Management Thread II - Read OP

[TruGr1t]

Paul Fenton is basically Benning, and he got fired in 12 months due to bone head type Gudbranson moves.

Maybe if he'd stumbled into a few top ten draft picks Fenton would still be employed.

 

[MS]

Paul Fenton is basically Benning, and he got fired in 12 months due to bone head type Gudbranson moves.

Maybe if he'd stumbled into a few top ten draft picks Fenton would still be employed.

Benning is Fenton if you lop off 30 IQ points and the ability to actually evaluate hockey players.

 

[TruGr1t]

Benning is Fenton if you lop off 30 IQ points and the ability to actually evaluate hockey players.

True. Fenton is a better amateur scout, but seems equally incompetent in terms of hockey ops.

 

[The Drop]

That sounds familiar. So does this...



I just can't quite put my thumb on it... Who does this sound like?

I thought you were making a joke. Wow

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

This sounds familiar:

That owner must be paying attention to and understanding what is going on there with his team?

 

[RandV]

That owner must be paying attention to and understanding what is going on there with his team?

Yeah the Wild are stuck in mediocrity but they aren't necessarily in a bad position. The big problem is while they have good depth they lack star power, but if they get the go ahead they're in a good position to pursue a Rangers-like rebuild. You have Koivu and Spurgeon as UFA's this season, then Staal, Brodin, and Dubnyk the next. Not much youth on the blueline but for 23 and under players you have Fiala, Donato, Eriksson Ek, Greenway, and Kunin, then a 22 year old top goalie prospect in Kaapo Kahkonen. Finish in the basement a couple times and add a franchise player or two and they could have a quick turn around.

So it just remains to be seen what directive the new GM will be given, as they're also still close to being a playoff team - and probably would be if they played in the Pacific.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

That owner must be paying attention to and understanding what is going on there with his team?

According to Rintoul,..there was dissatisfaction and no confidence from other staff in the Wild organization.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

According to Rintoul,..there was dissatisfaction and no confidence from other staff in the Wild organization.

So the Brackett stuff could have some serious traction too it.

 

[The Drop]

Another one lol

 

[bossram]

Paul Fenton is basically Benning, and he got fired in 12 months due to bone head type Gudbranson moves.

Maybe if he'd stumbled into a few top ten draft picks Fenton would still be employed.

So you're saying there's more to being a GM than drafting (AKA being bad enough to fall into top-10 draft picks). Like, actually managing a team seems to be important....Who'd have thought?

 

[bossram]

This insight from Sekeras aligns with what was said about Brackett’s demeanour post draft. It is significant, IMO. It pits the perceived driver of the Canucks’ success against the seemingly hapless GM and his shadow. What an intriguing storyline.

If Brackett survives Benning this year, maybe he’s the heir apparent?

If Brackett leaves, Benning faces insurmountable criticism.

If they stay together beyond this year, what does the 2020 draft look like? More behind the scenes conflict? More dissenting opinion? More people getting fired for disagreeing?

I think that what happened with Gilman, E.Crawford and Linden sets up an interesting backdrop to what is about to occur here with Brackett. It’s all going to look terrible for Benning.

Yep. Anyone with dissenting (read: rational/intelligent) opinions get the boot.

Benning wants to build his team his way: a mediocre, capped-out, shallow-prospect pool, maybe-scrape-into-the-playoffs contender.

 

[HiggsBroson]

@HiggsBroson i demand insider gossip when the time calls for it.

I can only comment if this is posted in the “Worst Benning Moves” thread.

 

[F A N]

It just goes to show that it's really quite foolish to hire someone that is adept at amatuer scouting and nothing else to be your GM. I mean, the job title itself denotes the fact that it is a job where you manage generally. A good GM will have a background that draws from several different areas and who is willing to delegate - not just a guy that at one time was a good scout.

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.

 

[F A N]

Benning wants to build his team his way

What way is a GM suppose to build his team? Some one else's way?

 

[forty47seven]

The kicker for me is that if you look at Myers deployment he was playing pretty easy minutes for the Jets. The fact he generated effectively average, to slightly below average, defensive numbers (while getting basically no special teams minutes) isn't particularly good.

The truly telling chart in there for me is the Hutton comparison. Hutton played tougher minutes on a much worse team and generated very comparable numbers. Myers also benchmarked relatively poorly in the 5v5 def players per 20 against his own Jets teammates.

Also, for ****s and giggles:

And for the record I don't necessarily have a huge issue with Myers. The contract is pretty bad, but I believe he can be a valuable player as long as you shelter him to play up his strengths in transition (and offensively). Anyone thinking he's some sort of "all situation" guy that can anchor a pairing is out to lunch, though.

How sheltered were his minutes last year though? Myers averaged 17 mins a game and played the second most ice time at EV for the Jets. He split time evenly among the forward lines and had a fairly balanced 54% o-zone starts. He played a good amount of special teams but most (2nd in D TOI) was on the PK. He didn't get much PP time because Winnipeg runs a 4F-1D set and they had two better RHD ahead of him in the depth chart.

For the record I don't think he's an all situation guy. I believe people when they say he's an adventure in his own end. I just wonder if he's Sopel/Beiksa level bad where he's decent most of the time but makes egregious arm-waving bad plays every handful of games. The people saying he's a marginal upgrade on Gudbranson are probably out to lunch too. Your comparison of an offensive Hutton (aka the Hutton most people though he would be) is a good one. I'm not entirely convinced he's meaningfully worse than Hutton in his own zone though. Can you post that comparison?

 

[tantalum]

Another one lol

Well of course not much changed. They forced the guy out that was advocating for change and kept the idiots who wanted to continue down the same path. Linden came to the realization way, way, way too late but at least he had the epiphany. I wasn't a fan of Linden in this role at all. He was in over his head. But I'm also positive that if he had manage to sell his direction to ownership the team would be in a much better management position today.

I think this bit from the article succinctly sums it all up: "The message has become clear, championships are lovely, but playing a few extra games in the playoffs ever year is better."

It's all about the maximization of yearly profits for ownership. Nothing more.

Funny thing is, and I know I mentioned this before when Linden and Benning were clearly failing, if you had some competent thinkers you could use that focus to argue for a rebuild. Own that the revenues would drop but that you'd compensate for that drop through cutting salary...give yourself an internal cap. Put a plan in place that as the team was built and improved you'd start to trickle that money back in. You'd be doing things the right way and protecting ownerships desire for cash flow.

 

[Jyrki21]

I can only comment if this is posted in the “Worst Benning Moves” thread.

What way is a GM suppose to build his team? Some one else's way?

If it works better, yes. These things aren't subjective works of art.

 

[hookshott]

Well of course not much changed. They forced the guy out that was advocating for change and kept the idiots who wanted to continue down the same path. Linden came to the realization way, way, way too late but at least he had the epiphany. I wasn't a fan of Linden in this role at all. He was in over his head. But I'm also positive that if he had manage to sell his direction to ownership the team would be in a much better management position today.

I think this bit from the article succinctly sums it all up: "The message has become clear, championships are lovely, but playing a few extra games in the playoffs ever year is better."

It's all about the maximization of yearly profits for ownership. Nothing more.

Funny thing is, and I know I mentioned this before when Linden and Benning were clearly failing, if you had some competent thinkers you could use that focus to argue for a rebuild. Own that the revenues would drop but that you'd compensate for that drop through cutting salary...give yourself an internal cap. Put a plan in place that as the team was built and improved you'd start to trickle that money back in. You'd be doing things the right way and protecting ownerships desire for cash flow.

But, he actually signed Benning to a new contract!!

 

[tantalum]

But, he actually signed Benning to a new contract!!

I'm not convinced Linden was the driving force behind the extension but that's neither here nor there.

Even if he was it's just another reason he was out of his depth in his job. Don't get me wrong I'm not defending Linden...I don't think Linden in any normal organization would have kept his job. There were many reasons to remove him. He should have been removed when he was....in a normal organization. If, as ownership, you weren't going to do a complete housecleaning and were making a choice between two directions you should have kept Linden and turfed the other 2. They had three choices on that day:

1) houseclean --> the best choice
2) keep Benning/Weisbrod and turf Linden --> the worst choice
3) keep Linden and turf Benning/Weisbrod --> not great but better than 2.
The 4th option of do nothing wasn't feasible given the different directions the camps wanted to go.

Because this isn't a normal organization with knowledgeable or rationale ownership choice 2 was made.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Well of course not much changed. They forced the guy out that was advocating for change and kept the idiots who wanted to continue down the same path. Linden came to the realization way, way, way too late but at least he had the epiphany. I wasn't a fan of Linden in this role at all. He was in over his head. But I'm also positive that if he had manage to sell his direction to ownership the team would be in a much better management position today.

I think this bit from the article succinctly sums it all up: "The message has become clear, championships are lovely, but playing a few extra games in the playoffs ever year is better."

It's all about the maximization of yearly profits for ownership. Nothing more.

Funny thing is, and I know I mentioned this before when Linden and Benning were clearly failing, if you had some competent thinkers you could use that focus to argue for a rebuild. Own that the revenues would drop but that you'd compensate for that drop through cutting salary...give yourself an internal cap. Put a plan in place that as the team was built and improved you'd start to trickle that money back in. You'd be doing things the right way and protecting ownerships desire for cash flow.

There was also the possibility that the Canucks go year after year just collecting high picks and treading water (there's no guarantee there either...?..You can easily lunge into a 2nd rebuild, or just simply just lose some of your top players like the Jets).

I like Trevor Linden, but the first 3 years of Benning (and Lindens staunch desire to compete while the twins were still here)..have Linden written all over them.

 

[Peter10]

There was also the possibility that the Canucks go year after year just collecting high picks and treading water (there's no guarantee there either...?..You can easily lunge into a 2nd rebuild, or just simply just lose some of your top players like the Jets).

I like Trevor Linden, but the first 3 years of Benning (and Lindens staunch desire to compete while the twins were still here)..have Linden written all over them.

Its not like it has gotten any better since Linden left, so dont think he was the only driving force behind this. Most likely scenario is that both, Linden and Benning were on the same page until some point in 2018 - remember there were reports that Linden threatened to quit if Benning wasnt extended. Then probably by the end of the 17-18 season Linden realised that their approach had failed and a new direction was needed which ended up costing him the job.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Its not like it has gotten any better since Linden left, so dont think he was the only driving force behind this. Most likely scenario is that both, Linden and Benning were on the same page until some point in 2018 - remember there were reports that Linden threatened to quit if Benning wasnt extended. Then probably by the end of the 17-18 season Linden realised that their approach had failed and a new direction was needed which ended up costing him the job.

Just purely my opinion...Linden easily has the stronger/forceful personality over Benning...Lindens initial vision for the team, coupled with Benning's poor moves in the first 2.5 years were not a recipe for success.

I prefer Benning on his own..it was a case of 'too many cooks in the kitchen',which ultimately leads to bad decisions.

 

[Peter10]

Just purely my opinion...Linden easily has the stronger/forceful personality over Benning...Lindens initial vision for the team, coupled with Benning's poor moves in the first 2.5 years were not a recipe for success.

I prefer Benning on his own..it was a case of 'too many cooks in the kitchen',which ultimately leads to bad decisions.

Not sure i can fully agree with this. Obviously the management needs to have the same vision / long term plan but if you just have one guy leading the way who doesnt want "too many voices in the room" this will also lead to bad decisions. You need to have different opinions going into the decision making to limit the risk of overlooking potential problems.

 

[xtra]

Just purely my opinion...Linden easily has the stronger/forceful personality over Benning...Lindens initial vision for the team, coupled with Benning's poor moves in the first 2.5 years were not a recipe for success.

I prefer Benning on his own..it was a case of 'too many cooks in the kitchen',which ultimately leads to bad decisions.

As opposed to the one cook great decisions to sign 3 mil 4th line center and 6million #5 dmen

 

[tantalum]

Oh come one. Benning had the SAME vision as Linden the entire time. The only time their visions differed was last year which ended up with Linden being forced out. Forced out because he changed his vision. Benning has never changed his. It's why a bottom team remains tight to the cap and handing out bad contracts to overrated players.

Also "too many cooks in the kitchen" doesn't lead to bad decisions. Having many competent cooks able to express an opinion allows you to come to the best well informed decisions.