Page 23 of 103
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:41 pm
by Ronning's Ghost
Aaronp18 wrote:Ronning's Ghost wrote:
So I wondered, "How much is still Gillis' fault, and how would we measure that?"
So this has brought on some decent discussion and I'll add my $.02....
I mostly agree with most of what you wrote, but
Aaronp18 wrote: Sure our roster has turned over but the quality of picks and players that Benning has had to work with coming from the Gillis era was laughable at best.
It sure took Gillis a long time to learn how to draft, but Benning did inherit one top prospect in Horvat, and then walked into a top 10 draft pick.
Aaronp18 wrote: If we didn't do something like this we could have found ourselves in the Oiler rebuild category with a ton of youth who routinely learn how to lose and are simply handed roster spots! Eventually, hoping that one of our #1 picks turns into a generational talent. I didn't want to head down that road, and clearly Benning didn't think it was the best approach either.
It is not clear that the Canucks have avoided this fate. On the other hand, they
are on track for another high draft pick, which is what I would have wanted for their rebuild. My main complaint with that outcome is the timing: If they were going to stink up the place anyway, it would have been much better to have done so in 2014-2015.
Aaronp18 wrote:So, basically, I feel the lack of age appropriate talent can also be attributed to Gillis' tenure and him trying to win the cup. But how does one quantify that? We wouldn't have been drafting high during those years he moved a bunch of picks, but we weren't given the chance to because of the direction of the team.
I wanted to express my sincere (i.e., not sarcastic) appreciation that you read carefully enough to understand the question.
Aaronp18 wrote:Really until Benning gets to have 3-4 years of draft picks and acquisitions and is allowed to develop these players the team will always have a Gillis taste to it. We're getting there but there's still a ways to go before we have completely transitioned!
So, if I may try to paraphrase to check that I understand you, you are saying that it is difficult to quantify relative influences now, but by 2016-2017, or 2017-2018 at the latest, it will be essentially 100% Benning's team ?
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:47 pm
by Mickey107
I was and always have been curious as to why the big hurry was to trade Jason Garrison. He is still playing on the same contract today.
Sbisa wasn't involved in THAT trade but was, in essence, a replacement who now makes as much money.
I suppose one could say Garrison being moved was Kesler's fault but I would have kept Garrison and moved Sbisa later.
IMO; Even though Garrison is older than Sbisa, in pure trade value, I think Garrison is still on top..
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:53 pm
by Ronning's Ghost
Aaronp18 wrote: up until the McDavid drafting, looked like something to avoid like the plague. And really all it's proved is that a generational talent is something that can finally help your franchise gain some respectability after squandering countless top 5 draft picks.
How long should should we shit the bed until there's another Crosby or McDavid?
One season, but that season was 2014-2015. It's probably too late now.
Note that they didn't even have to deliberately demoralize or undermine the team to have done that. They just had to not sign Miller, who has provided, as advertised, highly competent, reasonably priced goaltending, preventing a total collapse -- at exactly the time they wanted a total collapse.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:53 pm
by Aaronp18
Ronning's Ghost wrote:
So, if I may try to paraphrase to check that I understand you, you are saying that it is difficult to quantify relative influences now, but by 2016-2017, or 2017-2018 at the latest, it will be essentially 100% Benning's team ?
Roughly, although it's tough to tell as some players develop faster than others.
Personally, I would simply give him enough time to see his picks (or the players that came into the league under his tenure) start to reach their peak point producing years.
Horvat is really the transition piece to me. Yes Gillis drafted him, but he is being developed by the Benning regime, and I think they are taking a perfect approach to his development for the type of player he that will see him succeed the most at the NHL level. Maybe not a PPG guy but a 200' player that can be put out on the ice in any situation!
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:57 pm
by rikster
I think that it would be, if the question I was trying to address was "How good a job is Benning doing?". It wasn't
As I've said, its naïve to compare one on one, the better analysis would be to compare the jobs they did or are doing against other managers who worked in similar circumstances...
And if you discount or ignore the different situations they operated or are operating under what value are your conclusions?
And as others have pointed out, its too early in the Benning time line to draw conclusions on his work or the ceilings and floors on the players he has drafted....
Take care...
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:59 pm
by Aaronp18
Ronning's Ghost wrote:
One season, but that season was 2014-2015. It's probably too late now.
Note that they didn't even have to deliberately demoralize or undermine the team to have done that. They just had to not sign Miller, who has provided, as advertised, highly competent, reasonably priced goaltending, preventing a total collapse -- at exactly the time they wanted a total collapse.
Hindsight of course, but even if we squandered that season we weren't guaranteed the top pick. And Eichel is looking a lot like a distant second prize at this point. Definitely not the generational type talent we are seeing from McDavid!
Not having Miller may have hindered the development of Markstrom as well. He needed the coaching and backup role after coming over from FLA. Not allowing him some AHL time with us and then avoiding the pressure of directly competing for the #1 spot may have hurt his progress. Right now this is definitely looking like the right move as far as his development went!
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:02 pm
by Jovocop
micky107 wrote:I was and always have been curious as to why the big hurry was to trade Jason Garrison. He is still playing on the same contract today.
Sbisa wasn't involved in THAT trade but was, in essence, a replacement who now makes as much money.
I suppose one could say Garrison being moved was Kesler's fault but I would have kept Garrison and moved Sbisa later.
IMO; Even though Garrison is older than Sbisa, in pure trade value, I think Garrison is still on top..
Garrison and Sbisa are two different types of defensemen. Garrison is more or less an offensive defenseman with a heavy shot from the point and Sbisa is a stay-at-home defenseman with toughness. At the time of the trade, the Canucks defense were pretty soft with the exception of Edler and Bieksa. GMJB basically replaced Garrison with Sbisa in order to add toughness to the defense. Like Sbisa or not, you can't deny that he is way more physical than Garrison.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:06 pm
by Jovocop
Aaronp18 wrote:Ronning's Ghost wrote:
One season, but that season was 2014-2015. It's probably too late now.
Note that they didn't even have to deliberately demoralize or undermine the team to have done that. They just had to not sign Miller, who has provided, as advertised, highly competent, reasonably priced goaltending, preventing a total collapse -- at exactly the time they wanted a total collapse.
Hindsight of course, but even if we squandered that season we weren't guaranteed the top pick. And Eichel is looking a lot like a distant second prize at this point. Definitely not the generational type talent we are seeing from McDavid!
Not having Miller may have hindered the development of Markstrom as well. He needed the coaching and backup role after coming over from FLA. Not allowing him some AHL time with us and then avoiding the pressure of directly competing for the #1 spot may have hurt his progress. Right now this is definitely looking like the right move as far as his development went!
Also, Boeser seems like a very good consolation prize.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:13 pm
by Blob Mckenzie
Garrison is not an offensive defenceman. He provides a bit of offence but he is a positional guy who makes a good first pass. Though I didn't mind dealing him for a 2nd and freeing up space , Elmer fucked up the deal by trading the second for a guy not good enough to play in the NHL.
Even though he isn't tough he's twice the defenceman Sbisa will ever be.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:56 pm
by SKYO
nuckster wrote:I agree 'Zedlee'.
If ownership has been initiating this kind of approach as many have contended, they're going to have to concede that it's not working and change course. If it's Linden and Benning pursuing the playoff push and ownership has been going along for the ride, heads should roll.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:15 pm
by Ronning's Ghost
rikster wrote:I think that it would be, if the question I was trying to address was "How good a job is Benning doing?". It wasn't
As I've said, its naïve to compare one on one, the better analysis would be to compare the jobs they did or are doing against other managers who worked in similar circumstances...
Also still not the question I was trying to address.
rikster wrote:And as others have pointed out, its too early in the Benning time line to draw conclusions on his work or the ceilings and floors on the players he has drafted....
Nor those questions, either.
Not that your questions aren't also good, or appropriate for this thread; they're just parallel to to what I was trying to discuss.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:22 am
by rikster
It's hard to take anyone serious who thinks Luca Sbisa is a good defenceman
In all fairness Blob, its hard to take serious someone who admits he doesn't watch the games yet is first up to b*th and whine about a players play...
Take care...
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:32 am
by Topper
Rather S_C of him eh rickystir.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:34 am
by Blob Mckenzie
rikster wrote:It's hard to take anyone serious who thinks Luca Sbisa is a good defenceman
In all fairness Blob, its hard to take serious someone who admits he doesn't watch the games yet is first up to b*th and whine about a players play...
Take care...
I missed a few games when the MLB playoffs were on but generally speaking I tend to watch 70-80% of the games. The product is so fucking boring I can't justify watching any more than that. That is more than enough viewing "pleasure" to know that Luca Sbisa is a pretty lousy hockey player.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:40 am
by Strangelove
Topper wrote:Rather S_C of him eh rickystir.
I remember!
