Management Thread | Inconceivable Edition

[I am toxic]

I think it comes down to a variety of things.

- 2011. There's a lot of baggage for Canucks fans from the SCF, and I think it goes for both sides. Those who look at Gillis positively see someone who came so bloody close to winning it all, while those who are critical of Gillis see him as a convenient scapegoat (never forget these idiots in their mobility scooters: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/04p...chorus_image/image/31018311/fire_gillis.0.jpg ).

- Media portrayal. Gillis' relationship with the press was always thorny -- he was classified as being stand-offish and 'arrogant.' Meanwhile, media coverage of Benning has been ridiculously soft to the point where the press were singing his praises as a ~*~ talent whisperer ~*~ like he was some messiah descending from on high. Folks gobbled it up because they wanted to believe that the Canucks had someone who could outdraft a potato and the media never really got critical of him at all. I mean, compare Dubas in Toronto with Benning here in Vancouver.

- Laziness. A lot of the detractors on here (and elsewhere) have done the heavy lifting, have made projections and generally have done work in showcasing why Benning hasn't lived up to his hype. There's a real reluctance amongst those who are fans of Benning to do similar work to disprove the critics arguments or, gasp, come up with different arguments that support their case that Benning is a good GM. A lot of it comes down to quoting things in interviews or arguing minutiae, which isn't a hugely convincing argument for me when you have folks across the aisle who are looking at the big picture. Think about it: the average fan doesn't give a shit about fancy stats, a 3-5 (-7 to....well, you get the picture...) year salary cap projection/breakdown or the inner workings of the Canucks front office. The hockey geeks who have nothing better to do, however, do. It's much easier to just go "Elias Pettersson, lol" and handwave away everything else because there's no effort to go into it.

- Sunk cost fallacy and an unwillingness to admit to being wrong. We're all assholes and we're all creatures of ego. We don't like admitting that we're wrong, and seeing the abortion that has been the Canucks over going on 7 years makes it really hard for folks to walk back their praise for Jim Benning. There's too much invested in proving the 'haters' "wrong" that you have to be a contrarian and not give an inch in conceding anything bad that Daddy Benning has done. I think that there's a bit of this with those who are critical of Benning, too -- any success the team has seen has Benning's involvement minimalized and compartmentalized to the point of ridiculousness, which hasn't helped discourse on here and has led to the further entrenchment of both camps.

You had me at We're all assholes and we're all creatures of ego.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

31 Thoughts: How the Dubois-Laine trade finally came together

Confirmation that Benning would have traded the 5th overall pick in 2016 for PK Subban. Yikes.

We owe Columbus a huge thank you, they really saved us there. While Joulevi is not a good pick at #5, having Subban for $9m cap hit for years is much much worse. Wasn't Horvat part of the package too? Even if it's just the pick alone it is catastrophic enough.
Edmonton on the other hand would've benefited huge had they got Sergachev instead.

 

[Dab]

There is no "cult of personality". Every GM has fans and detractors. Difference is now there are forums and ubiquitous media to foster more tribalism and to polarize views (and polarize impressions of other's views).

Pat Quinn has a restaurant in a swanky boomer retirement community named after him. He’s big amongst that crowd. People tear up to this day about the Big Irishman and still curse the day he was fired.

Burke even after all these years is a YUGE draw in vancouver at charity events etc. The bombastic businessman schtick worked in the era of Premier Gordon Campbell. He was like Vancouvers Vince McMahon.

Gillis is a bit of an enigma in vancouver. Despite all the success I feel like the larger fan base never loved Gillis like they loved Quinn and Burke. Too prickily? Not slick enough with the fan base and communications? Who knows.

How Benning has any staunch supporters left is just

 

[Snatcher Demko]

No, the difference is the ones with substantial fanship have generally done something to earn it, not just be "aw shucks" and seem like a friendly uncle. The fact that Benning has way more ardent support than his predecessors from this loud, devoted group despite his crowning achievement being botching a retool to draft high is what I find completely baffling.

A perfect example – the same sort of folks who regularly claim "the Canucks have never won a thing" under any of the other guys (despite winning literally everything a team can win but the 4th decision in the Finals) are the ones who are hooting and hollering over a tiny, summertime pandemic sample size that amounts to winning one playoff round and claiming it justifies everything.

"HFGillis", "HFBurke" or "HFQuinn" would actually make some sense given their records (I was very supportive of all three).

In my view, Benning deserves to be fired (and have said this since the Gudbranson trade). A few thoughts:

Your impression of "way more" support could just be from a small number of posters here. To me, it seems the clear majority seem critical of Benning. Pro-Canucks is not by default pro-Benning either.

A lot of the slack Benning gets comes from expectations, which are low for Benning and these Canucks versus the very high expectations for Gillis. That's not a cult of personality either, just regular irrationality.

Forums like this (and interaction/reaction) from media/twitter etc do exacerbate tribalism and polarization. You can't say these effects aren't greater today than any time before.

A lot of posters (me included) come here to enjoy hockey talk and don't necessarily like to see every thread descend into a Benning rage-fest where if you just want to have some fun and make some positive observations about players, team (and yes, even occasionally Jim Benning) that doesn't conflate with a cult of personality. If some people do want to do that but then get ripped on and called brainwashed (or as one suggested, be equated to the Cheeto Jesus/Q crowd) then they might get annoyed and defensive and then take the opposite view of yours more often - that's how polarization works. Calling it a cult, though?

And I also think it's a bit ironic about your calling these guys a cult of personality since you have had your 'Benning on Empty' comic for years. I do enjoy the satire making fun of Benning but you kind of picked a side yourself that you're kind of stuck with defending no matter what. Could you yourself have an anti-Benning bias where even in the rare instance he does some good, you feel the need to emphasize some negative aspect? Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with your opinion (not that it matters) but for a lot of posters there does seem to be a need to find the negative in every situation.

 

[mossey3535]

It's mostly negative though. I'm sorry but a few good RFA contracts and one good trade (which I have acknowledged) doesn't make up a good enough body of work to say this guy is a good GM.

Again, we've only made the playoffs twice under him. Once was with holdovers from 2011, and the other was last year's bubble before which we weren't guaranteed to get in by any stretch. Every other season we've been basement dwellers.

Now the team looks terrible despite a fairly substantial core of young talent. I'm not sure how you could look at the end result in terms of both wins/losses as well as the way the team looks like they don't have a clue on the ice (not just this year, it was obvious they were fortunate to win anything past the Minny series) and come to the conclusion Benning is a good GM overall.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

It's mostly negative though. I'm sorry but a few good RFA contracts and one good trade (which I have acknowledged) doesn't make up a good enough body of work to say this guy is a good GM.

Again, we've only made the playoffs twice under him. Once was with holdovers from 2011, and the other was last year's bubble before which we weren't guaranteed to get in by any stretch. Every other season we've been basement dwellers.

Now the team looks terrible despite a fairly substantial core of young talent. I'm not sure how you could look at the end result in terms of both wins/losses as well as the way the team looks like they don't have a clue on the ice (not just this year, it was obvious they were fortunate to win anything past the Minny series) and come to the conclusion Benning is a good GM overall.

I agree wholeheartedly that the bad outweighs the good with Benning, by a sizable margin.

The issue is (and I am including myself with this) the rhetoric and way people choose to approach talking about Benning.

The hyperbole gets to be a little much. Like, is Benning really the worst GM in NHL history? I still think guys like Mike Milbury, Doug MacLean or Don Waddell rate as being worse than Benning.

If folks are being sincere, then cool, but it just comes off as being needlessly over the top.

 

[Peter10]

The discussion and my post was clearly in regard to player transactions, not drafting. Every team whiffs on draft picks.

Every team whiffs on player transactions.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

- Sunk cost fallacy and an unwillingness to admit to being wrong. We're all assholes and we're all creatures of ego. We don't like admitting that we're wrong, and seeing the abortion that has been the Canucks over going on 7 years makes it really hard for folks to walk back their praise for Jim Benning. There's too much invested in proving the 'haters' "wrong" that you have to be a contrarian and not give an inch in conceding anything bad that Daddy Benning has done. I think that there's a bit of this with those who are critical of Benning, too -- any success the team has seen has Benning's involvement minimalized and compartmentalized to the point of ridiculousness, which hasn't helped discourse on here and has led to the further entrenchment of both camps.

I started to notice my self doing this more and more.

That's why I started the "boy was I wrong about" thread. To try to give us all an easy place to admit to being wrong without losing face.

I agree wholeheartedly that the bad outweighs the good with Benning, by a sizable margin.

The issue is (and I am including myself with this) the rhetoric and way people choose to approach talking about Benning.

The hyperbole gets to be a little much. Like, is Benning really the worst GM in NHL history? I still think guys like Mike Milbury, Doug MacLean or Don Waddell rate as being worse than Benning.

If folks are being sincere, then cool, but it just comes off as being needlessly over the top.

I think he is rightfully in the conversation. Very few GMs get the chance to rack as many losses as Jim has.

 

[Jyrki21]

Your impression of "way more" support could just be from a small number of posters here. To me, it seems the clear majority seem critical of Benning. Pro-Canucks is not by default pro-Benning either.

As pointed out often, this forum is an anomaly, though. Among the greater fanbase these views aren't mainstream.

If some people do want to do that but then get ripped on and called brainwashed (or as one suggested, be equated to the Cheeto Jesus/Q crowd) then they might get annoyed and defensive and then take the opposite view of yours more often - that's how polarization works. Calling it a cult, though?

It's because of the lack of basis in fact. I think the political comparisons are apt, because a lot of the cheerleading there was completely divorced from what was actually happening legislatively (which they were largely uninterested in – it was a culture war instead). If a person devotes themselves to, I dunno, the Allman Brothers without so much as having listened to an album you wonder where their headspace is at.

And I also think it's a bit ironic about your calling these guys a cult of personality since you have had your 'Benning on Empty' comic for years. I do enjoy the satire making fun of Benning but you kind of picked a side yourself that you're kind of stuck with defending no matter what.

I have absolutely declared a side, I'd never deny that. But it's based on the long record of evidence showing a lack of thoughtfulness, analytical chops and, frankly, basic intelligence. I really don't like that guiding the team I cheer for, obviously. A cult of personality, and the reason I call it that, is because they are devoted to the person irrespective of what they do. The most important thing becomes keeping them in power.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

Ouch, John Weisbrod, a case study:

Why Canucks fans are concerned about John Weisbrod’s influence

Canucks Make Front Office Changes; Appoint Weisbrod Assistant GM

"The Ryan O’Reilly situation is worse, because it involved Calgary signing an offer sheet to O’Reilly, which if not matched, would have required O’Reilly to go through waivers before joining the team. O’Reilly would not have made it through waivers (he was waiver eligible, unbeknownst to Calgary), which would have left Calgary having paid a 1st and 3rd round pick for the honor of giving O’Reilly to another team."

Canucks name John Weisbrod assistant general manager | News

 

[mriswith]

I'll admit, I'm a bit confused about the whole Markstrom thing. In the summer, this forum seemed to favour (I think there was poll) going with Demko over Markstrom. Now the consensus is reversed?

I'd still like to see who actually wanted to sign Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli to the deals they were actually signed for, just for posterity. For some reason, this question seems to be avoided or modified to a scenario where they all sign massive discounts. I guess some were just waiting to see what kind of start Markstrom/Demko got off to before they rushed to add their name to one side of the ledger.

I've heard that management liked Toffoli's game as a rental to add scoring, but didn't want to go long-term with an aging goal-scorer who they didn't perceive as a play-driver.

Step 1: Sell significant futures for a rental with intent to let him walk in UFA to compete immediately because we can't wait 2-5 years for the prospects to mature

Step 2: Don't re-sign the teams MVP, top pairing dman and top 6 forward because we can't compete immediately and need to look ahead 3-5 years into the future

Step 3: Spend all summer trying to trade for an 8.25 mil x 7 years contract of a 28 year old player who has already been declining because we need to compete immediately

.....

Step 0: Sign a pile of crap to term for 11.5 mil the year before needing to re-up Markstrom and Tanev to similar money

I still like the direction Benning took the club this season, with an eye always to the future, as is his wont.

You must be on payroll

 

[mriswith]

Ouch, John Weisbrod, a case study:

Why Canucks fans are concerned about John Weisbrod’s influence

Canucks Make Front Office Changes; Appoint Weisbrod Assistant GM

"The Ryan O’Reilly situation is worse, because it involved Calgary signing an offer sheet to O’Reilly, which if not matched, would have required O’Reilly to go through waivers before joining the team. O’Reilly would not have made it through waivers (he was waiver eligible, unbeknownst to Calgary), which would have left Calgary having paid a 1st and 3rd round pick for the honor of giving O’Reilly to another team."

Canucks name John Weisbrod assistant general manager | News

From an outside view, Weisbrod is the prototypical talentless exec whose only skill is political manoeuvring and landing on his feet after blowing up his job.

Like the CEOs that run companies into the ground and then get out of dodge 1-2 years before the companies publicly blow up and their successors take the blame.

More recently, look at how he wormed his way into Brackett's old spot, presumably so he could take credit for the only thing going right in the Canucks org the last 7 years. I wouldn't be surprised if he was the driving force behind the power struggle there with Brackett.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

From an outside view, Weisbrod is the prototypical talentless exec whose only skill is political manoeuvring and landing on his feet after blowing up his job.

Like the CEOs that run companies into the ground and then get out of dodge 1-2 years before the companies publicly blow up and their successors take the blame.

More recently, look at how he wormed his way into Brackett's old spot, presumably so he could take credit for the only thing going right in the Canucks org the last 7 years. I wouldn't be surprised if he was the driving force behind the power struggle there with Brackett.

Ironically, Brackett helped save his job by advocating for Pettersson over Glass.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

Ouch, Jim Benning, a recent case study:

Steep acquisition price for Tyler Toffoli indicates win now mode for Canucks

Vancouver Canucks Trade Grades: Going all in on Tyler Toffoli

If he had the projected cap space, Benning could have simply signed Toffoli after the Kings let him become a UFA. But instead, Benning haemorrhaged assets and ended up with nothing.

 

[4Twenty]

From an outside view, Weisbrod is the prototypical talentless exec whose only skill is political manoeuvring and landing on his feet after blowing up his job.

Like the CEOs that run companies into the ground and then get out of dodge 1-2 years before the companies publicly blow up and their successors take the blame.

More recently, look at how he wormed his way into Brackett's old spot, presumably so he could take credit for the only thing going right in the Canucks org the last 7 years. I wouldn't be surprised if he was the driving force behind the power struggle there with Brackett.

100%

Pretty sure I recall him taking credit for Calgary’s young players early on....the good ones like Gaudreau not the ones he clearly liked in Baertschi and Granlund and Jankowski.


Edit* and he wasn’t in the organization for the guys he was content to be seen as the one credited with those players.

The Canucks front office is a joke.

 

[Sleepinghorse]

Edler and Tanev were still quality top 4 dmen and I would say around an average top pairing. The main issue is the rest of the defence sucked, so we overrelied on them causing them to get injured so often. That’s not their problem though.

For the first season, maybe the second, I fully agree with you that they were an average "middle of the pack" top pairing. They were hardly elite. However, they were, and remained, quality top-4 dmen right through last season, and frankly for their value they (particularly Tanev) were on bargain contracts. But top-4 is not top-2, and "elite top pairing" is another tier above that, which was my initial point.

 

[Fatass]

Ironically, Brackett helped save his job by advocating for Pettersson over Glass.

I wonder if our owner is finally understanding the narrative (he gets) from Benning/Brod is a yarn, which only serves to keep their jobs, and has little to do with helping the club be better?
Or does our owner care more about having yes men in place?

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I'm curious to those who come off as supporters of Benning (@Pastor Of Muppetz etc.), what would it take for you to start to believe Benning is the wrong guy for the job and needs to get fired? If one playoff appearance (in extremely unique circumstances) in seven years is enough, then are you happy with that going forward (in the next seven years, only one playoff berth)? I'm curious what you guys believe is the appropriate threshold for Benning getting fired.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

Case in point: Dwight Howard



Jim Benning and John Weisbrod apparently share the same brain.

 

[Fatass]

Case in point: Dwight Howard



Jim Benning and John Weisbrod share the same brain.

Are Benning/Brod so lacking in self confidence they need to promote themselves as the persons responsible for any draft success, instead of giving those accolades to the scouts (and director of scouting) who actually did all the work?

 

[4Twenty]

Are Benning/Brod so lacking in self confidence they need to promote themselves as the persons responsible for any draft success, instead of giving those accolades to the scouts (and director of scouting) who actually did all the work?

It’s called ego. Both are full of themselves.

 

[hookshott]

Is it possible that all these players signed with other teams during the off-season because they also were frustrated with the GM who created the roster?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

if i'm following what some posters were saying but not exactly saying in this thread last night, what we're tiptoeing around is that it seems like for a lot of his supporters benning is basically an identity politics?

seems to fit, actually. all this nonsense about who are and are not "real fans," the totally disingenuous self-victimizing outrage about people pointing out his public speaking abilities, the culture of deflection when presented with factual arguments, the total refusal to engage with reality (see: cap space), the erotic attachment to everything related to mike gillis as their bad object...

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Interjecting here with a question - what are peoples’ thoughts on Chris Gear? It was last year or the year before he was put in charge of our contracts/cap management, I think - does it seem like he’s helped improve the team’s work in that department?

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Also, a warning;

There is no thread of HFBoards where users are allowed to editorialize on the validity of other peoples’ perspectives or opinions. Debate topics with people, but the non-stop criticism of “Benning haters” or “Benning fans” or “toxic fandom” or “cultural rot needs to end, and it needs to end now.

There’s culprits on both sides of this issue. Knock it off, or some of you will be taking vacations from the site.