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

[HKSR]

3 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

 

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?  

Don't... just don't ok?  I'm still in pain from last night...

[Jeremy Hronek]

4 minutes ago, IBatch said:

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). 

 

I'm trying to remember off the top of my head who I wanted from each draft:

 

2014:  Sam Reinhart (via Horvat + 6th)

2015:  Brandon Carlo

2016:  Pierre Luc Dubois (if he dropped)

2017:  Miro Heiskanen (if he dropped)

2018:  Noah Dobson (didn't think QH was going to drop)

2019:  Moritz Seider

2020: N/A

2021:  Had my heart, mind, and penis set on Dylan Guenther before the lovely OEL trade went down

2022:  Denton Matyechuck

2023:  Tom Willander!   

[PureQuickness]

1 hour 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. 

 

Hughes wasn't a no brainer though. Detroit ACTUALLY had him in their lap and passed him on. They had arguably the best view of him in THEIR backyard (University of Michigan) and they still didn't pick him.

 

Who's to say that Hughes could've busted? Maybe that would tack onto the narrative/stereotype that small statured players can't be defenseman? Imagine that. I GUARANTEE you that had Hughes busted, people will laud about how they "knew" about NOT picking this player. It's pretty ridiculous about the revisionism.

Edited February 9 by PureQuickness

[PureQuickness]

2 hours 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. 

 

The problem with armchair commentators and critics is that they don't largely have to be held accountable for their wrong views of players. FACTUALLY, OJ was a top 10 prospect AT THE TIME, so it is a false narrative and a clear-cut case of historical washing to say that he was a bad pick AT THE TIME. He really wasn't.

 

Benning's made plenty of mistakes, but for other people to say that OJ was a bad pick is just being dishonest. He was just a high pick that didn't work out. NO ONE could've predicted that he'd be SUCH an injury prone player.  Nothing in the drafting reports ever said he was BOOM or BUST.

[PureQuickness]

On 2/8/2024 at 11:03 AM, Ghostsof1915 said:

Yet.....

Carolina, Montreal, Ottawa, Arizona, and Detroit passed on him.

Buffalo drafted Dahlin.

 

So maybe it wasn't so obvious? Did anyone predict Hughes would be only 11 points behind Brady Tkachuk? And in fewer games?

I just wanted a decent puck moving defenceman. If we had drafted Dobson or Dahlin we might not have been as well off. But I certainly like those two defenders.

 

It's only a "no brainer" because people are viewing the player with hindsight lens. Hughes was a SMALL defenseman. In what world has a SMALL defenseman succeeded beyond epic proportions before? Hughes is truly a generational talent, regardless of his size.

 

I'm honestly sick of people throwing words like "common sense" or "no brainer" because it doesn't require them to think beyond logic. They are just selecting players after the fact to solidify their supposed 'knowledge' of a player.

[IBatch]

13 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

The problem with armchair commentators and critics is that they don't largely have to be held accountable for their wrong views of players. FACTUALLY, OJ was a top 10 prospect AT THE TIME, so it is a false narrative and a clear-cut case of historical washing to say that he was a bad pick AT THE TIME. He really wasn't.

 

Benning's made plenty of mistakes, but for other people to say that OJ was a bad pick is just being dishonest. He was just a high pick that didn't work out. NO ONE could've predicted that he'd be SUCH an injury prone player.  Nothing in the drafting reports ever said he was BOOM or BUST.

Was he?   Before the WJ's he was all over the map.   Early second round to after the top ten...let's get it right.  Chychrun, as a case study, was actually right there with Mathews a year prior to the draft, as who goes first.  

 

He wasn't a great pick man.   Not with MT on the board.   And everyone knew it.   We went with an "organizational pick".   Not sure why anyone would defend this.   And JB completely missed the mark.   Why not go for Chychrun?  Oh because he was injured.    Or Sergachev, wasn't on a loaded London team, but still kicked ass. 

 

Edited February 9 by IBatch

[Ghostsof1915]

The thing that's kind of funny:

 

Quinn Hughes: 5'10" 180 lbs.

Bobby Orr: 6'0" 197 lbs.

 

Not a huge difference. Yet they tried to goad Orr into fighting in year one. Orr was not going to take crap and he could fight. Almost no one fought him from year 2 onwards.

 

Quinn fortunately doesn't have to deal with that crap.

[IBatch]

3 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

The thing that's kind of funny:

 

Quinn Hughes: 5'10" 180 lbs.

Bobby Orr: 6'0" 197 lbs.

 

Not a huge difference. Yet they tried to goad Orr into fighting in year one. Orr was not going to take crap and he could fight. Almost no one fought him from year 2 onwards.

 

Quinn fortunately doesn't have to deal with that crap.

No he doesn't.   But can say, 6 feet and 200lbs isn't small either.    QHs looks like a grade 7-9 student from where I grew up.  

Edited February 9 by IBatch

[Dr. Crossbar]

24 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

The problem with armchair commentators and critics is that they don't largely have to be held accountable for their wrong views of players. FACTUALLY, OJ was a top 10 prospect AT THE TIME, so it is a false narrative and a clear-cut case of historical washing to say that he was a bad pick AT THE TIME. He really wasn't.

 

Benning's made plenty of mistakes, but for other people to say that OJ was a bad pick is just being dishonest. He was just a high pick that didn't work out. NO ONE could've predicted that he'd be SUCH an injury prone player.  Nothing in the drafting reports ever said he was BOOM or BUST.

 

This is a fantastic post! Especially the very first sentence. You can see how fantasy and false information gets spread so easily. Not just on here but also in society. Just think about the amount of people walking around believing in complete BS. It's actually astounding. And then think about how difficult it is for people to admit they're wrong ... it's really crazy!

 

What's key here in context with the OJ pick is that we desperately needed to begin to address our defense for the future and there was a lot of pressure to pick a defenseman. I mean, I have a great memory and I don't forget all the people who were screaming for us to address our lack of defensive prospects.

 

Our previous five first round picks from 2011 to 2015 were all forwards. Virtanen was supposed to be our power forward and we had just picked Boeser the previous year. That's why Benning felt comfortable enough to pick OJ and address our D.

 

You are absolutely correct in saying ... NO ONE could've predicted that he'd be SUCH an injury prone player.

[Kevin Biestra]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

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.   

 

Jim Sandlak was a beast at the World Juniors...top forward of the entire tournament I think.  Really looked like he would become Cam Neely in the future...didn't really happen though he did have one great playoffs for the Canucks around 1992 or so.  Jim Waite was a legend goalie at the WJCs...never became an NHL starter.  I enjoy the tournament but World Junior legends often only stay legends at that level.

 

Edited February 9 by Kevin Biestra

[Kevin Biestra]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

I'm trying to remember off the top of my head who I wanted from each draft:

 

2021:  Had my heart, mind, and penis set on Dylan Guenther before the lovely OEL trade went down

 

Just like the classic George Harrison song.  Got my penis set on you, got my penis set on you..

[kilgore]

1 hour ago, PureQuickness said:

 

The problem with armchair commentators and critics is that they don't largely have to be held accountable for their wrong views of players. FACTUALLY, OJ was a top 10 prospect AT THE TIME, so it is a false narrative and a clear-cut case of historical washing to say that he was a bad pick AT THE TIME. He really wasn't.

 

Benning's made plenty of mistakes, but for other people to say that OJ was a bad pick is just being dishonest. He was just a high pick that didn't work out. NO ONE could've predicted that he'd be SUCH an injury prone player.  Nothing in the drafting reports ever said he was BOOM or BUST.

 

Of course the same can be said the other way.  If a prospect works out, and performs much better than his draft position, there is praise. Like Hoglander. Or Joshua.  A lot of factors that impact if and how a player develops. Coaching of course. Also physical growth, mental growth and maturity, ability to adapt to the NHL, and keep learning new skills. 

 

But drafting should be praised, or blamed, on the amateur scouting department for the most part.  Even then, they can have been fooled.  A lot does depend on luck. But one could also ask if there could have been any more work they could have done to uncover Olli's lack of ambition, some warning sign in his play. They are the experts.

 

All to say that drafting prowess on a team has little to do with the GM.  Of course he takes on the full responsibility and makes the final decisions, but as far as the work involved to get to that knowledge base, others did most of that work.

 

Which is why its insane for some to base Benning's success as a GM on the fact that we have Petey and Hughes on the team. Or even good lower picks like Hoglander, Demko, Boeser, where the GM has even less knowledge about.

A GM should listen to his amateur scouting dept. Maybe attend some junior game of a prospect on the A list, but a GM can't run around NA and Europe watching junior hockey games.  He has to trust his scouts, and should base drafting decisions on their recommendations.

 

One could say that with 5 picks in the top ten, and batting less than .500, ain't that great either.  With Joulevi and Virtanen not even in the league, and Podz still not ready, and probably will top his potential on a third line.  I posted a stat I found on  another thread showing something like 90% of players picked in the top ten are successful NHL players in some capacity.

 

Which is why as you implied, using a team's draft picks, at the time, as a way to grade a GM's performance on the job is dumb. Whether the player is a surprise success or a surprise disappointment.

 

A GM's job is to hire the right staff for his amateur scouting department.  That is the most crucial part of his job in relation to drafting. Then a GM can concentrate on the overall shaping of the team's identity. Pro scouting for the right pieces to surround the top picks.

 

I know many are emotionally attached to Petey and Quinn, so its hard to imagine them anywhere else, but....we could have instead built the team around some of these players instead......McCann, Andersson, McAvoy, Nylander, Tkachuk, or whatever. maybe even Mathews if we'd tanked right away. We don't know what could have been. The point is, it is the GMs job to take those picks, and hire the right coaches to develop them. Then know the present day league inside out, to know what kind of players are available that fit the exact need of your team to compliment those draft picks as they develop. Then be a smart and crafty negotiator with agents, and other clubs, to bring them onto the team.  Then there's the job of getting players to sign, and re-sign at cap friendly deals.  Build a culture that players want to sign on to.  There's all kinds of day to day operations that the GM is responsible for. I don't have faith that Benning would have done any better with a different core to work with. IMO he was in way over his head.

 

Benning failed at his most important job functions. The only two draft choices that Benning is particularly put his stamp on were Virtanen and Joulevi.  After that as Macintyre said:

 

"Juolevi was Benning’s choice back in 2016 because the GM wanted a defenceman and loved what he saw from the Finn at the world juniors. He could have chosen Mikhail Sergachev or Charlie McAvoy.

Benning is believed to have gone with Brackett’s first-round recommendation ever since." - Iain MacIntyre

 

Thank gawd he was stopped in time for Brackett to take charge and push him on Pettersson  > Glass.

Of course Brackett had to be fired soon after for that oneupmanship and insubordination.

 

For some, even if you screw up most of your picks, or give up developing some of them and trade them away for older FAs, along with 1st and 2nd rounders,........IF you land two trophy fishes in eight years, that seems to obliterate every other mistake on the job.

Benning did a few things right. Good cap deals for Hughes and Demko. The Miller trade, even if his age doesn't quite work with the core.  But I could make a list as long as this freakin post of all his mistakes and bad judgments.

 

Now can we stop these Benning Reclamation Project threads every 2 weeks? 

 

 

Edited February 10 by kilgore

[PureQuickness]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Was he?   Before the WJ's he was all over the map.   Early second round to after the top ten...let's get it right.  Chychrun, as a case study, was actually right there with Mathews a year prior to the draft, as who goes first.  

 

He wasn't a great pick man.   Not with MT on the board.   And everyone knew it.   We went with an "organizational pick".   Not sure why anyone would defend this.   And JB completely missed the mark.   Why not go for Chychrun?  Oh because he was injured.    Or Sergachev, wasn't on a loaded London team, but still kicked ass. 

 

 

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/olli-juolevi-the-next-ones-nhl-2016-draft-prospect-profile/

 

Yeah, you're right. Let's get it right.

[PureQuickness]

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

 

Of course the same can be said the other way.  If a prospect works out, and performs much better than his draft position. Like Hoglander. Or Joshua.  A lot of factors that impact if and how a player develops. Coaching of course. Also physical growth, mental growth and maturity, ability to adapt to the NHL, and keep learning skills. 

 

Drafting should be praised, or blamed, on the amateur scouting department for the most part.  Even then, they could have been fooled.  A lot does depend on luck. But one could also ask if there could have been any more work they could have done to uncover Olli's lack of ambition. And how much work Benning put into that as the ultimate decider.

 

All to say that drafting prowess on a team has little to do with the GM.  Either way.

 

Which is why its insane for some to base Benning's success as a GM on the fact that we have Petey and Hughes on the team. Or lower picks like Hoglander, Demko, Boeser, where the GM has even less knowledge about.

A GM should listen to his amateur scouting dept. Maybe attend some junior game of a prospect on the A list, but a GM can't run around NA and Europe watching junior hockey games.  He has to trust his scouts, and should base drafting decisions on their recommendations.

 

One could say that with 5 picks in the top ten, and batting less than .500, ain't that great either.  With Joulevi and Virtanen not even in the league, and Podz still not ready, and probably will top his potential on a third line.  I posted a stat I found on  another thread showing something like 90% of players picked in the top ten are successful NHL players in some capacity.

 

Which is why as you implied, using a team's draft picks, at the time, as a way to grade a GM's performance on the job is dumb.

 

A GM's job is to hire the right staff for his amateur scouting department.  That is the most crucial part of his job in relation to drafting. Then a GM can concentrate on the overall shaping of the team's identity. Pro scouting for the right pieces to surround the top picks that he relies on his scouting staff to find for him.

 

I know many are emotionally attached to Petey and Quinn, so its hard to imagine them anywhere else, but....we could have instead built the team around and or some of these players instead......McCann, Andersson, McAvoy, Nylander, Tkachuk, or whatever. we don't know what could have been. The point is, it is the GMs job to take those picks, and hire the right coaches to develop them. Then know the present day league inside out, to know what kind of players are available that fit the exact need of your team. Then be a smart and crafty negotiator with agents, and other clubs, to bring them onto the team.  Then there's the job of getting players to sign, and re-sign at cap friendlly deals.  Build a culture that players want to sign on to.  There's all kinds of day to day operations

 

Well if you're going to go that path, what do you make of Gillis then as a drafter/developer?

 

The truth is, he led the Canucks on multiple playoff runs. The rosters were amazing with supplementary talent (not unlike our current roster). We had sweeping victories and our morale was at an all-time high.

 

Beneath the surface, very poor drafting results. Bad development. Chaput and Megna were two players that easily grabbed a spot on Vancouver because our prospects were poorly developed.

 

Yep, that's also on Gillis.

 

The GM is a huge responsibility. You are responsible for the main roster, which Gillis did well, for the most part, but not after 2011, for the most part.

 

Wanna know why? He neglected the area that he NEEDED - his futures.

[Combover]

i give him exactly what he’s due
none.

 

he is living proof of that saying - 

even on the darkest day, the sun shines on some dog's ass.

It wouldn’t matter who was the gm - 8 years of being awful every aspect of the job  your still  going to end up with a few good players.

he doesn’t deserve anything but to be remembered as a useless idiot that was one of the franchises worse mistakes. 
garbage is insulted when it’s called Benning. 
 

 

[IBatch]

55 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/olli-juolevi-the-next-ones-nhl-2016-draft-prospect-profile/

 

Yeah, you're right. Let's get it right.

Before the WJ's means before the WJ's.

[kilgore]

4 hours ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Well if you're going to go that path, what do you make of Gillis then as a drafter/developer?

 

The truth is, he led the Canucks on multiple playoff runs. The rosters were amazing with supplementary talent (not unlike our current roster). We had sweeping victories and our morale was at an all-time high.

 

Beneath the surface, very poor drafting results. Bad development. Chaput and Megna were two players that easily grabbed a spot on Vancouver because our prospects were poorly developed.

 

Yep, that's also on Gillis.

 

The GM is a huge responsibility. You are responsible for the main roster, which Gillis did well, for the most part, but not after 2011, for the most part.

 

Wanna know why? He neglected the area that he NEEDED - his futures.

 

Its a little obscure to discuss GMs from beyond a decade, as their stamp on the present team is so limited.  But I'll bite.

 

You kind of made my point in that GMs responsibility is not the actual work involved in the drafting process.  It is mainly in developing what he has and surrounding the core with the pieces needed, all under the cap, to be successful.  Which is what Gillis did.  Under his watch Burrows, Hansen, Kesler, Schnieder, came into their own. PIcked up by a different GM of course.

 

Then added pieces like Erhoff, Higgins, Samuelsson, Hamhuis, Torres, Lapierre.  To take us as far as we did.

 

Gillis just did what most GMs do. Especially one without a background in amateur scouting, they leave it up to their, supposedly, competent amateur drafting department.  Even so, the ultimate responsibility for draft choices lies at the feet of the GM. And Gillis has since said that was one of his biggest regrets, that he didn't overhaul that department. 

 

What is different with Benning is he came in with drafting as his main talent. And still left the farm team dry for JR.

 

More good draft picks, would have been good for Gillis's legacy, even if he was picking way lower on average than Benning. Which you have to acknowledge. He did get Bo and then found Tanev. But again, a GM should, as you said, not be judged too harshly on draft picks.  Because ultimately, the GMs job is to get the team to the SCFs, which Gillis did. And besides, by the time Gillis was leaving, the team  should have been torn down for more picks anyways.  Going for it all was the priority in Gillis's part of the cycle. And he excelled at that.  Just coming shy of the ultimate prize

 

[Blue]

On 2/8/2024 at 12:30 AM, Jeremy Hronek said:

Suter-Miller-Boeser 

Mikheyev-Pettersson-Lindholm

Joshua-Bluegar-Garland

Hoglander-Aman-Lafferty

 

Hughes-Hronek

Cole-Myers

Zadorov-Soucy

 

Demko

DeSmith

 

With Podkolzin in the system.

 

Demko, Pettersson, and Hughes are on sweetheart contracts (although Pettersson’s will obviously change next season), while JT Miller was brought in a few years back despite many local hockey pundits being against the idea.

 

With the exception of Hronek and Lindholm, all of our current core players are a result of Benning’s draft picks and trades.

 

Now - please don’t get me wrong.  Benning made some significant mistakes as a GM as well. However, despite the mistakes, our entire core and their subsequent “sweet heart cap hits” cannot be ignored can it?

 

Of course to some extent he is. But let's not have some reality cloud a good myth that Benning was the worst GM eva 4 lyfe.

 

Benning was average bad. 

 

There's a lot of bad GMs in this league. But every Canadian teams fans think their old GM was the worst. They see all of what the GM did. 

 

Habs fans say the same about Bergavin

Edited February 10 by Blue

[PureQuickness]

8 hours ago, IBatch said:

Before the WJ's means before the WJ's.

 

It doesn't change the fact that he WAS nearly a top ten consensus pick. Stop changing history to fit the narrative. The facts are clear as day.

[PureQuickness]

4 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

Its a little obscure to discuss GMs from beyond a decade, as their stamp on the present team is so limited.  But I'll bite.

 

You kind of made my point in that GMs responsibility is not the actual work involved in the drafting process.  It is mainly in developing what he has and surrounding the core with the pieces needed, all under the cap, to be successful.  Which is what Gillis did.  Under his watch Burrows, Hansen, Kesler, Schnieder, came into their own. PIcked up by a different GM of course.

 

Then added pieces like Erhoff, Higgins, Samuelsson, Hamhuis, Torres, Lapierre.  To take us as far as we did.

 

Gillis just did what most GMs do. Especially one without a background in amateur scouting, they leave it up to their, supposedly, competent amateur drafting department.  Even so, the ultimate responsibility for draft choices lies at the feet of the GM. And Gillis has since said that was one of his biggest regrets, that he didn't overhaul that department. 

 

What is different with Benning is he came in with drafting as his main talent. And still left the farm team dry for JR.

 

More good draft picks, would have been good for Gillis's legacy, even if he was picking way lower on average than Benning. Which you have to acknowledge. He did get Bo and then found Tanev. But again, a GM should, as you said, not be judged too harshly on draft picks.  Because ultimately, the GMs job is to get the team to the SCFs, which Gillis did. And besides, by the time Gillis was leaving, the team  should have been torn down for more picks anyways.  Going for it all was the priority in Gillis's part of the cycle. And he excelled at that.  Just coming shy of the ultimate prize

 

 

Part of the GM is to oversee the health of the franchise. After 2011, we saw a complete lack of prospects into the pool. One may make the excuse that he was using the picks to make pushes, but this doesn't explain why his picks were WELL below average, even for our Canuck standards. I've said this before, but in five years, these were the most successful picks: Hodgson and Horvat (high first round picks). He missed on Gaunce and Jensen (both late first round pick picks). So from that angle, he should've hit more first round picks, or AT MINIMUM, have them in the system as serviceable players. This never happened though.

 

My point is that regardless of the amount of picks, Gillis was batting WELL below 20 percent, if that. I'm really not convinced that more draft picks would've helped him. He just sucked at drafting, period.

 

In the 2nd round, if he wasn't trading them away, he whiffed on all of them. Whereas we could've gotten a Demko or a Hoglander, we got nothing. Whereas we could've had a D. Pettersson or Hunter BRZ (Allvin's picks) in the third round, we got nothing.

 

And if we're looking at strictly GMing, Gillis didn't have any much success constructing his core after the Sedins. This is partly his fault for not setting up the futures that would allow him to continue his tenure. It seemed that he was "only" (not downplaying his significance) good at supplementing the core, but not starting his own.

 

We had an aging Kesler, Edler (from Nonis/Burke), the Sedins, Markstrom, and Tanev.

 

Even though he acquired Tanev and Markstrom from free agency/trades, his pro scouting alone did not allow him to flourish in any kind of rebuild. Now to talk about a rebuild and his inability to do one, we saw what we had on our farm. We had NO exciting players to speak of. If Gaunce/Megna are your two most exciting players, someone fucked up the GMing role.

 

Scouting is still a GM responsibility, not anyone else's.

 

No matter how you slice it, this was all on Gillis' watch.

 

[PureQuickness]

9 hours ago, Combover said:

i give him exactly what he’s due
none.

 

he is living proof of that saying - 

even on the darkest day, the sun shines on some dog's ass.

It wouldn’t matter who was the gm - 8 years of being awful every aspect of the job  your still  going to end up with a few good players.

he doesn’t deserve anything but to be remembered as a useless idiot that was one of the franchises worse mistakes. 
garbage is insulted when it’s called Benning. 
 

 

 

The core was all built under Benning. To say he deserves no credit is ridiculously dishonest commentary.

 

You can't downplay the significance of the core and say "Well he's supposed to do that", but then make excuses for Gillis' inability to pass on a workable core. There was no core to work with. It was basically an empty cupboard (minus Markstrom and Tanev).

[PureQuickness]

11 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

Of course the same can be said the other way.  If a prospect works out, and performs much better than his draft position, there is praise. Like Hoglander. Or Joshua.  A lot of factors that impact if and how a player develops. Coaching of course. Also physical growth, mental growth and maturity, ability to adapt to the NHL, and keep learning new skills. 

 

But drafting should be praised, or blamed, on the amateur scouting department for the most part.  Even then, they can have been fooled.  A lot does depend on luck. But one could also ask if there could have been any more work they could have done to uncover Olli's lack of ambition, some warning sign in his play. They are the experts.

 

All to say that drafting prowess on a team has little to do with the GM.  Of course he takes on the full responsibility and makes the final decisions, but as far as the work involved to get to that knowledge base, others did most of that work.

 

Which is why its insane for some to base Benning's success as a GM on the fact that we have Petey and Hughes on the team. Or even good lower picks like Hoglander, Demko, Boeser, where the GM has even less knowledge about.

A GM should listen to his amateur scouting dept. Maybe attend some junior game of a prospect on the A list, but a GM can't run around NA and Europe watching junior hockey games.  He has to trust his scouts, and should base drafting decisions on their recommendations.

 

One could say that with 5 picks in the top ten, and batting less than .500, ain't that great either.  With Joulevi and Virtanen not even in the league, and Podz still not ready, and probably will top his potential on a third line.  I posted a stat I found on  another thread showing something like 90% of players picked in the top ten are successful NHL players in some capacity.

 

Which is why as you implied, using a team's draft picks, at the time, as a way to grade a GM's performance on the job is dumb. Whether the player is a surprise success or a surprise disappointment.

 

A GM's job is to hire the right staff for his amateur scouting department.  That is the most crucial part of his job in relation to drafting. Then a GM can concentrate on the overall shaping of the team's identity. Pro scouting for the right pieces to surround the top picks.

 

I know many are emotionally attached to Petey and Quinn, so its hard to imagine them anywhere else, but....we could have instead built the team around some of these players instead......McCann, Andersson, McAvoy, Nylander, Tkachuk, or whatever. maybe even Mathews if we'd tanked right away. We don't know what could have been. The point is, it is the GMs job to take those picks, and hire the right coaches to develop them. Then know the present day league inside out, to know what kind of players are available that fit the exact need of your team to compliment those draft picks as they develop. Then be a smart and crafty negotiator with agents, and other clubs, to bring them onto the team.  Then there's the job of getting players to sign, and re-sign at cap friendly deals.  Build a culture that players want to sign on to.  There's all kinds of day to day operations that the GM is responsible for. I don't have faith that Benning would have done any better with a different core to work with. IMO he was in way over his head.

 

Benning failed at his most important job functions. The only two draft choices that Benning is particularly put his stamp on were Virtanen and Joulevi.  After that as Macintyre said:

 

"Juolevi was Benning’s choice back in 2016 because the GM wanted a defenceman and loved what he saw from the Finn at the world juniors. He could have chosen Mikhail Sergachev or Charlie McAvoy.

Benning is believed to have gone with Brackett’s first-round recommendation ever since." - Iain MacIntyre

 

Thank gawd he was stopped in time for Brackett to take charge and push him on Pettersson  > Glass.

Of course Brackett had to be fired soon after for that oneupmanship and insubordination.

 

For some, even if you screw up most of your picks, or give up developing some of them and trade them away for older FAs, along with 1st and 2nd rounders,........IF you land two trophy fishes in eight years, that seems to obliterate every other mistake on the job.

Benning did a few things right. Good cap deals for Hughes and Demko. The Miller trade, even if his age doesn't quite work with the core.  But I could make a list as long as this freakin post of all his mistakes and bad judgments.

 

Now can we stop these Benning Reclamation Project threads every 2 weeks? 

 

 

 

I'm not saying drafting is the END ALL for a GM. I'm saying that we can critique a GM based on their overall performance, which INCLUDES drafting. The choice of coach is also on the GM. Benning failed miserably in picking the right coaches for the team. Both ended up being lame duck coaches. Green, for that matter, did not record a single winning record in any season (whereas WD at least had one). In any case, their winning percentages as coaches mirrored each other. They're both losing coaches.

 

I want to make a side note from this post, mostly because I don't exactly have the time to address everything here: Sergachev was NOT a top 10 pick at the time. That reach from a top 10 to a ~30ish pick would've been lunacy and irresponsible.

 

I'm also confident that Sergachev would not have succeeded under the Canucks. We sucked at development, period, and Sergachev was a VERY raw prospect that worked well in Montreal but mostly in Tampa Bay.

[Canucklehead44]

On 2/8/2024 at 3:11 AM, iinatcc said:

One point though Rick Dhaliwal mentioned recently how the Sedin's involvment with the AHL and NHL roster was an important factor in the team's success both in the NHL and AHl.

If true does Benning deserve credit for hiring the Sedins in front office roles? 

 

they were horrible in the role Benning hired them for haha. Great coaches but should never be near a GM office again.

 

Benning was terrible - he pushed Virtanen over Larkin, Juolevi over Tkachuk, traded a pick that would have likely been DeBrincat plus McCann for Gudbranson, tonnes of terrible signings.

 

His best move was acquiring Miller even though he kinda overpaid at the time it worked out great. Also trading Garrison for a 2nd was good until he fumbled it trading for Linden Vey haha.

 

all in all he was one of the worst GMs in the league over his tenure. 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, PureQuickness said:

 

I'm not saying drafting is the END ALL for a GM. I'm saying that we can critique a GM based on their overall performance, which INCLUDES drafting. The choice of coach is also on the GM. Benning failed miserably in picking the right coaches for the team. Both ended up being lame duck coaches. Green, for that matter, did not record a single winning record in any season (whereas WD at least had one). In any case, their winning percentages as coaches mirrored each other. They're both losing coaches.

 

I want to make a side note from this post, mostly because I don't exactly have the time to address everything here: Sergachev was NOT a top 10 pick at the time. That reach from a top 10 to a ~30ish pick would've been lunacy and irresponsible.

 

I'm also confident that Sergachev would not have succeeded under the Canucks. We sucked at development, period, and Sergachev was a VERY raw prospect that worked well in Montreal but mostly in Tampa Bay.

Please explain how, we are to pick top 1-5, with a winning record, and why you think (and this time @King Heffy language is correct) a trash AHL defense is supposed to help a team or coach, have a winning record?   The one year he was given two better players, Myers and Miller, Green had his best season.   That club under Horvat was mentally weak,  Green was constantly pulling them back out of the muck.   Pretty sure, despite going on a nosedive after the Toffoli trade, with Brock out,  that season they had a winning record, things were looking up, and then this silly OEL business started (and we lost Tanev).   

 

Bruce couldn't make it work either, and didn't have to play with the same "Green"  (rookie) players.    Those teams were also going to be bad.   You understand that right?   The Canucks, SJ and Detroit won more games than any other team from 200-2014.   The piper was coming.  It did for Detroit too (how they doing anyways)  started their rebuild with Larkin actually,  ours was 2017, when JB finally had 3 guys willing to waive, well past much value.    Holland left DET, Yzerman traded away most of the first five years of rebuilding guys and started over around Larkin.    SJ, well their re-tool around EK helped to extend their endless re-tooling, but eventually even they had to pull the plug.   Wilson finally ran out of road, no Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski, Burns, Vlasic age caught up to him etc...

 

Instead, were we supposed to win?   Couldn't with Torts and a much better roster.   Couldn't with Bruce.    Green wasn't that bad, we had a bad roster.    We weren't supposed to be good either.   

 

Before the start of this year, going the way of Yzerman and blowing it up for sure was on the table before we acquired Hronek.   Button was 100% correct, if we traded Horvat and kept those picks, we might as well trade a QHs or an EP (one of those guys our Larkin) and start the process all over.     Traded Miller too.    

 

Didn't like that era much either aside from drafting 3 Calders guys and the bubble.  Slipping in the draft each year (we were 3rd twice was it?), the impatience of the fanbase despite most on here actually wanted at least one if not two more down years to truly acquire a drafted core ...  No idea why some fans are stuck on this idea, that we weren't going to have some really bad years.    Starting with Horvat, was worse then starting with say a Rick Nash or Ilya Kovalchuk under the old expansion rules, and with 28 or so teams back then, it took a decade to sniff playoffs.   
 

Takes that long for too many teams.   That's the 32 NHL team league for you.   Were you around for anything but the WCE era and forward?     So much winning, sure hope our fan base appreciates when we get back to that again.   Including this season. 

Edited February 10 by IBatch

[LillStrimma]

1 hour ago, PureQuickness said:

 

The core was all built under Benning. To say he deserves no credit is ridiculously dishonest commentary.

 

You can't downplay the significance of the core and say "Well he's supposed to do that", but then make excuses for Gillis' inability to pass on a workable core. There was no core to work with. It was basically an empty cupboard (minus Markstrom and Tanev).

Bennings narrative(I call it his narrative because under his tenure here it was en endless bad mouthing of Gillis by his spin doctors here) was that Gillis left him bare.

Then Benning doubled down on that by giving away everyone that could be called Gillis players except Horvat, Tanev, Markström and Edler.

Have you heard of any GM just give away a top goalie, a top RHD and an ageing LD that should have been able to hang up his skates as a Canuck?