Management Thread II - Read OP

[F A N]

They have been pushing for a playoff spot since he came here. That is not even disputable. Every year. His actions have echoed this with these veteran signings, trading of draft picks.

I don't believe the canucks have been pushing for a playoff spot, but they have been trying to make the playoffs EVERY year.

I think that the Canucks have trying to make the playoffs every year even before Aquilini took over. But I do think that since Linden started using the word "rebuild" the Canucks have made a softer push for a playoff spot until this past summer.

I think "rebuild" can take different forms and can be accelerated. You mentioned the Rangers, and I certainly think they made great moves by trading their veterans for draft picks. But are they still rebuilding? How long did their rebuild last? A couple of months? They traded a 1st round pick in last year's draft for Trouba, made veterans signings, and are now up against the cap. Looking at the Rangers now, I think their rebuild was more of a reset or retool.

This is ridiculous. They have been spending close to the cap and trading draft pick/prospects for roster players.

The Canucks actually had one of the lowest cap hits in the league last season. Their cap expenditure was reflective of a rebuilding team near the bottom of the standings unlike past years.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Double edged sword there...When you have too many decision makers, you could wind up with the polarized (consensus) decision...Thats not always the correct one IMO...especially in making a bold move.

Good leaders sign competent people to challenge their views.

Bad leaders sign weak yes men to confirm their views.

 

[DS7]

The Canucks actually had one of the lowest cap hits in the league last season. Their cap expenditure was reflective of a rebuilding team near the bottom of the standings unlike past years.

I'll give the context here without commentary.

Canucks rank in Cap Spend by season

2019-2020 = 16th lowest (this is excluding the Brock extension)

2018-2019 = 8th lowest
(Bottom 3 Spending Teams : New Jersey, Carolina, Ottawa)

2017-2018 = 12th lowest
(Bottom 3 Spending teams : Carolina, Arizona, Montreal)

2016-2017 = 9th lowest
(Bottom 3 spending teams: Carolina, Tampa, Arizona)

2015-2016 = 12th lowest* / 4th highest
(Bottom 3 spending teams: Winnipeg, Carolina, Nashville)

*Note, Edler was on LTIR to end that season and provided $5 mil in cap relief, so if he counted, we'd be over the cap this year and the 4th highest spending team*

2014-2015 = 19th lowest
(Bottom 3 spending teams: Arizona, Ottawa, Buffalo)


Source: NHL 2019 Cap Tracker

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The Canucks actually had one of the lowest cap hits in the league last season. Their cap expenditure was reflective of a rebuilding team near the bottom of the standings unlike past years.

No, it actually reflected the Sedins retired and the team's best players were on ELCs. That's what it reflected. A year later and it's slammed right back up against that cap and that's without even signing Boeser.

 

[F A N]

I'll give the context here without commentary.

So you are saying that I am right?

No, it actually reflected the Sedins retired and the team's best players were on ELCs. That's what it reflected. A year later and it's slammed right back up against that cap and that's without even signing Boeser.

No. Benning could have spent the cap space. Pretty sure your impression of Benning is that he will go crazy in UFA whenever he has cap space.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

So you are saying that I am right?



No. Benning could have spent the cap space. Pretty sure your impression of Benning is that he will go crazy in UFA whenever he has cap space.

Hasn't he?

The Canucks are not rebuilding. They have never been rebuilding under Benning. I don't give a shit how anyone wants to divvy up the responsibility for that, but he's the GM.

 

[forty47seven]

Hutton is likely better defensively, and that will probably become pretty clear when Myers takes the ice. The numbers are close so "material" is obviously subjective, but the real question is whether Myers is good enough offensively to justify the difference in AAV over the next 5 years. Because that's all you're really paying for. Not defense.

That's not even getting into the multitude of other potential Myers substitutes that could have been acquired via FA or trade. I suspect the Gardiner contract (who is a much better player than either Myers or Hutton) will all make us feel quite terrible despite the fact he may only be available to Eastern Conference teams.

I wouldn’t feel terrible if there’s truly zero chance Gardiner’s coming out west. There was no chance Vegas was trading Miller in division for scraps. Nashville wasn’t trading Subban in conference for scraps. De Haan or Maata would have been nice but don’t really help the offense. Chariot would’ve been a good shutdown signing but Benn fills that same roll cheaper. A 33 year old Stralman would have been risky like Myers. All the realistic options are LHD so it don’t really fill the same need. Maybe the best thing to do was nothing.

The contract is pretty meh. I hate the term and virtually buy-out proof bonus structure. I like that he’s trade-able and isn’t protected for the expansion draft. If he plays near his three year average over the next three seasons, I would consider the cap hit to be worth it. I would be trying to move him in year three though.

The numbers weren’t close. If we look at possession and high danger chances like Dayal did for Myers, Hutton comes out looking a lot worse. The only way its close is if you explain away the gap by handicapping Hutton’s deployment and linemates. I really don’t have a strong opinion about Myers defensive play one way or the other. Like I said before I didn’t watch a lot of Winnipeg last year. The only thing I know for sure is his advanced stats don’t make him seem like a huge liability. We’ll see how he does on the ice in the fall: good or bad.

 

[Peter10]

Nashville wasn’t trading Subban in conference for scraps.

Subban was dealt to NJ because they were the only team willing to take on the full cap hit. It has nothing to do with not dealing within the conference.

The contract is pretty meh. I hate the term and virtually buy-out proof bonus structure. I like that he’s trade-able and isn’t protected for the expansion draft. If he plays near his three year average over the next three seasons, I would consider the cap hit to be worth it. I would be trying to move him in year three though.

If very generous he performed like a #4 defender (and that is arguable) over the last 3 years and you consider that being worth a top 30 salary for defenseman?

 

[iceburg]

The Canucks had plenty of movable assets that could have returned picks/ futures but instead tried to retool on the fly and their trade returns reflected that.

The Kesler trade for example, Bob Murray said everything was on the table except the 10th overall. They could have targeted one of the ducks defensive prospects.

Harman Dayal's recent article with the athletic covers this more.

And they got a first out of the Kesler trade (I know, not the 10th), and a good middle 6 centre. The mistake was trading those assets for a bottom six d-man and an inferior middle 6 centre and, I guess, pretending for a few years that the third asset they got in that trade was more than he was.
Burrows returned a decent prospect. What happened after that is more of a mystery.
No other older player except maybe Tanev in his prime could have returned anything decent.
Again, I’m not arguing that they haven’t made significant counterintuitive moves that hurt a rebuild. Just that the trade assets weren’t all that great.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I'll give the context here without commentary.

Canucks rank in Cap Spend by season

2019-2020 = 16th lowest (this is excluding the Brock extension)

2018-2019 = 8th lowest
(Bottom 3 Spending Teams : New Jersey, Carolina, Ottawa)

2017-2018 = 12th lowest
(Bottom 3 Spending teams : Carolina, Arizona, Montreal)

2016-2017 = 9th lowest
(Bottom 3 spending teams: Carolina, Tampa, Arizona)

2015-2016 = 12th lowest* / 4th highest
(Bottom 3 spending teams: Winnipeg, Carolina, Nashville)

*Note, Edler was on LTIR to end that season and provided $5 mil in cap relief, so if he counted, we'd be over the cap this year and the 4th highest spending team*

2014-2015 = 19th lowest
(Bottom 3 spending teams: Arizona, Ottawa, Buffalo)


Source: NHL 2019 Cap Tracker

Good to know..Thanks for digging that up...

 

[Peter10]

I'll give the context here without commentary.

Canucks rank in Cap Spend by season

2019-2020 = 16th lowest (this is excluding the Brock extension)

2018-2019 = 8th lowest
(Bottom 3 Spending Teams : New Jersey, Carolina, Ottawa)

2017-2018 = 12th lowest
(Bottom 3 Spending teams : Carolina, Arizona, Montreal)

2016-2017 = 9th lowest
(Bottom 3 spending teams: Carolina, Tampa, Arizona)

2015-2016 = 12th lowest* / 4th highest
(Bottom 3 spending teams: Winnipeg, Carolina, Nashville)

*Note, Edler was on LTIR to end that season and provided $5 mil in cap relief, so if he counted, we'd be over the cap this year and the 4th highest spending team*

2014-2015 = 19th lowest
(Bottom 3 spending teams: Arizona, Ottawa, Buffalo)


Source: NHL 2019 Cap Tracker

Honestly those rankings seem a bit off. For example in 2017-18 cap friendly has the Canucks ranking with the 9th highest cap hit.

Past Salary Cap Payrolls - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

I would argue cap friendly is the most accurate resource for cap calculation

For the point in this discussion here I think the best indicator would be on the actual dollar amount spent.

 

[DS7]

So you are saying that I am right?

No, i didn't put commentary because I wasn't too sure if it was correct either and wasn't sure how Sporttrac was calculating historical cap compared to say capfriendly.

Cap spend can change and have so many variables during the course of the season. In this case, these cap hits seem to be taken at the end of the season where unplanned injuries and trades can affect it. I would have liked to see Cap hits at the beginning of each season as they would have been a more accurate indicator of a GM's strategy going into a season.

Honestly those rankings seem a bit off. For example in 2017-18 cap friendly has the Canucks ranking with the 9th highest cap hit.

Past Salary Cap Payrolls - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

I would argue cap friendly is the most accurate resource for cap calculation

For the point in this discussion here I think the best indicator would be on the actual dollar amount spent.

Thanks for this, Capfriendly is my preferred as well and I was trying to find it via cap friendly but couldn't see it. Interesting why this is so variable from the first source?

But yeah using this list, the Canucks fluctuated between high and lows too

2015-16 = 5th highest
2016-17 = 15th highest
2018-19 = 9th highest

 

[FroshaugFan2]

Honestly those rankings seem a bit off. For example in 2017-18 cap friendly has the Canucks ranking with the 9th highest cap hit.

Past Salary Cap Payrolls - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

I would argue cap friendly is the most accurate resource for cap calculation

For the point in this discussion here I think the best indicator would be on the actual dollar amount spent.

Yeah, those spotrac numbers are clearly way off. The Canucks were dinged with a $300k bonus overage in 2016-17 because they were at the cap in 2015-16.



And another $850k in 2018-19 that they couldn't fit in 2017-18.

The Canucks were close to a cap team every season under Benning except 2018-19.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

No, i didn't put commentary because I wasn't too sure if it was correct either and wasn't sure how Sporttrac was calculating historical cap compared to say capfriendly.

Cap spend can change and have so many variables during the course of the season. In this case, these cap hits seem to be taken at the end of the season where unplanned injuries and trades can affect it. I would have liked to see Cap hits at the beginning of each season as they would have been a more accurate indicator of a GM's strategy going into a season.



Thanks for this, Capfriendly is my preferred as well and I was trying to find it via cap friendly but couldn't see it. Interesting why this is so variable from the first source?

But yeah using this list, the Canucks fluctuated between high and lows too

2015-16 = 5th highest
2016-17 = 15th highest
2018-19 = 9th highest

I don't see why the league ranking of cap space is a better indicator than actual cap space. Despite being 15th in the league in 2016-17, the Canucks only had $1.1M in cap space. To me that is a cap team.

 

[Hodgy]

How could anyone advocate a wait and see approach with Jim Benning? You have five years of horrendous managing and you need another one? Short of a top five finish in the league next year, does it even matter? If Benning squeaks the Canucks into the playoffs as an average to below average team, shouldn’t he still be fired anyway? In a league that rewards failure with high draft picks, where teams can easily dump players for picks at the deadline, and where this team is a cap team, surely making the playoffs this year shouldn’t be seen as some sort of success?

 

[elitepete]

I think that the Canucks have trying to make the playoffs every year even before Aquilini took over. But I do think that since Linden started using the word "rebuild" the Canucks have made a softer push for a playoff spot until this past summer.

I think "rebuild" can take different forms and can be accelerated. You mentioned the Rangers, and I certainly think they made great moves by trading their veterans for draft picks. But are they still rebuilding? How long did their rebuild last? A couple of months? They traded a 1st round pick in last year's draft for Trouba, made veterans signings, and are now up against the cap. Looking at the Rangers now, I think their rebuild was more of a reset or retool.



The Canucks actually had one of the lowest cap hits in the league last season. Their cap expenditure was reflective of a rebuilding team near the bottom of the standings unlike past years.

What about the last 4-5 years? last year seems like a one off in terms of salary expenditure. And even last year, they may not have had a huge salary cap hit, but they still had a lot of overpaid veteran players with NTC's, like Sutter and Beagle.

And they didn't really put many of their young players in positions to succeed, or let them play through their growing pains. They used them in minimal roles and only moved them up when injuries struck. The only player that started high in the lineup was EP and that was because he's an elite player.

Also made veterans like Edler and Tanev play through injuries when they should have been healing.

Basically, they managed the roster like a team that was trying to make the playoffs.

I understand that you have to go out and compete every night but some of the things they have been doing make you scratch your head because they are detrimental to the future of this team.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

How could anyone advocate a wait and see approach with Jim Benning? You have five years of horrendous managing and you need another one? Short of a top five finish in the league next year, does it even matter? If Benning squeaks the Canucks into the playoffs as an average to below average team, shouldn’t he still be fired anyway? In a league that rewards failure with high draft picks, where teams can easily dump players for picks at the deadline, and where this team is a cap team, surely making the playoffs this year shouldn’t be seen as some sort of success?

Is that where the bar is set now?...Nothing short of top 5 finish in the NHL next year?....

Making the playoffs would be considered a success this season.

 

[elitepete]

Is that where the bar is set now?...Nothing short of top 5 finish in the NHL next year?....

Making the playoffs would be considered a success this season.

When you have been trying to make the playoffs for 5 years, barely making it in one out of 5 attempts is not a success from a management standpoint.

 

[Hodgy]

Is that where the bar is set now?...Nothing short of top 5 finish in the NHL next year?....

Making the playoffs would be considered a success this season.

No, making the playoffs is expected given the context for the reasons I said in my last post. This is a league where more than half the teams make the playoffs, and where bad teams are rewarded with top picks. This is a league where there is a salary cap and many teams don’t hit it. In this context, Jim Benning has a massive advantage over other general managers, so to call his season a success if his team is average or below average, and makes the playoffs, is a ridiculously poor standard that is divorced from reality.

So yes, a success would need to be something more. I stated top five, but would acknowledge that a top ten finish would probably also need to be considered a success. T

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

When you have been trying to make the playoffs for 5 years, barely making it in one out of 5 attempts is not a success from a management standpoint.

They made the playoffs in 2014-15...tried and failed the next two seasons...Did not try the next two...They definitely are this year.

Context is important...They started with a declining core ,and no real prospect pool to speak of...

However, you are correct that 5 years with no playoffs under the same management group is not acceptable..Thats why if this season goes pear shaped, ownership will clean house.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

No, making the playoffs is expected given the context for the reasons I said in my last post. This is a league where more than half the teams make the playoffs, and where bad teams are rewarded with top picks. This is a league where there is a salary cap and many teams don’t hit it. In this context, Jim Benning has a massive advantage over other general managers, so to call his season a success if his team is average or below average, and makes the playoffs, is a ridiculously poor standard that is divorced from reality.

So yes, a success would need to be something more. I stated top five, but would acknowledge that a top ten finish would probably also need to be considered a success. T

My opinion on whether its a ridiculously poor standard is somewhat irrelevant...I'm just wondering how the general fanbase (and media) will react to a team of young elite players making the playoffs...If Toronto is any indication of your typical Canadian market..brace yourself (Where's the parade route?)

 

[MS]

Managing to sneak into the playoffs this year does nothing to exonerate this terrible GM and his terrible process for the last 5 years.

 

[Bleach Clean]

No, making the playoffs is expected given the context for the reasons I said in my last post. This is a league where more than half the teams make the playoffs, and where bad teams are rewarded with top picks. This is a league where there is a salary cap and many teams don’t hit it. In this context, Jim Benning has a massive advantage over other general managers, so to call his season a success if his team is average or below average, and makes the playoffs, is a ridiculously poor standard that is divorced from reality.

So yes, a success would need to be something more. I stated top five, but would acknowledge that a top ten finish would probably also need to be considered a success. T

League play is not wholly definitive here either. A good GM could ice a poor team and a bad GM could ice a playoff team. It means something, but it doesn't tell the tale.

The ultimate indictment of Benning here is his inability to create a flush pipeline of young talent. That's really it. You have a team that may compete for the playoffs this year, but it's one where the young player impact is sparse in number. We are looking at Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat and Hughes to lead the way... And that is an utter travesty when looking back at 5 of the past 6 years being out of the playoffs.

The funny thing here is that fan perception does tend to swivel on playoff appearances. This actually occurs, and it's a statement on the education of the fan himself/herself, and not a true interpretation of GM ability. It's not the true litmus test of GM evaluation. For most though, it will do... and that's a shame.

So get used to "a ridiculous poor standard that is divorced from reality". More opinions of that ilk will surface if this team makes the playoffs next year. Book it.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Managing to sneak into the playoffs this year does nothing to exonerate this terrible GM and his terrible process for the last 5 years.

When long time posters here will view it as a success, so will the general fan base.

You're right though, it's not the way to judge a GM.

 

[forty47seven]

Subban was dealt to NJ because they were the only team willing to take on the full cap hit. It has nothing to do with not dealing within the conference.

If very generous he performed like a #4 defender (and that is arguable) over the last 3 years and you consider that being worth a top 30 salary for defenseman?

Sure, he still wasn't coming here. All thing being equal in offers from NJ and VAN, Subban would be going to the eastern conference.

I'm not buying the he's not a top 4 narrative until I see him on a regular basis. If you go by his three season averages, there no way he's not top 4. I've already said I'm not a huge fan of the contract. Who gives a crap about his AAV? You wouldn't sign him at 6M on a one year deal?