Around the League 2015/2016 Pt 13

[Just A Bit Outside]

I know of one (not particularly flattering) example of a GM going on about an age gap and that was Jay Feaster in Calgary. In fact, you could sub out some names from this article 2 years into Feaster's time as a GM and it could be about the Canucks today:





http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/03/31/feaster-getting-schooled

That's ****ing depressing as we all know the outcome and its what's in store for the Canucks.

 

[MS]

I know of one (not particularly flattering) example of a GM going on about an age gap and that was Jay Feaster in Calgary. In fact, you could sub out some names from this article 2 years into Feaster's time as a GM and it could be about the Canucks today:





http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/03/31/feaster-getting-schooled

Wow.

And, as has been noted, their massive 8-year contract offer to Brad Richards in 2012 lines up pretty nicely with what Benning has done with Eriksson. At least Richards went somewhere else, in their case.

 

[PM]

Jesus... that looks exactly like the type of garbage we hear from Benning and Weisbrod. Did all of these guys go to the same school of stupidity?

 

[MikeK]

Jesus... that looks exactly like the type of garbage we hear from Benning and Weisbrod. Did all of these guys go to the same school of stupidity?

I think it's called the University of Incompetence.

 

[m9]

This is one of those discussions on here where the end of the story is already written. Benning tried the 'age gap' approach. With the exception of Baertschi, it was a massive failure.

It actually failed in two different ways:

1. The obvious one - we traded multiple draft picks and young assets to fill this gap. The players acquired were not good. The guys filling this gap the best are actually the ones that were already in the organization in Horvat, Hutton, and Markstrom. (Along with Baertschi, as mentioned above)

2. The main point of the 'age gap' theory is to bridge between the veterans and the young players so that the team isn't segregated. The only problem is - this didn't work either! There were massive issues with the team dynamic last year, culminating with the Sedins basically bashing the young players to the point that one (McCann) was traded away.

Just a massive failure. Assets bled and very little to show for it. As far as I'm concerned, the case is closed on this attempt.

 

[Canucks LB]

That's ****ing depressing as we all know the outcome and its what's in store for the Canucks.

Some stuff for sure, the hammer fiasco the key, and some awful signings in sbisa and dorsett.

But his drafting has been pretty damn solid, and that gives me hope for the next GM coming to have a decent pool to work with.

Ideally, Benning moves to a head scout position.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This is one of those discussions on here where the end of the story is already written. Benning tried the 'age gap' approach. With the exception of Baertschi, it was a massive failure.

It actually failed in two different ways:

1. The obvious one - we traded multiple draft picks and young assets to fill this gap. The players acquired were not good. The guys filling this gap the best are actually the ones that were already in the organization in Horvat, Hutton, and Markstrom. (Along with Baertschi, as mentioned above)

2. The main point of the 'age gap' theory is to bridge between the veterans and the young players so that the team isn't segregated. The only problem is - this didn't work either! There were massive issues with the team dynamic last year, culminating with the Sedins basically bashing the young players to the point that one (McCann) was traded away.

Just a massive failure. Assets bled and very little to show for it. As far as I'm concerned, the case is closed on this attempt.

I've noticed a turn in your posts regarding Benning. Are you firmly off the Benning Bus to Oblivion?

In any event, I agree - This part of his plan was a "massive failure". Couldn't have gone worse. Well, Baertschi is something... I guess? It will all culminate to his demise here, soon (relative to GM tenures), IMO.

 

[m9]

I've noticed a turn in your posts regarding Benning. Are you firmly off the Benning Bus to Oblivion?

In any event, I agree - This part of his plan was a "massive failure". Couldn't have gone worse. Well, Baertschi is something... I guess? It will all culminate to his demise here, soon (relative to GM tenures), IMO.

I've never been a Benning fan. I am a fan of some of the players that he's acquired, but almost never at the cost he acquired them for. His ability to constantly need to do these slight adds/nibbles to trades is embarrassing and it started right with the Garrison trade throwing in a 7th. It's one of the first things you learn in business negotiations and in sports it's easy to see what's what.

The one thing I cannot fault Benning (or any GM for) is that they want to keep their job. It's likely their dream job, and they will do whatever they can to keep it. So while some want the team to tank and not spend to the cap, it's completely unrealistic. I'm sure it's either been implied or told outright to Benning he needs to make the playoffs this year. He has to try to do it, via trades or signings. What's his alternative? Is anyone else going to ever sign up for him as a GM of another team if this season bombs and he's fired?

So, I'm no Benning apologist but I'm also realistic to the scenario in front of him. He helped create that scenario however and I bet it will be his undoing when we miss the playoffs.

 

[Bad Goalie]

It is funny that Vey gets a two way deal when we signed someone like chaput to a one way.

That's because Chaput is targeted to being an AHL impact player and getting him signed probably required a little extra. Whereas, Vey is looking to stay alive and he took the only deal that they offered him. If he plays as he thinks he can, he'll be in Calgary and will make the better buck on the contract. He's obviously accepted the challenge and as much as I criticized his poor play in Utica, I never wish a player out of the game and thus, hope he finally puts it together.

 

[m9]

That's because Chaput is targeted to being an impact player and getting him signed probably required a little extra. Whereas, Vey is looking to stay alive and he took the only deal that they offered him. If he plays as he thinks he can, he'll be in Calgary and will make the better buck on the contract. He's obviously accepted the challenge and as much as I criticized his poor play in Utica, I never wish a player out of the game and thus, hope he finally puts it together.

Just to clarify, it is Megna on the one-way and Chaput on the two-way.

 

[Bad Goalie]

Just to clarify, it is Megna on the one-way and Chaput on the two-way.

I knew it was one of the 4 and didn't bother to look it back up. It's in my files. My bad for that, but the reason still stands.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I've never been a Benning fan. I am a fan of some of the players that he's acquired, but almost never at the cost he acquired them for. His ability to constantly need to do these slight adds/nibbles to trades is embarrassing and it started right with the Garrison trade throwing in a 7th. It's one of the first things you learn in business negotiations and in sports it's easy to see what's what.

The one thing I cannot fault Benning (or any GM for) is that they want to keep their job. It's likely their dream job, and they will do whatever they can to keep it. So while some want the team to tank and not spend to the cap, it's completely unrealistic. I'm sure it's either been implied or told outright to Benning he needs to make the playoffs this year. He has to try to do it, via trades or signings. What's his alternative? Is anyone else going to ever sign up for him as a GM of another team if this season bombs and he's fired?

So, I'm no Benning apologist but I'm also realistic to the scenario in front of him. He helped create that scenario however and I bet it will be his undoing when we miss the playoffs.

Hmmm, that's interesting because I figured that with past discussions, you were a proponent of his work.

To the bold, I think tanking is realistic. I think re-tooling is realistic. It just depends upon the capability of the GM. Re-Tooling is a lot harder so the GM has to be that much better. Benning couldn't re-tool properly, so he's left with a more pressing need to rebuild. However, if he's preventing a rebuild due to keeping his "dream job", then I would have even less respect for him than I already do. Even Nonis knew to serve the franchise before himself. This would again put Benning in the crosshairs for most fans... if it were in fact his motivation. From the HW insight though, it seems he thinks the team is a lot closer to the playoffs than even Linden believes... so I don't think he's doing this out of self-preservation.

 

[Verviticus]

I know of one (not particularly flattering) example of a GM going on about an age gap and that was Jay Feaster in Calgary. In fact, you could sub out some names from this article 2 years into Feaster's time as a GM and it could be about the Canucks today:





http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/03/31/feaster-getting-schooled

hahahahahah *starts puking uncontrollably*

 

[Boose Brudreau]

Wow.

And, as has been noted, their massive 8-year contract offer to Brad Richards in 2012 lines up pretty nicely with what Benning has done with Eriksson. At least Richards went somewhere else, in their case.

except it was 2011 and the term was 50% longer (9 years) than Eriksson's deal and it ate up 26% more of the annual cap limit at the time.

 

[m9]

Hmmm, that's interesting because I figured that with past discussions, you were a proponent of his work.

To the bold, I think tanking is realistic. I think re-tooling is realistic. It just depends upon the capability of the GM. Re-Tooling is a lot harder so the GM has to be that much better. Benning couldn't re-tool properly, so he's left with a more pressing need to rebuild. However, if he's preventing a rebuild due to keeping his "dream job", then I would have even less respect for him than I already do. Even Nonis knew to serve the franchise before himself. This would again put Benning in the crosshairs for most fans... if it were in fact his motivation. From the HW insight though, it seems he thinks the team is a lot closer to the playoffs than even Linden believes... so I don't think he's doing this out of self-preservation.

I'm pretty sure most GM's feel they are close to the playoffs, and most GM's are kind of right. He could trade for Hartnell or Kane and if everything works out they make a wildcard spot. But they aren't a cup threat, and they are getting further from the cup every year with the decline of the Sedins.

I think the odds are they miss the playoffs, then the odds are Benning gets fired. They aren't going back to the well with a rookie GM, so we are looking at a retread. It's a bleak forecast.

 

[Hit the post]

I'm pretty sure most GM's feel they are close to the playoffs, and most GM's are kind of right.

As a result of so many teams (more than 50%) making the playoffs every season.

Take out the Oilers, and that difficulty becomes even less.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'm pretty sure most GM's feel they are close to the playoffs, and most GM's are kind of right. He could trade for Hartnell or Kane and if everything works out they make a wildcard spot. But they aren't a cup threat, and they are getting further from the cup every year with the decline of the Sedins.

I think the odds are they miss the playoffs, then the odds are Benning gets fired. They aren't going back to the well with a rookie GM, so we are looking at a retread. It's a bleak forecast.

If the retreat is Tallon, I'm OK with it... Though I'm not a Tallon fan either. He won't be worse than Benning.

I don't think "most GMs" feel X or Y. There are good GMs that understand the team's position and act accordingly. Benning is not that. Anyway, this is better discussed in the Benning Transaction Record Thread.

 

[m9]

If the retreat is Tallon, I'm OK with it... Though I'm not a Tallon fan either. He won't be worse than Benning.

I don't think "most GMs" feel X or Y. There are good GMs that understand the team's position and act accordingly. Benning is not that. Anyway, this is better discussed in the Benning Transaction Record Thread.

My non-subtle attempt to get back on track in the thread - how many GM's in the league felt they weren't close to the playoffs when the 2015-16 season started? Maybe like 5 or 6 teams?

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I knew it was one of the 4 and didn't bother to look it back up. It's in my files. My bad for that, but the reason still stands.

Hahahahaha.

It's actually my bad of course, but the reason is exactly the same. I knew it was one of them and took a guess rather than looking it up.

Whatever, same thing.

 

[Bleach Clean]

My non-subtle attempt to get back on track in the thread - how many GM's in the league felt they weren't close to the playoffs when the 2015-16 season started? Maybe like 5 or 6 teams?

Maybe, but more should have been thinking along those lines after the new year when their teams were still out of a playoff spot. Benning failed to recognize it then. He's again failing to recognize it now.

 

[I am toxic]

I think it's called the University of Incompetence.

Run by Principal Peter.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

hahahahahah *starts puking uncontrollably*

The good news is Feaster didn't last too long.

 

[timw33]

First two comments in that article:

Albert Kong • 3 years ago
Bring in Brian Burke!

If he can fix the Leafs, Ducks and Canucks, he sure can fix the Flames!!

God himself ...couldn't fix this royal of a mess! Trouble looms from the top down; and it goes far beyond Mr. Feaster

Gotta give some credit to Burke for cleaning house, especially firing Weisbrod, and bringing in Treliving.