Confirmed with Link: Canucks interested in hiring Michael Futa ( Management)

[CantStoptheBrock]

...I don't think you were paying close enough attention to your prof's then.

And there's absolutely no reason you can't apply opportunity costs to other aspects of life - the biggest challenge is if you're using the 'right' metrics and knowing the limitations of such analysis. There absolutely is an opportunity cost when breaking up too - why do so many people get stuck in dead-end marriages 'for the kids' or in abusive relationships? Comparing gravity to love is absurd as an analogy.

I can't believe you really think there's that strong of line between 'objective' and 'subjective' - this once was a billion dollar franchise and you think it comes down to subjective measurements enough to ignore concepts developed in a *social science* as is. I mean, if all of hockey is subjective, I guess goals, assists, wins, losses are all subjective, too right?

To try to make it simpler for you, opportunity cost as a concept originates in a field in which what is lost and gained by different decisions can be directly measured by an objective and shared value system, money.

Hockey has multiple value systems, many of which cannot be directly measured or even compared directly. Yes, there are wins as an objective measure of success. But in this very thread, a poster is claiming value in losses, and the lottery pick that could produce. Then there is the value of an extended playoff run for the development of players. It doesn't really matter which side you believe has more value; what's important is that there is quite a bit of ambiguity over what would define value, cost, gains, and losses, for each organization, rendering the concept perhaps useful metaphorically, but not in any way scientific.

It's a concept that's quite easy to grasp which makes it popular in online psuedo intellectual crowds, and open to abuse, much like "logical fallacies" which are imported in damaged form from philosophy. How to effectively manage a hockey team is much more difficult to grasp, but don't let that bother your online patronizing of a highly paid professional.

 

[Fatass]

To try to make it simpler for you, opportunity cost as a concept originates in a field in which what is lost and gained by different decisions can be directly measured by an objective and shared value system, money.

Hockey has multiple value systems, many of which cannot be directly measured or even compared directly. Yes, there are wins as an objective measure of success. But in this very thread, a poster is claiming value in losses, and the lottery pick that could produce. Then there is the value of an extended playoff run for the development of players. It doesn't really matter which side you believe has more value; what's important is that there is quite a bit of ambiguity over what would define value, cost, gains, and losses, for each organization, rendering the concept perhaps useful metaphorically, but not in any way scientific.

It's a concept that's quite easy to grasp which makes it popular in online psuedo intellectual crowds, and open to abuse, much like "logical fallacies" which are imported in damaged form from philosophy. How to effectively manage a hockey team is much more difficult to grasp, but don't let that bother your online patronizing of a highly paid professional.

When I played, any guy this smart had to get beat up. Sorry, but

 

[I am toxic]

...I don't think you were paying close enough attention to your prof's then.

And there's absolutely no reason you can't apply opportunity costs to other aspects of life - the biggest challenge is if you're using the 'right' metrics and knowing the limitations of such analysis. There absolutely is an opportunity cost when breaking up too - why do so many people get stuck in dead-end marriages 'for the kids' or in abusive relationships? Comparing gravity to love is absurd as an analogy.

I can't believe you really think there's that strong of line between 'objective' and 'subjective' - this once was a billion dollar franchise and you think it comes down to subjective measurements enough to ignore concepts developed in a *social science* as is. I mean, if all of hockey is subjective, I guess goals, assists, wins, losses are all subjective, too right?

I, for one, would welcome Mittens as our new GM.

I mean, why not?

 

[vancityluongo]

Of course we're considering Holmgren'ing Benning.

Very comparable track records to some extent - just need to actually find a competent GM like Hextall.

Not convinced Futa is that guy. Would much rather snipe Chris MacFarland from Colorado.

 

[Lindgren]

To try to make it simpler for you, opportunity cost as a concept originates in a field in which what is lost and gained by different decisions can be directly measured by an objective and shared value system, money.

Hockey has multiple value systems, many of which cannot be directly measured or even compared directly. Yes, there are wins as an objective measure of success. But in this very thread, a poster is claiming value in losses, and the lottery pick that could produce. Then there is the value of an extended playoff run for the development of players. It doesn't really matter which side you believe has more value; what's important is that there is quite a bit of ambiguity over what would define value, cost, gains, and losses, for each organization, rendering the concept perhaps useful metaphorically, but not in any way scientific.

It's a concept that's quite easy to grasp which makes it popular in online psuedo intellectual crowds, and open to abuse, much like "logical fallacies" which are imported in damaged form from philosophy. How to effectively manage a hockey team is much more difficult to grasp, but don't let that bother your online patronizing of a highly paid professional.

In the business world, evaluating opportunity cost in a complicated transaction involving multiple moving parts requires a variety of best guesses and measuring of probabilities, etc., etc. It's the same in hockey. If a potential executive's response to the issue is something to the effect of "well, it's a complicated thing, so I ignore it," and I were the one making the hiring decision, well, I'd take that response very, very seriously.

Your response above, referring to the patronizing of a highly paid professional, demonstrates the kind of magical thinking that I suspect our management group of. How do we know Brandon Sutter is a foundational player? Look at the contact we gave him. Only foundational players get such contracts. How do we know Jim Benning is smart? Well, the organization hired him for a position that requires intelligence and paid him a lot of money, so he's a highly paid professional, so ...

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

In the business world, evaluating opportunity cost in a complicated transaction involving multiple moving parts requires a variety of best guesses and measuring of probabilities, etc., etc. It's the same in hockey.

To repeat myself for the third time, opportunity cost in the business world has an objective and shared value by which that evaluation can be judged successful or unsuccessful: $. Hockey does not beyond the singularity of attaining the Stanley Cup, an event rather than a measurement, one often reached in a more circuitous fashion than simply steadily rising profits. Perhaps wins and losses, but as I've already alluded to, losses can become a positive value and wins can become a negative value, in a way that money generally does not. Hockey has multiple competing value systems: whether that's different play styles, different season objectives (i.e. rebuilding, retooling, competing), importance assigned to leadership and mentorship, team revenue, etc. So again, while perhaps metaphorically useful as a thinking tool, it does not have anywhere near the same conceptual utility as in the field it was adopted from, where it can be empirically adjudicated.

What's most important is how an organization subjectively defines what it values. Thus we have the debate over the opportunity cost of acquiring JT Miller, a lost lottery pick supposedly, versus the opportunity cost of not acquiring JT Miller, lost playoff success and leadership. I know what side I'm on, but it doesn't really matter; at the end of the day, we end up in a subjective debate rather than an objective measurement of profit/loss. In this way, opportunity cost is pretty much a useless concept in hockey debates, because it simply conceals in the guise of objectivity a subjective debate over what a hockey organization should value.

 

[Lindgren]

To repeat myself for the third time, opportunity cost in the business world has an objective and shared value by which that evaluation can be judged successful or unsuccessful: $. Hockey does not beyond the singularity of attaining the Stanley Cup, an event rather than a measurement, one often reached in a more circuitous fashion than simply steadily rising profits. Perhaps wins and losses, but as I've already alluded to, losses can become a positive value and wins can become a negative value, in a way that money generally does not. Hockey has multiple competing value systems: whether that's different play styles, different season objectives (i.e. rebuilding, retooling, competing), importance assigned to leadership and mentorship, team revenue, etc. So again, while perhaps metaphorically useful as a thinking tool, it does not have anywhere near the same conceptual utility as in the field it was adopted from, where it can be empirically adjudicated.

What's most important is how an organization subjectively defines what it values. Thus we have the debate over the opportunity cost of acquiring JT Miller, a lost lottery pick supposedly, versus the opportunity cost of not acquiring JT Miller, lost playoff success and leadership. I know what side I'm on, but it doesn't really matter; at the end of the day, we end up in a subjective debate rather than an objective measurement of profit/loss. In this way, opportunity cost is pretty much a useless concept in hockey debates, because it simply conceals in the guise of objectivity a subjective debate over what a hockey organization should value.

We can't have that debate about JT if the concept of opportunity cost isn't understood. We can't even enter into it if both sides don't recognize the potential opportunity costs involved.

You overestimate the degree to which the business world's "shared value" contrasts with the multiplicity of values in the hockey world. Businesses too must make judgments that distinguish between short and long term goals, profit in the near term versus the long term, what counts now and what will count later. Do we hire the experienced manager who is well respected in our milieu, or the innovative outsider whose new ideas won't pay off for years and who in the near term will be resented? Are we trying to solidify our position in the market, or are we trying to anticipate radical market change?

Understanding the concept of "opportunity cost" does not, of course, mean our hypothetical GM will make good decisions. But I'm confident that not understanding it, whether that's because of a lack of education or simply poor intuitions (for it is a rather intuitive idea) will be a recipe for disaster.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

To try to make it simpler for you, opportunity cost as a concept originates in a field in which what is lost and gained by different decisions can be directly measured by an objective and shared value system, money.

Hockey has multiple value systems, many of which cannot be directly measured or even compared directly. Yes, there are wins as an objective measure of success. But in this very thread, a poster is claiming value in losses, and the lottery pick that could produce. Then there is the value of an extended playoff run for the development of players. It doesn't really matter which side you believe has more value; what's important is that there is quite a bit of ambiguity over what would define value, cost, gains, and losses, for each organization, rendering the concept perhaps useful metaphorically, but not in any way scientific.

It's a concept that's quite easy to grasp which makes it popular in online psuedo intellectual crowds, and open to abuse, much like "logical fallacies" which are imported in damaged form from philosophy. How to effectively manage a hockey team is much more difficult to grasp, but don't let that bother your online patronizing of a highly paid professional.

That is a great post. Obviously its false, but still a great post.

Opportunity cost can be applied to any asset management. Just because some of the factors are hard to quantify does not mean it shouldt be.
Just like "logical fallacies" are a great tool to show when someone is not using sound logic.

I wonder if you will take a 3rd stab at letting us know you personally believe it cant be applied to running a hockey team.

(Ironic that while being condescending you misspelled "pseudo.")

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

I really like LAs prospect pool so I’m good with this.

yes they have drafted high but they have also selected well.

 

[mathonwy]

That is a great post. Obviously its false, but still a great post.

Opportunity cost can be applied to any asset management. Just because some of the factors are hard to quantify does not mean it shouldt be.
Just like "logical fallacies" are a great tool to show when someone is not using sound logic.

I wonder if you will take a 3rd stab at letting us know you personally believe it cant be applied to running a hockey team.

(Ironic that while being condescending you misspelled "pseudo.")

Sewdo

 

[F A N]

I really like LAs prospect pool so I’m good with this.

yes they have drafted high but they have also selected well.

How much of that was due to Yannetti?

 

[Cogburn]

I'll throw this out here, should one of the Aquilini's be posting or lurking here:

I'd take a management role for peanuts. That is apparently a factor with a number of our hires/key staff.

References available upon request.

 

[HedonisticAltruism]

To try to make it simpler for you, opportunity cost as a concept originates in a field in which what is lost and gained by different decisions can be directly measured by an objective and shared value system, money.

Hockey has multiple value systems, many of which cannot be directly measured or even compared directly. Yes, there are wins as an objective measure of success. But in this very thread, a poster is claiming value in losses, and the lottery pick that could produce. Then there is the value of an extended playoff run for the development of players. It doesn't really matter which side you believe has more value; what's important is that there is quite a bit of ambiguity over what would define value, cost, gains, and losses, for each organization, rendering the concept perhaps useful metaphorically, but not in any way scientific.

It's a concept that's quite easy to grasp which makes it popular in online psuedo intellectual crowds, and open to abuse, much like "logical fallacies" which are imported in damaged form from philosophy. How to effectively manage a hockey team is much more difficult to grasp, but don't let that bother your online patronizing of a highly paid professional.

Lol money is 100% not objective. It is an arbitrary means of exchanging value - and guess what, value is subjective. This isn't even going into the challenges of comparing markets, inflation, probability, fiscal policy, fiat vs. 'real' currency, etc. Money is not some universal constant like the speed of light, the Planck constant or pi. It is what we convert all our subjective value estimates into to ease the friction of exchange of wants/needs - supply/demand.

No one is saying that 'being successful' in hockey boils down to one value - even at the end of the day, winning the cup is not the singular goal - it's still a business and needs to be run sustainably if not profitably (obviously, these teams are toys for billionaires so often it's more ego for them and are subsidized by other business endeavours). However, that does not make methods of analysis invalid because the 'stakeholders' can't agree on a semi-unified number of 'money' (except I suppose if you score more than you opponent, that's an objective win. More wins, at the right time in playoffs = success - that's about as valuable as saying having more money is better than less money).

You're not wrong to criticize if anyone is making the assertion that you can draw strong conclusions using hypothetical opportunity costs alone (which, often is quite subjective as well down to someone's judgment on probability and subjective value as is even in your vaunted 'pure empirical' field of finance/economics). Where you're wrong is in your assertion that using such hypotheticals is completely useless. It's absolutely not and forms just a piece of a consistent narrative that those of us who view Benning is being utterly incompetents have in our arguments. If this was our only argument, it would absolutely get into strawman territory, but it's part of the consistent poor asset management that we've become accustomed to with this current regime.

And speaking of 'logical fallacies', nice appeal to authority.

 

[Peen]

Christ that’s a lot of bullshit

You can really sniff the bullshit when you’re a fan of multiple teams.

Big raptors fan. Forward thinking management with diversity of opinions and backgrounds. Analytics, elite coaching staff.

Then I read people try and defend the moves management made by coming up with that nonsense and it’s like reading the oilers board eight years ago or the raptors board ten years ago.

Insane mental gymnastics to fit a narrative

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

Lol money is 100% not objective. It is an arbitrary means of exchanging value - and guess what, value is subjective. This isn't even going into the challenges of comparing markets, inflation, probability, fiscal policy, fiat vs. 'real' currency, etc. Money is not some universal constant like the speed of light, the Planck constant or pi. It is what we convert all our subjective value estimates into to ease the friction of exchange of wants/needs - supply/demand.

No one is saying that 'being successful' in hockey boils down to one value - even at the end of the day, winning the cup is not the singular goal - it's still a business and needs to be run sustainably if not profitably (obviously, these teams are toys for billionaires so often it's more ego for them and are subsidized by other business endeavours). However, that does not make methods of analysis invalid because the 'stakeholders' can't agree on a semi-unified number of 'money' (except I suppose if you score more than you opponent, that's an objective win. More wins, at the right time in playoffs = success - that's about as valuable as saying having more money is better than less money).

You're not wrong to criticize if anyone is making the assertion that you can draw strong conclusions using hypothetical opportunity costs alone (which, often is quite subjective as well down to someone's judgment on probability and subjective value as is even in your vaunted 'pure empirical' field of finance/economics). Where you're wrong is in your assertion that using such hypotheticals is completely useless. It's absolutely not and forms just a piece of a consistent narrative that those of us who view Benning is being utterly incompetents have in our arguments. If this was our only argument, it would absolutely get into strawman territory, but it's part of the consistent poor asset management that we've become accustomed to with this current regime.

And speaking of 'logical fallacies', nice appeal to authority.

Enjoy telling your investing client or the Revenue Agency how money is subjective! If you want to get into Marx's theory of the value form, or concrete abstraction, then sure, we can get really philosophical about this.

Ultimately, the proof should be in the pudding. If anyone wants to put together a convincing analysis of the JT Miller trade based on the supposedly useful heuristic of opportunity cost, then be my guest!

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Shutting this down.

We already have a Management Thread.