Management Thread: There Is No Hope

[VanJack]

Generally, the best guide to the future is what Aquilini and the Canucks have done in the past, when it comes to management changes.

For whatever reason, the current owners simply refuse to go into the marketplace and hire an experienced and successful hockey man to run their franchise.

Look at the guys they've hired....it started with Mike Gillis who was a player agent with absolutely zero experience as an NHL GM. I remember most of the NHL, including Brian Burke, being shocked at the time.

This was followed by the hire of Trevor Linden, a franchise icon, but another guy with absolutely zero experience in an NHL team front office. Jim Benning, was another guy with a scouting background in Buffalo and Boston, but had never come close to the GM's chair anywhere else. And it was apparent that some of the bad signings and trades early in his seven year tenure, were the result of a new GM with a huge learning curve.

So fast forward to 2021. Apparently the Aqilini's are prepared to take advice from another guy who to my knowledge has never been a GM, a coach or even a scout in an NHL organization. Geoff Courtnall's only calling card appears to be that he's a friend of the family and played for the Canucks in a couple of their glory years.

So why does Francesco and the Aquilini's refuse to go out and hire an experienced GM like the Oilers did with Ken Holland?

My theory is that the Canucks owners might feel intimidated by hiring a guy who knows more about running an NHL team than they do. And they use that as a crutch for continuing to meddle in the day-to-day operations of the team.

So it's probably the reason they won't hire an experienced hockey man this time around either. And I doubt that such a hockey executive, knowing the lay of the land in VanCity, would be willing to come here anyway.

It's why ultimately this franchise is on a treadmill to nowhere.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Heard a lot about you! Nice to finally interact.

Cheers!

...from where?

 

[Pip]

...from where?

makes u think...

 

[mathonwy]

Generally, the best guide to the future is what Aquilini and the Canucks have done in the past, when it comes to management changes.

For whatever reason, the current owners simply refuse to go into the marketplace and hire an experienced and successful hockey man to run their franchise.

Look at the guys they've hired....it started with Mike Gillis who was a player agent with absolutely zero experience as an NHL GM. I remember most of the NHL, including Brian Burke, being shocked at the time.

This was followed by the hire of Trevor Linden, a franchise icon, but another guy with absolutely zero experience in an NHL team front office. Jim Benning, was another guy with a scouting background in Buffalo and Boston, but had never come close to the GM's chair anywhere else. And it was apparent that some of the bad signings and trades early in his seven year tenure, were the result of a new GM with a huge learning curve.

So fast forward to 2021. Apparently the Aqilini's are prepared to take advice from another guy who to my knowledge has never been a GM, a coach or even a scout in an NHL organization. Geoff Courtnall's only calling card appears to be that he's a friend of the family and played for the Canucks in a couple of their glory years.

So why does Francesco and the Aquilini's refuse to go out and hire an experienced GM like the Oilers did with Ken Holland?

My theory is that the Canucks owners might feel intimidated by hiring a guy who knows more about running an NHL team than they do. And they use that as a crutch for continuing to meddle in the day-to-day operations of the team.

So it's probably the reason they won't hire an experienced hockey man this time around either. And I doubt that such a hockey executive, knowing the lay of the land in VanCity, would be willing to come here anyway.

It's why ultimately this franchise is on a treadmill to nowhere.

Due to the anti-intellectual toxic nature of ownership, this franchise will forever be a hollow tiger bereft of actual real hockey wisdom and expertise.

Hiring trash coaches, letting competent managers walk, being a coward and incompetent.

Where’s the silver lining in all of this? I don’t see it.

 

[Ozone]

Due to the anti-intellectual toxic nature of ownership, this franchise will forever be a hollow tiger bereft of actual real hockey wisdom and expertise.

Hiring trash coaches, letting competent managers walk, being a coward and incompetent.

Where’s the silver lining in all of this? I don’t see it.

The silver lining is coming soon

 

[Diversification]

Generally, the best guide to the future is what Aquilini and the Canucks have done in the past, when it comes to management changes.

For whatever reason, the current owners simply refuse to go into the marketplace and hire an experienced and successful hockey man to run their franchise.

Look at the guys they've hired....it started with Mike Gillis who was a player agent with absolutely zero experience as an NHL GM. I remember most of the NHL, including Brian Burke, being shocked at the time.

This was followed by the hire of Trevor Linden, a franchise icon, but another guy with absolutely zero experience in an NHL team front office. Jim Benning, was another guy with a scouting background in Buffalo and Boston, but had never come close to the GM's chair anywhere else. And it was apparent that some of the bad signings and trades early in his seven year tenure, were the result of a new GM with a huge learning curve.

So fast forward to 2021. Apparently the Aqilini's are prepared to take advice from another guy who to my knowledge has never been a GM, a coach or even a scout in an NHL organization. Geoff Courtnall's only calling card appears to be that he's a friend of the family and played for the Canucks in a couple of their glory years.

So why does Francesco and the Aquilini's refuse to go out and hire an experienced GM like the Oilers did with Ken Holland?

My theory is that the Canucks owners might feel intimidated by hiring a guy who knows more about running an NHL team than they do. And they use that as a crutch for continuing to meddle in the day-to-day operations of the team.

So it's probably the reason they won't hire an experienced hockey man this time around either. And I doubt that such a hockey executive, knowing the lay of the land in VanCity, would be willing to come here anyway.

It's why ultimately this franchise is on a treadmill to nowhere.

My hope, and it's only that, hope, is that what you describe is a Francesco Aquilini issue, not a Roberto issue. As I understand it, Russ is trusted by both of them and has the credibility to advise in such as way that FA might course correct and do it Roberto's way instead (hands off, focus on business growth rather than GM duties).

Otherwise, yeah, things won't change. And it'll just be: the old puppet GM is dead long live the new puppet GM.

 

[tantalum]

A new manager has to come in and immediately assess whether they have a chance to make this team into anything over the next couple of seasons. And they have to do so honestly...not simply come in and say it can be turned around in a hurry if it can't.

If it can't then you do need to seriously look at moving Horvat and Miller given they are UFA in two years time. And yes I would look to make those moves right away if that was the decision. It would hurt to move Horvat but it could also give an actual rebuild the kick it needs. Provided there was competence in the office making that move.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Generally, the best guide to the future is what Aquilini and the Canucks have done in the past, when it comes to management changes.

For whatever reason, the current owners simply refuse to go into the marketplace and hire an experienced and successful hockey man to run their franchise.

Look at the guys they've hired....it started with Mike Gillis who was a player agent with absolutely zero experience as an NHL GM. I remember most of the NHL, including Brian Burke, being shocked at the time.

This was followed by the hire of Trevor Linden, a franchise icon, but another guy with absolutely zero experience in an NHL team front office. Jim Benning, was another guy with a scouting background in Buffalo and Boston, but had never come close to the GM's chair anywhere else. And it was apparent that some of the bad signings and trades early in his seven year tenure, were the result of a new GM with a huge learning curve.

So fast forward to 2021. Apparently the Aqilini's are prepared to take advice from another guy who to my knowledge has never been a GM, a coach or even a scout in an NHL organization. Geoff Courtnall's only calling card appears to be that he's a friend of the family and played for the Canucks in a couple of their glory years.

So why does Francesco and the Aquilini's refuse to go out and hire an experienced GM like the Oilers did with Ken Holland?

My theory is that the Canucks owners might feel intimidated by hiring a guy who knows more about running an NHL team than they do. And they use that as a crutch for continuing to meddle in the day-to-day operations of the team.

So it's probably the reason they won't hire an experienced hockey man this time around either. And I doubt that such a hockey executive, knowing the lay of the land in VanCity, would be willing to come here anyway.

It's why ultimately this franchise is on a treadmill to nowhere.

I’m somewhat hopeful this time. Courtnall given his past issues will likely only be in an advisory role for a short period. Having an outside person with business experience and hockey experience is exactly what we need. The conclusion that management needs to be changed is a pretty obvious one and I suspect that ownership, excluding Francesco, already knows this. This is just a way to have a third party come in and make the decision so that family dynamics are taken out of the process. I think we may also be seeing Roberto take a more active role in selecting management and in choosing a President to act as a buffer between ownership and management. All of this seems like good news so far and should result in the team being run more like a business than a hobby for Francesco.
Of course the proof will be in who they hire as GM. Anyone of consequence will demand independence and more control over hockey decisions. I’m quite hopeful that we will see that given all of the signals so far.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Watching guys like Barkov, Eriksson Ek, and Cirelli yesterday. Anyone else wonder why for some reason we can't get any of the new guys we're bringing up that are decent offensively to learn how to PK? Are they not the right pieces to do this, or is it something else? IDK. But when we drafted him, I would have kind of expected Horvat to be fairly proficient at it by now and Pettersson has shown pretty good defensive awareness at times and is great at reading plays.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Watching guys like Barkov, Eriksson Ek, and Cirelli yesterday. Anyone else wonder why for some reason we can't get any of the new guys we're bringing up that are decent offensively to learn how to PK? Are they not the right pieces to do this, or is it something else? IDK. But when we drafted him, I would have kind of expected Horvat to be fairly proficient at it by now and Pettersson has shown pretty good defensive awareness at times and is great at reading plays.

I think at least part of it is justifying the bad contracts given to bottom 6 players by labelling them as defensively responsible and playing them on the pk. Like the Beagle and Roussel contracts would look especially bad if they weren’t even pking.

 

[valkynax]

I think at least part of it is justifying the bad contracts given to bottom 6 players by labelling them as defensively responsible and playing them on the pk. Like the Beagle and Roussel contracts would look especially bad if they weren’t even pking.

You forgot about the biggest excuse justifying signing these pathetic players: leadership.

Leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, something mentoring, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership, leadership.

It's gotten to the point where I cringe a little when I hear or see someone mentioning leadership, even in a legitimate and valid manner.

Nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh lea~der~! Nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh lea~der~!

 

[I am toxic]

That's the presumption in a new rebuild.

Would you start a new rebuild?

There was no "old" rebuild.

None.

No rebuild ever happened.

That's just false.

Benning just failed to compete so badly that the league gifted the team high picks.

Picks that he used on Virtanen, Juolevi, and had to be overruled by Linden to allow the scouts to pick Petey.

Weasel words. Like I said, I will ferret them out.

 

[valkynax]

There was no "old" rebuild.

None.

No rebuild ever happened.

That's just false.

Benning just failed to compete so badly that the league gifted the team high picks.

Picks that he used on Virtanen, Juolevi, and had to be overruled by Linden to allow the scouts to pick Petey.

Weasel words. Like I said, I will ferret them out.

I think it can be said that there was a rebuild, of sorts, except that it was accidental. Every move Benning made signals intention to seek shortcuts...err, actually, his moves made no f***ing sense at all. I don't know what he was trying to do.

The rebuild was never intentional, and that's part of the reason that this team still sucks balls.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Question for folks here, mainly as a time killing exercise while we wait for news on this regime. Who would be a “from bad to worse” choice for the Canucks’ next GM? I see a lot of posts agreeing Benning needs to be fired, but a lot of others saying “not Rutherford”, “not Tallon”, “not Chiarelli”, etc. And then there’s others who feel literally anyone would be better than Benning.

So my question is - if Benning is fired, is there someone who - if hired - you think would be even worse?

 

[valkynax]

Question for folks here, mainly as a time killing exercise while we wait for news on this regime. Who would be a “from bad to worse” choice for the Canucks’ next GM? I see a lot of posts agreeing Benning needs to be fired, but a lot of others saying “not Rutherford”, “not Tallon”, “not Chiarelli”, etc. And then there’s others who feel literally anyone would be better than Benning.

So my question is - if Benning is fired, is there someone who - if hired - you think would be even worse?

As someone with very limited knowledge of GM's in general, I'm gonna say Chiarelli.

Watching him fumbling around in Alberta is like watching a monkey having a diarrhea running around in panic while I'm on the toilet constipating, it makes me forget about my own pain for just a brief moment.

 

[Peen]

Question for folks here, mainly as a time killing exercise while we wait for news on this regime. Who would be a “from bad to worse” choice for the Canucks’ next GM? I see a lot of posts agreeing Benning needs to be fired, but a lot of others saying “not Rutherford”, “not Tallon”, “not Chiarelli”, etc. And then there’s others who feel literally anyone would be better than Benning.

So my question is - if Benning is fired, is there someone who - if hired - you think would be even worse?

Genuinely think Tallon would be worse

 

[M2Beezy]

Maybe we are, maybe we aren't, maybe go f*** yourself.

Mathy boy Matheson

 

[theguardianII]

Question for folks here, mainly as a time killing exercise while we wait for news on this regime. Who would be a “from bad to worse” choice for the Canucks’ next GM? I see a lot of posts agreeing Benning needs to be fired, but a lot of others saying “not Rutherford”, “not Tallon”, “not Chiarelli”, etc. And then there’s others who feel literally anyone would be better than Benning.

So my question is - if Benning is fired, is there someone who - if hired - you think would be even worse?

One item right off the bat, any new GM is faced with years of mismanagement and their first 2 years will be stagnant and a good chance of some favourites traded so they will be ostracized by the media.
There is no depth from the drafts prior to the 2019 draft. 2 players is failure.

IMO what would be worse is another sentimental choice like Linden, Edmonton did this plan for decades and it failed, does this franchise need to do the same?
Someone who comes in here without a plan and states "day to day", "competitive" without context, ie; losing close games is entertaining or between this team's 3 line winger and second line winger, when neither would be a 4th liner on a good team.

Does anyone remember what Gillis said when he got hired? Stanley Cup was his target, that sounds like a plan.

 

[Hit the post]

The silver lining is coming soon

Fredo is a silver spoons trust fund baby.

 

[4Twenty]

There was no "old" rebuild.

None.

No rebuild ever happened.

That's just false.

Benning just failed to compete so badly that the league gifted the team high picks.

Picks that he used on Virtanen, Juolevi, and had to be overruled by Linden to allow the scouts to pick Petey.

Weasel words. Like I said, I will ferret them out.

The "teams rebuilt" is some of the silliest commentary on this board. By that measure every team is "rebuilt" from 7 years ago. It's not even worth the typing it takes to put it out there.

Teams turnover in professional sports, these athletes have finite careers and small primes.

Having a completely different set of players in 7 seasons isn't rebuilding nor is it out of the ordinary. It's a silly deflection.

 

[4Twenty]

Question for folks here, mainly as a time killing exercise while we wait for news on this regime. Who would be a “from bad to worse” choice for the Canucks’ next GM? I see a lot of posts agreeing Benning needs to be fired, but a lot of others saying “not Rutherford”, “not Tallon”, “not Chiarelli”, etc. And then there’s others who feel literally anyone would be better than Benning.

So my question is - if Benning is fired, is there someone who - if hired - you think would be even worse?

I would take just about anyone other than these guys. They proved it to me in season 1 they didn't have the wherewithal to assess the team correctly, instill a plan, and follow that plan to success.

I don't want the old retreads either, but I'd take any of those names above over what is here. Those guys are respected, the guys we have are "marks" and everyone they deal with knows it.

 

[Peen]

The "teams rebuilt" is some of the silliest commentary on this board. By that measure every team is "rebuilt" from 7 years ago. It's not even worth the typing it takes to put it out there.

Teams turnover in professional sports, these athletes have finite careers and small primes.

Having a completely different set of players in 7 seasons isn't rebuilding nor is it out of the ordinary. It's a silly deflection.

The only time there was any semblance of a rebuild was like the first little bit of 2017 where they dealt Burrows and Hansen, and didn't add more than one albatross contract. I still don't think Gagner was THAT terrible of an add and was just misused.

 

[iceburg]

Question for folks here, mainly as a time killing exercise while we wait for news on this regime. Who would be a “from bad to worse” choice for the Canucks’ next GM? I see a lot of posts agreeing Benning needs to be fired, but a lot of others saying “not Rutherford”, “not Tallon”, “not Chiarelli”, etc. And then there’s others who feel literally anyone would be better than Benning.

So my question is - if Benning is fired, is there someone who - if hired - you think would be even worse?

Hard question to answer specifically but I'll give a general comment. They need to break free from the OBC. A lot of these guys need to be respected for their hockey careers. But that doesn't make them good managers. Some are good - Sakic and Yzerman, for example. But if your only qualification if being "a part of the league for years" then the answer is absolutely not. And there are lots of those guys out there. Of the attributes useful towards success as a GM being a hockey guy is far down the list.

 

[4Twenty]

The only time there was any semblance of a rebuild was like the first little bit of 2017 where they dealt Burrows and Hansen, and didn't add more than one albatross contract. I still don't think Gagner was THAT terrible of an add and was just misused.

That was expansion related and Burrows went to the team IIRC. Those aren't "rebuild moves" those are basics.

The actual rebuilding moves occurred before this regime in landing horvat and markstrom.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Hard question to answer specifically but I'll give a general comment. They need to break free from the OBC. A lot of these guys need to be respected for their hockey careers. But that doesn't make them good managers. Some are good - Sakic and Yzerman, for example. But if your only qualification if being "a part of the league for years" then the answer is absolutely not. And there are lots of those guys out there. Of the attributes useful towards success as a GM being a hockey guy is far down the list.

Plus Yzerman mentored under Holland so he wasn’t just picked as a GM with no experience.
And Sakic worked in a lesser role for a while too:
‘Prior to assuming his present role, Sakic, 51, spent two years as the club's Executive Advisor/Alternate Governor, a position he was hired for on March 25, 2011.’