Management Thread

[Fatass]

Imagine how insecure Aqua is to know that it’s not real and still respond the way he did? It’s embarrassing.

He doesn’t have to like it. I’m sure there are plenty of tweets he hasn’t liked over Benning’s tenure, as Twitter has been unforgiving (and rightly so). But his reaction just means it’s working.

I don’t understand our owner. He hires two rookie GMs, and a rookie President. Is he really insecure, because it is kind of adding up that he is.

 

[F A N]

The end game for a competent person like Judd is to work for a competent hockey organization and not some fanboi's hockey fantasy team.

Ok. Then you're saying that if Judd leaves it's all because of ownership?

Job titles don't mean jack shit if the organization you're working for is a management clusterf*** t.

People who say job titles don't matter probably have never held a job with a meaningful job title. The Director of Amateur Scouting is certainly a job title that means something.

But Judd is the chief amateur scout...

He isn't. Ron Delorme is.

So if you were Judd, why would you want to work for an order-taking boss who's spending all of his time trying to do your job?

You wouldn't.

If I was Judd I would consider the fact that those typically in my position tend to have job security and survive regime changes.

When a new boss inevitably comes along I can explain what happened. If my boss took over some of my duties and I agree with the moves and think the results are good, I might tell my new boss that I was executing my former boss' vision but I was completely on board. If I wasn't on board with the moves and I think the results aren't good, then I might tell my new boss that when given more autonomy my draft record speaks for itself. When my autonomy was taken away I was still a loyal foot soldier that tried to do the best job I could.

Personally, if I was an incoming GM, I have 3-5 years to prove myself. If I don't have a Judd replacement in mind I have to place some faith in him. At the same time, am I going to put complete faith in a guy I never worked with? Probably not. I would want to know if he shares the same vision. I would want to know that he is willing and capable of taking directions. If he doesn't exactly share my vision and he insists on running the draft without my input he's gone. It doesn't matter how talented Judd is. An employee who refuses to take direction is a problem for a boss.

Judd has been with the Canucks for 12 years. If he didn't like it here you would assume that he wouldn't have stayed. Again, if what Judd loves is scouting and he has no interest in the player personnel side of things then this is his ideal job. It's a cushy job that only soon to be 31 other guys can be in. Anybody in this position should recognize that some bosses will give him more autonomy. At the end of the day it's a job but he's also doing what he loves at the highest level.

 

[Fatass]

People who thinks job titles mean something in a management clusterf*** like the Canucks have no clue what management is.

Trevor. The president. Quit several years ago. Has anything actually changed since he left? Nope. Do you know why? Cuz he was a f***ing useless hockey exec with little to no actual hockey management experience and like Benning, a complete waste of space.

I cited the Trump administration. Do you know how many people quit that clusterf***?

People that were holding the highest positions in the nation.

Seriously bud. You should probably quit while yer behind.

I heard both Ferraro and McGiure (a few years ago) mention on the radio they had heard things about our owner. Neither guy went beyond that, so it could have been good stuff. But the connotation I understood was it wasn’t good. It was on TSN 1040. Owners have a lot of power in the league, and I think guys who work in the business (hockey side or media) are really careful with what they say about any owner, because their employment depends on it. Aquilini did have that recent Tweet, which led one to think he has some issues with negative criticism, or people disagreeing with him.
On the positive, I do think it’s good Aquilini loves our team. He’s a real fan that way, or appears to be.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

So I saw the David Booth April fools thing and came away with a lot more respect for Francesco Aquilini. He was obviously joking with the “remove this tweet at once” which was hilarious. He was probably expecting the punchline of “April fools!” from David Booth and expecting to share a laugh with his former player. For whatever reason Booth decided to take it in a different direction which was extremely disprespectful and frankly uncalled for. Mr. Aquilini did the right thing by blocking him for being such a troll. Lost a lot of respect for Booth on this one, so much that I might have to consider a name change.

 

[rypper]

So I saw the David Booth April fools thing and came away with a lot more respect for Francesco Aquilini. He was obviously joking with the “remove this tweet at once” which was hilarious. He was probably expecting the punchline of “April fools!” from David Booth and expecting to share a laugh with his former player. For whatever reason Booth decided to take it in a different direction which was extremely disprespectful and frankly uncalled for. Mr. Aquilini did the right thing by blocking him for being such a troll. Lost a lot of respect for Booth on this one, so much that I might have to consider a name change.

That... that isn't David Booth's Twitter account.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

That... that isn't David Booth's Twitter account.

you’re right, I completely misread that part. In my defense I don’t twitter so when it said Mr Booth I assumed it was David Booth’s Twitter. That changes things. Still think it reflects well on Mr. Aquilini that he actively fights fake news and takes the time to engage fans online in good faith. It also reflects well in his judgment that after the fan in question revealed his bad faith that Mr. Aquilini followed the proverb of “don’t wrestle in the mud with a pig because you’ll get dirty and the pig will enjoy it” which is a great example. Frankly, I did not find it funny at all and I said this often before April fools that this pandemic has created a social atmosphere that makes it a very bad idea to participate in April fools. In fact I was hoping that April fools 2020 would be cancelled and I was largely correct except for the odd troll on Twitter that thinks it’s funny to joke around like that during the middle of a pandemic.

 

[RobertKron]

good grief.

 

[RobertKron]

IF WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE JOKES DURING A PANDEMIC THEN MAYBE DAVID BOOTH WAS TELLING THE TRUTH

 

[rypper]

Jim Benning in 2014 vs. Jim Benning in 2020.

 

[F A N]

I don’t understand our owner. He hires two rookie GMs, and a rookie President. Is he really insecure, because it is kind of adding up that he is.

I don't agree with the connection drawn between hiring a rookie GM and being insecure. Gillis is arguably the best GM this franchise has ever had. Steve Yzerman did a great job in Tampa. Sakic took some time but it looks like he's done a pretty good job as well.

Which "experienced GM" available on the market since 2008 you would have wanted here? Rutherford was a great hire by the Penguins but he was looked as a retread and a mentor to Botterill. How many Canes fans thought it was a mistake to let Rutherford go at the time? Lou Lamoriello is a legend but again how many Devils fans felt he deserved more time to right the ship? Who else? There weren't a lot of supporters of George McPhee here IIRC. Ken Holland? There have been fire Holland threads for years and if rumors were true Aquilini was interested in bringing him on board. Same with Lombardi (whom I like to spearhead a tear down rebuild).

Who else? Brian Burke? Dave Nonis? Waddell and Dudley? Chiarelli? Ray Shero? The jury is still out on Waddell but the other guys have not been good the second time around.

Of course in more recent times there's Ron Francis and Ron Hextall. I do like Hextall.

If you looked at threads that discussed who we want as our next GM few wanted an "experienced GM" because an attractive experienced GM is probably still running his own team.

I think experience matters. At the same time what matters more is a GM's team building philosophy, ability to evaluate talent and anticipate trends, and adapt/make adjustments.

In reality, there are probably less than a handful of GMs you can trust to run a team to over a decade.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Goddamn he aged like 15 years, must've been looking through the Jim Benning Era transaction thread.

 

[Hit the post]

Players with salary protection in the form of offseason bonuses should be laughing. Loui E getting three million for sitting on his couch in Sweden this summer. Granted he wasn’t exactly exerting much effort DURING the season. Still, gives him needed cash for the luxury restaurant empire he has built (some without a liquor license).

 

[Fatass]

I don't agree with the connection drawn between hiring a rookie GM and being insecure. Gillis is arguably the best GM this franchise has ever had. Steve Yzerman did a great job in Tampa. Sakic took some time but it looks like he's done a pretty good job as well.

Which "experienced GM" available on the market since 2008 you would have wanted here? Rutherford was a great hire by the Penguins but he was looked as a retread and a mentor to Botterill. How many Canes fans thought it was a mistake to let Rutherford go at the time? Lou Lamoriello is a legend but again how many Devils fans felt he deserved more time to right the ship? Who else? There weren't a lot of supporters of George McPhee here IIRC. Ken Holland? There have been fire Holland threads for years and if rumors were true Aquilini was interested in bringing him on board. Same with Lombardi (whom I like to spearhead a tear down rebuild).

Who else? Brian Burke? Dave Nonis? Waddell and Dudley? Chiarelli? Ray Shero? The jury is still out on Waddell but the other guys have not been good the second time around.

Of course in more recent times there's Ron Francis and Ron Hextall. I do like Hextall.

If you looked at threads that discussed who we want as our next GM few wanted an "experienced GM" because an attractive experienced GM is probably still running his own team.

I think experience matters. At the same time what matters more is a GM's team building philosophy, ability to evaluate talent and anticipate trends, and adapt/make adjustments.

In reality, there are probably less than a handful of GMs you can trust to run a team to over a decade.

Gillis could be said to have killed our team’s window for winning. And Benning has accomplished what exactly? Why hire total rookies for such important jobs? I’m suggesting it’s because our owner wants a GM who will not question him. If Gillis was so great, why did Aquilini fire him at the first sign of the team going bad? There are those who believe Gillis told Aquilini the core needed to be rebuilt, and he was fired for that suggestion. Heck, Torts said our core was old and stale publicly, so IMO Gillis was saying that to our owner privately. Then Aquilini fires Gillis, and hires a rookie (Benning) who will try to get more out of the old core by bringing in experienced players. It kind of adds up to me. Our owner doesn’t like being challenged on his hockey ideas.

 

[mouz135]

If you haven’t seen this you need to. Aquilini being petty af on Twitter


Make sure you click the link in the initial tweet that Aquaman is pissed about

When I saw this news I was SO pumped.

clicked on the link and it brought me to an article about signing Loui. Confusion set in, saw the date and then confusion became sadness. f***

 

[F A N]

Gillis could be said to have killed our team’s window for winning. And Benning has accomplished what exactly? Why hire total rookies for such important jobs? I’m suggesting it’s because our owner wants a GM who will not question him. If Gillis was so great, why did Aquilini fire him at the first sign of the team going bad? There are those who believe Gillis told Aquilini the core needed to be rebuilt, and he was fired for that suggestion. Heck, Torts said our core was old and stale publicly, so IMO Gillis was saying that to our owner privately. Then Aquilini fires Gillis, and hires a rookie (Benning) who will try to get more out of the old core by bringing in experienced players. It kind of adds up to me. Our owner doesn’t like being challenged on his hockey ideas.

Why hire total rookies for such important jobs? Well are you saying that when hiring a GM you should only look at candidates with previous GM experience and not AGM experience? Eventually if all teams do that there will be zero candidates. Really though it's the way NHL works. An experienced GM who didn't do a good job of late is considered a retread. When the Penguins hired Rutherford who thought he would have been a great hire here? What about Holland last season? The fact is that few GMs have a long history of making the playoffs, nevermind winning the Cup. After Chiarelli left Edmonton, Shero left Penguins, and Burke left the Leafs, how attractive were those three as GM candidates? All three of them have Stanley Cup rings. The same goes for Rutherford when he left the Canes and Holland when he left the Red Wings.

For what it's worth, in the threads where next GMs were discussed, my first choice was Brisebois in Tampa when he was still the AGM. I wasn't really interested in guys who have experience who are or might be available. Kind of hard to be excited about the possibility of hiring them when they haven't exactly done a good job of late with their current team or the latter years of their last team.

 

[Fatass]

Why hire total rookies for such important jobs? Well are you saying that when hiring a GM you should only look at candidates with previous GM experience and not AGM experience? Eventually if all teams do that there will be zero candidates. Really though it's the way NHL works. An experienced GM who didn't do a good job of late is considered a retread. When the Penguins hired Rutherford who thought he would have been a great hire here? What about Holland last season? The fact is that few GMs have a long history of making the playoffs, nevermind winning the Cup. After Chiarelli left Edmonton, Shero left Penguins, and Burke left the Leafs, how attractive were those three as GM candidates? All three of them have Stanley Cup rings. The same goes for Rutherford when he left the Canes and Holland when he left the Red Wings.

For what it's worth, in the threads where next GMs were discussed, my first choice was Brisebois in Tampa when he was still the AGM. I wasn't really interested in guys who have experience who are or might be available. Kind of hard to be excited about the possibility of hiring them when they haven't exactly done a good job of late with their current team or the latter years of their last team.

Did Benning make rookie mistakes? Has there been suggestion he learned on the job? Yes to both, right? I would have been okay with the Benning hire as GM if Aquilini didn’t double down by hiring a completely inexperienced Linden as President. But he didn’t, so we ended up with total rookie management. IMO, that’s Aquilini wanting “yes” men in those spots.

 

[bbud]

Did Benning make rookie mistakes? Has there been suggestion he learned on the job? Yes to both, right? I would have been okay with the Benning hire as GM if Aquilini didn’t double down by hiring a completely inexperienced Linden as President. But he didn’t, so we ended up with total rookie management. IMO, that’s Aquilini wanting “yes” men in those spots.

There are few pro sports management jobs independent or not influenced by an owner like it or not Benning like most of us does what a boss wants that is reality , best hope is a boss understands when to let them do their jobs and some just never will.

 

[F A N]

Did Benning make rookie mistakes? Has there been suggestion he learned on the job? Yes to both, right? I would have been okay with the Benning hire as GM if Aquilini didn’t double down by hiring a completely inexperienced Linden as President. But he didn’t, so we ended up with total rookie management. IMO, that’s Aquilini wanting “yes” men in those spots.

I agree with your points but not your conclusion.

I think it's safe to assume they all make rookie mistakes, especially if they don't have someone experienced in the organization guiding them.

I'm not sure if you can pin Benning's hiring on Aquilini. I would assume that Linden being hired as a rookie President of Hockey Operations can convince his boss to hire a more experienced GM if that is what he wants. In fact, if I'm Linden I'm either going to surround myself with an "Senior Advisor" who is an experienced GM and or hire a GM with some experience but make clear that I am the boss. The whole President and GM structure is what the President makes of it. Most Presidents of Hockey Operations retain final say on hockey operations decisions. That's what Joe Sakic did when he kept Greg Sherman before absorbing his position and Pierre Lacroix was still available as an advisor. That's what Shanahan did when he hired Lou. Lou didn't even get to hire the coach.

For discussions sake, is a rookie GM more predisposed to being a "yes man" than an experienced GM who has been out of work? I'm not sure that is the case.

For some reason this board seems to think lowly of guys who would listen to his boss. I wonder how many of us actually have 100% autonomy and would actually quit or fire a client if we disagree with the instructions.

 

[Fatass]

I agree with your points but not your conclusion.

I think it's safe to assume they all make rookie mistakes, especially if they don't have someone experienced in the organization guiding them.

I'm not sure if you can pin Benning's hiring on Aquilini. I would assume that Linden being hired as a rookie President of Hockey Operations can convince his boss to hire a more experienced GM if that is what he wants. In fact, if I'm Linden I'm either going to surround myself with an "Senior Advisor" who is an experienced GM and or hire a GM with some experience but make clear that I am the boss. The whole President and GM structure is what the President makes of it. Most Presidents of Hockey Operations retain final say on hockey operations decisions. That's what Joe Sakic did when he kept Greg Sherman before absorbing his position and Pierre Lacroix was still available as an advisor. That's what Shanahan did when he hired Lou. Lou didn't even get to hire the coach.

For discussions sake, is a rookie GM more predisposed to being a "yes man" than an experienced GM who has been out of work? I'm not sure that is the case.

For some reason this board seems to think lowly of guys who would listen to his boss. I wonder how many of us actually have 100% autonomy and would actually quit or fire a client if we disagree with the instructions.

You make some really good points, and (as I read through your post) you have me saying in my head, “that makes good sense” to all, except for the last one. IMO there is a big leap from listening to one’s boss to agreeing with him/her, especially in the hockey opps of an NHL team.
Do you think (I do) Aquilini insisted on squeezing more out of the core that both Gillis and Torts told him was stale and needed to be rebuilt? To me that’s an owner firing expert hockey minds he didn’t agree with (about hockey operations) so he could hire guys (Linden and Benning) who would agree with him. The result of this is we have some great young players, but have a group of older guys (on bad contracts) we need to get rid of so we can afford to keep all our younger guys, right? We have a thread titled, “Tanev or Tofoli”. How about we never signed Loui Errikson (arguably signed to play with the Twins, and hoping to squeeze more out of those two) so we don’t have to make those choices?

 

[RandV]

Why hire total rookies for such important jobs? Well are you saying that when hiring a GM you should only look at candidates with previous GM experience and not AGM experience? Eventually if all teams do that there will be zero candidates. Really though it's the way NHL works. An experienced GM who didn't do a good job of late is considered a retread. When the Penguins hired Rutherford who thought he would have been a great hire here? What about Holland last season? The fact is that few GMs have a long history of making the playoffs, nevermind winning the Cup. After Chiarelli left Edmonton, Shero left Penguins, and Burke left the Leafs, how attractive were those three as GM candidates? All three of them have Stanley Cup rings. The same goes for Rutherford when he left the Canes and Holland when he left the Red Wings.

Yeah I never really bought the 'rookie GM'/'learning on the job' thing with Benning. If you want to talk about a rookie GM, in this manner, I'd look at someone like Dubas or Chayka. On the other hand if you take someone who's been in the industry for something like 10-15 years as a scout/head scout/assistant GM, or some other combination, they should be able to and in practice actually do hit the ground running.

Benning's shortcomings here were just indications of being a bad manager.

 

[Jack Burton]

Benning's shortcomings here were just indications of being a bad manager.

And it will be glossed over just like all his other years.




Remember thoes times when Jack Burton said it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.......


It's alot worse now.

 

[Jack Burton]

Ok. Then you're saying that if Judd leaves it's all because of ownership?



People who say job titles don't matter probably have never held a job with a meaningful job title. The Director of Amateur Scouting is certainly a job title that means something.

you’re right, I completely misread that part. In my defense I don’t twitter so when it said Mr Booth I assumed it was David Booth’s Twitter. That changes things. Still think it reflects well on Mr. Aquilini that he actively fights fake news and takes the time to engage fans online in good faith. It also reflects well in his judgment that after the fan in question revealed his bad faith that Mr. Aquilini followed the proverb of “don’t wrestle in the mud with a pig because you’ll get dirty and the pig will enjoy it” which is a great example. Frankly, I did not find it funny at all and I said this often before April fools that this pandemic has created a social atmosphere that makes it a very bad idea to participate in April fools. In fact I was hoping that April fools 2020 would be cancelled and I was largely correct except for the odd troll on Twitter that thinks it’s funny to joke around like that during the middle of a pandemic.

 

[racerjoe]

You just complained about being strawmanned and then in the very next sentence you set up your own massive straw man. F A N never said you said “100% controvertibly busts” he was correctly pushing back against your repeated use of the 100 AHL games played as some sort of useful rule of thumb because, as F A N explained to you, it is arbitrarily biased against players who happen to have a certain birthday or certain path to the NHL that inflates their AHL games played by 50 games or 50% by the time he hits 100 games played.

50% is a huge deviation. Playing in the AHL as an 18-19 year old rookie (like Goldobin) vs a 20-21 year old rookie is also a huge huge difference. But your 100 game heuristic doesn’t account for any of that. It might very well be a good heuristic over the long term but in the time span and sample sizes we care about it’s not going to be as rock solid as your confidence projects. And when there is a clear context in which your heuristic breaks down, like in the case of Goldobin, it’s not good enough for you to say “oh well over the long term with a sample size of 7o00 players what I said about Goldobin was the right take” because that’s malarkey. You’re setting up an “I can never be wrong” scenario by covering all your bases - if Goldobin plays 100 AHL games and pans out you can fall back on saying, “oh but I never said ALL of them bust, see I’m still right!” and if he busts then you can say, “see? I was right all along!’ while circling his AHL games played. By doing this you can be right about every prospect’s trajectory (in your own mind) whether or not you’ve seen them play! Because in your mind “I’m just going by the numbers and probabilities and blah blah blah.” But in reality you’ve added zero insight at best and at worst you’ve misled people about a prospect.

When Goldobin arrived he was still in his draft +3 season, when a lot of guys would be starting in the AHL as a rookie straight from Jrs and the scouting report was he had dynamic offence, he had by all accounts been a fantastic offensive player in the AHL who needed to work on his defensive effort. When you put it in context, a barely 20 year old highly skilled offensive forward who ripped it up in the AHL, Goldobin was clearly not some toxic asset on his way to bustville. But when you look at his AHL GP he was. Don’t you see the problem with this?

Wasn't sure where to put this.

Ok maybe I don't get what you are trying to say here so before I reply and miss understand, can you please go into more detail?

Cause the strawman to me is that of course there will be the odd case.

Nothing is 100% But if you strictly go by the percentages it was a bad gamble to take.

So please explain a bit.

 

[F A N]

Yeah I never really bought the 'rookie GM'/'learning on the job' thing with Benning. If you want to talk about a rookie GM, in this manner, I'd look at someone like Dubas or Chayka. On the other hand if you take someone who's been in the industry for something like 10-15 years as a scout/head scout/assistant GM, or some other combination, they should be able to and in practice actually do hit the ground running.

Benning's shortcomings here were just indications of being a bad manager.

I don't speak from experience, but Brian Burke has spoken about this issue before (often in the context of working with Treliving). He is of the opinion that you can't really fully prepare for the GM job. Everything is different when you are actually in the GM chair and responsible for making all the decisions. I have no reason to doubt him. There's a difference between running a department in a company, being the assistant to the guy that runs the whole company and actually being the guy who runs the whole company.

 

[F A N]

Nothing is 100% But if you strictly go by the percentages it was a bad gamble to take.

Your post wasn't directed at me but it was related to a conversation I was engaged in.

When you say "percentages" what are you talking about? The chances of a 2nd round pick developing into a "decent" NHL player is like 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 depending on the criteria you use to define "decent." Trading that 2nd round pick for an established NHL player would be less of a gamble if you strictly go by the percentages but I don't recommend a team consistently do that.

I don't see how looking at "the percentages" would indicate that it is a bad gamble to choose a former 1st round pick who is a almost a point per game player in the AHL in his draft + 3 season with the skill, size, and skating to play in the NHL over say a late 2nd round pick.