The Jim Benning and Management Megathread - A step back towards the playoffs

[dave babych returns]

I feel like bringing up guys like Patrick Kane or Voynov or whoever really torpedoes any chance at an honest discussion of whether "character" or "intangibles" brings value to a hockey team or not.

I would consider extralegal action to stop one of those guys from, say, marrying my sister - but that's not the kind of "character" that should be up for discussion unless we're talking about someone SO repugnant that others can't coexist around them.

The type of "character" that (allegedly) does contribute to the W column is clearly not lacking in a player like Kane.

A player can be highly professional and even part of a cohesive locker room and also be a repugnant human being..

(That said I think this kind of confusion/obfuscation occurs on both sides of the debate, "character" being subjective and tough to pin down to an agreed upon set of traits and behaviours..)

 

[banme*]

Gonna guess he's thinking of Trout.

That rings some bells as well since the Jays Angels series last week was all about the AL MVP battle. Ninja edited my post but I thought Harper was leading the league in WAA last time I checked, which was admittedly who knows when

 

[I in the Eye]

For this regime, the term "character" is used to describe the residual sludge the team is left standing in as a result of their transactions. The less value the team gets or is left with, the more "character" acquired or retained. The team doesn't overpay for "character"... the team is left with "character" for overpaying.

 

[dave babych returns]

That rings some bells as well since the Jays Angels series last week was all about the AL MVP battle. Ninja edited my post but I thought Harper was leading the league in WAA last time I checked, which was admittedly who knows when

Yeah I don't even follow the sport anymore, I just made an educated guess about Proto and googled who has the highest WAR right now (that isn't Zach Greinke)

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

For this regime, the term "character" is used to describe the residual sludge the team is left standing in as a result of their transactions. The less value the team gets or is left with, the more "character" acquired or retained. The team doesn't overpay for "character"... the team is left with "character" for overpaying.

No the lack of character and related playoff failures stems from the previous management regimes way of building a team.

 

[arsmaster*]

I feel like bringing up guys like Patrick Kane or Voynov or whoever really torpedoes any chance at an honest discussion of whether "character" or "intangibles" brings value to a hockey team or not.

I would consider extralegal action to stop one of those guys from, say, marrying my sister - but that's not the kind of "character" that should be up for discussion unless we're talking about someone SO repugnant that others can't coexist around them.

The type of "character" that (allegedly) does contribute to the W column is clearly not lacking in a player like Kane.

A player can be highly professional and even part of a cohesive locker room and also be a repugnant human being..

(That said I think this kind of confusion/obfuscation occurs on both sides of the debate, "character" being subjective and tough to pin down to an agreed upon set of traits and behaviours..)

But that's the whole point. You bring it up because it doesn't matter that much if you're legit.

Like really, why are we so worried about the cohesive locker room angle when all the guys who've been dumped other than one poster beating the Kassian = Cancer drum, are all considered to be good teammates.

Or am I missing some facts about Garrison, Santorelli, Bonino, Lack, Kassian, Matthias, Richardson, etc.

Keep in mind cancerous Kassian's admission he had more to give to me isn't nearly as poor character as admitting you weren't prepared or ready for your first big shot at the show....Linden Vey admitted this and got a raise for it.

 

[Proto]

2004 Red Sox, maybe? But they were also talent rich, but guys like Millar and Mueller and Dave Roberts I guess were the character guys....to a lesser extent, Jed Lowrie?

It doesn't really happen in professional sports....talent comes first.

Look at the "character" on the last 3 cup winners: Voynov (wife beater), Stoll (drugs), Richards (controlled substance), Lucic ("do you know who I am" ball-pitchforker), and Patrick Kane (investigation ongoing).

Yeah, but the 2004 Red Sox were built around a very talented pitching staff, led by Schilling and Pedro. Their line-up was pretty good and the "character" guys weren't that bad. Roberts only had +/- 100ABs, Millar was a slightly-below-average starter, and Mueller only played about 2/3 of the games (and was also a slightly below average starter). They weren't replacement level players or anything and were totally capable 7/8/9 type hitters.

But, yeah, those sorts of peripheral players on a roster probably aren't useless if they bring that character element, but if any of those guys was a replacement level player, the overall value would erode very quickly.

 

[Proto]

OT but curious who is first (haven't been able to follow much baseball this year)? Harper? I feel like I remember him leading the league in WAA a while back, so he's the first guy that came to mind. Seems to have lived up to his hype pretty quickly.

Gonna guess he's thinking of Trout.

Harper. Trout is a shade behind Josh this year in fWAR (bit ahead in bWAR), based mostly on Trout taking an inevitable step back defensively. CF is a tough position to remain above average defensively, and a player of Trout's stature is going to have to move over soon enough.

You could say Donaldson is third though. It's close, for sure. But all three of those guys are at or around 7WAR and we're still in August..

Probably a bit off-topic naughty, but it's something I was thinking about because Anthopolous has stressed that he wanted "character" guys this year -- they just also all happen to be very good. He's basically willing to overpay for premium players at premium positions, but the guys he's choosing to do that for (Donaldson, Martin, Price, Tulowitzki) are all known as high character, hard working players. He's not messing around with no scrubs.

 

[Scurr]

Harper. Trout is a shade behind Josh this year in fWAR (bit ahead in bWAR), based mostly on Trout taking an inevitable step back defensively. CF is a tough position to remain above average defensively, and a player of Trout's stature is going to have to move over soon enough.

You could say Donaldson is third though. It's close, for sure. But all three of those guys are at or around 7WAR and we're still in August..

Probably a bit off-topic naughty, but it's something I was thinking about because Anthopolous has stressed that he wanted "character" guys this year -- they just also all happen to be very good. He's basically willing to overpay for premium players at premium positions, but the guys he's choosing to do that for (Donaldson, Martin, Price, Tulowitzki) are all known as high character, hard working players. He's not messing around with no scrubs.

What would the hockey equivalents be?

 

[Jyrki21]

But, yeah, those sorts of peripheral players on a roster probably aren't useless if they bring that character element, but if any of those guys was a replacement level player, the overall value would erode very quickly.

I think character in a basically individual sport like baseball would be the most meaningless of any sport, to be honest.

 

[Proto]

What would the hockey equivalents be?

Well, Price is probably a Top 10 starter in baseball, Donaldson is the best 3b in baseball, Martin is a Top 5 catcher in baseball, and Tulo is either the best or 2nd best SS in baseball. It's hard to draw across straight-ahead comparisons, but we're talking about really elite players at premium positisions.

 

[arsmaster*]

What would the hockey equivalents be?

Since I know you like football and the Hawks, the comparable there would be overpaying for a LT, QB, C, and MLB all of the elite category.

Not the Kicker, the Long snapper, the 3rd string QB, and the #7LB special teams guy.

That's the equivalent of: Prust/Dorsett, Sbisa, Miller and Bartkowski.

 

[Proto]

I think character in a basically individual sport like baseball would be the most meaningless of any sport, to be honest.

That depends on how that character shows itself on the field. Donaldson is a ridiculously smart hitter (the August 4th article about him on fangraphs details how specific his mechanical adjustments are at the plate). He modelled himself after Jose Bautista and watched hours and hours of footage to remodel his swing. These guys talk hitting in the clubhouse all the time.

If "character" = guys constantly staying focused to improve their game/keep their teammates improving, I don't doubt that it would have some intrinsic value, but only in addition to actual on-field results. Even super analytics-focused data-crunchers that work for team's front offices have admitted they'd pay more for identical players if they knew one was "good" in the clubhouse and another wasn't. They just don't know how to quantify it to a dollar amount or whether it adds very much on-field value. But they'd pay more for it.

It's much riskier to over-emphasize that in a cap environment, though. And, realistically, the Canucks have had zero character/work ethic issues on the Canucks in the last half dozen years.

Edit: I'm mostly pointing this out to show that my criticisms of Benning aren't because I think character/etc. are useless in professional sports. I don't. I just don't think they should be emphasized, and I think seemingly "bad character" guys that work hard can thrive in the right environment: the Seahawks built the best team in the NFL under that latter premise.

 

[dave babych returns]

But that's the whole point. You bring it up because it doesn't matter that much if you're legit.

Like really, why are we so worried about the cohesive locker room angle when all the guys who've been dumped other than one poster beating the Kassian = Cancer drum, are all considered to be good teammates.

Or am I missing some facts about Garrison, Santorelli, Bonino, Lack, Kassian, Matthias, Richardson, etc.

Keep in mind cancerous Kassian's admission he had more to give to me isn't nearly as poor character as admitting you weren't prepared or ready for your first big shot at the show....Linden Vey admitted this and got a raise for it.

Don't take my post as a defense of specific Benning moves.. I'm just looking to draw a distinction between "character" as in a guy with high moral fiber and a personality that appeals to old school types, and "character" as in a guy who is a consummate professional, highly coachable, etc.

IMO it's clear that a player can be lacking in the former and still be an excellent hockey player who contributes to a winner, but that lacking in the latter type of "character" is probably much more of a problem.

IF there's a discussion to be had about "character" it should be based on that.

 

[Scurr]

That depends on how that character shows itself on the field. Donaldson is a ridiculously smart hitter (the August 4th article about him on fangraphs details how specific his mechanical adjustments are at the plate). He modelled himself after Jose Bautista and watched hours and hours of footage to remodel his swing. These guys talk hitting in the clubhouse all the time.

If "character" = guys constantly staying focused to improve their game/keep their teammates improving, I don't doubt that it would have some intrinsic value, but only in addition to actual on-field results. Even super analytics-focused data-crunchers that work for team's front offices have admitted they'd pay more for identical players if they knew one was "good" in the clubhouse and another wasn't. They just don't know how to quantify it to a dollar amount.

It's much riskier to over-emphasize that in a cap environment, though. And, realistically, the Canucks have had zero character/work ethic issues on the Canucks in the last half dozen years.

IDK about that. The team that had Manny, Salo and Samuelsson was one of the most consistent, best teams I've ever watched. I've been underwhelmed by the team ever since those guys left. They were obviously really good players, too. Like you said… it's hard to quantify. Benning went farther than I would have but imo this is a good science experiment for this. I still think the sum can be greater than the parts.

 

[Proto]

IDK about that. The team that had Manny, Salo and Samuelsson was one of the most consistent, best teams I've ever watched. I've been underwhelmed by the team ever since those guys left. They were obviously really good players, too. Like you said… it's hard to quantify. Benning went farther than I would have but imo this is a good science experiment for this. I still think the sum can be greater than the parts.

Sure. A team that's talent-wise an 8/10 might form together to be 9/10 or something (theoretically). My issue with the Canucks is they took a 6/10 and turned it into a 4/10 with the hopes that the character will turn it into 8/10, when it's more likely a 5/10 if all goes well.

Those numbers are obviously made up, but I'm just using them to illustrate that these things happen at the margins of results (if at all). They're supplemental.

 

[Scurr]

Well, Price is probably a Top 10 starter in baseball, Donaldson is the best 3b in baseball, Martin is a Top 5 catcher in baseball, and Tulo is either the best or 2nd best SS in baseball. It's hard to draw across straight-ahead comparisons, but we're talking about really elite players at premium positisions.

I know who they are. MLB is quite a bit different than the NHL, though, is there a similar situation where a team can buy/trade for 4 elite players in one calendar year in the NHL?

 

[Proto]

I know who they are. MLB is quite a bit different than the NHL, though, is there a similar situation where a team can buy/trade for 4 elite players in one calendar year?

That wasn't my point. My point was that he targeted "character" guys who also happened to be elite players. AA traded 11 pitching prospects (many of them of the Top 100 in baseball variety), took on an extra 50m in Tulo's deal, paid 80 million to Martin, paid 7m in Price's salary to rent him for 2 months, moved Bret Lawrie, and put his job/possibly GM career on the line. He did it almost exclusively for premium talent with (as he perceived it) hardwork/character attributes. I can get behind that in a big way.

Surely you can see the difference between that and a team defending Luca Sbisa because he watches a lot of film or whatever, right? They're not really comparable executions of a similar strategy.

 

[The Jesus*]

I feel like bringing up guys like Patrick Kane or Voynov or whoever really torpedoes any chance at an honest discussion of whether "character" or "intangibles" brings value to a hockey team or not.

I would consider extralegal action to stop one of those guys from, say, marrying my sister - but that's not the kind of "character" that should be up for discussion unless we're talking about someone SO repugnant that others can't coexist around them.

The type of "character" that (allegedly) does contribute to the W column is clearly not lacking in a player like Kane.

A player can be highly professional and even part of a cohesive locker room and also be a repugnant human being..

(That said I think this kind of confusion/obfuscation occurs on both sides of the debate, "character" being subjective and tough to pin down to an agreed upon set of traits and behaviours..)

Whatever happened with the Kane thing? Did he get charged?

 

[Scurr]

That wasn't my point. My point was that he targeted "character" guys who also happened to be elite players. AA traded 11 pitching prospects (many of them of the Top 100 in baseball variety), took on an extra 50m in Tulo's deal, paid 80 million to Martin, paid 7m in Price's salary to rent him for 2 months, moved Bret Lawrie, and put his job/possibly GM career on the line. He did it almost exclusively for premium talent with (as he perceived it) hardwork/character attributes. I can get behind that in a big way.

Can you do the same thing in the NHL, though?

Some of what AA did is transferable. He has spent many years building a prospect pool that allowed him to trade for those great players. I don't think they become available quite as often in hockey... but that can be applied.

The big difference between the two is that you really have to develop those players in hockey. Few of the Jays stars were drafted and developed by them. That's not going to work in hockey, though. I understand wanting to create an environment where prospects are surrounded by great examples. They're overpaying for character at the bottom of the roster in order to develop it at the top. I really don't think that's a terrible plan in the NHL.

Surely you can see the difference between that and a team defending Luca Sbisa because he watches a lot of film or whatever, right? They're not really comparable executions of a similar strategy.

I don't think you can execute the same in both sports.

**** Sbisa.

 

[drax0s]

I feel like bringing up guys like Patrick Kane or Voynov or whoever really torpedoes any chance at an honest discussion of whether "character" or "intangibles" brings value to a hockey team or not.

...

The type of "character" that (allegedly) does contribute to the W column is clearly not lacking in a player like Kane.

Yeah, I've seen comments from Benning and Linden about wanting to get players with "character" and "emotion" that are, on reflection, pretty poor descriptive words for a "hockey trait" that they almost require personal interpretation to figure out what the hell they are talking about. Personally, I see it to mean a player who takes hockey seriously, comes prepared and has the competitiveness / drive / determination to struggle past adversity to win. That's my interpretation mostly because of their continued "play hard" comments. That, and the whole "old fashioned prairie work ethic" thing. :|

 

[Proto]

Can you do the same thing in the NHL, though?

Some of what AA did is transferable. He has spent many years building a prospect pool that allowed him to trade for those great players. I don't think they become available quite as often in hockey... but that can be applied.

The big difference between the two is that you really have to develop those players in hockey. Few of the Jays stars were drafted and developed by them. That's not going to work in hockey, though. I understand wanting to create an environment where prospects are surrounded by great examples. They're overpaying for character at the bottom of the roster in order to develop it at the top. I really don't think that's a terrible plan in the NHL.



I don't think you can execute the same in both sports.

**** Sbisa.

Sure you can, but it would mean making your big UFA cash outlays be for premium players at premium positions. Of course you do have to develop more of the players, but you can absolutely do it (or try to). Or making big trades for guys when they do become available.

It's definitely a different environment, but I don't think it's impossible in hockey to make sure you only over-pay for perceived character when it's for elite players. It's not like a baseball GM is precluded from adding junky "character" players -- AA just doesn't value character enough to add a lot of it at the expense of talent.

The Canucks might have been able to acquire Hossa back in the day. They could have traded for him when the Pens did, or tried to sign him like the Wings or Hawks did. That would have been a similar kind of move, no? I'm just pointing out if you want to emphasize character in building a club, I'd rather see a UFA overpay/trade overpay for an elite player with character than chewing up extra cap space for ho-hum, bottom-end roster pieces.

Plus we're barely even talking about noteworthy character reputations with the Canucks. Sutter? Sbisa? These aren't hallowed names brought up in character discussions around the league, are they?

 

[The Jesus*]

Yeah, I've seen comments from Benning and Linden about wanting to get players with "character" and "emotion" that are, on reflection, pretty poor descriptive words for a "hockey trait" that they almost require personal interpretation to figure out what the hell they are talking about. Personally, I see it to mean a player who takes hockey seriously, comes prepared and has the competitiveness / drive / determination to struggle past adversity to win. That's my interpretation mostly because of their continued "play hard" comments.

"He plays a harder game. Like he's a more... you know he's a more... like uh honest. Plays hard. You seen him." - Jim Benning on Jared McCann

I don't think there is a whole lot of thought or substance behind the "play hard" mantra of benning.

 

[I in the Eye]

No the lack of character and related playoff failures stems from the previous management regimes way of building a team.

Ever heard of a "balanced scorecard"? Basically, since the dawn of the information age, organizations have been measuring, and tracking "virtual assets"... realizing that the financial measures couldn't capture reality and past results the same way as it did, in the industrial age. Things of value, are not necessarily things that are tangible.

"Character" is measurable. It's definable. It's trackable... the same way as money in, money out... Value in, value out... "Character in", "Character out".

You say this, like it's some sort of foregone conclusion - the lack of character and playoff failures were related... Benning is addressing this, nicely. Have anything concrete to back this up with? Or, is it not possible to measure? It's the same type of ******** that Benning uses to make moves, and determinations on players... and assembling a team. False narratives, wrong conclusions, guiding thoughts and direction. He doesn't know what he's doing.

I would have no problem with "character" being deemed an important measure... hell, the most important measure, if that's what the data says. If the data was dictating and uncovering what to do, where to go, where things went wrong, where things should be fixed... who am I to say the universe is wrong? Who am I to say that Kassian's lack of "character" made him a worthwhile giving away, and Evander Kane's "character" made him a worthwhile nice offer to get. If that's what the data says, that's what it says.

But this regime ride isn't based on anything other than gut feeling and prayer. I doubt Benning has even heard of a balanced scorecard, let alone, how to implement one to get a clear picture of where and how "character" fits, and what "character" is (to him, to the regime, to winning).

For this regime, based on their moves, based on who they want, who they let go, "Character" is a convenient, nice sounding term to describe the residual slurry from leaving value on the table. They aren't going anywhere... Not going to repeat or better the success the previous regime was able to do, not be able to achieve their "plan" within 5 years (another nice sounding term... like there actually is a formal document or plan). For a chance for this thing to work within 5 years, Benning should have stuck with value (readily measurable, with hard facts), and forgot about "character". He doesn't know how to use it... He doesn't even know what it is.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Problem is you need talent to go along with character.

There's a reason why there's the saying "nice guys finish last".