Management Thread. For a Few Dollars More: Gunslinger Edition, Pt II

[MarkusNaslund19]

This is fair, and if it were an isolated incident, no one would have batted an eye or cared. Unfortunately, Benning makes these asinine comparisons regularly. Like, I get that they're just stylistic comparisons where the players share a few qualities in common, but do you really need to use a Hall of Famer and top 5 defenceman of all time to accomplish that?

It's purely stylistic. It's calling Juolevi cerebral.

This board puts a grotesquely large emphasis on public comments by the GM. It's primarily messaging for the fanbase. Nobody in the organization gives 2 shits about an interview done by JB 5 minutes after it is over (with exceptions like the potential tampering on Subban).

People on here think that anything we don't know about doesn't exist. It's boring and draining.

 

[4Twenty]

It's purely stylistic. It's calling Juolevi cerebral.

This board puts a grotesquely large emphasis on public comments by the GM. It's primarily messaging for the fanbase. Nobody in the organization gives 2 shits about an interview done by JB 5 minutes after it is over (with exceptions like the potential tampering on Subban).

People on here think that anything we don't know about doesn't exist. It's boring and draining.

Messaging for the fanbase?

Uh we’re the consumer here.

Successful organizations have people who can share the vision and communicate well.

It seems like since this GM sucks at it, it’s not important. It is.

Like it or not he is the leader in the organization and his communication to stakeholders is very important.

If nobody in the organization cares, that reflects very poorly on the organization. Since I don’t believe that to be the case this just seems like another round a bout way to excuse Benning for being a weak communicator who doesn’t instil much confidence by what he says (not how he says it, although that too).

I don’t quite get the “what we don’t know about doesn’t exist” comment. Care to explain? I would think it’s almost the other way around, where people act like they know what goes on, when we don’t.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

It's purely stylistic. It's calling Juolevi cerebral.

This board puts a grotesquely large emphasis on public comments by the GM. It's primarily messaging for the fanbase. Nobody in the organization gives 2 shits about an interview done by JB 5 minutes after it is over (with exceptions like the potential tampering on Subban).

People on here think that anything we don't know about doesn't exist. It's boring and draining.

My post already pointed that out so I don't know why you're re-stating that point.
Benning took a public position in a huge Canadian hockey market; of course he's going to get scrutinized by the passionate fanbase. And as mentioned before, if this was a one-off, people probably wouldn't have cared, but it's part of a bigger pattern of ridiculous comparisons. This discussion wouldn't even be going on if the Benning defence task force didn't agonize over it.

 

[F A N]

My post already pointed that out so I don't know why you're re-stating that point.
Benning took a public position in a huge Canadian hockey market; of course he's going to get scrutinized by the passionate fanbase. And as mentioned before, if this was a one-off, people probably wouldn't have cared, but it's part of a bigger pattern of ridiculous comparisons. This discussion wouldn't even be going on if the Benning defence task force didn't agonize over it.

Yes you "pointed it out" but the thrust of your argument completely ignores what you "pointed out". This is you: "Ya I know he was just comparing an apple to an orange because they are both fruits. I already pointed that out... but does he really need to compare an apple to an orange?"

Are you seriously suggesting that the fans/posters who "support" Benning are the ones agonizing over his interviews and who he compared a prospect to rather than the fans/posters who want him fired?

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Messaging for the fanbase?

Uh we’re the consumer here.

Successful organizations have people who can share the vision and communicate well.

It seems like since this GM sucks at it, it’s not important. It is.

Like it or not he is the leader in the organization and his communication to stakeholders is very important.

If nobody in the organization cares, that reflects very poorly on the organization. Since I don’t believe that to be the case this just seems like another round a bout way to excuse Benning for being a weak communicator who doesn’t instil much confidence by what he says (not how he says it, although that too).

I don’t quite get the “what we don’t know about doesn’t exist” comment. Care to explain? I would think it’s almost the other way around, where people act like they know what goes on, when we don’t.

Yeah, the New England Patriots are famously transparent.

You start to lose me with the pseudo business speak "we are the stakeholders' etc.

We are a team that is competing with 30 other teams. with whom we are working at cross-purposes.

being entirely transparent to the fanbase is a tertiary goal at best.

You not knowing that we had the Schmidt trade in the offing days before it happened (as an example), does not negate it as a fact.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

My post already pointed that out so I don't know why you're re-stating that point.
Benning took a public position in a huge Canadian hockey market; of course he's going to get scrutinized by the passionate fanbase. And as mentioned before, if this was a one-off, people probably wouldn't have cared, but it's part of a bigger pattern of ridiculous comparisons. This discussion wouldn't even be going on if the Benning defence task force didn't agonize over it.

So what's your point? Let's boil it down. You think that Benning believed that we had drafted Nicklas Lidstrom 5th overall. You think that was his talent evaluation, and you think that he was so wrong that he should be fired?

 

[rypper]

Not sure where to post this.

Players feeling angry, betrayed by NHL’s new CBA amendment proposals

Not sure why the players are upset. They are going to get 50% of the revenues, which will be greatly reduced. Either it goes into escrow, or they are going to owe the money back. I can see the owners not being happy with the concept of trying to recoup money from players, some of which will run to the KHL when they see how things are going

Edit - If I read thing correctly - 20 % deferral, 26 % escrow, so they only get paid 54% of their base salary, and they have to pay taxes on that

The players agreed to defer 10% of their salaries to get the last cba done and now ownership wants 26%.

I know they're going to get their money, eventually, but you could see how that might hurt some players more then others, hence the reaction to it.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

So what's your point? Let's boil it down. You think that Benning believe that we had drafted Nicklas Lidstrom 5th overall. You think that was his talent evaluation, and you think that he was so wrong that he should be fired?

I think we both aren't really even disagreeing at this point. We both understand the comparison wasn't to be taken literally and was based on stylistic qualities, and we both agree that it had 0 impact on Juolevi's development.

My point is that it was a dumb/unnecessary comparison that can be lumped in with a bunch of similar dumb/unnecessary comparisons that make Benning look giddy over overrated players.

It's not a big deal and if you follow the exchanges to the source, no one made a big deal of it. It's the people taking so much offence to those who laughed at it that made this snowball, but whatever, this isn't a hill I really care to die on.

 

[4Twenty]

Yeah, the New England Patriots are famously transparent.

You start to lose me with the pseudo business speak "we are the stakeholders' etc.

We are a team that is competing with 30 other teams. with whom we are working at cross-purposes.

being entirely transparent to the fanbase is a tertiary goal at best.

You not knowing that we had the Schmidt trade in the offing days before it happened (as an example), does not negate it as a fact.

Lose you? We’re the people who consume their product.

Nobody is even talking about complete transparency. It’s about not being a poor spokesperson for the organization. I don’t think you can disagree with that. Whether that’s tertiary or not I think it doesn’t instil confidence for me.

What does Schmidt have to do with anything?

 

[4Twenty]

Making it about one comment about Juolevi and not about the general sentiment is a classic deflection tactic.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Making it about one comment about Juolevi and not about the general sentiment is a classic deflection tactic.

Excusing a nonsensical thing you said on the grounds you said a lot of other things too seems like a deflection tactic to me.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Lose you? We’re the people who consume their product.

Nobody is even talking about complete transparency. It’s about not being a poor spokesperson for the organization. I don’t think you can disagree with that. Whether that’s tertiary or not I think it doesn’t instil confidence for me.

What does Schmidt have to do with anything?

I went to great pains to say FOR EXAMPLE with Schmidt.
The example being, that people were acting like there was no plan whatsoever when we lost Tanev and Stecher. And there are people who still hold onto that and believe that Benning got lucky etc. But it is known now that we had the Schmidt thing in the pipeline for awhile.

 

[ChilliBilly]

The players agreed to defer 10% of their salaries to get the last cba done and now ownership wants 26%.

I know they're going to get their money, eventually, but you could see how that might hurt some players more then others, hence the reaction to it.

The answer is no they won't get it "eventually". Escrow is to make up for a shortfall in estimated revenue. So is deferred payments. The league and the players split revenue 50 - 50. Gate receipts make up about 40% of revenue. So the league revenue will be down 40 % which means the the players salaries will be cut by 40%. But they are only holding back 10 %. This is why they want it up to 26%, because getting the players to pay back a large portion of their salaries will be a major pain in the ass.

This is assuming that there will be empty arenas for much of the 20 - 21 season.

Its like a company saying I will pay you your salary, but if we don't make as much profits as we expect you have to pay some of it back,. As compared to saying here's your base salary, and you get bonuses based on company profits. Guess what: no profits this year. And in fact you are going have to help us out with the losses.

In theory, everyone is going to take a hit. Players are only going to get 60 - 70 % of their salaries. And billionaire owners are going to be losing money big time til this pandemic is over.

 

[4Twenty]

Delete

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

Whatever Benning says, it will be hard to ever top this quote, written in a letter rather than an off the cuff remark, for managerial incompetence: "We believe in our talented group of prospects, including Bo Horvat, Nicklas Jensen, Frank Corrado, Dane Fox, Brendan Gaunce and Hunter Shinkaruk, who will be part of our short and long-term success."

 

[nowhereman]

Whatever Benning says, it will be hard to ever top this quote, written in a letter rather than an off the cuff remark, for managerial incompetence: "We believe in our talented group of prospects, including Bo Horvat, Nicklas Jensen, Frank Corrado, Dane Fox, Brendan Gaunce and Hunter Shinkaruk, who will be part of our short and long-term success."

It's called spin. The alternative is "The Gillis regime boasted one of the most abhorrent drafting records of the modern era and it's going to take years to build up our embarrassingly poor pipeline of prospects".

It's absolutely pointless to try and pick apart quotes like this. It's his pro-scouting evaluations that deserve criticism (i.e. Sutter as a core player, Sbisa a top four defenseman, mentioning Gudbranson in the same breath as Chara, etc.) and even then, he usually qualifies his comments with "I'm not comparing player X to player Y but..."

 

[rypper]

Whatever Benning says, it will be hard to ever top this quote, written in a letter rather than an off the cuff remark, for managerial incompetence: "We believe in our talented group of prospects, including Bo Horvat, Nicklas Jensen, Frank Corrado, Dane Fox, Brendan Gaunce and Hunter Shinkaruk, who will be part of our short and long-term success."

Always goes back to "but Gillis!"

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Always goes back to "but Gillis!"

Yeah, you know an argument is terrible when it's a "what aboutism" comparing it to something even worse. It's like, just because someone gets a D- on an exam doesn't mean pointing to someone else who got an F somehow makes them look any smarter...they're both dumb.

No one on here disagrees that Gillis was terrible at drafting. It's pretty dumb to compare players drafted in the 20-30th overall range to a bunch of top 10 picks, though, as Gillis showed he could draft talented planters in that position with Bo Horvat.

 

[I am toxic]

Always goes back to "but Gillis!"

Amen

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

Making a comparison is a terrible argument? Some of you are complaining about a stupid remark said by a GM, and I'm invoking a 10x stupider remark made by a GM printed on corporate letter head.

The other side's "argument" is basically taking what Benning said purposefully out of context and spending pages upon pages complaining about it, perhaps because Benning has done such a great job the last couple years that there's not much left to mope about.

Jim Benning exercised great caution when he invoked the name Niklas Lidstrom while describing what made Olli Juolevi so attractive the Vancouver Canucks felt they had no choice but to nab the Finnish defenseman with the fifth overall selection in Friday’s National Hockey League draft.

In no way was the team’s general manager making a direct comparison between the London Knights blueliner and the Detroit Red Wings legend, but Benning was trying to convey just how much he liked the 18-year-old’s all-around game and his ability to have an impact at both ends of the ice.

HF Vancouver: he was "making a direct comparison between the London Knights blueliner and the Detroit Red Wings legend!" Commence 10 pages of pointless bickering!

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Excusing a nonsensical thing you said on the grounds you said a lot of other things too seems like a deflection tactic to me.

Can you explain how you understand that comment and why do you think it is nonsensical in the context of evaluating Benning?

 

[ChilliBilly]

It's called spin. The alternative is "The Gillis regime boasted one of the most abhorrent drafting records of the modern era and it's going to take years to build up our embarrassingly poor pipeline of prospects".

It's absolutely pointless to try and pick apart quotes like this. It's his pro-scouting evaluations that deserve criticism (i.e. Sutter as a core player, Sbisa a top four defenseman, mentioning Gudbranson in the same breath as Chara, etc.) and even then, he usually qualifies his comments with "I'm not comparing player X to player Y but..."

I was unhappy when Gillis took over. I was pleasantly wrong. But he had very few high draft picks, and was justified in trading draft picks to improve the team. We very nearly won our coveted Cup. The problem was the inability to accept that we had little in pipeline, and the wish to keep "being competitive" with an aging core. And JB has been horrible at accepting this, probably because to keep his job he had to keep telling Aqua Weinie that we were just a LE or a Beagle away from being right back there.

A few hundred years later thing are looking decent with a solid core and some stuff in the pipeline.

(to clarify - Gillis didn't really have a decent draft pick that he missed on. His only early pick was Horvat).

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I was unhappy when Gillis took over. I was pleasantly wrong. But he had very few high draft picks, and was justified in trading draft picks to improve the team. We very nearly won our coveted Cup. The problem was the inability to accept that we had little in pipeline, and the wish to keep "being competitive" with an aging core. And JB has been horrible at accepting this, probably because to keep his job he had to keep telling Aqua Weinie that we were just a LE or a Beagle away from being right back there.

A few hundred years later thing are looking decent with a solid core and some stuff in the pipeline.

(to clarify - Gillis didn't really have a decent draft pick that he missed on. His only early pick was Horvat).

I didnt like Gillis at first either.

In retrospect he is easily our best GM.

His downfall was also his greatest asset, his analytical approach to everything. He waited to have enough data on his scouting staff before revamping it. At that point it was already too late.

 

[Fatass]

I didnt like Gillis at first either.

In retrospect he is easily our best GM.

His downfall was also his greatest asset, his analytical approach to everything. He waited to have enough data on his scouting staff before revamping it. At that point it was already too late.

Gillis didn’t draft well, but (like you point out) it was improving. Bo, for example, was a fabulous pick.
Gillis had identified we needed to rebuild, but got fired for suggesting that’s was his plan. It’s really too bad our owner didn’t allow Gillis (and Torts too, who also supported rebuilding) to get that started back in 2013. Likely we never have to experience these horrifyingly awful Benning years, and the current cap situation we are in.

 

[4Twenty]

Dude totally got you guys with the but Gillis. Awesome deflection.

Only communication on company letterhead is acceptable for criticism.