Management V

[Horse McHindu]

Yet every other franchise including LA went up...

And if that’s the case, my argument still remains the same:

We can’t just pin it all on Benning. There are /were likely other factors involved.

If it was all Benning’s fault as you might be subtly implying, there would be Messier levels of hatred towards him in this city......but there isn’t. You go around to every single Canucks message board on the net and most people have been quite supportive of Benning.

There’s really only one Canucks place on the internet which really REALLY hates Benning. Here.

 

[vancityluongo]

I have no issue with your post. All I’m asking for is consistency (not with you specifically, but for all of the anti-Benning crowd).

When the stats favor the Canucks (ie really close to a playoff spot, top notch PP, high GF), we can’t say stuff like, “oh it’s too early, and even the Kansas Scouts would look impressive right now,” but then act like the sky is falling and have a holier than thou “I told you so” mindset after the Canucks have a tough November and/or have the 21st ranked points percentage.

We either all agree that, “it’s way too early,” or we give criticism AND praise towards the Canucks where it’s due (and based on this season, there’s plenty of both that can go around) and not just pick and choose due to a hatred of Benning.

I thought the Analytics guys were supposed to logical and rational ones?

Again - this isn’t aimed at you specifically. Just my general frustration at the anti-Benning guys (who I like as people on here but who’s hockey opinions can drive me nuts at times).

Very few people do this. Most comments about the November slump were either in response to those trying to plan the parade after October, or people literally saying that November was not reflective of this team and that they'd bounce back.

You're lumping a few extreme voices in with the rest of the boards as a homogeneous anti-Benning mob.

 

[vancityluongo]

And the valuation stuff has always been fascinating to me - but I think the Canucks are probably due for a big bump up next year. This stuff is based on trailing information usually, not leading data (like current year jersey sales).

With the Pettersson/Hughes hype and the 50th anniversary celebrations, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Canucks hit a high next season ($850+). At the same time; Aquilini should absolutely note that this is the only team in the league now (Calgary was down last year but is back up) that is trending lower.

Maybe that's why he fired Jeff Stipec? To be fair, General Manager is not really the position to put the blame on this for, although the team's on-ice incompetence is absolutely the driving factor here.

 

[sting101]

Myers is dead cap space now lol? I mean it might be one day but WTF.
This place can be depressing sometimes. In 14yrs Petey will be washed up...ohhh noohhh..
Hey @420Canuck what is your projection for cap increases the next couple years?
Next year is gonna be a tough one unless they can get rid of that Eriksson albatross and i hate to say it but Baertschi/Ferland and Loui almost need to be LTIRd to free up some space if they cant force Loui out. Aquilinis may have to place a call.

 

[I am toxic]

Semantics.

It's 24 million dollars of wasted cap space and anchor contracts that have handcuffed the team.

Call it whatever you want to call it.

 

[Peter10]

What do you mean by “being competitive?”

Do you honestly believe that between 2015 and 2018, Benning and the Acqua’s literally saw the Canucks as having a chance to win the cup? Really?

Just look at the transactions made 2015 and onward
Sutter, Gudbranson, Eriksson, Gagner, Vanek... Big money and assets spent trying to compete, they clearly thought they could do some damage and either some luck win it all.

 

[4Twenty]

Myers is dead cap space now lol? I mean it might be one day but WTF.
This place can be depressing sometimes. In 14yrs Petey will be washed up...ohhh noohhh..
Hey @420Canuck what is your projection for cap increases the next couple years?
Next year is gonna be a tough one unless they can get rid of that Eriksson albatross and i hate to say it but Baertschi/Ferland and Loui almost need to be LTIRd to free up some space if they cant force Loui out. Aquilinis may have to place a call.

This place? Or Canucks fandom? It is pretty depressing to take a look at cap allocations moving forward.

I believe there's been some hub bub this week that the cap will remain flat, but the ball is apparently in the players court and since the players under contract protected against a potential lockout, the players could be convinced to use their escrow to drive it up.

Personally, I'd plan for it to remain flat. Always prepare for the worst case scenario.

I expect it to rise thereafter, as the new US TV deal and Seattle expansion is going to put a lot more into hockey related revenue.

The Cap situation is under-reported and scoffed at regularly, but it's going to be a significant handcuff moving forward. Like I've mention in other posts, they'll be hard pressed to even return the same group under the flat cap let alone improve the team, and Hughes/Pettersson's bonuses from this year will move to next year, and they'll be very likely to hit them again in their 3rd ELC year, so they're going to carry over again, into the years they're no longer on ELC's.

It's bad, people have said it's going to be bad for a few years, and people just plugged their ears and cited the prospect pool and the calder finalists.

 

[Horse McHindu]

You're lumping a few extreme voices in with the rest of the boards as a homogeneous anti-Benning mob.

I sincerely do apologize if that’s the case.

 

[MS]

What do you mean by “being competitive?”

Do you honestly believe that between 2015 and 2018, Benning and the Acqua’s literally saw the Canucks as having a chance to win the cup? Really?

There’s a huge world’s difference between

1) Bringing in vets as a “missing piece” (or pieces) to make a run for the cup

and

2) bringing in vets to create a culture for the kids within the system, and to ensure that the current kids in the system aren’t being placed into roles that they are too green for.

In fact - ever since Benning took over in 2014-2015, the only young guy that *might* have been (or is currently) being held back is Adam Gaudette......and again, that’s not even really true.

1) Every single other young guy played in roles that they were suited for under Benning’s watch.
2) When a young guy flat out earned a spot, vets were moved to create a spot for said young guy.
3) Although the Canucks will be facing some cap challenges after this season, the Canucks haven’t had any cap issues or hindrances whatsoever thus far (although again - I want to see what this management does in the offseason).

For an organization that has supposedly “bled assets,” I see a strong and thriving Utica team, along with Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, Virtanen, Gaudette, and Demko all in a Canucks uniform. Tryamkin looks like he’s likely to return, and the Judd Bracket fans on here have been signing the praises of Hoglander to no end. I also John Madden’s kid looking pretty damned good as well.

Tyler Motte (whom most people on here were LIVID when we traded Vanek for him) has also looked good on the 4th line this year.

To make a long story short, I never have and never will understand what all the kicking and screaming is about. All teams go through rebuilds. Successful rebuilds often take 5-7 years regardless of what the EA sports generation says.

Most people on here sung the praises of “Shanaplan” and not only have they NOT won a single playoff series since 2002, but Dubas has created terrible cap problems for that team.

so again - I ask - and I’ve been asking this for 5 years and running.

Why all the kicking and screaming?

Elias Pettersson (franchise C) and Quinn Hughes (likely to be a franchise D) say hi.

What on earth are you talking about?

Benning took over in 2014 and spent the entirety of the next three years trying to compete and win in the playoffs. Took a 'now' return on Kesler. Constantly splurged in UFA. $36 million for Eriksson. Huge futures package for Gudbranson. Tried to trade our 2015 #1 pick (Boeser) for Lucic. Tried to trade our 2016 #1 pick in a deal for Subban. Tried to give Lucic a huge UFA deal. Was chasing after Stamkos. Tampered with Evander Kane. Traded for Sutter and Prust to 'help us win in the playoffs'. And on and on.

If the situation Gillis left was SO BAD as you're claiming, you should want Benning fired from a cannon for those three years of mismanagement.

And yes, we now have Boeser and Pettersson and Hughes. But that's only because Jim Benning is an abject idiot who failed spectacularly in his attempts to compete and accidentally finished at the bottom of the NHL, out-tanking teams that were actually trying to lose with teams that he thought were 100-point teams.

Like, you do realize that the best way to get a Pettersson is to be a really bad GM, right? Like, if we hired your mom as GM and she did a terrible job (not to judge - maybe she's a hockey genius) and cratered the team to last place in the standings, we'd probably be getting Lafreniere or Byfield as a result. Does that mean your mom is a great GM? Or just that the NHL system rewards terrible management with future stars?

If you're arguing that having a GM as abjectly incompetent as Jim Benning ended up being a blessing in disguise because his terrible work gifted us prime young assets, that's probably a legitimate point. But that doesn't mean that idiot should be kept around now that we have those young assets.

 

[Bonham]

Semantics is just a weak argument for not using an established term properly. I will make the same suggestion to you. Read up on the definition of dead cap space.

Tyler Myers is second among Canucks Dmen in ice time. He logged over 20 minutes in his last 5 games. Any way you slice it he's being utilized as one of the team's top 4 Dmen. So the cap room used on a player logging over 20 minutes a game is considered dead cap space?

Semantics is a weak argument, I agree. Not for the reason you mentioned but moreso because you knew what he was talking about but chose to argue his choice of words...semantics.

Tyler Myers is being paid as a borderline number one defenseman in this league with a Top 30 cap hit. Any less contribution than what you described and the contract would already be a total disaster...less than three months into the deal. He is also turning 30 this season so I do not think anyone expects drastic improvement in his play in the coming seasons.

That said, if you don't like the inclusion of Myers in this conversation, pick any number of the other terrible contracts on this roster.

 

[sting101]

Just look at the transactions made 2015 and onward
Sutter, Gudbranson, Eriksson, Gagner, Vanek... Big money and assets spent trying to compete, they clearly thought they could do some damage and either some luck win it all.

Pretty clearly those guys were meant to put us over the hump

 

[sting101]

Lol Eriksson apparently crashed into and concussed Demko. What a signing

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

If someone took away Jim's chequebook every July 1, and the Canucks would of gone up in value over the last 5 years. A low budget movie that bombs might be able to make it's money back. High-Budget bombs like Charlie's Angels and the Canucks lose a lot of money.

I really don't know how this isn't Management and ownership's fault. Yes, the team was on a downswing. No other bad teams had that problem though, Maybe because other teams spent spent as much money on 4th liners while being bad?

 

[MS]

Lol Eriksson apparently crashed into and concussed Demko. What a signing

Demko now having multiple concussions in the last 14 months puts extra pressure on the team to re-sign Markstrom.

You can't really let your proven #1 walk to go with a concussion-prone guy with like ~25 career starts. Not a great situation.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Just look at the transactions made 2015 and onward
Sutter, Gudbranson, Eriksson, Gagner, Vanek... Big money and assets spent trying to compete, they clearly thought they could do some damage and either some luck win it all.

I won’t reiterate and regurgitate what I’ve been saying for years all over again, but I’ll just say this:

These players were brought in, because.....:

1) We didn’t have kids within the system that could take on those roles. Again, thanks to Gillis.

2) Insulating the kids: Kids need to be insulated and played in roles that they are suited for. Trying to “rush” their development by placing said kids into roles that they aren’t ready for is counterproductive (more times than not) and ends up causing more harm than help.

3) You can’t just bring in a bunch of inexpensive PTO’s and guys looking to save their careers. I think this was one of the prevailing thoughts on here back in 2015-2016. Why not just sign a bunch of PTO’s? Because - these guys also need to save their careers. If these guys sign and are placed into roles where they get curb stomped by opposing teams’ first and 2nd line players, then the PTO’s likely won’t get offered a contract after said season. There has to be a logical fit even for PTO’s and fringe NhL’ers.

4) Age gap: people can disagree with this all they want, but the “age gap problem” is an actual thing. Anyone that disagrees has very likely never been in a lockerroom. In order to create the conducive lockerroom atmosphere for a kid, one huge factor is in having an appropriate age range of players. You can’t just have 18 year olds sitting on one side of the room, and a bunch of 30 year olds on the other.

Gudbranson was a necessary calculated risk trade because we had absolutely NOTHING on that right side D. It was a move that had to be made and it was a failure unfortunately. Sutter was brought into help insulate Horvat since Horvat wasn’t quite ready to be the 2nd line C at the start of the 2015-2016 season, while Bonino clearly wasn’t a good option for the 2nd line (although he is and was a very good 3rd line C).

The Gagner signing was horseshit and had no logic. No argument from me there.

Vanek was a cheap PTO that was a good fit here and the signing made sense. Not sure what your gripe is about the Vanek signing. Again - we had no young player within the system that could take on that role.

The Eriksson singing was a spectacular failure (no argument from me here), but again......we had no one else in the system that could take on that role, and one very important part of prospect development is not placing kids in a role where they are set up to fail.

My other argument for Eriksson has always been this: It’s a closeted 4-5 year deal. He’ll either retire after July 1st 2020 or after July 1st 2021. 31 of his 36 million will have been paid out after July 1st 2020. The Eriksson deal has been a disaster but unlike some of those other 2016 nightmare contracts, he’d be far more likely to retire early given the way his contract was structured (which is why Benning and team structured it that way).

 

[racerjoe]

And if that’s the case, my argument still remains the same:

We can’t just pin it all on Benning. There are /were likely other factors involved.

If it was all Benning’s fault as you might be subtly implying, there would be Messier levels of hatred towards him in this city......but there isn’t. You go around to every single Canucks message board on the net and most people have been quite supportive of Benning.

There’s really only one Canucks place on the internet which really REALLY hates Benning. Here.

I have not mentioned Benning at all. I have been saying you trying to use "rebuild" as an excuse is wrong. You kept doubling down on similar things that would seemingly not be correct.

Myers is dead cap space now lol? I mean it might be one day but WTF.
This place can be depressing sometimes. In 14yrs Petey will be washed up...ohhh noohhh..
Hey @420Canuck what is your projection for cap increases the next couple years?
Next year is gonna be a tough one unless they can get rid of that Eriksson albatross and i hate to say it but Baertschi/Ferland and Loui almost need to be LTIRd to free up some space if they cant force Loui out. Aquilinis may have to place a call.

Maybe should not have quoted you here but an earlier post on the subject.

I don't think minutes should necessarily be used to see if cap space is wasted or not. I mean if we used Eriksson suddenly with Pete and Miller to put Brock and Bo together, does this make his contract suddenly look good?

I do think the Myers contract is not a good one and we probably could have gotten comparable or better without spending on Myers.

 

[WTG]

Semantics is just a weak argument for not using an established term properly. I will make the same suggestion to you. Read up on the definition of dead cap space.

Tyler Myers is second among Canucks Dmen in ice time. He logged over 20 minutes in his last 5 games. Any way you slice it he's being utilized as one of the team's top 4 Dmen. So the cap room used on a player logging over 20 minutes a game is considered dead cap space?

Logged over 20 minutes over 5 games....

What are you saying?

 

[4Twenty]

Now I remember why I don't normally engage some of these accounts.

 

[tyhee]

... Took a 'now' return on Kesler. ...

Your post was fairly detailed and I've snipped all but the one sentence I didn't agree with, so obviously this doesn't affect the point of your post at all.

There are issues regarding the Kesler deal, but I wouldn’t complain about it from an age standpoint. I don’t see the Kesler deal as bad for being for the present (that is, for 2014-15) but poor player judgment has ruined any benefit the Canucks might have gotten from the trade.

Kesler was about to turn 30. In return for him (disregarding the 3rd round picks going each way) the Canucks got:

26 + year old Nick Bonino as a center to take Kesler’s roster spot-Bonino was obtained for his immediate impact, though he was younger than Kesler and is still playing while Kesler was last effective two seasons ago. Bonino was also on a contract that was extremely team-friendly, having signed it early in his breakout year. Of course, the Canucks then packaged Bonino in trade getting in return a much more expensive (at the time) Brandon Sutter, losing the value of Bonino’s team-friendly contract.

24 year old Luca Sbisa. 24 is an age at which a defenceman should be effective but should if he is good enough have several good years left. The problem with Sbisa imo wasn’t so much his age but that he was a poor target. He simply wasn’t a very good player. Rumours at the time suggested the Canucks could have had Vatanen instead and I’d be really surprised if Josh Manson wasn’t available, either of whom would have been far more valuable in both the short and long terms (and both only about a year younger than Sbisa.)

2014-1st rounder, pick # 23. Obviously this can’t be a move considered as being for “now.” Some have expressed the opinion that the Canucks undersold by not getting the 10th overall pick. Pretty much any objective poster would agree the Canucks mishandled McCann’s development, then traded him with other assets for a player that had little, no or negative value to them. I give the Canucks a pass on failing to select Pastrnak, though that may be generous given that, iirc, Melvin’s Potato would have selected Pastrnak at that spot. Trading a package including McCann to acquire Gudbranson was ridiculous.

If the Canucks had kept McCann and Bonino and received Manson or Vatanen (both only about a year younger than Sbisa) as the d-man in the deal, it would be a positive net value trade. Instead, they’ve gotten next to nothing out of it because of poor managerial judgment.

 

[geebaan]

Now I remember why I don't normally engage some of these accounts.

The ignore feature has saved me a lot of time

 

[4Twenty]

I would've preferred the Kesler trade be made during the draft, prior to the 10th selection. Everyone knew Anaheim was as desperate for Kesler as he was for them. Not a single pressure point. But yeah, if the targets had been better, especially on the blueline it would've been even more palatable. But the "now" returns were imperative for Benning, which to me was just bad thinking for the get go. Team needed to start their pick hoarding/young prospect acquisitions vs the age gap IMO.

 

[xtra]

You go around to every single Canucks message board on the net and most people have been quite supportive of Benning.

There’s really only one Canucks place on the internet which really REALLY hates Benning. Here.

Hi can you be consistent in your posts. Are all canuck message boards quite supportive of benning or some? As far as I can tell this board is a canucks message board and isn’t supportive as you noted.

you message is inconsistent please be consistent as you have asked everyone else to be

 

[xtra]

Pretty clearly those guys were meant to put us over the hump

they were designed to put us over the hump into the playoffs.

 

[racerjoe]

Your post was fairly detailed and I've snipped all but the one sentence I didn't agree with, so obviously this doesn't affect the point of your post at all.

There are issues regarding the Kesler deal, but I wouldn’t complain about it from an age standpoint. I don’t see the Kesler deal as bad for being for the present (that is, for 2014-15) but poor player judgment has ruined any benefit the Canucks might have gotten from the trade.

Kesler was about to turn 30. In return for him (disregarding the 3rd round picks going each way) the Canucks got:

26 + year old Nick Bonino as a center to take Kesler’s roster spot-Bonino was obtained for his immediate impact, though he was younger than Kesler and is still playing while Kesler was last effective two seasons ago. Bonino was also on a contract that was extremely team-friendly, having signed it early in his breakout year. Of course, the Canucks then packaged Bonino in trade getting in return a much more expensive (at the time) Brandon Sutter, losing the value of Bonino’s team-friendly contract.

24 year old Luca Sbisa. 24 is an age at which a defenceman should be effective but should if he is good enough have several good years left. The problem with Sbisa imo wasn’t so much his age but that he was a poor target. He simply wasn’t a very good player. Rumours at the time suggested the Canucks could have had Vatanen instead and I’d be really surprised if Josh Manson wasn’t available, either of whom would have been far more valuable in both the short and long terms (and both only about a year younger than Sbisa.)

2014-1st rounder, pick # 23. Obviously this can’t be a move considered as being for “now.” Some have expressed the opinion that the Canucks undersold by not getting the 10th overall pick. Pretty much any objective poster would agree the Canucks mishandled McCann’s development, then traded him with other assets for a player that had little, no or negative value to them. I give the Canucks a pass on failing to select Pastrnak, though that may be generous given that, iirc, Melvin’s Potato would have selected Pastrnak at that spot. Trading a package including McCann to acquire Gudbranson was ridiculous.

If the Canucks had kept McCann and Bonino and received Manson or Vatanen (both only about a year younger than Sbisa) as the d-man in the deal, it would be a positive net value trade. Instead, they’ve gotten next to nothing out of it because of poor managerial judgment.

Two assets in the prime of their careers would be win now, not the future.

 

[4Twenty]

Lol Eriksson apparently crashed into and concussed Demko. What a signing

It just had to be Loui didn't it?