Management Thread II - Read OP

[Bleach Clean]

Continue here.

OP Message from Initial Management Thread:

Here is the link to our Site Rules:
Terms of Service and Rules | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

I understand the management and direction of this team is divisive. Debate and disagreement is going to occur - and this is encouraged, as long as it is civil. I cannot stress enough - if you find something someone has said so disagreeable that you are feeling compelled to break the site rules in replying to them, just don't. If you feel that someone else is violating the site rules, report the post - do not respond in kind. This will get you in trouble as well.

Warnings, thread bans, forum bans and permanent bans will be applied where necessary to enforce the Site Rules. So please play within them.
​

Previous Thread: Management Thread - Read OP




Last Comments in Previous Thread:

And you're welcome to feel differently.

But when there was already enough circumstantial evidence that we were speculating this was likely to be the case, and then two independent sources confirm exactly what we were speculating based on the evidence ... to me that holds water.

He is the one true F A N

Click to read more...

 

[arttk]

Replying this this from FAN

“What's up with these "you guys" comment. We're all Canucks fans here (presumably). Let's not be divisive”

There is an obvious subset of “fans” who care more about being right about Benning than the well being of this team. I have no issue calling out you guys because obviously you guys are part of the destructive fan base that enables and embrace the stupidity of our current management.

I am done with this management group and done with all your BS about why this group is actually not “all that bad”. The facts are conclusive, there is no more debate.

 

[Jyrki21]

The only thing that would actually turn my mind on Benning is if he somehow was here another 5 years (god forbid) and managed to surround himself with good enough people that the team made positive-value moves to fit a sensible plan for an equal length of time to what we've seen the reverse happen.

But that really just invites the question – what value is he adding in that case? It’s sort of what we’ve seen with Judd Brackett. Like, good on Benning for finally recognizing when someone is better than him at something, but does “following smarter people’s advice” really warrant a seven-figure salary?

Like, I’ll do it for a very reasonable sum if Aquilini wants.

 

[MS]

But that really just invites the question – what value is he adding in that case? It’s sort of what we’ve seen with Judd Brackett. Like, good on Benning for finally recognizing when someone is better than him at something, but does “following smarter people’s advice” really warrant a seven-figure salary?

Like, I’ll do it for a very reasonable sum if Aquilini wants.

Oh, absolutely. It's a weird hypothetical.

But if somehow he managed to assemble a management team that got results and was listening to the right people and making the right moves ... I would be OK with keeping the status quo.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

But that really just invites the question – what value is he adding in that case? It’s sort of what we’ve seen with Judd Brackett. Like, good on Benning for finally recognizing when someone is better than him at something, but does “following smarter people’s advice” really warrant a seven-figure salary?

Like, I’ll do it for a very reasonable sum if Aquilini wants.

Can't wait to read the comics Jimbo makes about you. So much opportunity for unintentional hilarity.

 

[Grip it N RYP it]

But that really just invites the question – what value is he adding in that case? It’s sort of what we’ve seen with Judd Brackett. Like, good on Benning for finally recognizing when someone is better than him at something, but does “following smarter people’s advice” really warrant a seven-figure salary?

Like, I’ll do it for a very reasonable sum if Aquilini wants.

I believe you made some good points in relation to this on Faber's podcast I had playing yesterday. Particularly the Ferry Captain analogy, which in turn reminded me of Plato's Republic. Good hit.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Replying this this from FAN

“What's up with these "you guys" comment. We're all Canucks fans here (presumably). Let's not be divisive”

There is an obvious subset of “fans” who care more about being right about Benning than the well being of this team. I have no issue calling out you guys because obviously you guys are part of the destructive fan base that enables and embrace the stupidity of our current management.

I am done with this management group and done with all your BS about why this group is actually not “all that bad”. The facts are conclusive, there is no more debate.

Pretty much this. Those that care the most about the team are able to think critically and analyze the glaring issues with this management group. We don’t want to waste more years, especially prime years of Horvat/Pettersson/etc. due to incompetence.

I do think that some of the die hard Benning supporters only feel this way because they love the Canucks and would never see anything wrong with the team because of their deeply rooted bias in supporting the team.

 

[Jyrki21]

I believe you made some good points in relation to this on Faber's podcast I had playing yesterday. Particularly the Ferry Captain analogy, which in turn reminded me of Plato's Republic. Good hit.

Haha, thanks for listening. The sound quality was far worse than my first appearance (and I'm fighting a cold), so I hope it was comprehensible.

It was a bit different on the podcast because I was more critiquing the idea that simply using your draft picks every year is a form of rebuild, and questioning what the job of a GM is at all if he's not going to actively advance the rebuild... in this hypothetical, though, Jim could do a lot of good by hiring enough people to make himself completely obsolete. I'm just wondering why he'd draw a salary in that case...

BTW, I've also been trying to convince @MS to go on Chris' podcast, but he won't check his DMs...!

 

[timw33]

Haha, thanks for listening. The sound quality was far worse than my first appearance (and I'm fighting a cold), so I hope it was comprehensible.

It was a bit different on the podcast because I was more critiquing the idea that simply using your draft picks every year is a form of rebuild, and questioning what the job of a GM is at all if he's not going to actively advance the rebuild... in this hypothetical, though, Jim could do a lot of good by hiring enough people to make himself completely obsolete. I'm just wondering why he'd draw a salary in that case...

BTW, I've also been trying to convince @MS to go on Chris' podcast, but he won't check his DMs...!

Just FYI I will be reading your tweets in your cell-phone-head-cold voice from here on out.

Solid appearance. We should have a HF "Thunderdome" on a skype call and turn it into an episode.

 

[vanuck]

It was a bit different on the podcast because I was more critiquing the idea that simply using your draft picks every year is a form of rebuild, and questioning what the job of a GM is at all if he's not going to actively advance the rebuild... in this hypothetical, though, Jim could do a lot of good by hiring enough people to make himself completely obsolete. I'm just wondering why he'd draw a salary in that case...

In that case we would have finally reached the ideal scenario which many, many posters here have long been campaigning for...

The Potato GM.

 

[F A N]

Replying this this from FAN

“What's up with these "you guys" comment. We're all Canucks fans here (presumably). Let's not be divisive”

There is an obvious subset of “fans” who care more about being right about Benning than the well being of this team. I have no issue calling out you guys because obviously you guys are part of the destructive fan base that enables and embrace the stupidity of our current management.

I am done with this management group and done with all your BS about why this group is actually not “all that bad”. The facts are conclusive, there is no more debate.

Why so angry? If you just want to BS and tired of debating then perhaps stay away? Life doesn't have to be that complicated.

 

[Hit the post]

What a great measuring stick. They’re actually not that all bad rather than are they any good. Recipe for mediocrity.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

A reminder to heed the warning in the OP, everyone - debate is encouraged, but please keep it civil.

 

[Jyrki21]

Dom Luszczyszyn (I just typed that 100% from memory and want a prize now) at The Athletic compiled a ranking of contract efficiency "based on the surplus value they bring in per player contract (all dead money [buyouts, salary retention and cap recapture] counts as one) as well as the average probability those deals will provide positive value." Goalies and a few other categories are excluded.

Link: By the numbers: Grading every team's contract efficiency

Remarkably, the Canucks don't quite scrape the bottom (after them come NYI, NYR, ARZ, OTT, CHI, LA and DET in that order, ending up with what is a pretty generous 'C' grade when you read Dom's description.

Gotta love when a newly signed big-ticket free agent already shows up as five pink boxes, though, am I right?

"Small victory: the Canucks aren’t in the bottom five. They’re extremely close though and it comes from their unfettered desire to be big players in free agency despite their contention window not being open yet. Through that avenue they acquired Loui Eriksson in 2016, then Antoine Roussel, Tim Schaller and Jay Beagle last summer, and this summer signed Tyler Myers, Micheal Ferland and Jordie Benn. In total, the team is spending $86 million on those players. The return on investment: 6.7 wins over the life of the respective deals, a cost of $12.8 million per win. Overall, the team is bottom five in how much money they spend per win and those deals are a big part of it. Almost all of that value comes from Roussel, Ferland and Benn too – the lone deals that look like they might be OK. The others are a disaster; dead cap space waiting to happen.

"The Canucks already rate pretty high in that they have $11.2 million of dead money on the books, but they add to that with the players they spend it on. You can add Brandon Sutter to that list too. He’s one of four Vancouver contracts in the D-range, a distinction that ties the team for most such contracts in the league.

"There are some good values here that mitigate some of the issues like Bo Horvat’s sensible contract, J.T. Miller’s courtesy of Tampa Bay and depth signings like Josh Leivo, Oscar Fantenberg and Alex Biega – but overall it’s pretty bleak. It somehow leaves Vancouver – one of the worst teams last season – with a limited amount of cap space to sign Brock Boeser. If not for Elias Pettersson doing god’s work on an ELC, this team wouldn’t have much sense for optimism. Even with him, I’m not so sure thanks to their inexplicable lack of cap flexibility."

 

[tantalum]

Pfft. Who cares about the cap. The team is rebuilding!

 

[I am toxic]

their inexplicable lack of cap flexibility

Cap space! It's inexplicable!

So it must not matter!

Oh, and I almost forgot - chill!

 

[MS]

Dom Luszczyszyn (I just typed that 100% from memory and want a prize now) at The Athletic compiled a ranking of contract efficiency "based on the surplus value they bring in per player contract (all dead money [buyouts, salary retention and cap recapture] counts as one) as well as the average probability those deals will provide positive value." Goalies and a few other categories are excluded.

Link: By the numbers: Grading every team's contract efficiency

Remarkably, the Canucks don't quite scrape the bottom (after them come NYI, NYR, ARZ, OTT, CHI, LA and DET in that order, ending up with what is a pretty generous 'C' grade when you read Dom's description.

Gotta love when a newly signed big-ticket free agent already shows up as five pink boxes, though, am I right?

"Small victory: the Canucks aren’t in the bottom five. They’re extremely close though and it comes from their unfettered desire to be big players in free agency despite their contention window not being open yet. Through that avenue they acquired Loui Eriksson in 2016, then Antoine Roussel, Tim Schaller and Jay Beagle last summer, and this summer signed Tyler Myers, Micheal Ferland and Jordie Benn. In total, the team is spending $86 million on those players. The return on investment: 6.7 wins over the life of the respective deals, a cost of $12.8 million per win. Overall, the team is bottom five in how much money they spend per win and those deals are a big part of it. Almost all of that value comes from Roussel, Ferland and Benn too – the lone deals that look like they might be OK. The others are a disaster; dead cap space waiting to happen.

"The Canucks already rate pretty high in that they have $11.2 million of dead money on the books, but they add to that with the players they spend it on. You can add Brandon Sutter to that list too. He’s one of four Vancouver contracts in the D-range, a distinction that ties the team for most such contracts in the league.

"There are some good values here that mitigate some of the issues like Bo Horvat’s sensible contract, J.T. Miller’s courtesy of Tampa Bay and depth signings like Josh Leivo, Oscar Fantenberg and Alex Biega – but overall it’s pretty bleak. It somehow leaves Vancouver – one of the worst teams last season – with a limited amount of cap space to sign Brock Boeser. If not for Elias Pettersson doing god’s work on an ELC, this team wouldn’t have much sense for optimism. Even with him, I’m not so sure thanks to their inexplicable lack of cap flexibility."

Neat study, but you kinda have to question anything that apparently lists Oscar Fantenberg as a $3.1 million player and the single biggest bargain on our team next year while also listing Tanev as a $2.4 million player and Stecher as a $2.2 million player. And Edler as a $3.8 million player. Oh, and Leivo is a $3.5 million player apparently.

I'd love to know his formula but it looks like it's really heavily based on raw Corsi which is why mediocre-to-bad players like Leivo and Fantenberg getting really soft usage are coming up as massive bargains.

 

[F A N]

Dom Luszczyszyn (I just typed that 100% from memory and want a prize now) at The Athletic compiled a ranking of contract efficiency "based on the surplus value they bring in per player contract (all dead money [buyouts, salary retention and cap recapture] counts as one) as well as the average probability those deals will provide positive value." Goalies and a few other categories are excluded.

Link: By the numbers: Grading every team's contract efficiency

Remarkably, the Canucks don't quite scrape the bottom (after them come NYI, NYR, ARZ, OTT, CHI, LA and DET in that order, ending up with what is a pretty generous 'C' grade when you read Dom's description.

Gotta love when a newly signed big-ticket free agent already shows up as five pink boxes, though, am I right?

Hmm... I'm not sure that is all that trustworthy. Virtanen and Stetcher aren't good values? Baertschi producing in his 26 games is? Granted Baertschi was efficient.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Hmm... I'm not sure that is all that trustworthy. Virtanen and Stetcher aren't good values? Baertschi producing in his 26 games is? Granted Baertschi was efficient.

Yeah these ratings seem a bit off. Definitely agree on Myers though, what an ugly, god awful contract.

 

[F A N]

Yeah these ratings seem a bit off. Definitely agree on Myers though, what an ugly, god awful contract.

UFA contracts are rarely efficient. I'm surprised that JT Miller's contract has that much surplus value.

 

[xtra]

I don’t have access to that article but I ask does it count someone like datsyuks/Hossa contracts as a pure negative as they doent play? Or are those ltir contracts ignored?

 

[MS]

UFA contracts are rarely efficient. I'm surprised that JT Miller's contract has that much surplus value.

It doesn't. The formula he's using seems heavily weighted on raw corsi, and Miller was on a possession beast of a team in TB. It's the same thing that turned Fantenburg into a substantially better defender than Chris Tanev.

That said, it isn't a bad contract and is probably pretty fair value.

Miller is probably the first significant acquisition Benning has made in 5+ years that was a reasonable target whose age and skillset fit where the team was at, and whose salary was realistic for what they bring. Unfortunately he decided to basically not negotiate when he acquired him.

 

[Jyrki21]

Neat study, but you kinda have to question anything that apparently lists Oscar Fantenberg as a $3.1 million player and the single biggest bargain on our team next year while also listing Tanev as a $2.4 million player and Stecher as a $2.2 million player. And Edler as a $3.8 million player. Oh, and Leivo is a $3.5 million player apparently.

I'd love to know his formula but it looks like it's really heavily based on raw Corsi which is why mediocre-to-bad players like Leivo and Fantenberg getting really soft usage are coming up as massive bargains.

Yeah, fair enough – I think it is completely automated based on whatever formula he has without nuance, and he discusses some of the shortcomings in the opening (such as the lack of goalies, who don't figure into his model). You figure that to an extent the noise evens out when analyzing 31 teams by the same methodology, though, so as a proxy it's still interesting.

 

[Canucks5551]

Dom Luszczyszyn (I just typed that 100% from memory and want a prize now) at The Athletic compiled a ranking of contract efficiency "based on the surplus value they bring in per player contract (all dead money [buyouts, salary retention and cap recapture] counts as one) as well as the average probability those deals will provide positive value." Goalies and a few other categories are excluded.

Link: By the numbers: Grading every team's contract efficiency

Remarkably, the Canucks don't quite scrape the bottom (after them come NYI, NYR, ARZ, OTT, CHI, LA and DET in that order, ending up with what is a pretty generous 'C' grade when you read Dom's description.

Gotta love when a newly signed big-ticket free agent already shows up as five pink boxes, though, am I right?

"Small victory: the Canucks aren’t in the bottom five. They’re extremely close though and it comes from their unfettered desire to be big players in free agency despite their contention window not being open yet. Through that avenue they acquired Loui Eriksson in 2016, then Antoine Roussel, Tim Schaller and Jay Beagle last summer, and this summer signed Tyler Myers, Micheal Ferland and Jordie Benn. In total, the team is spending $86 million on those players. The return on investment: 6.7 wins over the life of the respective deals, a cost of $12.8 million per win. Overall, the team is bottom five in how much money they spend per win and those deals are a big part of it. Almost all of that value comes from Roussel, Ferland and Benn too – the lone deals that look like they might be OK. The others are a disaster; dead cap space waiting to happen.

"The Canucks already rate pretty high in that they have $11.2 million of dead money on the books, but they add to that with the players they spend it on. You can add Brandon Sutter to that list too. He’s one of four Vancouver contracts in the D-range, a distinction that ties the team for most such contracts in the league.

"There are some good values here that mitigate some of the issues like Bo Horvat’s sensible contract, J.T. Miller’s courtesy of Tampa Bay and depth signings like Josh Leivo, Oscar Fantenberg and Alex Biega – but overall it’s pretty bleak. It somehow leaves Vancouver – one of the worst teams last season – with a limited amount of cap space to sign Brock Boeser. If not for Elias Pettersson doing god’s work on an ELC, this team wouldn’t have much sense for optimism. Even with him, I’m not so sure thanks to their inexplicable lack of cap flexibility."

What’s up with that letter grade system; do F’s just not exist? If Eriksson’s contract isn’t an F, I don’t know what is.

 

[Phenomenon13]

How is Schaller a C+? lmao

Tanev and Edler according ot that model have huge negative value but somehow gets a C?