Management Thread II - Read OP

[xtra]

All teams go through down cycles.we're you expecting the playoffs the last few years?

Benning was expecting the playoffs so we should eh as well correct?

 

[I am toxic]

"Just wait and see, the Canucks are going to make the playoffs this year."

"Well, 75 points. That's not good."

"Just wait and see, the Canucks are going to make the playoffs this year."

"Well, 69 points. That's not good."

"Just wait and see, the Canucks are going to make the playoffs this year."

"Well, 73 points. That's not good."

"Just wait and see, the Canucks are going to make the playoffs this year."

"Well, 81 points. That's not good."

"I hate saying it, but just wait and see, until October we can't possibly know what we have on our hands."

 

[Jyrki21]

Its' wait and see' because the culmination of JB's time here will be on full display this upcoming season (and if he bombs ,he will be gone)..."Wait and see" is a lot more preferable than going through reading countless depressing hypotheticals, or rehashing the Sbisa contract...

Until there is concrete 'results'..one way or another..we have to 'wait and see'...

Hang on, what is different or special about next year? What has he been doing all this time? Why can't all the interim moves – yes, including things like the Sbisa contract – be fairly evaluated before then? Why don't bad trades, signings or draft strategies count before a fixed point in time, particularly when they were widely predicted? Did they somehow help achieve a goal that he is supposed to reach this year?

If the idea is that he was on some sort of five year plan, (1) that is completely inconsistent with everything he has done and said to this point, and (2) if the results are a lower-middle-of-the-pack possible playoff team, that is an absolutely awful tradeoff to wait for.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

All teams go through down cycles.we're you expecting the playoffs the last few years?

How often do people need to rehash what they expected over the last few years to you. Most of the posts are the exact same, some type of visible plan. A set of moves that showed they were committing to rebuilding by bringing in short term players who could be used as capital to gain assets. Obtaining draft picks or young players for veterans not in the long term plans anymore.
Some type of viable vision shared from top to bottom that would build towards a Cup winning team that contends for more than just 1-2 years.

This Jimbolya we’ve been served that’s basically things he’s picked up off the floor, from the back of the fridge and slathered in the worst sauces of the past 6 years is not what we asked for. Nor is the eventual outcome, which won’t be a Cup winning roster.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

Everybody expected them to be crap last year...one of the worst teams in the league, but they were better than 1/3 of the league.

Their wins in regulation or overtime would suggest this is a false narrative

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Hang on, what is different or special about next year? What has he been doing all this time? Why can't all the interim moves – yes, including things like the Sbisa contract – be fairly evaluated before then? Why don't bad trades, signings or draft strategies count before a fixed point in time, particularly when they were widely predicted? Did they somehow help achieve a goal that he is supposed to reach this year?

If the idea is that he was on some sort of five year plan, (1) that is completely inconsistent with everything he has done and said to this point, and (2) if the results are a lower-middle-of-the-pack possible playoff team, that is an absolutely awful tradeoff to wait for.

The roster is different next year...As much as Pettersson changed the feel and roster last season,Hughes could have close to the same impact...Do you see next year as just a rerun of the past two.?

Were you expecting the Canucks to leap from the bottom of the league to being an instantaneous SC contender?...5 years ago we had 1 decent player in our prospect pool, no amount of savvy trades or signings would have made this team a legit playoff team for at least 4 years (my opinion)...

No debate on the first 2 years of Benning /Linden were ill conceived...Widely documented.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

If the Canucks miss the playoffs JB will be fired...I have no issues with that..6 years on the job would be too long... You cannot ask a fanbase to be that patient for that amount of time without some degree of success in the standings.

Did you not just argue they were better than 1/3 of the league? Which is it?

 

[F A N]

Did you not just argue they were better than 1/3 of the league? Which is it?

I don't see anything wrong with what Pastor wrote there. I think a healthy Canucks team can make the playoffs next season. If they don't, it's easy to predict that Benning is likely gone.

 

[member 290103]

But how can you know that? Fenton served as the AGM to one of the best GMs for over a decade. Similar to Jim Nill, unless you're hiring a guy with a track record, Fenton is as qualified as it gets. I guess Brian Burke was right in saying that being in the GM chair is different.

I think you should be looking for more than just a guy that is a good scout is all I am saying. As we have seen from the Canucks draft videos, Benning is so far removed from scouting he is openly asking questions about players the Canucks are looking at in the second round. If his strength is scouting, why not leave him as a scout? A GM is more of a collaborator - a visionary that staffs his team with expertise in a range of areas. Benning is not a visionary. He's got a mindset of an old school scout stuck in the 70's. He runs his team with no collaboration and routinely makes decisions that are incorrect and a result of not drawing upon expertise that should be present.

 

[Peter10]

All teams go through down cycles.we're you expecting the playoffs the last few years?

Jim Benning himself expected to compete with the elite teams in year 5. I think its save to say he failed.

 

[F A N]

I think you should be looking for more than just a guy that is a good scout is all I am saying. As we have seen from the Canucks draft videos, Benning is so far removed from scouting he is openly asking questions about players the Canucks are looking at in the second round. If his strength is scouting, why not leave him as a scout? A GM is more of a collaborator - a visionary that staffs his team with expertise in a range of areas. Benning is not a visionary. He's got a mindset of an old school scout stuck in the 70's. He runs his team with no collaboration and routinely makes decisions that are incorrect and a result of not drawing upon expertise that should be present.

I think a big part of the GM's job is identifying the style of play required to be successful, the players capable of playing that style, and the complimentary players required. For example, when Gillis came on board, he identified a style of play that he believes is needed to be successful and got AV to change. His downfall was when he went the opposite way after the Cup finals lost and kind of lost his way for a couple of years there.

Benning definitely does not appear to be a visionary or creative thinker. But being a visionary or creative thinker doesn't necessarily make you a better GM. And to say that he runs his team with no collaboration is completely false. As reported by various media personnel recently, Chris Gear has become more involved in contract negotiations and advises on CBA matters. Jonathan Wall has taken on a larger role and we have now added Ryan Biech. Brackett of course is allowed to run the draft for the most part and when a trade is presented, Benning checks with Wall to determine value and let's Brackett decided whether to trade down or keep the pick. Benning also talks to his head coach and arguably gave his coach too much influence in terms of player acquisitions.

 

[carrotshirt]

All teams go through down cycles.we're you expecting the playoffs the last few years?

Benning was.

 

[member 290103]

I think a big part of the GM's job is identifying the style of play required to be successful, the players capable of playing that style, and the complimentary players required. For example, when Gillis came on board, he identified a style of play that he believes is needed to be successful and got AV to change. His downfall was when he went the opposite way after the Cup finals lost and kind of lost his way for a couple of years there.

Benning definitely does not appear to be a visionary or creative thinker. But being a visionary or creative thinker doesn't necessarily make you a better GM. And to say that he runs his team with no collaboration is completely false. As reported by various media personnel recently, Chris Gear has become more involved in contract negotiations and advises on CBA matters. Jonathan Wall has taken on a larger role and we have now added Ryan Biech. Brackett of course is allowed to run the draft for the most part and when a trade is presented, Benning checks with Wall to determine value and let's Brackett decided whether to trade down or keep the pick. Benning also talks to his head coach and arguably gave his coach too much influence in terms of player acquisitions.

This sounds like Francesco Aqualini responding to my post. The collaboration we saw with the Gillis regime compared to this regime is night and day. While I will agree that Brackett has been allowed to run the draft, there have been some strong rumours that this was frustrated in this past draft. All the other individuals you have suggested as having been given bigger roles, until we see this actually put into action, I am considering it window dressing.

I still believe that if it came down to a recommendation from Biech and one from Weisbrod, Jimbo is going with Johnny everytime.

 

[The Drop]

?...5 years ago we had 1 decent player in our prospect pool, no amount of savvy trades or signings would have made this team a legit playoff team for at least 4 years (my opinion)...

Even today the Canucks have 1 decent player in Podkolzin in the prospect pool.

 

[The Drop]

I don't see anything wrong with what Pastor wrote there. I think a healthy Canucks team can make the playoffs next season. If they don't, it's easy to predict that Benning is likely gone.

What’s your definition of healthy? If you’re expecting Tanev, Sutter and Edler to play the full season then have I got news for you.

Also every team has injuries. It’s the Canucks’ lack of depth at every position, including management that always has them behind most teams that aren’t the oilers.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Jim Benning himself expected to compete with the elite teams in year 5. I think its save to say he failed.

In retrospect,..not a smart thing for a GM to say at the beginning of his tenure...I'm sure he's not the first GM to make a pronouncement that he couldn't keep.

Having said that,..He's going into year 6 with all the cards on the table ,and he's betting his job on it.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Benning was.

Jay Beagle and Antoine Roussel were enough to give the Canucks a playoff push?...Nobody knew where the goals were going to come from with the Sedins retired?..Nobody knew if EP could even crack the NHL..We did'nt even have a #1 goalie...

There were no serious expectations to make the playoffs last season.

 

[carrotshirt]

Jay Beagle and Antoine Roussel were enough to give the Canucks a playoff push?...Nobody knew where the goals were going to come from with the Sedins retired?..Nobody knew if EP could even crack the NHL..We did'nt even have a #1 goalie...

There were no serious expectations to make the playoffs last season.

Shifted those goalposts down to last season instead of your original ‘last few seasons’?

At the beginning of every Benning season he tells the world that they’ve now acquired enough depth to go for the playoffs.

At the end of every Benning season he cites injuries and not enough depth to compensate for those injuries as reasons why they didn’t make the playoffs.

This regime is just not building a cup winning team.

When a middle of the pack team moves way up in the draft lottery, Benning assumes that means we’ve got a real good chance of doing the same if we’re a middle of the pack team.

St Louis winning the cup after a disastrous first half makes Benning think we’ve got a real good chance of doing the same even if we look terrible in the first half (or whole season, or multiple seasons in a row).

He bet our first rounder that we’d make the playoffs after four seasons of expecting to make the playoffs and blowing it each time.

I think he’s a really optimistic guy and he just thinks everything is going to turn out great.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Shifted those goalposts down to last season instead of your original ‘last few seasons’?

At the beginning of every Benning season he tells the world that they’ve now acquired enough depth to go for the playoffs.

At the end of every Benning season he cites injuries and not enough depth to compensate for those injuries as reasons why they didn’t make the playoffs.

This regime is just not building a cup winning team..

When a middle of the pack team moves way up in the draft lottery, Benning assumes that means we’ve got a real good chance of doing the same if we’re a middle of the pack team.

St Louis winning the cup after a disastrous first half makes Benning think we’ve got a real good chance of doing the same even if we look terrible in the first half (or whole season, or multiple seasons in a row).

He bet our first rounder that we’d make the playoffs after four seasons of expecting to make the playoffs and blowing it each time.

I think he’s a really optimistic guy and he just thinks everything is going to turn out great.

Please find me the quotes where Benning has explicitly said he believes the Canucks are a "playoff" team in the last two seasons...He has said he would like the team to be 'competitive'...

'Our goal is to win games ,and remain competitive to make the playoffs' Benning..2018...


Benning does cite injuries at the end of some seasons..is he lying?

Is there only one way to build a cup winning team?..How do you build a cup winning team?

Yes, he did bet our first rounder on a team that's on the cusp..He could wind up looking like a fool or a genius..We will all know next season.

 

[F A N]

What’s your definition of healthy? If you’re expecting Tanev, Sutter and Edler to play the full season then have I got news for you.

Also every team has injuries. It’s the Canucks’ lack of depth at every position, including management that always has them behind most teams that aren’t the oilers.

That's not the point. The point is you can think that the Canucks are capable of making the playoffs and think that Benning is gone if the Canucks miss the playoffs.

 

[forty47seven]

I've yet to see anything that convinces me Hutton is not materially better defensively than Myers. That's obviously a three-year chart, but Hutton played more minutes against tougher competition than Myers did last year. Any positive difference Myers makes to the Canucks will be on the offensive side of the puck.

It's a three year chart because the sample size is really small if you look at one season. Even with the three chart you're looking at like 60-70 games out of 240 for most guys. These stats are derived by fans who are analytic enthusiasts. They manually tally entry stats from watching games to build this database. This isn't like corsi that you derive from published stats. They don't have the resources to watch every single game so they have about 15-30 games/season for every player. Here's the 1 year chart for Myers and Hutton based on 20ish games.

The whole tougher competition thing is BS. Yes, Hutton played tougher than average minutes for a portion of the season. When injuries struck Hutton played top pair, no doubt. But Myers wasn't playing heavily sheltered minutes against weak competition like you claim. He played up the lineup with injuries too. Both Hutton and Myers were pretty close to average overall.

It's worth noting Myers played below average minutes with Winnipeg's top line. Which isn’t surprising given Winnipeg's RHD depth last season.

For reference, here are the competition charts for Phaneuf, who was heavily sheltered and Tanev, who played tough minutes.

And for shits and giggles:

Was Stecher heavily sheltered too?

The playing field was pretty even for Myers and Hutton. They had similar deployment and similarly terrible linemates (Myers might have the advantage here oddly). The Canucks and Jets were both sub 50% possession teams 5v5 and both were in bottom half of goal allowed (Jets were 17th - 1.99 GAA / Canucks were 22nd - 2.11GAA) at 5v5. I can't see how you can mark Hutton on a curve against Myers defensively when he wasn't hugely disadvantaged.

 

[forty47seven]

I don’t know how many times I literally have to suggest Pete Tessier as a follow on Twitter. But I will again. The guy did a legit post showing the two side by side. It’s quite telling

This guy is more legit. Have fun, I've wasted hours playing with this thing.

Tableau Public

 

[carrotshirt]

See bolded:

Please find me the quotes where Benning has explicitly said he believes the Canucks are a "playoff" team in the last two seasons...He has said he would like the team to be 'competitive'...

Haha, back up to the last two seasons, still not willing to stand by your initial ‘few’. You’re going to wear those goalposts down to a nub. I will not look up exact quotes as even if I found them you’d make up some other nonsense excuse and keep your fingers in your ears.

'Our goal is to win games ,and remain competitive to make the playoffs' Benning..2018...


Benning does cite injuries at the end of some seasons..is he lying?

He’s not lying that injuries occurred, but with no injuries, none of his teams would have made the playoffs. (2014 was mostly Gillis’ team, Benning took care of those pesky playoff appearances).

Is there only one way to build a cup winning team?..How do you build a cup winning team?

By having an actual plan, created and overseen by competent staff, and then some luck. Benning’s Canucks have none of these things.

Yes, he did bet our first rounder on a team that's on the cusp..He could wind up looking like a fool or a genius..We will all know next season.

History suggests he will look like a fool.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

See bolded:

I always thought a few, meant a couple..namely two...

Agreed that none of Bennings teams after the 2015 playoffs would have made the playoffs..No argument from me on that, but his teams have suffered a heckuva lot of injuries..especially last season.

Canucks have a poor staff, and no plan..your opinion.

Reversal of fortune in the NHL comes swiftly.. almost 40% of posters believe the Canucks will make the post season.

 

[F A N]

This sounds like Francesco Aqualini responding to my post. The collaboration we saw with the Gillis regime compared to this regime is night and day. While I will agree that Brackett has been allowed to run the draft, there have been some strong rumours that this was frustrated in this past draft. All the other individuals you have suggested as having been given bigger roles, until we see this actually put into action, I am considering it window dressing.

I still believe that if it came down to a recommendation from Biech and one from Weisbrod, Jimbo is going with Johnny everytime.

I don't see how "the collaboration we saw with the Gillis regime compared to this regime is night and day." You make it sound like Benning does everything when he doesn't. Who do you think said this, "If people don't want to get on side with how I view this team and how it's supposed to play then they won't be here." Mike Gillis or Jim Benning?

All the individuals I have suggested as having been given bigger roles have been reported or seen in bigger roles. Chris Gear is reported to be negotiating contracts. That's not window dressing. You see Jonathan Wall at the draft table and the Ryan Biech hiring. That's not window dressing. I think it's clear that Benning has acquired players based on what Green wanted to do. That's not window dressing. Benning has acquired goaltenders based on his goaltending consultants/coaches recommendations. That's not window dressing.

As for Brackett, you think he wouldn't be frustrated when Gillis wanted to draft overagers and bigger players? Or drafting based on Crawford's study that prioritized certain leagues that produced more NHL players over the past 5 years that didn't include the USHL? Scouts are an opinionated bunch. They're not going to agree with someone else's assessment of a player if they don't see it the same way without a fight. Plenty of scouting directors survive GM changes. How many scouting directors are given full reign to run the draft as they see fit? You think scouts won't be frustrated when a GM trades a 1st round pick after they did all the work? Scouts take directions from the GM. Gillis believed in the importance of giving scouts direction and I think he did. Benning should be giving his scouting staff directions. If his scouting staff isn't happy with that than so be it.

As for Benning going with Weisbrod's suggestion every time, what are you basing it on other than the fact that Weisbrod has the AGM title? We seen at the draft that Benning lets Brackett rather than Weisbrod make the call. In fact, you can see that in the draft videos Benning turns to Wall and then turns to Brackett. He doesn't even consult Weisbrod.