Canucks Management & Ownership Discussion | Part 25

[y2kcanucks]

Thank you for the kind comments.

I was starting to wonder about an exit strategy (like if he's canned, do I keep on doing them? Do I shift my sights to whoever remains?) but figured in all likelihood I'll run out of material way before then, just because there are only so many discrete events to bring up.

So either I will have to fabricate stories out of whole cloth ("Benning goes to the zoo" and such) or take it Community-style and just play around with different genres and things like with the Very Special Episodes.

Benning goes to the zoo sounds like a hilarious episode. I can't stop laughing at that.

I just picture that dumbass walking through the zoo with a bag of popcorn, staring at a gorilla, thinking we need to sign that muscular animal to mentor our youth and protect our skill players.

 

[Jyrki21]

The majority knows what he is, and that's what matters most. In the court of public opinion, Benning is now fighting uphill to gain respectability.

To be fair, Benning won his case in the court of public opinion in Benning on Empty #18.

 

[Hit the post]

Benning goes to the zoo sounds like a hilarious episode. I can't stop laughing at that.

Jethro vs the monkey...

 

[PM]

Maybe once he's fired some more embarrassing things that happened will come to light. "Benning on Empty: The Untold Stories"

 

[Mad Brills*]

What % is there that benning's still employed 8 months from now?

Seems 50/50 to me.

 

[The Drop]

What % is there that benning's still employed 8 months from now?

Seems 50/50 to me.

Ya they miss the playoffs and WD is axed for sure.

Hopefully Benning as well. Linden will prob have a longer leash tho

 

[Bad Goalie]

Ya they miss the playoffs and WD is axed for sure.

Hopefully Benning as well. Linden will prob have a longer leash tho

IMO WD will be gone long before that if the Canucks are in a seemingly unstoppable tailspin under his tutelage.

 

[The Drop]

IMO WD will be gone long before that if the Canucks are in a seemingly unstoppable tailspin under his tutelage.

Yes but that's usually with a management group that isn't complete idiots

 

[pomorick]

Funny how Granlund and Vey swapped spots and we gave Shinkaruk away for free

 

[Bad Goalie]

Yes but that's usually with a management group that isn't complete idiots

Agree, but it's the way the idiots keep their own jobs until at least the end of the season. He's their scapegoat. Blame it all on Willie, not that he hasn't been a major contributor. He has proven to be a standing member of the "idiots".

 

[Nuckles]

Benning staying I think really depends on ticket sales/the team making the playoffs this year. I expect him to be canned maybe as soon as we're mathematically eliminated from the playoff race, definitely before the draft.

As for Willie, I could see him fired as soon as early December if we're struggling early on in the season.

 

[Gaunce4gm]

IMO if we aren't in a playoff spot by Christmas, WD is canned and Travis Green is given the "Interim" job. Then the beginning of next season he is officially named HC permanently.

Benning will be given till the TDL and if it's as bad as last year they'll can him and get someone new in in time to deal with Free Agency.

Linden will unfortunately be around a while

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Again you are confusing PRICE with VALUE. If there is a limited market for Dan Hamhuis - for whatever reason (cap, roster limits, etc) then that certainly changes his PRICE but it doesn't change his VALUE i.e. the on and off ice value he brings to the team. If the PRICE you get for him is too LOW (relative to his VALUE) then you simply don't make the trade.

Value is innate. Price is impacted by external factors.

Hunter Shinkaruk had innate value. The fact that Benning sold him for Granlund simply means that is the price Benning accepted, not that it equates to the quality Shinkaruk is as a player or a prospect.

I've been arguing that they are two different things for the last 5 posts now but you keep returning to PRICE as your standard for value. This isn't what fans on this board are talking about when we say it was a bad trade. Is it all Benning could get for Shinkaruk? Maybe, or maybe Benning preferred Granlund most out of his offers or maybe he didn't even shop him around that hard, we don't really know. But even if it was, it is still a BAD trade because all the information that we know about Shinkaruk as a player/prospect is that he is tracking better TODAY than Granlund is TODAY, therefore it is a BAD VALUE exchange. And if you are faced with a bad value exchange, you have one very simple solution always at hand.

Don't make the trade.

Value is not innate, what an absurd concept that gos against just about every sensical economic theory known to man.

 

[moog35]

Benning goes to the zoo sounds like a hilarious episode. I can't stop laughing at that.

I just picture that dumbass walking through the zoo with a bag of popcorn, staring at a gorilla, thinking we need to sign that muscular animal to mentor our youth and protect our skill players.

Funny.......

 

[CanaFan]

Value is not innate, what an absurd concept that gos against just about every sensical economic theory known to man.

Note that economic value is not the same as market price, nor is economic value the same thing as market value. If a consumer is willing to buy a good, it implies that the customer places a higher value on the good than the market price. The difference between the value to the consumer and the market price is called "consumer surplus". It is easy to see situations where the actual value is considerably larger than the market price: purchase of drinking water is one example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)

Teach me all about every economic theory known to man Jimson Hogarth.

 

[sting101]

Again you are confusing PRICE with VALUE. If there is a limited market for Dan Hamhuis - for whatever reason (cap, roster limits, etc) then that certainly changes his PRICE but it doesn't change his VALUE i.e. the on and off ice value he brings to the team. If the PRICE you get for him is too LOW (relative to his VALUE) then you simply don't make the trade.

Value is innate. Price is impacted by external factors.

Hunter Shinkaruk had innate value. The fact that Benning sold him for Granlund simply means that is the price Benning accepted, not that it equates to the quality Shinkaruk is as a player or a prospect.

I've been arguing that they are two different things for the last 5 posts now but you keep returning to PRICE as your standard for value. This isn't what fans on this board are talking about when we say it was a bad trade. Is it all Benning could get for Shinkaruk? Maybe, or maybe Benning preferred Granlund most out of his offers or maybe he didn't even shop him around that hard, we don't really know. But even if it was, it is still a BAD trade because all the information that we know about Shinkaruk as a player/prospect is that he is tracking better TODAY than Granlund is TODAY, therefore it is a BAD VALUE exchange. And if you are faced with a bad value exchange, you have one very simple solution always at hand.

Don't make the trade.

isn't that what he did with Hamhuis at the deadline?

Shinkaruk is not tracking better he is just simply a natural goal scorer who has higher odds of paying off as just that and had more time to elevate his game which made it an unnecessary gamble at an unnecessary time.

 

[CanaFan]

isn't that what he did with Hamhuis at the deadline?

Shinkaruk is not tracking better he is just simply a natural goal scorer who has higher odds of paying off as just that and had more time to elevate his game which made it an unnecessary gamble at an unnecessary time.

Except Hamhuis was leaving as a UFA in 20 games so his value was rather "temporary", which is the real shame of the non-trade.

True that Shink maybe isn't tracking better than Granlund over their comparable years however Granlund is also 2 seasons further along and so has shown that his progression did not continue to the NHL. Shinkaruk hasn't had that chance yet and so his potential remains. In essence he hasn't failed "yet". I mean Vey tracked even better than both Shink and Granlund but would you deal for him now, with his more recent failings now known? Probably not.

 

[mossey3535]

In the salary cap world, trading a player you have multi-year salary control over for one you don't have control over is the mark of incompetence.

It's really only justifiable if the player you're getting is a MAJOR upgrade.

 

[F A N]

Vey tracked even better than both Shink and Granlund but would you deal for him now, with his more recent failings now known? Probably not.

I disagree that Vey tracked better than Granlund. Granlund outproduced Vey in the AHL, especially when you factor in age, and made it to the NHL sooner. Keep in mind that Granlund is two years younger than Vey. The only thing is like you said, due to the number of NHL games Granlund has played he is perceived by some to have less potential than the two years ago version of Vey who hasn't gotten a legitimate chance in the NHL yet.

In the salary cap world, trading a player you have multi-year salary control over for one you don't have control over is the mark of incompetence.

It's really only justifiable if the player you're getting is a MAJOR upgrade.

This isn't baseball. Teams acquire players with the idea of signing them to long term contracts all the time. Incompetence is making the deal without knowing whether or not the player will sign with the team and sign at a price acceptable to the team. But this rarely happens. Teams can always talk to the player's agent before finalizing the deal.

 

[mossey3535]

This isn't baseball. Teams acquire players with the idea of signing them to long term contracts all the time. Incompetence is making the deal without knowing whether or not the player will sign with the team and sign at a price acceptable to the team. But this rarely happens. Teams can always talk to the player's agent before finalizing the deal.

No.

Shinkaruk is under control. He has to do what you want. You can send him to the minors if he doesn't perform. Once his contract is up, you can sign him to the minimum QO.

If you have a fringe guy who you're not even sure will stick in the NHL, like Grandlund, and he is no longer waiver eligible then it reduces the control you have as a club. That means any negotiation you've done to possibly retain the player could be wasted if he is claimed on waivers. If you don't expose him to waiver you're hampering your roster flexibility.

It's incredibly naive to think that this isn't a major factor. Potentially losing somebody on waivers wastes any assets required to acquire him in the first place. OR it simply transfer the possibility of asset loss to another player on the roster.

In this case Granlund signed but if he doesn't make the team and is signed on waivers, then we threw away a former 1st round pick for nothing. OR we block the progression of a prospect who could use his roster spot if he's not performing.

Again, if Granlund was a proven top-6 guy then you accept all these risks. But at this moment he's not.

 

[CanaFan]

I disagree that Vey tracked better than Granlund. Granlund outproduced Vey in the AHL, especially when you factor in age, and made it to the NHL sooner. Keep in mind that Granlund is two years younger than Vey. The only thing is like you said, due to the number of NHL games Granlund has played he is perceived by some to have less potential than the two years ago version of Vey who hasn't gotten a legitimate chance in the NHL yet.

Except Vey showed progression in each of his 3 years in the AHL, Granlund did not. His best year - points or PPG - was his first. His second and third did not show any progression, similar to Baertschi actually. So while Granlund showed well in his 20 year old season, he never built on it the way you want to see (and the way Shinkaruk and Vey did). That's why I say he didn't "track" as well (referring to growth in performance).

 

[Zaddy91]

why do ppl jeep calling granlund a bust he has more points than shinkaruk.

and shinkaruk sucks

 

[CanaFan]

why do ppl jeep calling granlund a bust he has more points than shinkaruk.

and shinkaruk sucks

Granlund had 10 points in 47 with Calgary and Vancouver at age 22. That's a .21 PPG.

Shinkaruk had 3 in 8 with Vancouver and Calgary at age 21. That's a .38 PPG.

How is that "more points"? Cause Granlund played more games?

Also please explain why Shinkaruk "sucks"?

 

[Zaddy91]

Granlund had 10 points in 47 with Calgary and Vancouver at age 22. That's a .21 PPG.

Shinkaruk had 3 in 8 with Vancouver and Calgary at age 21. That's a .38 PPG.

How is that "more points"? Cause Granlund played more games?

Also please explain why Shinkaruk "sucks"?

ahl points

 

[CanaFan]

ahl points

Shink outscored him in their second AHL years.