Jim Benning & Management Megathread -- Leadership Level is over 9000 Edition

[CherryToke]

If we are in the playoff race, the question should be: do we have any reasonable chance to survive the first round? If the answer is no, then you deal him.

However, this is not how it works in VAN. If the team is anywhere near the playoffs, Vrbata and Hamhuis will be kept in order not to send the "wrong message" to the team and the fans.

Whether that would be a smart decision long term or not is a whole different story though.

this is how it works for every team. GM's don't trade their best players when they have a legit shot at the playoffs and live to talk about it.

 

[Peter10]

forcing kids that simply aren't ready isn't the recipe for success.
If the kids prove they are ready I'm sure room will be made for them.
I personally think Shink, Gaunce Hutton and maybe even Subban could see NHL ice time this season.

Yet we have guys like Vey and Sbisa on the team, who, despite lots of NHL games, are not NHL ready.

 

[Peter10]

this is how it works for every team. GM's don't trade their best players when they have a legit shot at the playoffs and live to talk about it.

Well Calgary did trade Glenncross eventhough they were in the playoff race.

But I agree, normally you dont do that, I am just questioning if thats always the right thing to do.

 

[Verviticus]

We didn't have an elite team. We did have a good team.

By your reasoning, there should be 26 teams selling at the deadline every year. That isn't how it works.

This stuff doesn't happen in a box. Trading your hottest goalscorer at the deadline sends a horrible message to the season ticket holders (who you promised a playoff team to) and to the veteran players on this team who'd worked their ***** off to have a strong bounce-back season. You can't tell those customers and players that we're going to compete this year and try to win, and then undermine them when they're delivering a good result. It's not how you run any organization.

When you have a 101-point team, you take your ticket and compete with it. You don't sell off, send terrible messages everywhere, and cost your owner money.

i just dont agree. sorry. id prefer an organization that gives a **** about winning rather than icing a limp-dick team that has an honest chance of being embarrassed by an even worse team

 

[MS]

Again, Glencross was playing like garbage and had a rift with coaches/management and wanted out. Not the same thing.

Also Calgary was sitting in 9th and had just had their best player suffer a season-ending injury. They quite reasonably assumed their season was done.

 

[MS]

i just dont agree. sorry. id prefer an organization that gives a **** about winning rather than icing a limp-dick team that has an honest chance of being embarrassed by an even worse team

Getting an extra 3rd round pick in exchange for bailing on a 101-point team isn't 'giving a **** about winning', it's just gutless management.

These guys sat down with countless fans in the summer and told them repeatedly they were competing. Told the players they were behind them and believed they could have a great year and ice a quality team that could win. And they delivered a good season. You don't just get to that point and go ... 'well, nah. We want some draft picks instead'.

Imagine in your workplace if your superiors offered you/your team a performance bonus for doing well, and you delivered on those points and were about to reach that bonus and they went 'nah, sorry, we're making some changes and that isn't a priority anymore. Tough luck.' How do you think morale would be after that? How much trust would those managers have?

This isn't operating in NHL 15. It's operating in the real world with real people and real money and there's a reason playoff teams in any sport don't weaken their squads on the eve of the playoffs.

 

[Verviticus]

there's a reason playoff teams in any sport don't weaken their squads on the eve of the playoffs.

yes. its called risk-adverse management. i think thats a bad thing.

again: i know the entire argument on this. i don't value it. lets just disagree. in retrospect i shouldn't have started the argument because we've been through this, lol

 

[MS]

yes. its called risk-adverse management. i think thats a bad thing.

again: i know the entire argument on this. i don't value it. lets just disagree. in retrospect i shouldn't have started the argument because we've been through this, lol

Fair enough.

Last thing I'll say is that the 'risk' of making that move simply has no reward. It's Luca Sbisa management. Risk bombing your season for an extra 3rd round pick? Pointless. It's not like there's some great payoff we missed here by not trading Matthias. It's a mid-round pick. Compared to trying to compete, it simply doesn't matter.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

it's really not 20/20 though. it was painfully obvious that the canucks as a team were over-achieving. you have to agree with that, right? nobody in their right mind would expect them to be likely to repeat that season with that roster

with a good trade there, we might have a kylington, andersson or bracco in our prospect pool right now instead of nothing

not that benning would, but how do you look eddie lack in the face as he's playing great hockey into the playoffs to sell guys?

how do you tell horvat that this is sn organization that plays hard and plays to win no matter what?

how are you going to keep trying to get it into vey's head that you don't want to be mike comrie?

 

[Jarko2004]

It's a tempting argument, the intentional tank. The Miller, Sbisa, Dorsett, Prust, Vey signings all support it. And dumping your best goalie thinking he won't be the guy in 3 years could fit (knowing Miller will lose a lot of games for you).

Leaving no roster spots for rookies could be taken as not wanting them to go through all that losing, developing together in the AHL. When they are up for spot duty, you've got decent character on your NHL team (by design) to guide them.

The money thrown around at the aforementioned roster filler players is really irrelevant. You are required to spend a certain amount money on NHL payroll (also good PR, "we're trying"), as long as those contracts are gone when your team develops. The right things are being said for ticket sales and team morale. "We're better than last year, want to make the playoffs." Yeah right!

What I can't buy is that Benning is pretending to be stupid every time he speaks. There's really no reason to do that and he's seems too genuine. Also getting terrible value in trades makes no sense at any time of development. That should be the most important thing a tanking team does.

 

[Verviticus]

Fair enough.

Last thing I'll say is that the 'risk' of making that move simply has no reward. It's Luca Sbisa management. Risk bombing your season for an extra 3rd round pick? Pointless. It's not like there's some great payoff we missed here by not trading Matthias. It's a mid-round pick. Compared to trying to compete, it simply doesn't matter.

i dunno man. from 53 to 61 went dunn, kylington, andersson and bracco. thats a lot of talent in the last 2nd. a high 3rd + one of our picks and we have a Good Prospect for matthias instead of nothing

can you predict that you're gonna have that much talent at the end of the 2nd? no - but you can prepare in case it happens.

edit: of course we dont know what the offers were. it goes without saying that if they were offered a pretty high 2nd i assume you'd take it, and if they were offered a 5th round pick, i wouldn't. fair?

not that benning would, but how do you look eddie lack in the face as he's playing great hockey into the playoffs to sell guys?

how do you tell horvat that this is sn organization that plays hard and plays to win no matter what?

how are you going to keep trying to get it into vey's head that you don't want to be mike comrie?

honestly, this is where Character Guys are undervalued. these guys should appreciate the honesty of the situation when you explain "hey, here's whats up"

alternatively, you can always spin it a number of ways: oh matthias didnt want to be here he was asking for the moon, oh mr. wall came up with some TurnOverAnalytics and woah matthias is holding us back, whatever - if you want to lie its trivial. i mean i prefer the former

 

[Ryp37]

It's a tempting argument, the intentional tank. The Miller, Sbisa, Dorsett, Prust, Vey signings all support it. And dumping your best goalie thinking he won't be the guy in 3 years could fit (knowing Miller will lose a lot of games for you).

Leaving no roster spots for rookies could be taken as not wanting them to go through all that losing, developing together in the AHL. When they are up for spot duty, you've got decent character on your NHL team (by design) to guide them.

The money thrown around at the aforementioned roster filler players is really irrelevant. You are required to spend a certain amount money on NHL payroll (also good PR, "we're trying"), as long as those contracts are gone when your team develops. The right things are being said for ticket sales and team morale. "We're better than last year, want to make the playoffs." Yeah right!

What I can't buy is that Benning is pretending to be stupid every time he speaks. There's really no reason to do that and he's seems too genuine. Also getting terrible value in trades makes no sense at any time of development. That should be the most important thing a tanking team does.

This "stealth tank" must have started out as a joke and spiralled out of control because it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard

The mans on camera telling Bob Mackenzie to his face this is a 100 point playoff team. If they're an 80 point team he should be canned, no more excuses

I'd have canned him already but that's just me

 

[Verviticus]

i should be very clear that my entire, combined point is thus: benning should have re-signed matthias if he didn't want to trade him. i would have had him locked down well before the deadline if we needed to keep him, and trading him is only to prevent a loss of assets at free agency

seeing as benning clearly had no intention of signing him the conversation defaults to "should have traded him" but i mean.. even if you give sbisas contract to matthias, its a win if you get rid of sbisa, lol

 

[MS]

i dunno man. from 53 to 61 went dunn, kylington, andersson and bracco. thats a lot of talent in the last 2nd. a high 3rd + one of our picks and we have a Good Prospect for matthias instead of nothing

can you predict that you're gonna have that much talent at the end of the 2nd? no - but you can prepare in case it happens.

edit: of course we dont know what the offers were. it goes without saying that if they were offered a pretty high 2nd i assume you'd take it, and if they were offered a 5th round pick, i wouldn't. fair?

That range looks good every year when it happens. Then, in reality, only 1-2 guys out of 10 will make the NHL as any sort of valuable asset.

Yes, if someone would have given us #32 overall or something for Matthias, I look long and hard at it. That almost certainly isn't happening.

And with Benning doing the negotiating, good luck getting more than a 5th.

 

[Verviticus]

to be fair, i had kylington, andersson and bracco more or less in my top 30 and i know dunn was highly regarded. im also partially mad that management is "happy with brisebois" when all those dudes are just so much better

 

[VanillaCoke]

Matthias could've gotten a 2nd pretty easily. Deadline prices are inflated.

That being said it doesn't matter because JB would've traded that 2nd by now as a 'throw in' for some redundant player.

 

[RandV]

Matthias could've gotten a 2nd pretty easily. Deadline prices are inflated.

That being said it doesn't matter because JB would've traded that 2nd by now as a 'throw in' for some redundant player.

For me I agree that we don't trade Matthias there for an extra pick, but what it should ultimately come down to is we shouldn't have needed to in the first place. If he didn't bleed picks all over the place in acquiring other teams waiver fodder and poorly valued trades we could have had plenty of extra picks without needing to trade Matthias.

 

[MS]

For me I agree that we don't trade Matthias there for an extra pick, but what it should ultimately come down to is we shouldn't have needed to in the first place. If he didn't bleed picks all over the place in acquiring other teams waiver fodder and poorly valued trades we could have had plenty of extra picks without needing to trade Matthias.

Ding.

 

[vanuck]

Uh, the team was in disarray Kesler was not coming back. Not saying Kesler doesn't take his share of blame but it's ultimately a reflection of Gillis' inability to communicate a vision to his star players that led to Kesler getting so out of joint.

What does this even mean? He had a vision of rebuilding, he was mandated to stay competitive by ownership and Kesler simply wanted no part of that. Still haven't shown why he wanted out specifically because of that.

 

[vanuck]

For me I agree that we don't trade Matthias there for an extra pick, but what it should ultimately come down to is we shouldn't have needed to in the first place. If he didn't bleed picks all over the place in acquiring other teams waiver fodder and poorly valued trades we could have had plenty of extra picks without needing to trade Matthias.

Yeah, either have him re-signed well before the deadline or...

don't bleed picks the way we've been doing lolwtf who am I kidding JB wasn't doing either of those things

 

[vanuck]

All these issues basically just keep coming back to the need for smart management and Benning is pretty much as dumb as it gets.

 

[a Fool]

1. Trade away draft picks.
2. Lose trades to get worse picks back, or even trade more away.
3. Claim you're building through the draft.

 

[Huggy]

1. Trade away draft picks.
2. Lose trades to get worse picks back, or even trade more away.
3. Claim you're building through the draft.

1. trade a few 5th and 3rds to make someone take Kassian off your hands
2. Surround the prospects with veterans they can out perform
3. Have a hard working youthful team

 

[Seattle Totems]

So the Canucks can deal away Lack and Kassian for jack squat and completely piss off the fanbase, but trading Mathias at the deadline last year would've been a problem. Makes so much sense.

 

[Fat Tony]

What does this even mean? He had a vision of rebuilding, he was mandated to stay competitive by ownership and Kesler simply wanted no part of that. Still haven't shown why he wanted out specifically because of that.

Heh. "...inability to communicate a vision to his star players..."

Prior to his current contract, Kesler openly advocated taking less money to follow Gillis' vision. The NHLPA was not pleased with at the time. The scuttlebutt was that they sat him down and told him to tone that talk down.