overpay for depth players like Sutter if you're working on 5+-year plan. Once the wheels went off the 16/17 season, I think the approach definitely changed.

I think most of the disagreement stems from his desire to accelerate a traditional rebuild by bringing in guys that most felt were just not going to be part of a long-term solution (the Veys, Clendennings, Pedans, Gudbransons). His strategy to fix a perceived "age gap", bringing in quasi-NHL players and trying to pass them off to the season ticket holders as a youth movement never passed the smell or eye test. That he did that while choosing not to stockpile picks that could easily (given his scouting reputation) be more valuable to the team in 3-5 years added to the annoyance. Some will jump in and say "but he maintained a standard amount of draft picks" miss the potential that having 2-4 more picks every year would bring (or chose to ignore it).

Now that his approach has shifted to a more "traditional", patient rebuilding approach, most are satisfied with his performance.

User avatar
DonCherry4PM
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by DonCherry4PM » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:48 am

Strangelove wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:45 pm
DonCherry4PM wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:31 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:08 am
The old party line about not being able to handle a rebuild. In case you forget I’m the guy who wants the GM to acquire more picks in order to rebuild and develop a deep organization similar to what the Jets and Predators have done. You and your crew want to fastrack the rebuild by trading picks and kids for mid 20 something players like Sutter, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Vey, Pedan, Pouliott etc. You guys can’t wait for future draft picks to develop and want instant gratification. But it’s me that can’t handle a rebuild.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :sly: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This point continues to evade the apologists*. They keep preaching their false narrative notwithstanding direct evidence to the contrary. But then how could they continue to be apologists if they actually responded with something other than ad hominens when presented with reasoned analysis?

*Replace "cultist(s)" with "apologist(s)" at your discretion.
"The point" has been addressed by "the apologists" many, many times.

All those players were young when they were brought in.

(it's not "instant gratification" when you bring in young developing players while retaining the standard number of picks)

(and for the billionth time no kid/prospect was given up in the Sutter trade) :roll:
"Instant gratification" in the sense of acquiring someone already in the league rather than waiting for the development curve of a draft pick who would potentially have much more upside but take much longer.

The heart of the argument is that, simply put, JB is best when he is at the drafting table (I don't think many, if any, will disagree with that). Therefore, he should be using his area of greatest strength as much as possible by obtaining and drafting as many picks as possible rather than keeping the "standard number of picks" and expending any extra picks on "quicker fix" assets. Saying that proponents of this view "can't handle a rebuild" is disingenuous as it actually takes the long road of developing ones own picks rather than attempting to revive the castoffs of other teams (or as you put it "young developing players").

Strangelove wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:45 pm
Lord knows folks like Blob and Reef have responded with their share of ad hominens.

(not that I mind, humour is good too... but you are pretty silent on those ones)
You make a valid point and I probably should be more balanced and come down on Blob and Reef equally for the ad hominens but, then again, I'm not a Mod. :mrgreen:
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu

User avatar
DonCherry4PM
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by DonCherry4PM » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:50 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
Hockey Widow wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:00 pm
I see no change of plan. Transition =Rebuild on the fly. Same difference.

But his methodology has not changed much from one year to the next. How he managed that philosophy changed based upon the needs from year to year, his approach shifted. But his goals have remained unchanged.
There is nothing "on the fly" about this rebuild. We've been in the basement three straight seasons, and our prospect pool has drastically improved because of it. It's not rocket science, and not a sign of genius. It's a sign of a bad hockey team being able to pick the better players each season. That Benning has been able to select good players in later positions is a sign of his drafting ability, something few disagree with.

I would say from the time he got here, until the Summer of Loui, you could certainly argue he was hoping for (and working towards) a shorter term turnaround. You don't trade prospects like McCann, target players like Vey with higher-end picks, or overpay for depth players like Sutter if you're working on 5+-year plan. Once the wheels went off the 16/17 season, I think the approach definitely changed.

I think most of the disagreement stems from his desire to accelerate a traditional rebuild by bringing in guys that most felt were just not going to be part of a long-term solution (the Veys, Clendennings, Pedans, Gudbransons). His strategy to fix a perceived "age gap", bringing in quasi-NHL players and trying to pass them off to the season ticket holders as a youth movement never passed the smell or eye test. That he did that while choosing not to stockpile picks that could easily (given his scouting reputation) be more valuable to the team in 3-5 years added to the annoyance. Some will jump in and say "but he maintained a standard amount of draft picks" miss the potential that having 2-4 more picks every year would bring (or chose to ignore it).

Now that his approach has shifted to a more "traditional", patient rebuilding approach, most are satisfied with his performance.
Well said.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu

User avatar
Reefer2
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3878
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Reefer2 » Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:32 am

DonCherry4PM wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:50 am
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
Hockey Widow wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:00 pm
I see no change of plan. Transition =Rebuild on the fly. Same difference.

But his methodology has not changed much from one year to the next. How he managed that philosophy changed based upon the needs from year to year, his approach shifted. But his goals have remained unchanged.
There is nothing "on the fly" about this rebuild. We've been in the basement three straight seasons, and our prospect pool has drastically improved because of it. It's not rocket science, and not a sign of genius. It's a sign of a bad hockey team being able to pick the better players each season. That Benning has been able to select good players in later positions is a sign of his drafting ability, something few disagree with.

I would say from the time he got here, until the Summer of Loui, you could certainly argue he was hoping for (and working towards) a shorter term turnaround. You don't trade prospects like McCann, target players like Vey with higher-end picks, or overpay for depth players like Sutter if you're working on 5+-year plan. Once the wheels went off the 16/17 season, I think the approach definitely changed.

I think most of the disagreement stems from his desire to accelerate a traditional rebuild by bringing in guys that most felt were just not going to be part of a long-term solution (the Veys, Clendennings, Pedans, Gudbransons). His strategy to fix a perceived "age gap", bringing in quasi-NHL players and trying to pass them off to the season ticket holders as a youth movement never passed the smell or eye test. That he did that while choosing not to stockpile picks that could easily (given his scouting reputation) be more valuable to the team in 3-5 years added to the annoyance. Some will jump in and say "but he maintained a standard amount of draft picks" miss the potential that having 2-4 more picks every year would bring (or chose to ignore it).

Now that his approach has shifted to a more "traditional", patient rebuilding approach, most are satisfied with his performance.
Well said.
What to second that, good post IN.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17356
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Strangelove » Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
You don't trade prospects like McCann, target players like Vey with higher-end picks, or overpay for depth players like Sutter if you're working on 5+-year plan.
How is bringing in a a 24-year-old (Guds) and a 22-year-old (Vey) not conducive to a "5+-year plan"?

Likewise with "overpaying" Sutter...

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
I think most of the disagreement stems from his desire to accelerate a traditional rebuild by bringing in guys that most felt were just not going to be part of a long-term solution (the Veys, Clendennings, Pedans, Gudbransons).
Nope, pretty much everyone had high hopes for these young guys when they were brought in.

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
Some will jump in and say "but he maintained a standard amount of draft picks" miss the potential that having 2-4 more picks every year would bring (or chose to ignore it).
Mind explaining how we could have had 2-4 more picks every year?

And hey, that's a lot of fucking picks! :lol:

Also, comparing the potential of young developing players to even younger players is a fool's errand.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7930
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Island Nucklehead » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:04 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 pm
How is bringing in a a 24-year-old (Guds) and a 22-year-old (Vey) not conducive to a "5+-year plan"?
Gudbranson is servicable, but there's no way we're recouping what we gave up for him. And 5 years after the Canucks acquired him, Linden Vey is likely to be starting his second season with Zurich SC.
Likewise with "overpaying" Sutter...
How many times have you recently talked about trading him after next season? Why are we going down that road? Wasn't he supposed to be a foundational player, just needing a shot to escape the long shadows of Crosby/Malkin? What happened?!
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
Nope, pretty much everyone had high hopes for these young guys when they were brought in.
So it's just a case of poor professional scouting. Agreed.

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
Some will jump in and say "but he maintained a standard amount of draft picks" miss the potential that having 2-4 more picks every year would bring (or chose to ignore it).
Mind explaining how we could have had 2-4 more picks every year?
Benning has sent twelve picks out the door. He's brought in 10.

He gave up draft picks in trades for Dorsett, Vey, Baertschi, Prust, Sutter, Etem, Larson, Gudbranson and Pouliot. Maybe he doesn't do some of those deals, maybe in other trades he prioritizes draft picks instead of aging prospects or veterans.

Not hard to think the guy could've picked up 15-20 draft picks over the past 5 seasons...
Also, comparing the potential of young developing players to even younger players is a fool's errand.
Perhaps, but I would say the older guys give a better indication of what to expect. I'd rather have the chance at a home run than pick up a single.

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11677
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by RoyalDude » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:38 pm

“Recouping what we gave up for Gudbranson?” So you still see some kind of crazy value in Tweener McCann not seen by the naked eye?

I’d do the Dorsett trade over and over and over again, it’s just unfortunate for us he had a career ending injury

Baertschi just signed a 3 year contract. I’d do that trade over again as well

I’m not a huge fan of the Vey trade but I get it. Didn’t work out

Jensen and a 7th for Etem? Can’t remember. Who cares

Pouliot extended. Big deal who cares

Not a fan of the Larsen trade nor the Kassian trade. Should have just let The coke head walk for nothing, big deal, so what

Love the Sutter/Lockwood aquisition. Forsling is a career minor leaguer, Bonino the American was never gonna re-up here
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17356
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Strangelove » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:07 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:04 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 pm
How is bringing in a a 24-year-old (Guds) and a 22-year-old (Vey) not conducive to a "5+-year plan"?
Gudbranson is servicable, but there's no way we're recouping what we gave up for him. And 5 years after the Canucks acquired him, Linden Vey is likely to be starting his second season with Zurich SC.
You didn't answer the question: How is bringing in a a 24-year-old and a 22-year-old not conducive to a "5+-year plan"?

ANSWER: Bringing in 22-year-olds/24-year-olds is conducive to a "5+-year plan.

If the kid gets ends up getting run over by an army truck... it doesn't mean the plan was not sound.
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:04 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 pm
Likewise with "overpaying" Sutter...
How many times have you recently talked about trading him after next season? Why are we going down that road? Wasn't he supposed to be a foundational player, just needing a shot to escape the long shadows of Crosby/Malkin? What happened?!
I never said I wanted to trade Sutter, and once again you did not answer the question.
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:04 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 pm
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
I think most of the disagreement stems from his desire to accelerate a traditional rebuild by bringing in guys that most felt were just not going to be part of a long-term solution (the Veys, Clendennings, Pedans, Gudbransons).
Nope, pretty much everyone had high hopes for these young guys when they were brought in.
So it's just a case of poor professional scouting. Agreed.
Lame attempt at trying to change the subject...
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:04 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 pm
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:23 am
Some will jump in and say "but he maintained a standard amount of draft picks" miss the potential that having 2-4 more picks every year would bring (or chose to ignore it).
Mind explaining how we could have had 2-4 more picks every year?
Benning has sent twelve picks out the door. He's brought in 10.

He gave up draft picks in trades for Dorsett, Vey, Baertschi, Prust, Sutter, Etem, Larson, Gudbranson and Pouliot. Maybe he doesn't do some of those deals, maybe in other trades he prioritizes draft picks instead of aging prospects or veterans.

Not hard to think the guy could've picked up 15-20 draft picks over the past 5 seasons...
Yeahno, the math doesn't work.

And for the one-billion-and second time...a pick was not given up in the Sutter trade! :hmmm:

Anyway, like I said to you yesterday, every team gives up picks to fill present needs...
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:04 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 pm
Also, comparing the potential of young developing players to even younger players is a fool's errand.
Perhaps, but I would say the older guys give a better indication of what to expect. I'd rather have the chance at a home run than pick up a single.
The chance of a home run is just as good either way...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 13251
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:19 pm

I wasn’t a fan of the Prust trade either. But I understood it, more so with the 20-20 hindsight we got after the trade. Prust was they type of player we needed and was playing alright until his high ankle sprain. After that he was a waste.

Never liked the Vey trade but admittedly I knew nothing about him at the time. He started off like gang busters then disappeared into his Raymond like perimeter game.

Pedan for a 3rd was curious but most of us held out hope that the big Russian could develop into a nice physical deterrent. I don’t think he got a fair chance here but he helped us get Pouliot, as if that’s much.

I’d do again the Granlund deal, the Baertschi deal, the Sutter deal, the Gudbranson deal.

The only contract I’d do over really is Ericksson.

So I’m curious, what prospects have had their development delayed by Benning’s actions?
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 11022
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:24 pm

The six picks he puked away
TRY TO FOCUS ON HOW MY ASS TASTES IN ONE YEAR

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7930
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Island Nucklehead » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:26 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 pm
The chance of a home run is just as good either way...
You can't hit a home run if you're already standing on first base.

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 13251
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:27 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:24 pm
The six picks he puked away
As opposed to the ten picks he acquired?
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 11022
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:31 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:27 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:24 pm
The six picks he puked away
As opposed to the ten picks he acquired?
12 out and 10 in. Do you know of another rebuild in recent history where the rebuilding team trades more picks than they acquire. Let’s not forget one pick was a gift from the league
TRY TO FOCUS ON HOW MY ASS TASTES IN ONE YEAR

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 13251
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:38 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:31 pm
Hockey Widow wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:27 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:24 pm
The six picks he puked away
As opposed to the ten picks he acquired?
12 out and 10 in. Do you know of another rebuild in recent history where the rebuilding team trades more picks than they acquire. Let’s not forget one pick was a gift from the league
Calgary, off the top of my head.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 11022
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:49 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:38 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:31 pm
Hockey Widow wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:27 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:24 pm
The six picks he puked away
As opposed to the ten picks he acquired?
12 out and 10 in. Do you know of another rebuild in recent history where the rebuilding team trades more picks than they acquire. Let’s not forget one pick was a gift from the league
Calgary, off the top of my head.
How’s that working out for them? They are in marginally better shape than Vancouver
TRY TO FOCUS ON HOW MY ASS TASTES IN ONE YEAR

Post Reply