The Jim Benning and Management Megathread - CAD got you down? He has you covered

[Scurr]

So you were saying you can't fire him purely on optics then? Is your position that you couldn't fire him because of the 101 point season but the results of the season aren't indicative of the job the GM did?

My position is that results matter. Certainly more than the perceived value of deals in the offseason.

 

[Ho Borvat]

Vrbata, Burrows, Hansen, Dorsett. You throw Virtanen in there and there's no room for Kassian.

Sedin XXXXXX Burrows
Baertschi XXXXXX Vrbata
Higgins XXXXXX Kassian
Hansen XXXXXX Virtanen
Dorsett/Kenins

I donno, I don't see how there isn't room for Kassian among your NHL wingers? I think thats a tougher/deeper/better group of wingers?

 

[Ho Borvat]

My position is that results matter. Certainly more than the perceived value of deals in the offseason.

You're not allowed to forecast though? If your team got worse in every position during the offseason, and your competitors made improvements, and analysts are criticizing your moves... You may be able to predict that things don't project to go too well.

I mean, Vegas seems to agree that they don't project well.

 

[Upoil]

My position is that results matter. Certainly more than the perceived value of deals in the offseason.

Is the 101 point season indicative that Jimbo did a good job?

You seemed to take issue that I implied you meant that but I'm having a hard time seeing how you aren't implying that.

 

[Scurr]

You're not allowed to forecast though? If your team got worse in every position during the offseason, and your competitors made improvements, and analysts are criticizing your moves... You may be able to predict that things don't project to go too well.

I mean, Vegas seems to agree that they don't project well.

The talk was around Benning getting fired. Should people be fired on the strength of Vegas odds? Fan reaction to trades and signings?

Is the 101 point season indicative that Jimbo did a good job?

You seemed to take issue that I implied you meant that but I'm having a hard time seeing how you aren't implying that.

The talk wasn't around Jim doing a good job, it was around him being fired. No, I don't think 101 points means he did a good job. It does however make the talk about firing him ludicrous.

If the team flops I'll be the first to say JB should get fired. I don't expect that to happen, though.

 

[brokenhole]

The talk was around Benning getting fired. Should people be fired on the strength of Vegas odds? Fan reaction to trades and signings?



The talk wasn't around Jim doing a good job, it was around him being fired. No, I don't think 101 points means he did a good job. It does however make the talk about firing him ludicrous.

If the team flops I'll be the first to say JB should get fired. I don't expect that to happen, though.

Yeah but if he misses the playoffs for 2 years this owner might get a tad upset. I think even if the team misses this year he stays but on a very short leash.

 

[Upoil]

The talk was around Benning getting fired. Should people be fired on the strength of Vegas odds? Fan reaction to trades and signings?



The talk wasn't around Jim doing a good job, it was around him being fired. No, I don't think 101 points means he did a good job. It does however make the talk about firing him ludicrous.

If the team flops I'll be the first to say JB should get fired. I don't expect that to happen, though.

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry for taking your position out of context.

What would be a 'flop' in your opinion? How bad would we have to be next year for you to be calling for Jimbo's head?

 

[KeninsFan]

The talk wasn't around Jim doing a good job, it was around him being fired. No, I don't think 101 points means he did a good job. It does however make the talk about firing him ludicrous.

If the team flops I'll be the first to say JB should get fired. I don't expect that to happen, though.

101 points and a 4-2 series loss to CGY.

The only people who see the season as a success are the guys profiting off the 3 home playoff games. The same old guys pulled off the same old tricks and reached the same old conclusion. First round exit.

 

[Scurr]

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry for taking your position out of context.

What would be a 'flop' in your opinion? How bad would we have to be next year for you to be calling for Jimbo's head?

Anything out of the playoff hunt is a flop and he should be fired. I think even a bubble team that misses could be considered a flop depending on context. JB has put his eggs in some precarious baskets.

 

[Ho Borvat]

The talk was around Benning getting fired. Should people be fired on the strength of Vegas odds? Fan reaction to trades and signings?

The talk wasn't around Jim doing a good job, it was around him being fired. No, I don't think 101 points means he did a good job. It does however make the talk about firing him ludicrous.

If the team flops I'll be the first to say JB should get fired. I don't expect that to happen, though.

Ahh, thanks for clarifying. I agree, you can't give a guy total autonomy of an NHL team, sign off on all the moves hes made and then fire him before things go bad.

Aqua Man/Prez obviously approve of his moves at the moment, considering their signatures would have had to go on the paperwork for any moves (I would hope).

 

[Ho Borvat]

101 points and a 4-2 series loss to CGY.

The only people who see the season as a success are the guys profiting off the 3 home playoff games. The same old guys pulled off the same old tricks and reached the same old conclusion. First round exit.

The funny thing is, how much revenue do they generate from 3 playoff wins?

If your team isn't expected to make the playoffs/go on a deep run.... why not just focus on cutting salary while you rebuild/gear up for a deep playoff run?

If you're not projected to be a cup contender, just roll with a cheaper roster so your salary expense is lower (offsetting the lost playoff revenue).

 

[Scurr]

The funny thing is, how much revenue do they generate from 3 playoff wins?

If your team isn't expected to make the playoffs/go on a deep run.... why not just focus on cutting salary while you rebuild/gear up for a deep playoff run?

If you're not projected to be a cup contender, just roll with a cheaper roster so your salary expense is lower (offsetting the lost playoff revenue).

Because they have 82 regular season games they need people to attend and/or watch on T.V. People tend not to do that when your team sucks. Especially here.

 

[Canucker]

Because they have 82 regular season games they need people to attend and/or watch on T.V. People tend not to do that when your team sucks. Especially here.

Just have to threaten them to show up to games...all it takes is a quarter to move this team you know.

 

[Ho Borvat]

Because they have 82 regular season games they need people to attend and/or watch on T.V. People tend not to do that when your team sucks. Especially here.

But does the team tangibly have to get worse?

You have a capped out team that is projected to miss the playoffs. Why not keep Lack over Miller in that situation? Cheaper, better, fan favorite, and significantly cheaper.

That decision alone is probably the same net value on the franchise as a 1st round playoff loss.

Going with Stanton/Clendenning/Corrado over Sbisa gives you major cap savings without making the team worse. Kenins/Kassian over Prust/Dorsett are significant savings.

I just think you could have gotten Aqua to sign off on an actual rebuild if you agreed to roll with a lower cap team.

 

[Upoil]

But does the team tangibly have to get worse?

You have a capped out team that is projected to miss the playoffs. Why not keep Lack over Miller in that situation? Cheaper, better, fan favorite, and significantly cheaper.

That decision alone is probably the same net value on the franchise as a 1st round playoff loss.

Going with Stanton/Clendenning/Corrado over Sbisa gives you major cap savings without making the team worse. Kenins/Kassian over Prust/Dorsett are significant savings.

I just think you could have gotten Aqua to sign off on an actual rebuild if you agreed to roll with a lower cap team.

I think that's the 'all the eggs in one basket' Scurr was talking about above.

Jimbo and the brain trust legitimately believe we got better this off season.

 

[PM]

Jimbo and the brain trust legitimately believe we got better this off season.

That's pretty incredible. Everyone (McKenzie, Friedman, Vegas, basically every analyst) thinks we got worse. Much worse.

 

[opendoor]

But does the team tangibly have to get worse?

You have a capped out team that is projected to miss the playoffs. Why not keep Lack over Miller in that situation? Cheaper, better, fan favorite, and significantly cheaper.

That decision alone is probably the same net value on the franchise as a 1st round playoff loss.

Yeah, there's really no way to positively spin spending over $12M more on this group:

Miller
Sutter
Sbisa
Dorsett
Prust

than this group:

Lack
Bonino
Stanton
Kassian
Richardson


If the Canucks falter this season then management should rightfully be on the hot seat from ownership for spending that kind of premium on those players when it's arguably a downgrade in every single instance. The Canucks could've been rolling with a sub $60M roster and be icing a better and younger team.

 

[DL44]

Yeah, there's really no way to positively spin spending over $12M more on this group:

Miller
Sutter
Sbisa
Dorsett
Prust

than this group:

Lack
Bonino
Stanton
Kassian
Richardson


If the Canucks falter this season then management should rightfully be on the hot seat from ownership for spending that kind of premium on those players when it's arguably a downgrade in every single instance. The Canucks could've been rolling with a sub $60M roster and be icing a better and younger team.

But why would you want to remain status quo when status quo wasn't good enough?

 

[Ho Borvat]

But why would you want to remain status quo when status quo wasn't good enough?

Well, the team is projected to be worse this year... so...

The argument I kind of posed is
- Theres all this pressure from ownership to make the playoffs next year (gotta get Aqua man that cheddar $$$)
- If the team realistically isn't a playoff team, and are likely to miss... why not just go with a cheaper roster and instead of playoff revenue just cut salary to appease Aquilini

The team this year is more expensive, and not an improvement over the last group. So not only are we avoiding a rebuild, but we're spending more money to do so.

 

[opendoor]

But why would you want to remain status quo when status quo wasn't good enough?

It beats paying a $12M premium for an older, worse group of players who have little to no asset value.

 

[geebaan]

But why would you want to remain status quo when status quo wasn't good enough?

Because status quo is still better than 12 million on worse players.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

That's pretty incredible. Everyone (McKenzie, Friedman, Vegas, basically every analyst) thinks we got worse. Much worse.

Add to that most of the division arguably got better.

Edmonton still hasn't proven anything yet but on paper from management, coaching down to the roster the sure look a lot better.

Calgary may have caught lightning in a bottle last season like Colorado did two seasons ago but with their work ethic, coaching and the pieces they've added this off season I doubt they take a step backwards.

LA has re-tooled a bit and has finally had a full summers rest and I doubt they'll miss the playoffs two years in a row.

Anaheim will be strong as always.

I really know nothing about SJ right now.

 

[Cupless44]

Anything out of the playoff hunt is a flop and he should be fired. I think even a bubble team that misses could be considered a flop depending on context. JB has put his eggs in some precarious baskets.

Get a grip guys. a GM is not going to be fired after two seasons, especially one hired to focus on drafting and development. It takes 3-5 seasons to properly judge what a GM has built or failed at building.

 

[Intangibos]

By all means, trade everyone on the roster. Just get value for them. Imagine if we moved the twins for a 3rd. Would you say "well the core was stale"?

Even if the team wanted to go in another direction, other than "not Gillis", then they should actually get value to head in that direction. Even if Sutter fits this team better than Bonino, we had all the leverage and they should have paid us to take Sutter and give them Bonino. We are just losing all of our assets for nothing, I can't wrap my head around how it's justified in some people's heads.

 

[geebaan]

Add to that most of the division arguably got better.

Edmonton still hasn't proven anything yet but on paper from management, coaching down to the roster the sure look a lot better.

Calgary may have caught lightning in a bottle last season like Colorado did two seasons ago but with their work ethic, coaching and the pieces they've added this off season I doubt they take a step backwards.

LA has re-tooled a bit and has finally had a full summers rest and I doubt they'll miss the playoffs two years in a row.

Anaheim will be strong as always.

I really know nothing about SJ right now.

If Martin Jones is as good as San Jose thinks he is, then to me, thats another team better than us. But thats still a big if.