To what extent is Jim Benning responsible for the Canucks’ current success?

[IBatch]

22 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

Sure but qh was always going to be the pick if he was available and he happened to be available coz Montreal threw a wrench by picking kk. Everyone else pretty much just took bpa. Besides 4 of the first 5 defenceman taken are all pretty damn good themselves. You have 80% chance of coming out with a top pairing defenceman. Dobson Hughes Bouchard are all top 5 Norris vote if the vote was today. Ppl here hate Bouchard but his xga is out of this world right now

The point is, BPA and scouting consensus, pre-draft, rarely lines up.   Wasn't Whalstrom also picked ahead of Dobson by the NYI?    

 

As for me personally, I was 100% on the Bouchard train, second pick Dobson.  Didn't want anything to do with Boqvist, and felt QHs maybe could become our very own Brian Campbell, which is nothing to be ashamed of at all.   A very good PMD, who eventually would provide solid D as well in his prime.   Instead they hit it right over the stands with him.   There were tiers in that draft, and not many legit rankers (outside of Button and McKenzie, the talking heads have no real business given their lists), had QHs as the "guy to take" after Dahlin.   They couldn't even agree on who was number two!   Maybe Svecknikov with the edge.   Brady was there 2-3 but also much later as well.   Zadina was firmly in the top four though.  It's not their expertise, just a somewhat informed opinion.    Button did have QHs at 6.   Guess who was ahead of him?  Zadina.  Too many vowels (MTLs pick!)..right after him Hayton (at 7).    Not really a BPA deal.  

 

Sorry won't convince me otherwise.   This group was all over the place, so having QHs "drop on our lap" doesn't hold much water.   You will find Boqvist ahead in some lists, and Bouchard too.     Bouchard also beat most lists Dobson verus Bouchard dialogue's.     He was better than OJ despite being a couple years younger OJ's draft plus one.   And he was a RHD.    Benning was right.   Not sure how that should be taken away from him.    He could have picked, Boqvist, Bouchard or Dobson and nobody would have batted an eye back then, plus it made a lot of tactical sense, to take a RHD given OJ was still considered a blue chip D prospect. 

 

You can ask @aGENT how we've had a friendly banter over the years over as @Alflives says "was mule kicked" or as @King Heffy so politely says "AHL total trash, in his own end " and probably adds - a "terrible  human being " for good measure.    This is why, you wait for these guys to evolve.   Carlson in WSH, took time.   It's very very very rare, you get players like QHs out of the gate.   It's rare for EP as well.    

 

It's ok to not like JB.    But he did draft us two likely future HHOFers.    There are a lot of other teams out there, that have made a lot of mistakes on their number 5's and 6's.   If JB didn't, I doubt we have EP, and no way we'd have QH's.    We'd be drafting higher. 

Edited February 9 by IBatch

[HKSR]

42 minutes ago, IBatch said:

The point is, BPA and scouting consensus, pre-draft, rarely lines up.   Wasn't Whalstrom also picked ahead of Dobson by the NYI?    

 

As for me personally, I was 100% on the Bouchard train, second pick Dobson.  Didn't want anything to do with Boqvist, and felt QHs maybe could become our very own Brian Campbell, which is nothing to be ashamed of at all.   A very good PMD, who eventually would provide solid D as well in his prime.   Instead they hit it right over the stands with him.   There were tiers in that draft, and not many legit rankers (outside of Button and McKenzie, the talking heads have no real business given their lists), had QHs as the "guy to take" after Dahlin.   They couldn't even agree on who was number two!   Maybe Svecknikov with the edge.   Brady was there 2-3 but also much later as well.   Zadina was firmly in the top four though.  It's not their expertise, just a somewhat informed opinion.    Button did have QHs at 6.   Guess who was ahead of him?  Zadina.  Too many vowels (MTLs pick!)..right after him Hayton (at 7).    Not really a BPA deal.  

 

Sorry won't convince me otherwise.   This group was all over the place, so having QHs "drop on our lap" doesn't hold much water.   You will find Boqvist ahead in some lists, and Bouchard too.     Bouchard also beat most lists Dobson verus Bouchard dialogue's.     He was better than OJ despite being a couple years younger OJ's draft plus one.   And he was a RHD.    Benning was right.   Not sure how that should be taken away from him.    He could have picked, Boqvist, Bouchard or Dobson and nobody would have batted an eye back then, plus it made a lot of tactical sense, to take a RHD given OJ was still considered a blue chip D prospect. 

 

You can ask @aGENT how we've had a friendly banter over the years over as @Alflives says "was mule kicked" or as @King Heffy so politely says "AHL total trash, in his own end " and probably adds - a "terrible  human being " for good measure.    This is why, you wait for these guys to evolve.   Carlson in WSH, took time.   It's very very very rare, you get players like QHs out of the gate.   It's rare for EP as well.    

 

It's ok to not like JB.    But he did draft us two likely future HHOFers.    There are a lot of other teams out there, that have made a lot of mistakes on their number 5's and 6's.   If JB didn't, I doubt we have EP, and no way we'd have QH's.    We'd be drafting higher. 

Bang on.  Well said.  The Benning haters won't give credit for Benning's HHOF picks, but then they're also the ones that blame Benning for the OJ and JV picks.  Pretty biased evaluations of his drafting.  Now if they complain about Benning's cap management, coaching decisions, etc, I have no issue with that.  That's where Benning failed miserably.

[Jeremy Hronek]

My favorite memory of the 2018 draft was HF Canucks and how they already hated Brady Tkachuk because he was the type of guy that Benning would probably like. @IBatch

[Bob Long]

7 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

My favorite memory of the 2018 draft was HF Canucks and how they already hated Brady Tkachuk because he was the type of guy that Benning would probably like. @IBatch

 

I was at Rogers when Benning made the OJ pick. The confusion and anger was real. 

[PureQuickness]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I was at Rogers when Benning made the OJ pick. The confusion and anger was real. 

 

Which is insane because the player and pick position was quite appropriate. If you looked at all the draft lists, OJ was definitely within the area.

 

Had OJ panned out, he had all the signs that he'd be successful. Played for the Hunters, which EVERYONE claims is the best place to be in. They themselves had vouched for his success too. It's convenient people forgot all of that. Gold medal for Finland. Won at every level prior to the NHL.

 

Canuck fans are fickle as hell.

[Bob Long]

Just now, PureQuickness said:

 

Which is insane because the player and pick position was quite appropriate. If you looked at all the draft lists, OJ was definitely within the area.

 

Had OJ panned out, he had all the signs that he'd be successful. Played for the Hunters, which EVERYONE claims is the best place to be in. They themselves had vouched for his success too. It's convenient people forgot all of that. Gold medal for Finland. Won at every level prior to the NHL.

 

Canuck fans are fickle as hell.

 

it was a bad pick, I don't think we need to re-litigate it.

[PureQuickness]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

it was a bad pick, I don't think we need to re-litigate it.

 

In hindsight, it was a bad pick. But we are talking about AT THE TIME.

 

People have made claims that they knew it would be a bad pick, which was laughable because the draft lists listed OJ within top 10. There's so much historical revisionism that we need to re-evaluate ourselves.

[IBatch]

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I was at Rogers when Benning made the OJ pick. The confusion and anger was real. 

Yep.   First and only time, i've ever thrown the remote at the TV.   (did it half assed, because I didn't want to get in trouble from the Mrs.)  

Edited February 9 by IBatch

[NewbieCanuckFan]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

it was a bad pick, I don't think we need to re-litigate it.

Just another example of the *HORRIBLE* domestic amateur scouts the Canucks have been plagued with for a long time (going back forever-well before Gillis).  But I guess Delorme was in Sweden scouting future prospects like Elias.

[DrJockitch]

12 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Bang on.  Well said.  The Benning haters won't give credit for Benning's HHOF picks, but then they're also the ones that blame Benning for the OJ and JV picks.  Pretty biased evaluations of his drafting.  Now if they complain about Benning's cap management, coaching decisions, etc, I have no issue with that.  That's where Benning failed miserably.

Pettey was a fairly bold pick. Hughes was a no brainer.  

The problem is where are the other pieces from the other 6 rounds.  Went about .500 on very high pics and Demko.  What else? Hoglander is about it.  
Gaudette is one of his top 10 successes and that says something. 
Even when we argue drafting was his strength, and I believe that, it is a relative scale of horrible management. He just wasn’t good enough at that either. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Just now, DrJockitch said:

Pettey was a fairly bold pick. Hughes was a no brainer.  

The problem is where are the other pieces from the other 6 rounds.  Went about .500 on very high pics and Demko.  What else? Hoglander is about it.  
Gaudette is one of his top 10 successes and that says something. 
Even when we argue drafting was his strength, and I believe that, it is a relative scale of horrible management. He just wasn’t good enough at that either. 

Later round picks shouldn't be the responsibility of the GM (else he could do his other roles effectively).  There *STILL* does need to be a major overhaul of the Canadian amateur scouts (if it already hasn't been done already).

[IBatch]

3 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Pettey was a fairly bold pick. Hughes was a no brainer.  

The problem is where are the other pieces from the other 6 rounds.  Went about .500 on very high pics and Demko.  What else? Hoglander is about it.  
Gaudette is one of his top 10 successes and that says something. 
Even when we argue drafting was his strength, and I believe that, it is a relative scale of horrible management. He just wasn’t good enough at that either. 

 

QHs wasn't a no brainer.   That's false news.   Our fanbase was divided, and certainly the experts were too.   QHs could have gone anywhere from 6-12.    Same as Dobson.   OJ the same really.    There was no consensus after the top 4.    And even the top four, was really the top 2.    Bet QHs wasn't our first pick, as a fanbase if you go back and look.   It was probably Brady first if he was still available, and it was rumoured he could be,  then Dobson/Bouchard QHs in that order with some Boqvist sprinkled in.    There were a few vocal about QHs, but it wasn't the majority.    Same as the draft itself. 

Edited February 9 by IBatch

[HKSR]

1 minute ago, DrJockitch said:

Pettey was a fairly bold pick. Hughes was a no brainer.  

The problem is where are the other pieces from the other 6 rounds.  Went about .500 on very high pics and Demko.  What else? Hoglander is about it.  
Gaudette is one of his top 10 successes and that says something. 
Even when we argue drafting was his strength, and I believe that, it is a relative scale of horrible management. He just wasn’t good enough at that either. 

Yup, I think he did well in terms of bringing in the talent, but managing that talent was another story altogether.  I think guys like Petey, Demko, Hughes, etc turned out despite the development shortcomings that were in place with this franchise during Benning's tenure. 

[HKSR]

6 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Yep.   First and only time, i've ever thrown the remote at the TV.   (did it half assed, because I didn't want to get in trouble from the Mrs.)  

Pretty much all of our faces at that moment...

 

[IBatch]

7 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Pretty much all of our faces at that moment...

 

Button had him at five.   The "best center" on the board.   And well that's us when OJ was drafted too!   Can't remember was it 20 points  MT scored on the way to the memorial cup?   And was he supposed to be available at 5?  Nope.    

Edited February 9 by IBatch

[NewbieCanuckFan]

5 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Yup, I think he did well in terms of bringing in the talent, but managing that talent was another story altogether.  I think guys like Petey, Demko, Hughes, etc turned out despite the development shortcomings that were in place with this franchise during Benning's tenure. 

Goalie development has generally always been 'top notch' for the Canucks organization (not saying they never made any mistakes) since going back to the Nonis days (imho) extending to present day.

[wai_lai416]

12 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Which is insane because the player and pick position was quite appropriate. If you looked at all the draft lists, OJ was definitely within the area.

 

Had OJ panned out, he had all the signs that he'd be successful. Played for the Hunters, which EVERYONE claims is the best place to be in. They themselves had vouched for his success too. It's convenient people forgot all of that. Gold medal for Finland. Won at every level prior to the NHL.

 

Canuck fans are fickle as hell.

lol mt was light years ahead of Juolevi on the draft ranking.. it’s literally matthews and then the next 4 is one tier and then the rest are another tier.. they bought into the Finland wj hype and every single one of them turned out to be borderline bust and Laine not reaching his potential. There’s not a single draft ranking that have juolevi ahead of Matthew tkatchuk.. he was pretty much the consensus 4th highest ranked across the board. While juolevi was average 7th

[NewbieCanuckFan]

4 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol mt was light years ahead of Juolevi on the draft ranking.. it’s literally matthews and then the next 4 is one tier and then the rest are another tier.. they bought into the Finland wj hype and every single one of them turned out to be borderline bust and Laine not reaching his potential. There’s not a single draft ranking that have juolevi ahead of Matthew tkatchuk.. he was pretty much the consensus 4th highest ranked across the board. While juolevi was average 7th

hmmm...and where did Tkachunk Jr play?  OHL.  Another win for our Canadian amateur scouts (double down that win by selecting another player on that same London Knights team - OJ).

[Provost]

He gets very little credit.  The only reason we got high picks is that even though we were spending to the cap and trying to win... we were one of the worst teams in the entire league for his whole tenure.

Literally not a single team had fewer wins per cap dollar spent over that span.  The only three worse teams were ones who were intentionally trying to tank and/or super budget teams only managing to hit the cap floor by taking on insure LTIR contracts.  That is almost impossible to be that bad for that long while actually trying to win...  there is a reason you haven't heard his name come up to fill vacancies on other teams. 

The system gifts poor performance with high picks, he doesn't get credit for that especially since he wasn't even trying to get us good draft picks or make any moves to get the picks to be higher.

Even with being gifted the high picks due to a lack of success, he managed to completely whiff on half of his top ten selections which should pretty much be locks.  He also mined a below average number of NHLers from his later picks.  His best attribute was his amateur drafting skills, and he performed worse than he would have by just following the central scouting and major draft lists.  Petterson was the only clear win (Hughes would have been picked by any GM after falling to that spot), and all the word is that it was a huge fight to get him to pick Petterson at all.

Then add in his cap management and pro scouting decisions were do bad it will continue to negatively affect the team for years after he was fired.

There weren't any "sweatheart" deals signed, so I am not sure where that comment comes from.  It was a huge negative to have put the team in such a cap bind we weren't able to sign Petterson and Hughes to max term deals.  They had to be given bridge deals which will need to be renewed when we have little or no club leverage and will be at much bigger cap hits than we would have otherwise gotten.  We will end up paying for that right in the window we have a chance to be good. 

How good would deals between $8-9 million a year for Hughes and Petterson look right now going forward through their entire primes?  That would have set us up well with the cap going up, and that is the range of what it would have cost if we had the cap space to buy some of their UFA years in their current contracts.  Instead you are looking at $12 million for Petterson and probably the same or more for a Hughes extension.  They will also be contracts that are likely to age poorly as they suddenly take them into their mid thirties where you will be paying top dollar for guys that are almost certainly going to be facing age related regression.

[Phil_314]

On 2/8/2024 at 12:00 AM, Ballisticsports said:

I won't give him credit for drafting

 

Agreed, nuff said. 

OP, out of all the core guys who are still on the roster now, only Miller wasn't drafted here.  Credit Tocchet for recouping Garland's value with the line combos, and for PA for bringing in the likes of Joshua and Blueger.  Myers had been a liability (remember him with OEL?) and (maybe thanks to Cole?) he's not a problem anymore.  Best not to view these salvage projects as Benning's outright wins.

[Phil_314]

On 2/8/2024 at 2:39 AM, Miss Korea said:

 

Oho, don't get me started on analytics.  Holy Jesus.  

 

   

 

Jet Black Jim: "Man these guys look amazing - we should definitely pick them up!"

Those JFresh cards...

[wai_lai416]

4 minutes ago, Provost said:

He gets very little credit.  The only reason we got high picks is that even though we were spending to the cap and trying to win... we were one of the worst teams in the entire league for his whole tenure.

Literally not a single team had fewer wins per cap dollar spent over that span.  The only three worse teams were ones who were intentionally trying to tank and/or super budget teams only managing to hit the cap floor by taking on insure LTIR contracts.  That is almost impossible to be that bad for that long while actually trying to win...  there is a reason you haven't heard his name come up to fill vacancies on other teams. 

The system gifts poor performance with high picks, he doesn't get credit for that especially since he wasn't even trying to get us good draft picks or make any moves to get the picks to be higher.

Even with being gifted the high picks due to a lack of success, he managed to completely whiff on half of his top ten selections which should pretty much be locks.  He also mined a below average number of NHLers from his later picks.  His best attribute was his amateur drafting skills, and he performed worse than he would have by just following the central scouting and major draft lists.  Petterson was the only clear win (Hughes would have been picked by any GM after falling to that spot), and all the word is that it was a huge fight to get him to pick Petterson at all.

Then add in his cap management and pro scouting decisions were do bad it will continue to negatively affect the team for years after he was fired.

There weren't any "sweatheart" deals signed, so I am not sure where that comment comes from.  It was a huge negative to have put the team in such a cap bind we weren't able to sign Petterson and Hughes to max term deals.  They had to be given bridge deals which will need to be renewed when we have little or no club leverage and will be at much bigger cap hits than we would have otherwise gotten.  We will end up paying for that right in the window we have a chance to be good. 

How good would deals between $8-9 million a year for Hughes and Petterson look right now going forward through their entire primes?  That would have set us up well with the cap going up, and that is the range of what it would have cost if we had the cap space to buy some of their UFA years in their current contracts.  Instead you are looking at $12 million for Petterson and probably the same or more for a Hughes extension.  They will also be contracts that are likely to age poorly as they suddenly take them into their mid thirties where you will be paying top dollar for guys that are almost certainly going to be facing age related regression.

Yup agreed there was no sweet heart deal.. the Hughes deal tbh was weird.. either u go 3 year bridge or a max 8 year.. not sure why he ended up going in between.. it’s like he wanted to gamble that Hughes will be worth more than the cap.. but at the same time don’t want to gamble in case he turns into a Tyson Barrie.. not many rfa if the team was going to gamble on potential sign him thru the entire rfa with a long term deal don’t go max 8 years. 

[Miss Korea]

Was there anyone here who actually gave Benning credit?  Just curious now.

[IBatch]

36 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol mt was light years ahead of Juolevi on the draft ranking.. it’s literally matthews and then the next 4 is one tier and then the rest are another tier.. they bought into the Finland wj hype and every single one of them turned out to be borderline bust and Laine not reaching his potential. There’s not a single draft ranking that have juolevi ahead of Matthew tkatchuk.. he was pretty much the consensus 4th highest ranked across the board. While juolevi was average 7th

To be fair, both Laine and Puljarvi were the ones right there with MT.  Then PLD.   After that, a mixed bag.   One thing I absolutely agree with is the WJ's are overrated as far as draft impact.   This is a great example of that (and not the only one).    Sometimes they get it right.  Hirshier over Patrick.   It was a lot easier when teams were drafting 20 year olds.   

Edited February 9 by IBatch

[Jeremy Hronek]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

I was at Rogers when Benning made the OJ pick. The confusion and anger was real. 

 

I remember that 2016 draft.  I had personally hoped for Pierre Luc Dubois but was quite surprised when we chose OJ for Tkachuk.  

 

My guess is that Benning saw OJ as the future Alex Elder replacement but JB forgot the first rule of thumb imo; BPA.  

 

In all seriousness, can you imagine if we had drafted Charlie McAvoy instead?  

 

And then, in 2021, trading for Hampus Lindholm instead of OEL?