Management Thread: Weisileaks

Not to mention the fact that, for every failed tear down you can point to, you can also provide a successful one. Chicago, Pittsburgh, Washington, Tampa, etc.

 

I think there is an argument in what you said for Sutter actually being foundational. He is definitely one of the foundation pieces of this miserable era.

 

Remember his time as the Sedins' linemate?

Good times.

 

The draft is more screwed up than ever this year what with the lack of CHL hockey and curveballs for player development the world over. If ever there was a year when the Canucks would win the draft lottery, this’d be it, amid all this uncertainty where you can end up picking a late-first-round equivalent in the top 3.

 

All the teams you mention a) had exceptional lottery luck and b) drafted 1st overall when generational players were available there.

 

This doesn’t really matter in the context of what is being discussed. People point to teams that failed at the tear down process even though they also had lottery picks (McDavid, Eichel, Laf and Kakko, Ekblad and Barkov, etc.). Seems like a dumb nitpick that doesn’t disprove the argument on either side.

 

What would we have other than a nitpick...

If the point is all the teams got franchise players at the top of the draft with incredible luck, so did Vancouver.

Pettersson and Hughes being available where they were was incredibly fortunate. Super lucky to get them.

Had they also had an Ehlers and Tkachuk to go with that luck we’d be doing much better.

This rebuild feels like b-tech Edmonton. Some hits. Some misses. Bad trades. Bad salaries. Wasting top players early prime years.

 

Seems?


Come on, its

 

lol this is great.

The funny thing is, even if Bandy had a point, it’s kind of a stretch to say that Toews/Kane and Stamkos/Hedman are “generational” (not to mention the fact that these teams got amazing players through shrewd management like Hossa).

 

Tkachuk recently made an impassioned plea to his teammates to back him up when he has slew-footed another player and intercede if Kassian ragdolls him again.
Seems to have been met with crickets. His production is way off and now he is being suggested as a traceable asset whereas last year and previous years this would have been unheard of.

It is an oddity that Tkachuk trajectory is currently downward while Ehlers' and Yo'Levi's are on the rise.

We should check back on this in a few years.

 

Lol guess you missed last game.

Juolevi has one point in extremely sheltered minutes.

I think it speaks worse on Tkachuk’s teammates than him.

 

They are just on a hot streak that's largely driven by their aging core.

Their underlying numbers are amongst the worst in the league, which is a departure from their usually strong advanced stats.

 

Agreed and teams that we point at as having losing cultures from teardowns are the teams that tear it down after already attempting and failing a rebuild, e.g. they had horrible management that failed the first rebuild and horrible management failed the second rebuild too.

We are in danger of heading into this tunnel if Bennings replacement sucks.

The problem to me is prolonged bad management makes prolonged bad teams that even high draft picks can't save. I don't think the strategy itself causes the problems. I'm not even sure losing culture can be separated from bad management. If you throw Yzerman into Buffalo's GM seat right now with full control, does anyone think they'd still be losers in 3 years with a losing culture and poorly developing prospects? If not, is it really a culture caused by a losing strategy or just by inept management that can be solved by better management?

 

Agreed – I think the whole idea of a "losing culture" as anything more than purely descriptive is kind of silly. Every losing team has a "losing culture" until they don't. And the way they stop is by getting better. The late-'80s Nordiques were a laughingstock then drafted Sundin and Nolan, flipped Lindros and suddenly were very good. The post-expansion Ottawa Senators were hapless and then added some draft picks and made some good trades and successively went from terrible to a sub-.500 playoff team to an above-.500 playoff team and then were quite good for a very long time. There's not some magical "cultural ghost" that looms over improving teams and holds them back. If such a thing existed, the Canucks have a pretty significant one from the Benning years and may as well give up now.

Teams that deliberately engage in a rebuild aren't going to develop some "culture" they can't later shake, particularly if everyone understands the bigger picture. It sure seems to me that losing despite trying to compete is infinitely more demoralizing than losing because you're prioritizing the future. As I always say when the Sedins get trotted out as a shield against rebuilding – did they ask management to be terrible, with expensive veterans, by accident in order to make their final years in the league worthwhile? That's so much more painful than being part of something on the rise.

 

I find the complaints from hockey people about this draft hilarious. They really don’t trust their abilities to scout. But on the other hand they can make player calls on top prospects games of 7 game tournaments at the beginning or middle of the season.

If the Canadian junior leagues play even 24 games that should be enough for paid experts/professionals shouldn’t it?

The stats based ones want a bigger sample but now you’d be getting a player who’s trained for a year plus developing their body and chomping at the bit to play a small schedule.

The draft would be insanely volatile and actually fun.

 

Yes I've been saying this pretty much the whole time Benning has been here, when it comes to success or failure on rebuilds the near universal constant is good or bad management. With Chicago and LA always been the standard people often over look that they were put into a position to draft high to highly incompetent management, and they went on to be contenders because when they hit the basement they fired those guys and managed to hire competent people. Other teams at the time that maintained bad management like Columbus/Atlanta/Edmonton just remained in the tank. At best a combination of great youth/prospects and bad management you're looking at being a bubble playoff team.

 

The problem is that competent management can make bad moves and what you consider to be incompetent management can make good moves. Chicago's Cup wins were fueled by good drafting but today I don't think there are many Blackhawks fans who consider Stan Bowman as competent. Was he competent then and not now? Or did he took over a great situation and made a few good moves?

LA didn't fire their GM on their way to win a Cup. It was Lombardi the whole way.

People like to talk about competent and incompetent management as if it really means something long term. Of course you want "competent management" but people think they know competent management when they see it but in reality they can't tell. David Poile is widely acknowledged as one of the best GMs. He has never won a Cup. Has he been doing a good job recently? I don't think so. Would I trust him rebuild the Canucks defense? Absolutely. The same with Gillis here. Most of us here would consider him the best GM ever. Do I think he would make a great GM today? I do. But he wasn't so great when he was chasing after Ryan Clowe.

In Pittsburgh when they hired Rutherford he was considered an old school retread who drove the Hurricanes into the ground. A few good moves and a couple of Cups later he was considered one of the best GMs. George McPhee looked like a genius a few seasons ago. Before that he made the Forsberg for Erat trade.

 

Competent management puts a team in contention to win a cup.

Incompetent management is 7 years of failure, with the future looking just as bleak.

You know, what Jim Benning has done.

 

It's one thing to let Green flap in the wind without a contract but the Canucks are playing a dangerous game with not extending Ian Clark.

They can feel what they want about Green, perhaps they're waiting to make wholesale changes above the coaching level and are waiting to let a new executive make the call, but a good goalie coach survives through regime changes.

He's going to be sought after and I hope he doesn't end up being yet another talented person walking out the front door. Only to be replaced by an alumni or having someone else adding the role to their responsibilities.

 

Not sure if you have someone specific in mind, but I would be 100% on board if they hired either Alex or Ryan Miller.

I can't speak to Lack (or Schneider if it came to that), and Luongo is not a possibility.

Outside, Korn would be awesome but I doubt that is any kind of possibility. Locally, Pasco would be good (great?).

 

I'm hoping it doesn't come to that and they re-sign Clark. We tried the alumni route with Cloutier. I'm not saying another ex player wouldn't have success but Clark is a proven asset already a part of the organization.

 

Teams and player can get used to losing. They pretty much have to as these athletes' have been on winning teams their entire young lives. I sometimes think this idea of players becoming "professional" is nothing more than acceptance of losing and getting paid millions of dollars, that it isn't a game anymore but an entertainment business.

Benning has been feeding the gullible fans this nonsense of "winning culture" and "competitiveness" like candy to a baby. Horvat must be on tranquilizers by now.

Next contracts for Pettersson and Hughes should be in the same range as Barzol's.

Buy out or trade Eriksson's contract next July, the team still takes a 4 mil cap hit 2021/22 and 1 mil 22/23 but saves the owners around 3 mil in cash, a small thing but something.

My calculations put the team around 23 mil cap space. And lots of opportunity to sign expansion players

 

This isn’t disproving the notion that it is bad management that leads to periods of prolonged failure, rather than the rebuilding strategy applied; instead, you are just pointing out that it’s difficult to assess good and bad management. I agree that this can be quite difficult, and there is probably a large grey area, but this really isn’t the case with Jim Benning and the Canucks. The results speak for themselves, and quite frankly, I don’t think at this point there is any reasonable argument that Jim Benning isn’t a bad manager.

With said, it can be hard to evaluate managers, and managers obviously have strengths and weaknesses, and therefore, may be better or worse at various times during a team’s cycle. And sure, good managers will make bad decisions and bad managers will make good decisions, and evaluating a manager is incredibly nuanced and fact driven. But none of this should be taken to obfuscate the issue at hand, or whether Benning is a bad manager.

 

This is why it is so important to evaluate both the process and the result.

Among other things, it is why the JT Miller trade is a mark against Benning, not for him.

And the drafting of Petey is again, a mark against Benning, not for him.

 

LA fired Dave Taylor in 2006. Hired Lombardi. Won the cup in 2012.

You could kinda tell the difference in competencies right away.