Gleaned this little baby off of the score...somebodys not a fan
Jim Benning doesn’t know what a seller’s market is
And other scary things from Thursday’s interview on TSN 1040.
DANIEL WAGNER / VANCOUVER COURIER
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 11:18 AM
Jim Benning is confused
Donald Trump wasn’t the only person to have a terrifying interaction with the media on Thursday. Sure, Trump’s press conference is bigger news because it mentioned the looming threat of thermonuclear war and, as Trump said, “nuclear holocaust would be like no other,” but Jim Benning’s interview on TSN 1040 also raises questions about whether he is a competent leader.
The moment in the interview that left me flabbergasted comes at 8:38. Blake Price asks Benning, “Would you agree that it is still a seller’s market?”
There is a long awkward pause, then Benning says, “Well, the problem is there’s not a lot of teams selling right now.”
Yes, Jim. That is the definition of a seller’s market.
Jim Benning, the General Manager of an NHL franchise worth an estimated $700 million, apparently doesn’t know what a seller’s market is.
You have the supply, meager though it may be. The other teams in the NHL, the ones that are actually good and in the playoffs or at least in the hunt, they have the demand. With so few teams selling, there’s more demand than there is supply. It’s a seller’s market! This isn’t complicated!
It’s almost as if a team that was aware of this could take advantage of it and drive up the price of their tradeable assets. But that’s crazy talk: why should the General Manager of a hockey team be aware of the basic principle of supply and demand?
It’s a moment full of Curb Your Enthusiasm-level cringe, but it’s not the only moment in the interview that left me shaking my head.
According to Benning, the Canucks are going to be using every game possible to evaluate where they’re at:
“Including tonight’s game we’ve got five more games before the trade deadline, so I think we still have some time. We want to see where we’re at going into the deadline and then, like I’ve said all year, we’ll talk to players and find out what their thoughts are and go from there.”
First of all, that’s not what you’ve said all year. What you said earlier this season was that you wouldn’t trade players with no-trade clauses. Not even that you wouldn’t ask them to waive them or discuss it with the players and let them make the decision, but that you simply wouldn’t trade them.
Sure, you’ve backtracked on that since, but don’t pretend like you’ve been saying the same thing all year.
Second of all, do you really need those five games to evaluate where the Canucks are at? You've had 58 games to evaluate this team! Guess what? They're not very good! Even if the Canucks made up ground in the playoff race heading into the trade deadline, that wouldn't change the fact that they're not very good. The Canucks could win their next four games and it wouldn't change the fact that they're not very good.
Are the Canucks seriously going to make the choice of whether to be a seller at the trade deadline based on five games? Have they seen this team? They're not making the playoffs and even if they do by some miracle, they'll get slaughtered in the first round. This is readily apparent to even the most optimistic homer.
Next, Price asks a question about the expansion draft and whether there’s market out there for players that are eligible to be exposed, using Matt Bartkowski signing with the Calgary Flames as an example. Benning responded:
“We’re covered, all of our players have played the games to meet the criteria for the expansion process. We haven’t gone through it too much with the other teams. That’s an exercise that we’ll do at the end of the year going into the expansion draft, where I think you’ll see a lot of trades being made for those specific reasons. But we’re more concentrated on the trade deadline and just trying to figure out if there’s teams that might have a surplus of wingers and maybe we have some depth on defence that it’s a match, so we can improve our team here for the long term.”
First off, the Canucks concerns when it comes to the expansion draft shouldn’t have anything to do with being “covered.” It’s about who they’re going to have to expose. They’re not going to be able to protect Brandon Sutter, Jannik Hansen, Sven Baertschi, and Markus Granlund.
That speaks to the second issue: they have to be thinking about this now, heading into the trade deadline. It is inexcusable to wait until the end of the season to worry about the expansion draft, when that may be too late. If they determine that they need to trade Jannik Hansen or risk losing him to Las Vegas, they’ll likely get significantly better value in a trade now, as teams load up for the playoffs, than in the off-season.
But this has been a constant refrain of this management group: an inability to focus on more than one thing at a time.
Next, Benning was asked if he’d talked to any of the Canucks about the trade deadline. He hasn’t.
“We haven’t had any conversations with any of the players, my thinking on it is we want them to concentrate on these games, we’ve got three games coming up before the break that are important games for us, so I’m just letting them think about hockey and trying to do everything that we can to win these games and then we’ll see where we’re at. We have a five-day break and maybe during that time we’ll have conversations with certain players.”
Argh! The trade deadline is less than two weeks away and Benning is going to wait until the week before the deadline to talk his players about waiving no trade clauses or providing a list of teams.
Am I crazy to think that this is a conversation he could have initiated weeks ago? And that it’s less distracting to have that conversation and get everything out on the table than to have all this uncertainty until literally a week before the trade deadline? Would it not be easier to tell Hansen, for instance, that they’re going to ask him for a list of eight teams, whether or not a trade actually occurs?
The interview eventually gets on safer ground for Benning: scouting. Benning went to Europe on a scouting trip and as soon as he starts talking about prospects he immediately sounds more confident and self-assured. It’s almost like he should be a scout or possibly in charge of scouting instead of the GM.
Cant link to the score app but another cutting look at Jimmy....i wont copy the other shitless teams.
Not many have anything good to say about our befuddled leader these days. He needs to step up and do something this deadline to quiet all this crap or I'd wager he gets the punt
On the Fly: Which GM has the most to lose at the deadline?
theScore Staff Feb 24, 2017 7:42 AM
This week, theScore's NHL editors debate which general manager has the most to lose between now and the March 1 trade deadline.
Jim Benning
Josh Gold-Smith: Maybe Benning learned his lesson from last summer's free-agency debacle, but the Vancouver Canucks general manager is taking a relatively quiet approach to this trade deadline. Still, the GM widely regarded as the worst in the NHL has a great deal to prove and just as much to lose in the days leading up to March 1.
First things first, he has to admit the club isn't a legitimate playoff threat, even if the league's widespread faux parity has them within range of the final Western Conference postseason berth. The Canucks aren't going far even if they do manage to squeak into the playoffs, and the time is now to begin overhauling the roster.
Benning has to convince Alex Burrows, Jannik Hansen, and Ryan Miller to waive their respective clauses that limit the teams to which they can each be dealt. He has to acquire assets in return for this trio, especially because two of them (Burrows and Miller) are pending UFAs. If he fails to do this, it'll be just another chapter in his embarrassing GM tenure
Well said, Doc. I will even add " faith in Jim Benning"
”This was how twentieth-century Fascism began: with a magnetic leader exploiting widespread dissatisfaction by promising all things.” - Madeleine K. Albright - Fascism: A Warning
Im so totally in the crowd that believes that Elmer is a good scout, and should probably be our head scout. But honestly, I really DONT get it how some of you seemingly intelligent folk, maintain this 'Believe in Benning' mantra thing!? He absolutely should NOT be a a GM. But we're likely stuck with him cause Linden doesn't have the balls to fire him and and Aquilini isnt going to fire Linden. Like it or not, we're going to have to contend with the pro-Benning lap dogs over the next God knows how long!? What a world. What's worse, contending with pro-Trumpers or pro-Elmers? By the way, take it for what its worth, but we are today almost exactly where we were last year points wise, only now we're hanging onto a 6 million Eriksson contract to boot. How is that deemed as progress? I swear, a kid with a grade 8 education could do no worse than what Elmer has done this year. Yet still the Elmer butt kissers sing his praises.
nuckster wrote:Im so totally in the crowd that believesthat Elmer is a good scout, and should probably be our head scout. But honestly, I really DONT get it how some of you seemingly intelligent folk, maintain this 'Believe in Benning' mantra thing!? He absolutely should NOT be a a GM. But we're likely stuck with him cause Linden doesn't have the balls to fire him and and Aquilini isnt going to fire Linden. Like it or not, we're going to have to contend with the pro-Benning lap dogs over the next God knows how long!? What a world. What's worse, contending with pro-Elmers or pro-Trumpers? By the way, take it for what its worth, but we are today almost exactly where we were last year points wise, only now we're hanging onto a 6 million Eriksson contract to boot. How is that deemed as progress? I swear, a kid with a grade 8 education could do no worse than what Elmer has done this year. Yet still the Elmer butt kissers sing his praises.
nuckster wrote:Like it or not, we're going to have to contend with the pro-Benning lap dogs over the next God knows how long!? What a world.
Jeese Doc, looks like im getting u 'sterred'up or maybe it's a case of you becoming 'disterbed'? Tell ya what, if Elmer can swing a deal or two for some picks or a prospect before the deadline, I'll tone down my Benning rants and give credit where credit is due. But I'm kinda wondering sumptin Doc, what the hell are ya doing on a Friday night piecing together a succession of 'ster's ? Have ya put the junk in the drawer? Gettin a little 'ho-hum' with the wifey? Is this what Benning-mania is costing ya?
Kidding aside for a spell, i think the Flames did us a great favour tonight. Even Elmer has to resign himself to the fact that by being 9 points out of the mix with 20+ games to go, well, he just might concede that he should let go of some vets... but one doesn't really know for sure...
Come on JB salvage something from this gawd awful season!
Island Nucklehead wrote:Queue the JB is a victim of circumstance brigade.
Some people just don't understand how things work.
Apparently one of them is TL:
During his 1040 Q&A with the fans, Linden was asked about being a seller at the TDD and specifically about Hamhuis and Vrbata. Questions even went as far as asking, will players like that be traded even if we are a playoff team, sorta questions. His short answer
“I would agree that they either have to be traded or resigned,”
Uncle dans leg wrote:Gleaned this little baby off of the score...somebodys not a fan
Jim Benning doesn’t know what a seller’s market is
And other scary things from Thursday’s interview on TSN 1040.
DANIEL WAGNER / VANCOUVER COURIER
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 11:18 AM
Jim Benning is confused
Lol that dude just laid Elmer the fuck out. He's the laughing stock of the league
Facepalm.
More and more I think the role he's best suited to is the Head out Scouting and that's it. Imagine playing poker against him. He would totally tell you if he had a good hand or not.
I'm still holding out on the barest thread of hope that Elmer is a savant of some kind and that his George W act is just misdirection. It would really be great if Doc is right and Benning actually is a genius.
It's seeming less and less likely. At least we will have an almost definitive answer to that question in under a week.
HW, level with us here, from what your source(s?) have told you, how much of the non-moves from the last couple of seasons do you think are the result of Benning not reading the market and having blinders on as to the real state of the team versus his hands being tied by ownership that demands playoffs and players with NTC's who don't want to move (Hamhuis for example).
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
What's worse, contending with pro-Trumpers or pro-Elmers? By the way, take it for what its worth, but we are today almost exactly where we were last year points wise, only now we're hanging onto a 6 million Eriksson contract to boot. How is that deemed as progress? I swear, a kid with a grade 8 education could do no worse than what Elmer has done this year. Yet still the Elmer butt kissers sing his praises.
