MGMT Thread. The long, dark offseason of our discontent begins...

[BROCK HUGHES]

Looks like JB's at the wheel..
Ed Willes’ Musings: The Canucks are in Jim Benning’s hands, for now at least

well I guess we are in for another year of a gong show,let him hang himself ,but sadly he will do it by handing out more stupid contracts to half as- players...but hopefully he is the 1st gm canned next season...

 

[Cancuks]

What's the point in even employing Benning?
Only current roster players he's added in his five years via trade are:
Pearson, Goldobin, Baertschi, Granlund, Motte, Leivo, Sutter, Spooner, Pouliot, Schenn. That's absolutely pathetic. Hasn't added one single impact player via trade in his entire tenure.
Current roster free agent signings? Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Schaller. Again, that's about $14 million in AHL quality/replacement fodder.
And how much say does he really have in who the Canucks pick in the draft? Why not just put the scouts in charge and make them the figurehead GM as well?

 

[TruKnyte]

What's the point in even employing Benning?
Only current roster players he's added in his five years via trade are:
Pearson, Goldobin, Baertschi, Granlund, Motte, Leivo, Sutter, Spooner, Pouliot, Schenn. That's absolutely pathetic. Hasn't added one single impact player via trade in his entire tenure.
Current roster free agent signings? Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Schaller. Again, that's about $14 million in AHL quality/replacement fodder.
And how much say does he really have in who the Canucks pick in the draft? Why not just put the scouts in charge and make them the figurehead GM as well?

It’s so Aquilini can have an idiot buffer.

 

[xtra]

Can you find another team that had a major age gap problem with very few tradeable assets other than picks? Please explain your plan? Does it involve trading all those tradeable veterans for picks and play every draft pick in their draft+1 season?

So you’re ignoring my original question and deflecting, my plan would simply have been to accept the age gap as an sunk cost and understand that you were never going to get any teams A level or probably even B level prospects in this age gap plan they had. Hoard any picks they got from the trades of the assets listed everywhere else on here and then sign UFAs and flip players as needed to accumulate picks to get your self a chance at A level prospects.

 

[ccjon]

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Can you find another team that had a major age gap problem with very few tradeable assets other than picks? Please explain your plan? Does it involve trading all those tradeable veterans for picks and play every draft pick in their draft+1 season?

Detroit, Rangers, Kings, Blackhawks and Devils and almost all veteran teams that had years of success but are on a downturn. Could even count the Bruins a few years ago. The difference between these teams and the Canucks is they used sold veteran on futures, instead of selling veterans and sometimes futures on players based on age. When veteran teams start to decline and they don't have a good prospect pool, they rebuild. There is no such thing as an age gap problem.

Rebuilding teams often fill holes in their lineup by signing veterans to short term deals. Toronto did an excellent job of this in 2015 and 2016. Benning couldn't even do this properly when he wasn't rebuilding as seen with McCann and Virtanen.

 

[mouz135]

Hold me.

 

[TruGr1t]

All of this was inevitable. It's clear what's happening this year. Management is playoffs or bust. It'll be interesting to see how much leeway ownership gives them with the dollars. They gotta be feeling the hangover from L'affaire Eriksson. Going to be a super interesting off season, either way. You have to be worried for that 2020 1st rounder though.

Also, I'm not sure if there's a very high success rate for the "I have no assets to trade, so will completely improve the team through free agency" strategy.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

deleted

 

[member 290103]

What's the point in even employing Benning?
Only current roster players he's added in his five years via trade are:
Pearson, Goldobin, Baertschi, Granlund, Motte, Leivo, Sutter, Spooner, Pouliot, Schenn. That's absolutely pathetic. Hasn't added one single impact player via trade in his entire tenure.
Current roster free agent signings? Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Schaller. Again, that's about $14 million in AHL quality/replacement fodder.
And how much say does he really have in who the Canucks pick in the draft? Why not just put the scouts in charge and make them the figurehead GM as well?

I think Benning allows Aqualini the ability to call the shots. Twice he has been advised by his head of hockey ops to rebuild and twice he has fired the person for that suggestion.

Jim just sits and nods and agrees to do what he is told.

 

[geebaan]

“Aggressive in Free Agency”

That sweet sweet rebuild though

 

[valkynax]

“Aggressive in Free Agency”

That sweet sweet rebuild though

Sweeter than the everlasting gobstopper.

 

[RobertKron]

Can you find another team that had a major age gap problem with very few tradeable assets other than picks? Please explain your plan? Does it involve trading all those tradeable veterans for picks and play every draft pick in their draft+1 season?

Oh no the age gap

 

[Hyzer]

Not Like This

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Okay, a couple things:

1) Why are you giving Benning a free pass with his execution of the retool phase? That was a complete disaster as his answer to retooling was to bring in Sutter, Gudbranson and Eriksson. All 3 moves were considered big disasters when they were made, and we were proven right.

2) How can you say they are building through the draft when Benning continues to ignore draft picks and has traded away more picks during his tenure than he's acquired? Rebuilding through the draft means you're stockpiling draft picks. That's exactly what people want. Rebuilding through the draft doesn't mean you continue to sign veterans in free agency every year to bloated contracts, sit on your ass, continue to try to make the playoffs and then get a good prospect at the top of the draft again when your team fails.

So in the end, all you resort to is "the media calls it a rebuild." Yet, once again, you can't explain how they are rebuilding without having your point completely destroyed. Try again.

1) I'm not giving JB a free pass for the retool era..The thing is..is that the retool actually worked in JB's first year..What didn't work was following along that plan for the next 1.5 years.

There were poor signings, but it was the owners mandate which was poorly executed..It was probably Boesers remarkable rookie year that saved JB's job.

2) How many more draft picks has Benning traded than he's acquired?..Where does it say that you have to sell off all your players and stockpile draft picks?.(because Toronto and the Rangers did it..both teams had completely different circumstances than the Canucks..)...The scouting staff have been reworked..We have a top prospect pool, high picks coming, and lots of vets coming off the books (just in time for when EP and Hughes become RFA)....Lots of cap,,and despite the earlier f*** ups..the Canucks are in a good spot.

However,that could change if JB screws up July 1st..I would most likely be out with a pitchfork as well..

 

[Jyrki21]

I know I've said it before, but the "playoffs or bust" ultimatum is just the stupidest possible way for ownership to go. It is readily apparent than Benning is a bad manager. Literally all anyone can point to is the fact that he used the high draft picks that he got for failing and didn't always (but sometimes did) punt them.

So what's the point of this ultimatum? Now you've encouraged Benning to go gangbusters for a completely pointless goal – one season of playoffs – and no matter the outcome it's a bad idea. Either he fails and you fire him anyway, or he succeeds for that one year and then you've committed to him for another long term in spite of all evidence just because he finally managed to do something that half the league does after year upon year of not doing anything. With a bit of luck it actually is a very attainable goal, and that's precisely why it shouldn't vindicate him.

It's like your kid refusing to eat, so you say "Fine, just have one bite of broccoli and then you can have dessert." So they do, and you give them a giant dessert for that one bite that is the same size as their entire dinner.

This is just insane incentivizing. What difference does it actually make in terms of Benning's managerial ability if the Canucks sneak in with 90 points, or miss with 86? It's the same team. That shouldn't be how you make this decision.

 

[Cancuks]

I'm very afraid what Benning will do this coming season. He knows he has to make the playoffs or he's done. If they're anywhere near 8th seed in February he'll probably go Kekalainen and trade our 1st in 2020 + a conditional 1st in 2021 + prospects for a couple months of Taylor Hall, Chris Kreider or the likes.

 

[valkynax]

Owner mandated signings? Do you have proof of that?

Wait, aren't you suppose to blame this shit on Gillis?

 

[xtra]

The turnaround year had a roster that was 70% Gillis that made the playoffs.

The moment it hit 50% benning players all poop hit the fan

 

[Hit the post]

I still awaiting a good response as to why Benning did a better job in five years than Nonis in 4 years.

Again, Nonis > Benning (and it's not close IMHO when you factor in the high draft picks one had vs the other guy).

 

[y2kcanucks]

1) I'm not giving JB a free pass for the retool era..The thing is..is that the retool actually worked in JB's first year..What didn't work was following along that plan for the next 1.5 years.

There were poor signings, but it was the owners mandate which was poorly executed..It was probably Boesers remarkable rookie year that saved JB's job.

2) How many more draft picks has Benning traded than he's acquired?..Where does it say that you have to sell off all your players and stockpile draft picks?.(because Toronto and the Rangers did it..both teams had completely different circumstances than the Canucks..)...The scouting staff have been reworked..We have a top prospect pool, high picks coming, and lots of vets coming off the books (just in time for when EP and Hughes become RFA)....Lots of cap,,and despite the earlier **** ups..the Canucks are in a good spot.

However,that could change if JB screws up July 1st..I would most likely be out with a pitchfork as well..

That first year was mostly a core inherited from the previous regime, with a new coach. Things went south when Benning put his fingerprints on the team. That's a red flag.

Can you prove that it was the owner's mandate to go out and get Eriksson, Sutter and Gudbranson? These are the guys Benning targeted. Sbisa too. There's a video clip of Benning praising his skating saying he sees him as a future top 4 defenseman. That was Jim Benning saying that in a scouting meeting. Another red flag. Why do you ignore this?


How are the Rangers and Leafs in different circumstances from the Canucks? Also, who said to sell off all our players? Why is it that whenever the idea of stockpiling draft picks is brought up you jump to the extreme that it must mean we want every player sold for picks? How about this: we don't trade draft picks, and we sell off some veterans for picks. Hmm...kinda like the 2's we got for Bieksa and Garrison. Keep those and then you can point to those being rebuild transactions. Or how about ask for a pick for Vanek, even if all we can get is a 3? How about selling at this year's deadline? How about instead of signing veterans to long-term bloated contracts (like Gagner, Roussel and Beagle) we sign cheaper veterans to 1-year contracts, attempt to pump up their value, and then sell them for picks at the deadline?

Also, the Canucks prospect pool isn't very good now that EP40 and Hughes have graduated. One would expect that a team that has been as bad as the Canucks have been for half a decade to have a better prospect pool than what we currently have. One great prospect every year should be the bare minimum, considering the team is drafting high every year. But that's a concept I don't think you understand.

Why is it that your definition of a rebuild involves signing veterans to medium/long-term contracts every year? Why is it that you consider trading away draft picks and not acquiring draft picks to be building through the draft? That's like saying people have sex because they want to preserve their virginity.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I still awaiting a good response as to why Benning did a better job in five years than Nonis in 4 years.

Again, Nonis > Benning (and it's not close IMHO when you factor in the high draft picks one had vs the other guy).

Nonis was an awful GM, but honestly I'd take him back right now if it meant Benning is gone. He was awful because he was too tentative, was too loyal to his group and afraid to make a big change unless he was clearly ripping someone off (like the Luongo deal). I also detested his plan for the offseason he was fired (which was to sign Brunnstrom, and trade for Erik Cole). But even despite all that, at least he wasn't as bad as Benning.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

*deep sigh*

New thread up.