Management Thread IV

[Bleach Clean]

Continue here.


Previous Thread 1: Management Thread - Read OP
Previous Thread 2: Management Thread II - Read OP
Previous Thread 3: Management Thread III (MOD Warning Post # 67)

Last quote from previous thread:

You can, but then you cannot take better team performance as an indicator of GM impact either.

This is the implication of saying the GM would have had zero impact on the team’s cycle, regardless of who that GM would have been. That it was going to go this way anyways. Right?

Next, when a team is bad for a long time, it inevitably accrues talent at the top of the draft. Inevitably, it gets better. Because cycles, right?

Last, Benning has done a poor job since being hired = He should be fired, correct?

Click to read more...

 

[rypper]

While I don't believe we ever properly "rebuilt" we're at a point now where it's time for a management change.

Trading and pro scouting has always been a negative for Jim, not to mention cap and asset management. It's time to bring in someone better at these roles so the team can maximize it's potential.

 

[Hoghandler]

Ronning on empty-

If you inherit an old, declining team with little push in the U-25 age group, and little to nothing in the prospect pipeline, a down cycle is inevitable; as well as unavoidable.

Does that mean it's inevitable you become good after a down cycle? Absolutely not. You need to do many things well to right the ship and get back to a winning environment. Being afforded high picks makes it much likely you can make those positive strides, but it's certainly not inevitable; as history has shown time and time again. This is even more pronounced with the re-working of draft lottery odds that luckily were changed the instant this organisation was headed for it's down cycle.

That doesn't mean I think Benning is right for the job. IMO he's actually done a respectable job building out the young core in his 5 years in Vancouver. Unfortunately, his shortcomings are in crucial areas where the club needs to be considerably better in the coming years, namely salary cap management, balanced cap allocation and negotiations.

Mike Gillis' inability to replenish talent is the biggest reason why we have seen so much losing over the last 4 years. But I would still fire Benning and replace him with Gillis without hesitation. Why? Because Gillis' greatest strengths line up with organisational needs currently - cap management and negotiations. And you would just have to hope the changes Benning has made to the scouting department keep us moving in a positive direction on that front.

 

[xtra]

under 25 talent when Gillis left
Horvat
Tanev
Markstrom
Kassian
Matthias
Corrado
Vs.
today’s U25 talent
Boeser
Demko
Gaudette
Stetcher
Virtanen
Pettersson
Hughes

pettersson is the best player on that list for sure but horvat is probably second so I don’t see how you can say there was no U-25 talent on the team when Gillis left. That’s just a false narrative. Horvat woudl count as a Gillis U25 piece correct

You had a future #2 dman, a #1 goalie; your captain and solid depth pieces in kassian, Matthias and corrado (he’s debatable). and that’s without sucking nuts to draft in the top 10; year after year.

 

[Canucks1096]

under 25 talent when Gillis left
Horvat
Tanev
Markstrom
Kassian
Matthias
Corrado
Vs.
today’s U25 talent
Boeser
Demko
Gaudette
Stetcher
Virtanen
Pettersson
Hughes

pettersson is the best player on that list for sure but horvat is probably second so I don’t see how you can say there was no U-25 talent on the team when Gillis left. That’s just a false narrative. Horvat woudl count as a Gillis U25 piece correct

You had a future #2 dman, a #1 goalie; your captain and solid depth pieces in kassian, Matthias and corrado (he’s debatable). and that’s without sucking nuts to draft in the top 10; year after year.

A good team needs five or six legit top 6 F. Four legit top 4 D and a legit number 1 goalie.

So Gillis left two or three solid pieces behind. So Hoghandler definitely has a valid point when he said there was a little push from the under 25 group.

Gillis drafted two nhl players in 6 years 2008 to 2013, Horvat and Hutton. Sure a GM might made better moves and get more assets than Benning. No GM would of been able to turn this around quickly with the mess Gillis left behind.

 

[LaVar]

A good team needs five or six legit top 6 F. Four legit top 4 D and a legit number 1 goalie.

So Gillis left two or three solid pieces behind. So Hoghandler definitely has a valid point when he said there was a little push from the under 25 group.

Gillis drafted two nhl players in 6 years 2008 to 2013, Horvat and Hutton. Sure a GM might made better moves and get more assets than Benning. No GM would of been able to turn this around quickly with the mess Gillis left behind.

Benning thought otherwise...

 

[Melvin]

Imagine caring more about the Calder trophy than the president's trophy.

 

[RandV]

If we want to talk about management in general and not 'former players/management' the time to start stockpiling and turning things around is when you slip up and fall out of the playoffs, not while you're winning division titles and President Trophy's.

Colorado makes a good example here, with Forsberg/Roy gone and Sakic nearing retirement the first time they missed the playoffs the young players on the roster were Paul Statsny, Wojtek Wolski, and Brad Richardson, and their top prospects were Chris Stewart and Ryan Stoa.

You hope your team can do better than that but in general the time to stock up and retool is like I said when you start missing the playoffs. Extremely few teams can do this on the fly and those that do are usually backstopped by 20 year career (+/-) franchise players.

 

[RobertKron]

Imagine caring more about the Calder trophy than the president's trophy.

Maybe they don’t actually care about the specific trophies.

 

[Hoghandler]

under 25 talent when Gillis left
Horvat
Tanev
Markstrom
Kassian
Matthias
Corrado


pettersson is the best player on that list for sure but horvat is probably second so I don’t see how you can say there was no U-25 talent on the team when Gillis left. That’s just a false narrative. Horvat woudl count as a Gillis U25 piece correct

Okay, let's see how your list holds up to a little scrutiny. I see 1 player that has a 30 point season on his resume since the day Gillis was fired, in Bo Horvat. That's looking at your top 5 skaters, over a duration of 5 years; 25 seasons worth of hockey in total.

Let's dive a little deeper. Obviously the U-25 age cohort has provided little to no offense since Benning was hired, aside from Horvat. Surely the prospect base helped alleviate that lack of talent and production? Absolutely not. Not a single prospect handed over to this current management regime has scored 30 points at the NHL level.

So in total, you have 1 guy that has managed to score a paltry 30 points at the NHL level from the 18-25 year old age cohort from when Benning took over. That's the group that today is in the 23-30 year old range. Am I surprised this has been a boring, low scoring team over the previous few seasons, that was equal parts poor and uninspiring? No.

For the record, I didn't say there was 'no U-25 talent'. I stated there was 'little push in the U-25 age group'. To be frank, your list doesn't have me second guessing that opinion. Feel free to disagree, or even call it a 'false narrative'. I'm comfortable with my take on this one.

 

[Askel]

A good team needs five or six legit top 6 F. Four legit top 4 D and a legit number 1 goalie.

So Gillis left two or three solid pieces behind. So Hoghandler definitely has a valid point when he said there was a little push from the under 25 group.

Gillis drafted two nhl players in 6 years 2008 to 2013, Horvat and Hutton. Sure a GM might made better moves and get more assets than Benning. No GM would of been able to turn this around quickly with the mess Gillis left behind.

Benning also got a 6th overall pick, 5 top 4 d-men , a elite C in Kesler that wanted out. He had parts to make a youth move but decided to go for players like Virtanen, Bonino, Sbisa and Vey. Instead of good young players. Not to mention the failure that was the age gap strategy

 

[Melvin]

I wonder if we banned drafting talk from the management thread what arguments these people could make. Are there any other components to managing a hockey club? Any that Benning is good at?

 

[UK Canuck]

I wonder if we banned drafting talk from the management thread what arguments these people could make. Are there any other components to managing a hockey club? Any that Benning is good at?

he's not even particularly good at the thing they claim he's great at either, at best he's league average

 

[Melvin]

he's not even particularly good at the thing they claim he's great at either, at best he's league average

Of course not. That's completely obvious, but I am just so tired of talking about it.

Make the case that Benning is a good gm aside from his "drafting."

 

[timw33]

Again, absolutely no one is arguing that a down cycle wasn't inevitable, it's how the downcycle was handled.

No one is arguing that we had some deep prospect group pushing, nor should that be expected for a team that had just made a concerted push to win a championship and had won two president's trophies. It was time to start accumulating picks/prospects

You don't start a rebuild by having both an aging core and a deep prospect pool full of blue chips, you have to sell off your veteran roster players to get those picks and prospects that you will build around.

Simply put, Benning didn't do this. He thought it could be turned around in a hurry, pursued an ill fated age gap strategy, traded tons of futures for absolutely terrible players (then subsequently extended all of these terrible players), and continually signs terrible FAs to overinflated contracts. He's failed spectacularly by every metric.

It's hard for anyone with a straight face to say that the results would have been any worse had we just pursued a fully committed rebuild strategy right from the outset in 2014, didn't botch 2 top 10 picks, picked 10/11 times each draft for 3-4 straight years, targeted cheap short term UFAs to trade at the deadline/not gum up our cap structure.

 

[Canucks1096]

Benning thought otherwise...

Yes but he was wrong

 

[Canucks1096]

Benning also got a 6th overall pick, 5 top 4 d-men , a elite C in Kesler that wanted out. He had parts to make a youth move but decided to go for players like Virtanen, Bonino, Sbisa and Vey. Instead of good young players. Not to mention the failure that was the age gap strategy

Sure, my post indicated another GM could made better moves already

 

[Jay Cee]

A good question would be why a mention of Mike Gillis is at all relevant to this thread.

The word "drafting" shouldn't be banned from this thread, it is "Gillis."

 

[bandwagonesque]

under 25 talent when Gillis left
Horvat
Tanev
Markstrom
Kassian
Matthias
Corrado
Vs.
today’s U25 talent
Boeser
Demko
Gaudette
Stetcher
Virtanen
Pettersson
Hughes

pettersson is the best player on that list for sure but horvat is probably second so I don’t see how you can say there was no U-25 talent on the team when Gillis left. That’s just a false narrative. Horvat woudl count as a Gillis U25 piece correct

You had a future #2 dman, a #1 goalie; your captain and solid depth pieces in kassian, Matthias and corrado (he’s debatable). and that’s without sucking nuts to draft in the top 10; year after year.

No one said there was no U25 talent. It's not a false narrative, it's one that doesn't exist and which no one has claimed to believe. People have said there was little U25 talent, and they're inarguably correct. You've listed 3 players who made any real impact in the NHL. One was 19 and years away from the league, another was a goaltender years away from starting who at various points afterward appeared to be washing out of the league, and the 3rd is a solid but frequently injured defensive D. That very obviously isn't a strong base of youth. Saying so isn't a defence of Benning, it's just acknowledging reality. It's possible to do so and still rightly consider Benning a poor GM.

 

[xtra]

The points argument is kinda stupid when 2 of the players were a goalie and defensemen.

next let’s add the fact that the poster above completely disregarded acquiring players other than drafting (trade and free agency)

based on the list you provided how much push is there from u25 players? How much push from non top 10 picks is there if you want an apt comparison?

 

[bandwagonesque]

The points argument is kinda stupid when 2 of the players were a goalie and defensemen.

next let’s add the fact that the poster above completely disregarded acquiring players other than drafting (trade and free agency)

based on the list you provided how much push is there from u25 players? How much push from non top 10 picks is there if you want an apt comparison?

I'm addressing your post, not making claims about drafting or Benning's work in general. Your post made two claims and both were obviously not true. If you don't want to see your posts disputed on grounds you believe are incidental to their subject, don't include false statements or misleading generalizations in them.

 

[xtra]

I'm addressing your post, not making claims about drafting or Benning's work in general. Your post made two claims and both were obviously not true. If you don't want to see your posts disputed on grounds you believe are incidental to their subject, don't include false statements or misleading generalizations in them.

What were the claims that my post made?

That there was U25 talent on the roster? A team that has its future captain; #2 dman; and #1 goalie on it is comparable to the talent we have on the roster today?

I said petersson wa the best player but

horvat and boeser are both players probably best suited to your second line

Hughes has a long way to go before becoming a bonafide #2 which tanev was (could argue tanev was a 1 but not relevant here)

demko vs. Markstrom both top 15 goalies

the rest of them are filler pieces and maybe i should have made the claim more clearly but if there was little to no push for U25 talent when benning took over the same applies today. There is little to no U25 talent.

 

[Hit the post]

A good question would be why a mention of Mike Gillis is at all relevant to this thread.

What about Dave Nonis? Same questionable GM skills but he had arguably as good (if not better) drafting ability when you consider draft position.

Benning has only one discernible skill - drafting.

From my POV (as I've said before), Dave Nonis >>>>>>> Jim Benning. And it's not that close considering the former had fewer years to operate.

 

[bandwagonesque]

What were the claims that my post made?

That other posters had said there was no under 25 talent on Gillis' final roster -- no one has claimed this -- and that there was in fact considerable under 25 talent on Gillis' final roster, which is obviously not true.

... little to no push for U25 talent when benning took over the same applies today. There is little to no U25 talent.

This is obviously not true. I have to think you know this.

 

[Jay Cee]

What about Dave Nonis? Same questionable GM skills but he had arguably as good (if not better) drafting ability when you consider draft position.

Benning has only one discernible skill - drafting.

From my POV (as I've said before), Dave Nonis >>>>>>> Jim Benning. And it's not that close considering the former had fewer years to operate.

That very well may be. I like to be fair though. Nonis was not around long to make many mistakes and Nonis all of a sudden found himself in a new cap era with zero cap space. His record is definitely solid for his time here though. By the (crazy) standards we try to extrapolate who was responsible for what and taking rumors from multiple sources and triangulating intent of the GM I wonder how much credit he would even get still today for the draft choices made for instance.