Management Thread...less Jack Burton.

[I am toxic]

Enough with the potshots at each other, everyone.

If you think someone is trolling, report them.

If you can't express your point of view without flaming or trolling someone, keep it to yourself.

What about potshots at @Hit the post ? Exception to the rule?

 

[Melvin]

Geez, some of y'all should try getting a sense of humour from Costco or something.

I don't think it's the worst trade of his tenure because the player is good/decent. The compensation given up plus a pro scouting failure would have been horrible. By contrast, the Gudbranson trade was an embarrassment. They gave away a projected top6 forward++ for a trash can, all amidst a rebuild? Terrible trade. They nearly misjudged all aspects of that deal.

And depending upon how much weight you put towards the logic of trades as they happen, the JT Miller trade is still egregious IMO. If they finish 10th~ and he slows down, I wonder what people will say about it then? That's how much the current context drives the perception of this deal.

I mean, I realize I am drawing an arbitrary distinction here, but I think there is a difference between making a bad trade out of bad strategy vs. making a bad trade due to bad scouting. And I think the former is worse.

Like, the thought process behind trading for a 24 year old defenseman to make the team immediately better and serve as a future asset isn't completely terrible. If Gudbranson were actually the player they thought he was, you know what I mean? It was more the scouting that was atrocious.

Scouting on Toffoli is better, obviously, and Miller too. But the strategy is awful. Trading away as much future value as they did to rent a player for 20 games is absolutely stupid and bad, almost irrespective of how good the player is. These trades basically never work out. And Toffoli isn't that good.

 

[I am toxic]

Geez, some of y'all should try getting a sense of humour from Costco or something.



I mean, I realize I am drawing an arbitrary distinction here, but I think there is a difference between making a bad trade out of bad strategy vs. making a bad trade due to bad scouting. And I think the former is worse.

Like, the thought process behind trading for a 24 year old defenseman to make the team immediately better and serve as a future asset isn't completely terrible. If Gudbranson were actually the player they thought he was, you know what I mean? It was more the scouting that was atrocious.

Scouting on Toffoli is better, obviously, and Miller too. But the strategy is awful. Trading away as much future value as they did to rent a player for 20 games is absolutely stupid and bad, almost irrespective of how good the player is. These trades basically never work out. And Toffoli isn't that good.

This (the bolded).

The Miller acquisition won't put us into contender status, and it eliminates/degrade draft picks. The better Miller does, the more it degrades our draft position. If we were a contender, that would be fine - but we are not.

The Guds acquisition actually helped the team get EP and Hughes. The worse Guds did, the better our draft position.

Of course, we could have kept the assets we gave up for Guds, opened up spots to other prospects, acquired more picks and prospects, and actually performed a rebuild along with acquiring EP and Hughes, such that we would currently have cap space and futures.

But we don't, because there never was a rebuild. The worst of both worlds - regular season failure, and loss of futures.

 

[Bobby Digital]

This team is going to be bad until management and/or ownership changes.

This is why overachieving this year is the most Canucks thing ever. Not only will it help with Bennings job security but it's a massive blow to asset management. If we were sellers the return on Marstrom, Tanev, Sutter, Stetcher plus the retaining of Madden and the 2nd would have really set this team up going forward.

 

[RandV]

This is why overachieving this year is the most Canucks thing ever. Not only will it help with Bennings job security but it's a massive blow to asset management. If we were sellers the return on Marstrom, Tanev, Sutter, Stetcher plus the retaining of Madden and the 2nd would have really set this team up going forward.

I hate the 'job security' angle but at this point I'd say the damage was already done and don't think it's necessarily wrong to move forward as is... well apart from the lack of long term cap management that is going to bite us in the ass. But while you're in the tank for a while and collecting top draft talent you hope that eventually that talent makes you a good team again, and when that point comes you don't force through some more tank moves because it's great asset management.

Take the Rangers for example. They've done an amazing job on asset management selling to pursue a rebuild, but at this deadline rather than getting a big haul on Kreider they chose to sign him to an extension instead. That's because while they're not likely to make the playoffs this is more due to a strong Eastern conference right now, they do have a good team so it's time to push ahead.

Actually looking at the standings they're pretty much identical to the Canucks right now, only difference being two OT losses having the Canucks ahead a pair of points:

	GP	W	L	OT	PTS	RW	ROW	GF	GA	DIFF
Vancouver	61	33	22	6	72	26	30	203	187	16
NY Rangers	61	33	24	4	70	29	32	203	188	15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[xtra]

I hate the 'job security' angle but at this point I'd say the damage was already done and don't think it's necessarily wrong to move forward as is... well apart from the lack of long term cap management that is going to bite us in the ass. But while you're in the tank for a while and collecting top draft talent you hope that eventually that talent makes you a good team again, and when that point comes you don't force through some more tank moves because it's great asset management.

Take the Rangers for example. They've done an amazing job on asset management selling to pursue a rebuild, but at this deadline rather than getting a big haul on Kreider they chose to sign him to an extension instead. That's because while they're not likely to make the playoffs this is more due to a strong Eastern conference right now, they do have a good team so it's time to push ahead.

Actually looking at the standings they're pretty much identical to the Canucks right now, only difference being two OT losses having the Canucks ahead a pair of points:

	GP	W	L	OT	PTS	RW	ROW	GF	GA	DIFF
Vancouver	61	33	22	6	72	26	30	203	187	16
NY Rangers	61	33	24	4	70	29	32	203	188	15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

True but this doesn’t take into account the salary cap. For example the rangers are at for next year

67.3 million with 8 players to sign and their biggest is strome and then a bunch of depth players

the canucks next year are at 63.5 million with 10 players to sign and most are their core players (markstrom)

the rangers could reasonably have 6-7 million to sign a top player or 10mil if they have the young elc coming up (not sure about this)

their team should reasonably be better next year while we will struggle to return this team and probably have to downgrade in spots.


There has to be significant weight given to the cap and your teams position when you make moves

 

[tyhee]

I'm leaning towards thinking the Toffoli trade being the worst trade of the Benning era. I realize the gudbranson trade was bad, but there was some forward thought to it if gudbranson was actually good. That was more of a scouting fail than a management fail.

The sheer myopia of this trade, I think it's worse. What do you think? I have tried to give it a few days to digest, but it just keeps getting worse in my brain.

For what I value, which is building a long-term consistent winner that can compete for a championship in good years and still be competitive in poor years, this kind of win now at any cost to the future move has to be listed among the worst ever. It is clearly the most cynical in the sense that the only value that matters is now.

For those that believe in pushing all-in this season, either because of myopia or because they feel the medium-term is already looking so bad that it is right for the team to grasp whatever it can right now, the trade can look like a heckuva deal and unlike the Sutter and Gudbranson acquisitions could even look good in hindsight.

I think the Gudbranson acquisition was worse. As you point out, though, the Gudbranson acquisition is bad because of poor player judgment (giving little or no value to McCann and the 2nd and 4th round picks given up while considering Gudbranson to have untapped offensive potential and would provide solid defence and protect skill players from harm) while the Toffoli acquisition is merely a question of placing complete priority on increasing the chance for a small present accomplishment over the future.

The distinction you mentioned is one of kind. Nobody is saying that Toffoli isn't a good player. Many on this board had Gudbranson pegged to be what he was.

 

[Numba9]

True but this doesn’t take into account the salary cap. For example the rangers are at for next year

67.3 million with 8 players to sign and their biggest is strome and then a bunch of depth players

the canucks next year are at 63.5 million with 10 players to sign and most are their core players (markstrom)

the rangers could reasonably have 6-7 million to sign a top player or 10mil if they have the young elc coming up (not sure about this)

their team should reasonably be better next year while we will struggle to return this team and probably have to downgrade in spots.


There has to be significant weight given to the cap and your teams position when you make moves

The Rangers are pretty top heavy team propped up by older players having career years; largely one player Panarin. I think it's reasonable to say that they could take a step back next year unless their young players take a step forward; . I think the Canucks have more depth and more possibility of young players taking steps forward. There are a lot of moving parts here so I would say it's very difficult to predict which team will be better next year.

 

[mathonwy]

Sutter trade still takes it for me. There's others where we lost more value, but the multiple miscalculations involved seem to reflect more egregiously on the decision makers involved.

Sutter trade, to me, is demonstrable proof that the powers that be declared the Canucks team to be in a down cycle.

Traded for way too gd much, immediately signed for too much and too long, and then 17 games into a season, sports hernia surgery.

Not to mention losing Bonino absolutely gutting our top 6.

Sutter trade tells me they intentionally tanked the team because, IMO, it's impossible make a miscalculation this big.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Sutter trade, to me, is demonstrable proof that the powers that be declared the Canucks team to be in a down cycle.

Traded for way too gd much, immediately signed for too much and too long, and then 17 games into a season, sports hernia surgery.

Not to mention losing Bonino absolutely gutting our top 6.

Sutter trade tells me they intentionally tanked the team because, IMO, it's impossible make a miscalculation this big.

Sutter was a really hyped prospect and had a lot of value after his first 2 seasons, though. I recall him being on the list of players Gillis targeted in trading Hodgson. I think his clout and hype stuck around for far too long though, as Pens fans seemed to dump on him a lot the last few years.

 

[F A N]

If you replace Gudbransons posession killing play with Hamhuis positive play, it absolutely moves the needle.

Not to mention the other point of moving him for futures.

So the Canucks with an aging Hamhuis instead of Gudbranson would move the needle resulting in what exactly? Same bottom finish?

 

[racerjoe]

So the Canucks with an aging Hamhuis instead of Gudbranson would move the needle resulting in what exactly? Same bottom finish?

I hate this type of argument...

The point is better decisions should have been made and we would have a better result. Is that even debatable?

 

[F A N]

That thought process was wrong. It's just more evidence Benning is a poor GM, even if you think hindsight matters.

A good GM recognizes that age is not the sole criterion to consider when making a transaction. Defining the transactions by age makes it too easy to ignore that the Canucks would have been far better off with Hamhuis, McCann, & DeBrincat than Gudbranson/ Pearson.

I mean really, are you suggesting you'd prefer a 24 year old Gudbranson over a 34 year old Lidstrom? Of course you're not.

You are missing the point.

No one is saying age is the sole criterion but you. No one is saying you trade for a 24 year old Dman you think is garbage. But yes on an aging team that aren't Cup contenders I would prefer a 24 year old Dman whom I think is a top 4 calibre defenseman over a 34 year old Lidstrom.

Age is absolutely an important criteria. If Erik Karlsson was 24, his 8 year contract ends when he is 31/32. His current contract ends when he's 37. Would you take a 34 year old Patrice Bergeron or a 24 year old Bo Horvat back in summer 2016 if you were the Canucks' GM assuming we both agree that Horvat is unlikely to ever be as good as Bergeron.

 

[RussianRacket]

Man what an OT goal from Taffoli right here. Can't believe people are trashing that trade

 

[VanillaCoke]

The Rangers are pretty top heavy team propped up by older players having career years; largely one player Panarin. I think it's reasonable to say that they could take a step back next year unless their young players take a step forward; . I think the Canucks have more depth and more possibility of young players taking steps forward. There are a lot of moving parts here so I would say it's very difficult to predict which team will be better next year.

I would bet quite a bit the rangers will be better. Atleast 6 pts and I could def see 10+.
The canucks need some magic to happen cap wise to not ice a worse roster next year.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I mean, I realize I am drawing an arbitrary distinction here, but I think there is a difference between making a bad trade out of bad strategy vs. making a bad trade due to bad scouting. And I think the former is worse.

Like, the thought process behind trading for a 24 year old defenseman to make the team immediately better and serve as a future asset isn't completely terrible. If Gudbranson were actually the player they thought he was, you know what I mean? It was more the scouting that was atrocious.

Scouting on Toffoli is better, obviously, and Miller too. But the strategy is awful. Trading away as much future value as they did to rent a player for 20 games is absolutely stupid and bad, almost irrespective of how good the player is. These trades basically never work out. And Toffoli isn't that good.

I generally agree, trading that much future value for a 20~ game rental is poor strategy. At the same time, trading good future value for an age gap solution is also poor strategy. The strategy is poor in both instances. However, only good pro-scouting allows you to salvage value in one of those instances.

To address your distinction: Yes, agreed, making a bad trade out of a bad strategy is worse than making a bad trade out of bad pro scouting. I guess this comes down to what you think of age gap as a viable strategy. To me, it's more dangerous than having a middling-good team chase a complementary asset at the TDL, but YMMV.

 

[rypper]

Man what an OT goal from Taffoli right here. Can't believe people are trashing that trade

Is this an intentionally obtuse statement?

Nobody hates Toffoli. Just like nobody hates or hated JT Miller. It was the cost and timing of said cost that have people twisted.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Is this an intentionally obtuse statement?

Nobody hates Toffoli. Just like nobody hates or hated JT Miller. It was the cost and timing of said cost that have people twisted.

Did you consider that this sentiment may have been what he was talking about, and that it's possible to disagree with it?

 

[Sneezy]

Who has 5 points in 3 games with a beaut in OT tonight?

Yep the dude that the great JB picked up for very little.

 

[VanillaCoke]

I am shocked by the pure daftness being exhibited by many, atleast many more than I would've thought.
Just bury your head in the sand and sing lullabies to yourself.

Everything is fine, no concerns, team is great, only going to get greater and the cap will go up so nbd.

La la la la la la la

 

[4Twenty]

The New York Rangers don’t have a regular player over the age of 29 besides Staal and King Henrik. 26/27 isn’t old when it’s miller and Toffoli it cant be old when it’s zibanejad and Strome.

 

[joelCAMEL]

Is this an intentionally obtuse statement?

Nobody hates Toffoli. Just like nobody hates or hated JT Miller. It was the cost and timing of said cost that have people twisted.

I read where a poster thought it was Benning's worst trade, followed by the opinion that Toffoli was not a very good player, and others agreeing the trade was bad. I think it is a great trade and if he does leave as a UFA at the end of the season, then I still do not regret the assets given up. I have hope that the GM will find a way to re-sign him. Posters are easily influenced that he is only a rental because that is what they think will happen, In some cases, that is what they hope will happen, so they can crap on the team's management.

 

[F A N]

I hate this type of argument...

The point is better decisions should have been made and we would have a better result. Is that even debatable?

Okay and what is the "better decision?" Are we talking about in hindsight? How is trying to acquire a 24 year old top 4 Dman instead of re-signing a 34 year old aging Hamhuis not a better decision? I don't think there is anything wrong with the process. The problem is the price paid for Gudbranson who was not the 24 year old top 4 Dman the Canucks thought he would be.

 

[VanillaCoke]

I read where a poster thought it was Benning's worst trade, followed by the opinion that Toffoli was not a very good player, and others agreeing the trade was bad. I think it is a great trade and if he does leave as a UFA at the end of the season, then I still do not regret the assets given up. I have hope that the GM will find a way to re-sign him. Posters are easily influenced that he is only a rental because that is what they think will happen, In some cases, that is what they hope will happen, so they can crap on the team's management.

Or thats what happens because it is most likely, which is what people are concerned about.
In which case the teams management should be questioned about spending assets that could provide hundreds of games for one that provided 20, and accomplished nothing of significance.

 

[4Twenty]

I read where a poster thought it was Benning's worst trade, followed by the opinion that Toffoli was not a very good player, and others agreeing the trade was bad. I think it is a great trade and if he does leave as a UFA at the end of the season, then I still do not regret the assets given up. I have hope that the GM will find a way to re-sign him. Posters are easily influenced that he is only a rental because that is what they think will happen, In some cases, that is what they hope will happen, so they can crap on the team's management.

No we’ve looked at the future salary cap commitments currently on the team.