18/19 MGMT Thread X: This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends...

[TruKnyte]

Nobody is absolving him of his past mistakes either..There was a reason he got a 2-3 deal instead of a 5 year one.

The Canucks have been a 'positive' media story this season...for a number of reasons..Not just EP/Boeser.

And those reasons are?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

In fairness to PoM, what else is he going to do? His main objective has to be obfuscate and strawman better arguments. There's no leverage in making a weaker point against a better argument, after all.

If you were to take every MGMT discussion made here and condense it to the following, PoM really has nowhere else to go:

1. Drafting - If poster X thinks his drafting is anything above average, introduce the Potato. This usually weeds out the weaker arguments. And for those savvy enough to attack the Potato, it usually results in acknowledging Benning's drafting against said baseline. Win-win.

2. Trades - If the best case is middling here, and people cannot reconcile his Pro Scouting work across the board (Trades and Signings), then what's the remaining argument really?

3. Signings - A dog's breakfast of a resume. Benning has some of the worst value to cap hit signings among NHL GMs. The best argument I've seen here is "well, at least he hasn't made a crippling signing and they still have cap space". Well, if that's your bar, nearly any GM will do.

In summary, this is what PoM faces. It's no wonder he's delved to the level of not addressing any of the arguments head on and in good faith. He really can't because they have already been explored and addressed.

Haha..Not interested in arguing indefinitely with you on some hairsplitting point...I'm also not remotely interested in any of your opinions regarding hockey, and certainly dont feel any need to validate my points to you (or any other negative poster).

Bottom line is this..We will eventually know within a year how your take on this management works out..Dont get too smug.

 

[Bleach Clean]

....all that said, I can seem *negative* because I can't help but feel like things could be so much better!!
...
Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to be *positive*, to have a rosy picture of our future. But I can't help but feel any success this team has will be because it staggered into it like a drunken insect DESPITE management

This is exactly why HF Canucks is negative, I agree. It's because the expectations here are higher here than they are almost everywhere else.

Some pro-Benning posters have remarked that this is the fault of HF, and is what isolates HF opinion against the general Canucks fan base. That's a fair point, but the real question is: Why are expectations higher here? To me, it's because baselines are established here and are rigorously argued. Not just in HF VAN, but on HF Boards in general.

- When a trade is proposed, you post it to the main boards and it gets ripped apart by the fanbases of other teams. It's an instant and sobering check.

- When a trade is made, it's picked apart on the main board from almost every angle. This is every _other_team's_ fanbase providing input.

- When a signing is made, comparable signings are brought to bear. This works in the positive and negative. Sometimes fans outside Vancouver can convince VAN fans that a signing is good even though the fans don't like it at first blush.

- The perspective on the main boards puts cap efficiency into context. It also promotes the weaponization of cap space.

- Drafting is greatly contextualized when you go to the prospects board. Every team has good draft picks and nowhere is that more acutely evident than on HF.


All of these factors inform expectations. The different perspective's ground the work that has been done like nowhere else. Truly, I think it's a major reason why HF fan expectations are misaligned with those of specific team boards. A team board doesn't have that constant check from the fans of other teams. Here, opinions are scrutinized against the context of the team and the league as a whole, not just the team itself.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

And those reasons are?

Markstrom,...the bottom 6,...Travis Green,... drafting of Quinn Hughes..they are still in the playoff discussion in mid Feb ...A team that doesn't quit...Very watchable games...A reinvigorated fanbase..Adam Gaudette...Ben Hutton..to name a few

 

[Bleach Clean]

Haha..Not interested in arguing indefinitely with you on some hairsplitting point...I'm also not remotely interested in any of your opinions regarding hockey, and certainly dont feel any need to validate my points to you (or any other negative poster).

Bottom line is this..We will eventually know within a year how your take on this management works out..Dont get too smug.

You don't care about arguing indefinitely.

You're not remotely interested in my opinions regarding hockey.

You don't feel the need to validate your points to me or other "negative" posters.



Yet you're still here, arguing indefinitely, against negative posters...?

Interesting.

 

[TruKnyte]

Markstrom,...the bottom 6,...Travis Green,... drafting of Quinn Hughes..they are still in the playoff discussion in mid Feb ...A team that doesn't quit...Very watchable games...A reinvigorated fanbase..Adam Gaudette...Ben Hutton..to name a few

1) Gillis traded for Markstrom, not Benning
2) Bottom 6? Really? Any GM who is willing to throw up 4 million dollar cap hits for bottom 6 players should be questioned.
3) Hughes is a great prospect, but he hasn't played a single NHL game for us yet. I'd say most GM's who draft a player at 7th overall is probably going to have a good prosect at D+1
4) They're in the playoff conversation because the West is laughably weak this year.
5) Watchable is all relative
6) Reinvigorated fanbase: according to who? Most people I know (casual fans included) know the Canucks suck. There's excitement about Pettersson, but not of the team as a whole
7) Gaudette has been good, but again any decent GM should be able to draft at least one player who can play in the bottom 6
8) Ben Hutton was drafted in 2012 by Gillis, not Benning

**EDIT** Sorry forgot to address Travis Green. I'll acknowledge that he's had to deal with a fair number of injuries this season, but his deployment and matchup strategies have been curious at times (to say the least).

Like dude, I want to be able to have a discussion with you but at least do a Google Search before replying.

 

[I in the Eye]

Haha..Not interested in arguing indefinitely with you on some hairsplitting point...I'm also not remotely interested in any of your opinions regarding hockey, and certainly dont feel any need to validate my points to you (or any other negative poster).

Bottom line is this..We will eventually know within a year how your take on this management works out..Dont get too smug.

How is this a positive post? This is a very negative post. This post is contributing and plagued with negativity.

"Don't be negative", said the negative post. You are not applying Buddha correctly.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

1) Gillis traded for Markstrom, not Benning
2) Bottom 6? Really? Any GM who is willing to throw up 4 million dollar cap hits for bottom 6 players should be questioned.
3) Hughes is a great prospect, but he hasn't played a single NHL game for us yet. I'd say most GM's who draft a player at 7th overall is probably going to have a good prosect at D+1
4) They're in the playoff conversation because the West is laughably weak this year.
5) Watchable is all relative
6) Reinvigorated fanbase: according to who? Most people I know (casual fans included) know the Canucks suck. There's excitement about Pettersson, but not of the team as a whole
7) Gaudette has been good, but again any decent GM should be able to draft at least one player who can play in the bottom 6
8) Ben Hutton was drafted in 2012 by Gillis, not Benning

Like dude, I want to be able to have a discussion with you but at least do a Google Search before replying.

Who cares that Gillis traded for Markstrom..?..Gillis didn't acquire Luongo or Schneider.
$3M cap hits..google is your friend.
Hughes has been considered one of the best players not in the NHL
The West is weak, yes but we were not supposed to be in any playoff conversation in mid Feb.?
Canucks suck..your opinion
Any GM should be able to draft a bottom 6 forward? (except our previous administration)
Hutton drafted by Gillis..1 of 2 impact players drafted in 6 years..righty-ho.

Anyway...,my point was the positive points the general 'media' were talking about..not my opinion

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

How is this a positive post? This is a very negative post. This post is contributing and plagued with negativity.

"Don't be negative", said the negative post. You are not applying Buddha correctly.

Its my negative post for the month...

 

[I in the Eye]

Its my negative post for the month...

As a Canucks fan, I understand your need to vent. This is my positive post for the month.

 

[TruKnyte]

Who cares that Gillis traded for Markstrom..?..Gillis didn't acquire Luongo or Schneider.
$3M cap hits..google is your friend.
Hughes has been considered one of the best players not in the NHL
The West is weak, yes but we were not supposed to be in any playoff conversation in mid Feb.?
Canucks suck..your opinion
Any GM should be able to draft a bottom 6 forward? (except our previous administration)
Hutton drafted by Gillis..1 of 2 impact players drafted in 6 years..righty-ho.

Anyway...,my point was the positive points the general 'media' were talking about..not my opinion

Don't know why I'm bothering to reply but....

1) What's your point? You were trying to give reasons why Benning should be given the credit for positivity around the Canucks this year and gave Markstrom as one of your pieces of evidence.
2) Already addressed
3) Already addressed
4) Do a poll of your average Vancouverite, you'd be hard pressed to find one that thinks the Canucks are good.
5) Gillis' drafting was his weaker point, but one could argue Gaunce was/is a bottom 6 forward.
6) Don't understand what you are trying to say here.


*EDIT* Yes 3 million not 4, was thinking 4 years for term for Beagle.

Anyways, I know when an Internet debate becomes pointless. Have a good day with your optimism for the Canucks.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Don't know why I'm bothering to reply but....

1) What's your point? You were trying to give reasons why Benning should be given the credit for positivity around the Canucks this year and gave Markstrom as one of your pieces of evidence.
2) Already addressed
3) Already addressed
4) Do a poll of your average Vancouverite, you'd be hard pressed to find one that thinks the Canucks are good.
5) Gillis' drafting was his weaker point, but one could argue Gaunce was/is a bottom 6 forward.
6) Don't understand what you are trying to say here.


*EDIT* Yes 3 million not 4, was thinking 4 years for term for Beagle.

Anyways, I know when an Internet debate becomes pointless. Have a good day with your optimism for the Canucks.

Most media analysts when they are complimenting individual players on the team, and the teams play itself ..is a roundabout credit to Benning and his administration.......Thats all I was saying.

Markstrom,Horvat and Hutton were drafted by Gillis (credit to him),but were developed by Benning.

What do you mean by 'good'...?...Its a rebuilding team..They're not there yet, but the blueprint is there, and fans are reinvigorated (you're not, but thats your right).

I apologize for the optimism,I know there's not much of a need for it in these parts.

 

[Bleach Clean]

As a Canucks fan, I understand your need to vent. This is my positive post for the month.

One general point here: I've seen it that posters fall into the trap of accepting labels without realizing it. As in, accepting that you are "negative poster" even though your opinion on Benning's work is more nuanced. For example, liking the Baertschi and Bieksa trades and the drafting of Pettersson and Boeser. That opinion is net negative, sure, but it's not wholly negative.

At the same time, some "positive posters" here are not wholly positive.

Like all things, it's the degree to which you argue it and are able to present your opinion. Labeling posters diminishes the value of their opinion and seeks to argue by stereotype. Never a good thing.

 

[TruKnyte]

Most media analysts when they are complimenting individual players on the team, and the teams play itself ..is a roundabout credit to Benning and his administration.......Thats all I was saying.

Markstrom,Horvat and Hutton were drafted by Gillis (credit to him),but were developed by Benning.

What do you mean by 'good'...?...Its a rebuilding team..They're not there yet, but the blueprint is there, and fans are reinvigorated (you're not, but thats your right).

I apologize for the optimism,I know there's not much of a need for it in these parts.

You do you my friend. IMHO optimism is great, but it needs to be tempered with reality as well.

 

[I in the Eye]

One general point here: I've seen it that posters fall into the trap of accepting labels without realizing it. As in, accepting that you are "negative poster" even though your opinion on Benning's work is more nuanced. For example, liking the Baertschi and Bieksa trades and the drafting of Pettersson and Boeser. That opinion is net negative, sure, but it's not wholly negative.

At the same time, some "positive posters" here are not wholly positive.

Like all things, it's the degree to which you argue it and are able to present your opinion. Labeling posters diminishes the value of their opinion and seeks to argue by stereotype. Never a good thing.

True... I kind of enjoy being considered a negative poster though... like a machacho bad guy. I wear the label like a tattoo. I'm a virtual pirate on the bring down Benning ship, arrrrr.

 

[infinitemile]

One general point here: I've seen it that posters fall into the trap of accepting labels without realizing it. As in, accepting that you are "negative poster" even though your opinion on Benning's work is more nuanced. For example, liking the Baertschi and Bieksa trades and the drafting of Pettersson and Boeser. That opinion is net negative, sure, but it's not wholly negative.

At the same time, some "positive posters" here are not wholly positive.

Like all things, it's the degree to which you argue it and are able to present your opinion. Labeling posters diminishes the value of their opinion and seeks to argue by stereotype. Never a good thing.

We're only called negative posters because bringing up Benning's resume against other GMs doesn't end well for him. Id love to have a GM I could get behind, it's f***ing disappointing seeing your team get ruined by this idiot. But somehow that is lost in the eyes of so many who are fine with the lowest possible standards.

 

[YeahHeDid]

 

[RandV]

As we seem to be entering the late season downward spiral again let's take a moment to appreciate and remember that this time the Canucks are running without a team president pretty much specifically to protect Jim Benning's job.

 

[Peter10]

View attachment 187137

 

[Melvin]

We're only called negative posters because bringing up Benning's resume against other GMs doesn't end well for him. Id love to have a GM I could get behind, it's ****ing disappointing seeing your team get ruined by this idiot. But somehow that is lost in the eyes of so many who are fine with the lowest possible standards.

Is this honestly what it comes to? Positivity is not an argument.

Have we seriously given up on intellectual discourse, and resorting to this "power of postivie thinking" nonsense? Is this not a discussion forum?

 

[Mal Reynolds]

This is exactly why HF Canucks is negative, I agree. It's because the expectations here are higher here than they are almost everywhere else.

Some pro-Benning posters have remarked that this is the fault of HF, and is what isolates HF opinion against the general Canucks fan base. That's a fair point, but the real question is: Why are expectations higher here? To me, it's because baselines are established here and are rigorously argued. Not just in HF VAN, but on HF Boards in general.

- When a trade is proposed, you post it to the main boards and it gets ripped apart by the fanbases of other teams. It's an instant and sobering check.

- When a trade is made, it's picked apart on the main board from almost every angle. This is every _other_team's_ fanbase providing input.

- When a signing is made, comparable signings are brought to bear. This works in the positive and negative. Sometimes fans outside Vancouver can convince VAN fans that a signing is good even though the fans don't like it at first blush.

- The perspective on the main boards puts cap efficiency into context. It also promotes the weaponization of cap space.

- Drafting is greatly contextualized when you go to the prospects board. Every team has good draft picks and nowhere is that more acutely evident than on HF.


All of these factors inform expectations. The different perspective's ground the work that has been done like nowhere else. Truly, I think it's a major reason why HF fan expectations are misaligned with those of specific team boards. A team board doesn't have that constant check from the fans of other teams. Here, opinions are scrutinized against the context of the team and the league as a whole, not just the team itself.

Quality post. HF also is this wonderful microcosm.... simple fact is, an online forum will attract largely certain types, and that there are fans (and fanbases) here as diehard, as critical and as well-informed as you can find anywhere. As you wrote, standards are higher....

I'd even argue that the "negativity" on our subforum isn't unique, that numerous fanbases here at HF are quite critical of management/coaching. Philly fans were ready to dance in the streets when Hakstol was turfed. Bergevin was almost universally panned (and mocked) till his offseason moves bought him some time, and (at least temporarily) silenced his critics. Even *good* hockey people aren't above this either.... Bs fans affectionately dubbed Julien "Clode".... some Hawks fans felt Quenneville was trotted out & stale, that the game had passed him by....

 

[Hodgy]

In an attempt to participate in some actual discussion regarding management's performance, I think one aspect of their performance here that isn't discussed enough is the impact their pro scouting and acquisitions have had on this rebuild. Sure, Benning's pro-scouting has been rightfully criticized on here, but I don't think the effect of that pro-scouting has been discussed enough in terms of its effect on this rebuild.

Contracts, the cap and the trade deadline essentially result in a sellers market every year at the deadline. While prices will change from deadline to deadline, there will always be competitive teams that are willing to trade draft picks and prospects for players that will help them compete for the playoffs, but also in the playoffs. So if you are a perennially poor team like the Canucks have been over the past four years, you will naturally be in a position of strength to acquire picks and prospects at the deadline, unless, of course, your pro-player acquisitions are terrible.

Essentially, if you are able to acquire average pro-players, on average contract terms, you will be able to trade these players at the deadline for picks and prospects. We see this every year. For example, look at the transactions of the Maple Leafs at the 2016 trade deadline:

1. Leafs acquire Morin (prospect) for Panik;
2. Leafs acquire a 4th round pick and Smith (prospect) for Matthias;
3. Leafs acquire two 2nd Round Picks and a cap dump in Torres for Polak and Spaling
4. Leafs acquire Ben Smith, Stalock and a 4th round pick for Morin and Reimer and Morin
5. Leafs acquire a 2nd round pick, Carrick (prospect) and Laich (a cap dump) for Winnik

Compare this to Jim Benning and the contrast is incredible. Basically all the decent picks and prospect acquired by Jim Benning were acquired for players that were signed or acquired by previous management (e.g., Kesler, Bieksa, Hansen and Garrison). Jim Benning has almost entirely failed to acquire anything of any value for players he has acquired. It's unbelievable.

After each trade deadline he essentially whines to the media that "picks are hard to acquire". Which isn't true. Picks are quite easy to acquire at the deadline if you don't sign bad players, or decent players to bad terms. Its why pro-scouting is so important even when rebuilding, and also why signing players to reasonable contracts is also important. The notion that contract terms are not important to a rebuilding team (see Beagle and Roussel) is absolutely not true. And the above proves that so easily. Cap space is important so that you can take on cap dumps, and having players sign to reasonable contracts is also important because it makes them more attractive to competitive teams at the deadline.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Canucks have $32.7M in cap space...Priorities are Boeser and Edler.

 

[TruKnyte]

In an attempt to participate in some actual discussion regarding management's performance, I think one aspect of their performance here that isn't discussed enough is the impact their pro scouting and acquisitions have had on this rebuild. Sure, Benning's pro-scouting has been rightfully criticized on here, but I don't think the effect of that pro-scouting has been discussed enough in terms of its effect on this rebuild.

Contracts, the cap and the trade deadline essentially result in a sellers market every year at the deadline. While prices will change from deadline to deadline, there will always be competitive teams that are willing to trade draft picks and prospects for players that will help them compete for the playoffs, but also in the playoffs. So if you are a perennially poor team like the Canucks have been over the past four years, you will naturally be in a position of strength to acquire picks and prospects at the deadline, unless, of course, your pro-player acquisitions are terrible.

Essentially, if you are able to acquire average pro-players, on average contract terms, you will be able to trade these players at the deadline for picks and prospects. We see this every year. For example, look at the transactions of the Maple Leafs at the 2016 trade deadline:

1. Leafs acquire Morin (prospect) for Panik;
2. Leafs acquire a 4th round pick and Smith (prospect) for Matthias;
3. Leafs acquire two 2nd Round Picks and a cap dump in Torres for Polak and Spaling
4. Leafs acquire Ben Smith, Stalock and a 4th round pick for Morin and Reimer and Morin
5. Leafs acquire a 2nd round pick, Carrick (prospect) and Laich (a cap dump) for Winnik

Compare this to Jim Benning and the contrast is incredible. Basically all the decent picks and prospect acquired by Jim Benning were acquired for players that were signed or acquired by previous management (e.g., Kesler, Bieksa, Hansen and Garrison). Jim Benning has almost entirely failed to acquire anything of any value for players he has acquired. It's unbelievable.

After each trade deadline he essentially whines to the media that "picks are hard to acquire". Which isn't true. Picks are quite easy to acquire at the deadline if you don't sign bad players, or decent players to bad terms. Its why pro-scouting is so important even when rebuilding, and also why signing players to reasonable contracts is also important. The notion that contract terms are not important to a rebuilding team (see Beagle and Roussel) is absolutely not true. And the above proves that so easily. Cap space is important so that you can take on cap dumps, and having players sign to reasonable contracts is also important because it makes them more attractive to competitive teams at the deadline.

I think most of us would agree our pro-scouting needs to be overhauled like our amateur scouting was.

 

[Melvin]

I made a simulator for playing out the rest of the season given schedule, and assuming current scoring rates. I did 10,000 sims and the Canucks made the playoffs around 18% of the time.

This feels about right. Although it doesn't take into account injuries to tanev, Edler, etc.

So what's the plan? Do you go for it? They aren't likely to be able to make the playoffs with an 85 point team next year. As discussed, this might be their best chance.