The Jim Benning & Management Megathread Part IV (MOD WARNING POST #554, #801)

[Scurr]

that's fair.

but my question isn't "does markstrom ride last year's momentum moving forward or stagnate?" it's "do we even get the opportunity to find out with miller in the way?"

Hopefully they have a good plan. They certainly didn't last season. If they learned their lesson... Miller will play less games (and be better for it) and Markstrom will be hand picked favourable starts on the regular.

 

[Scurr]

I think you have to factor Miller into the equation, as well. Benning had the option of trading Miller, and keeping both Lack and Markstrom, so I think Miller needs to be in the equation. Benning is betting that:

Markstrom + 3rd + Miller + $7.4m cap cost (or whatever it is, around this) > Lack + 5th* + Markstrom + $2.6m cap cost (or whatever it is, around this).

* I'll assume that Miller could have returned a 5th. Benning said he could have traded Miller, so I assume 5th, 6th, or 7th. If Benning could have received a 5th for an unproven, younger NHL goaltender... I'll assume that Benning could have gotten a 5th, or 6th, or 7th, for a veteran #1 NHL goaltender, despite a NTC and making $6m. But, if need be, the 5th (or any value attached to Miller can be taken out, IMO, if the need to eat cap hit can also be taken out of the equation). To make things nicer, I think it can be assumed that Miller just disappears... no remnants that he was here.

The bet that Benning made, is not only that Markstrom turns out to be a good starter (or better) than Lack, but that the combo of Miller and Markstrom will bring to the team more value than the combo that Lack and Markstrom would have. If Markstrom and Lack both turn out to be excellent goaltenders, I don't think Benning necessarily wins here in the value equation. It depends on Miller, as well.

I don't buy that Benning couldn't have traded Miller, and was forced to trade one of Lack or Markstrom (making it a nicer value equation)... and Benning said as much at the Summer Summit, himself. Therefore, I think Miller has to be in this value equation... It complicates the equation, and brings more assumptions, but I think it's a factor that needs to be included (and thought about). And then, once you look at the cap space, that then introduces needing to look at other moves that were done for cap considerations. Some parts of the value is going to be clear-cut winner or loser, but other parts of the value is going to be highly debatable.

Miller can be judged on his own. Benning chooses Miller over 6m in cap space. He could still move Miller for a 5th and sign a cheaper FA, further 'devaluing' the position. My guess is that Benning feels that Miller offers a floor that helps him sleep at night. That's how *I think he justify's that expense.

Obviously, a lot of people around here have a much different opinion of Miller. We'll have to wait and see how that pans out. I'm not a Miller fan but I actually think his numbers can rebound next season with a lighter workload.

 

[Scurr]

If benning isnt trying to win a cup next year why are trades like vey. And contractslike sbisa. At all an indication of his talent. I look at things like moving bieksa and drafting virtanen over nylander as the things u know signal a championship is close

I really think they're still looking at a "re-tool" while the majority on here have given up on that hope. You don't go get Vey, Baertschi, Clendeing and Pedan to help win you the cup right away, you get them and hope a couple can be impact players for you on the cheap while the team is on the way back up. I'm not sold on their version of a re-tool.... they should be getting better year 2... they look worse. Still, if Baertschi and Pedan can contribute when Horvat and Virtanen are ready to... that's gotta help. I still think they can get lucky and rebound before the twins decline too much. Those guys aren't going to stop preparing to be awesome. They love this ****.

They signed Sbisa because they think he's going to outperform that contract in years 2 and 3. I know that's crazy... but that's why you'd do it.

 

[Wisp]

I would then suggest you may have a uniquely high opinion of Matthias as a player.

it's not that unique of an opinion.

the thing that made Matthias intriguing is that his season had none of the tell-tale signs that the results weren't indicative that 'this guy is only getting some insanely good luck.' it was also the first time he's played as a winger and it seems he was doing it genuinely well. for what the Leafs signed him for, he was a fair, low-risk bet to repeat.

in any case, if you don't believe in the guy - as has been indicated - trade him at the deadline. show some confidence in your own judgement.

 

[Trelane]

what if they make the cup finals four years in a row? three years and a WCF? two years and two WCF?

You jest? A quasi dynasty starting with all key forwards in their thirties? Good for them, I guess. Ownership will appreciate the playoff revenues. Won't do much for team glory though. About as much as a cup run and two prez trophies did for us.

I think the Ducks are overrated. Depth is suspect and their goal differential was mediocre. Signing Bieksa is further proof. Can see them easing off the gas pedal even more during the regular season as the vets try to save still more juice for the playoffs. Could be flirting with LA scenario if not next year than the one after. Then it won't matter as other clubs will rise to prominence as they always do.

 

[Verviticus]

no, im making the point that judging a team entirely on a binary result (cup/no cup) is a poor way of doing it

 

[Verviticus]

You literally do not even have to move beyond a pair of Matthias former teammates in Florida to find better "value" bottom-6 players. I'd take Bergenheim or Upshall over Matthias every day...guys who actually use their size, and have more than one year of results to their name.

i'd take bergenheim, wouldn't take upshall. i said he was his goal scoring was very good for a third liner, not that he's an irreplaceable member of the team. throwing him away though is bad

 

[Wisp]

ew upshall

 

[I in the Eye]

Miller can be judged on his own. Benning chooses Miller over 6m in cap space. He could still move Miller for a 5th and sign a cheaper FA, further 'devaluing' the position. My guess is that Benning feels that Miller offers a floor that helps him sleep at night. That's how *I think he justify's that expense.

Obviously, a lot of people around here have a much different opinion of Miller. We'll have to wait and see how that pans out. I'm not a Miller fan but I actually think his numbers can rebound next season with a lighter workload.

Benning chose Miller over Lack. If Benning moved Miller for a 5th, today, Lack doesn't re-appear. Benning valued Miller over Lack (and at the expense of Lack). Miller should be in that Benning goaltender valuation equation.

 

[Bleach Clean]

We're not talking straight probability here. We're talking wildly unpredictable weighted probabilities.

And in that market...Benning has basically managed to tread water on the whole so far...with key results pending?

...If one of these guys rings the bells as a key contributor in the NHL...that's a win overall, even if the whole rest of the slate chip in only a few bits here and there and mostly bust out completely.

I take "tread water" as something different from "skirting the win/loss line pretty well". The latter infers more wins than losses, instead of collecting 'maybes'. Which is why I asked you to provide examples of those 'wins' (skirting the line well).

I see more losses than wins. More sub-50% moves to this point. That's why he's getting critiqued as hard has he is.

And no, I don't agree with the premise that 1 hit absolves every other poor gamble, or makes that a win overall. Each gamble on its own has to be justified. If one hits, great. However, if 9 fail while 1 hit, that ratio just cannot be ignored or absolved away. (And it won't be)

Great, you thought the Garrison trade was poor...based on ONE YEAR of results.

...the Tampa side...that's just going to get worse from here.

Ummm yeah: When a top4 Dman goes for relative peanuts, that's a poor trade outright. Period. Poor value that cannot be altered. His great year this year only confirmed that misread.

Further, how do you know it's going to get worse from this exact point? He can't stay level for a few years a top4? He's 30 yrs old.

In this particular context as applied? Essentially...it's the acceptance of reality. For example...That when trades happen, they happen because they're awfully darn close to what two parties will agree on. That a perceived difference in value might not always be completely down to something as basic as "used car salesman negotiating prowess"...and is in fact often times, simply a case of a player being traded for what a player is worth.

Precedent in the fanbase and media as a "consensus" is an extremely dangerous thing to rely on. Rarely does it seem to align with the reality. Each team values its own players over others...it's natural. But it can also be very misleading, and often ends up being completely removed from what "actual values" are in trade for example.

I'm talking about precedent in the majority of past trades. The actual transactions. People are critiquing Benning because his execution fell well short of those seen in past transactions. That's where the media and fans derive their expectations: Past record.

From the above, it seems like you're not understanding what a non-sequitur is. The 'reality' is all the trades have occurred. That's the execution. The value garnered is different from the execution though, and here in lies the problem with your logic: A poorly executed trade does not reverse apply poor value to the asset prior to the trade.

Two parties agreeing on a trade does not mean that each GM has properly valued their assets in that trade.

It is fair to critique along the way. And i've been quite active in that...

But that's a far reach from condemning an entire regime one year in based on the critiques of individual moves, independent of the "overarching goals".

Frankly, i didn't particularly like either of those moves. I would've kept the better and more proven goaltender in Lack as i said many times. I would have hoped for and tried to press for a more futures-based return for Kassian. But there is still plenty of reasonable logic behind these moves that i can accept and see how they play out...even if the "value" was very disappointing and poor.

What a strange position to take. You disliked the deals, felt value was "very disappointing", but above you say don't worry about value and said player went for what they were worth...?

These individual moves add up. It's the culmination of these moves that has me critiquing Benning right now. Condemn the whole regime? No. Otherwise, I would not say that he needs to improve. I would be saying, "get him the hell out of here ASAP". But so far, he's fallen well short of the mark.

That's not my definition of the world "knowledgeable", that's the apparent consensus here.

No, it's your perception of what the consensus is saying. Like I said, arsmaster doesn't have this issue. I respect his opinion and think that he offers keen insight. He's not a 'stats guy'.

 

[Scurr]

Benning chose Miller over Lack. If Benning moved Miller for a 5th, today, Lack doesn't re-appear. Benning valued Miller over Lack (and at the expense of Lack). Miller should be in that Benning goaltender valuation equation.

O.K.

Miller/Markstrom/3rd > Lack/Markstrom/5th > Miller/Lack/5th

 

[I in the Eye]

O.K.

Miller/Markstrom/3rd > Lack/Markstrom/5th > Miller/Lack/5th

Miller/Markstrom/3rd > Miller/Lack/5th > Lack/Markstrom/5th

I think Benning considered the trading of Miller to be the least desirable value option... and would only entertain trading one of Lack or Markstrom.

 

[MarkMM]

Miller/Markstrom/3rd > Miller/Lack/5th > Lack/Markstrom/5th

I think Benning considered the trading of Miller to be the least desirable value option... and would only entertain trading one of Lack or Markstrom.

Add in the elite-level cap space being spent on the barely average Miller into the equation and it...changes everything.

 

[I in the Eye]

Add in the elite-level cap space being spent on the barely average Miller into the equation and it...changes everything.

Using goaltender stats to back this up, the correct definition of Miller (free from belief dogma, or bias) is "barely below average". Yeah, the minute Miller is added into the equation, it changes everything. The implications become much more far reaching, and difficult to pin-point. It`s a big difference in cap space. It's choosing a goaltender on the way down in his career, over one on the way up. It's no longer just did Benning choose the right young horse to bet on... it becomes, should Benning have bet on the two younger, cheaper horses... and bet against the old, expensive one.

Who knows how it negatively affected things already. Was Ehrhoff willing to sign? Could more value have been squeezed for Bieksa if making cap room couldn't be used against the Canucks as some leverage / affecting the time line a deal needed to be done, if Benning was hellbent to get Bartowski? Do the Canucks need to dump (or accept underwhelming return on) Hansen for a future move, if Hansen will at least bring something back where Higgins could bring nothing back, according the the regime? Going forward, I think the cap space difference can be brought up in moves, where Benning & co. cite cap reasons or cap concerns why they had to eat value or couldn`t pursue an opportunity in front of them... but someone would need to provide a carefully kept, up to date ledger, with lots of notes/stats/reasons/regime commentary.

To some people, perhaps this is a move that keeps on giving (logical succession of goaltenders, or whatever Benning called it)... I think it's more likely that this is a move that keeps on taking away. If we're measuring and tracking value, someone has to be keeping careful records.

 

[zoolander09]

I really think they're still looking at a "re-tool" while the majority on here have given up on that hope. You don't go get Vey, Baertschi, Clendeing and Pedan to help win you the cup right away, you get them and hope a couple can be impact players for you on the cheap while the team is on the way back up. I'm not sold on their version of a re-tool.... they should be getting better year 2... they look worse. Still, if Baertschi and Pedan can contribute when Horvat and Virtanen are ready to... that's gotta help. I still think they can get lucky and rebound before the twins decline too much. Those guys aren't going to stop preparing to be awesome. They love this ****.

They signed Sbisa because they think he's going to outperform that contract in years 2 and 3. I know that's crazy... but that's why you'd do it.

They signed Sbisa in an embarrasing effort to save face after the outrageous Kesler deal. Makes Benning look even more incompetent if they cut him loose.
One bad move leads to another, Benning just digging a deeper grave everyday.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

it's not that unique of an opinion.

the thing that made Matthias intriguing is that his season had none of the tell-tale signs that the results weren't indicative that 'this guy is only getting some insanely good luck.' it was also the first time he's played as a winger and it seems he was doing it genuinely well. for what the Leafs signed him for, he was a fair, low-risk bet to repeat.

in any case, if you don't believe in the guy - as has been indicated - trade him at the deadline. show some confidence in your own judgement.

Guy simply disappeared down the stetch and was invisible in a gritty series against Calgary.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Really? To each his own I guess. I wouldn't take anyone on that list over McCann.

You may prefer McCann (undoubtedly because he's "our" prospect), but there's no question that Kapanen, Pastrnak, Scherbak, Ho-Sang and Barbashev are all on the same level as him (with a couple of them probably being even better).

We got a great player, but if we had any of those other guys, we'd be just as well off.

 

[Wisp]

McCann is one of the late gems in that draft, but Pastrnak is the crown jewel. He's likely an 18 year old 20 goal scorer.


If I could go back in time, I'd draft Pastrnak... at 6th and then McCann at 24th.

 

[me2]

Guy simply disappeared down the stetch and was invisible in a gritty series against Calgary.

As opposed to Dorsett who's never managed to score a playoff goal and continued to show that in the Calgary series, Matthias scored more playoff goals against Calgary than Dorsett has playoff goals in his career, he also equaled Dorsett's career playoff points in just 1 series. Prust, Matthias' replacement is bringing in 2 goals in 53 playoff games.

If you are going to run the playoff argument then at least bring in playoff performers, we have two guys that disappear when it comes to goal scoring, both on bigger contracts, one on the edge of being washed up.

 

[JuniorNelson]

Mattias being left unsigned bothers me too. WTF? A big guy that tries to contribute and you just give up on him? I thought Desjardins was a motivational coach who is good with players? His AHL creds suggest he can mentor?

In this context, I ask, did three coaches give up on Kassian, or did he give up on three coaches? Vigneault was playing out the string and loved his scapegoats. Tortorella was just bizarre. DEsjardins seems like a junior coach. Is this why players continue to flee Vancouver? It's certainly a symptom.

Kassian did his best work on the Sedin line. Is that because they are the acknowledged scoring line, that does all the work? Is the team too focused on the top line, allowing everyone else to be a passenger? Guys step up their games when Sedin time comes their way because they know this is the engine. No wonder they struggle on the other units, the pressure is off. I'd have thought the coaches would discourage this type of thinking but it is very evident in the team's actions. Canucks were poorly coached in the playoffs and were utterly owned because they are transparently a one line team.

Weak coaching and wrong headed direction are what causes guys to sign elsewhere. Canucks have both and it is very apparent to everybody.

 

[Wisp]

I was checking in on the Canucks 2016 draft picks and they're missing both their 3rd and 5th draft picks. Seems minor, but I'm a huge proponent of volume drafting and every year I wish for the Canucks to go up and draft 11 times (or more, if they do rebuild) like the Blackhawks seem to do.

They do have an extra 2nd and 7th by way of the Bieksa and Lack trades. Ideally they don't flip them (unless they're capitalizing on Dougie/Saad/ROR/E.Kane situation). To be sellers at the deadline and amassing even more picks...

 

[mossey3535]

Mattias being left unsigned bothers me too. WTF? A big guy that tries to contribute and you just give up on him? I thought Desjardins was a motivational coach who is good with players? His AHL creds suggest he can mentor?

In this context, I ask, did three coaches give up on Kassian, or did he give up on three coaches? Vigneault was playing out the string and loved his scapegoats. Tortorella was just bizarre. DEsjardins seems like a junior coach. Is this why players continue to flee Vancouver? It's certainly a symptom.

Kassian did his best work on the Sedin line. Is that because they are the acknowledged scoring line, that does all the work? Is the team too focused on the top line, allowing everyone else to be a passenger? Guys step up their games when Sedin time comes their way because they know this is the engine. No wonder they struggle on the other units, the pressure is off. I'd have thought the coaches would discourage this type of thinking but it is very evident in the team's actions. Canucks were poorly coached in the playoffs and were utterly owned because they are transparently a one line team.

Weak coaching and wrong headed direction are what causes guys to sign elsewhere. Canucks have both and it is very apparent to everybody.

Although I think Therrien is a really overrated coach (and behind the times), Kassian is at least going into a situation where the GM has acknowledged that he is more of a skill player. So there is some management sentiment that will value that aspect of his game over his 'physical potential'.

Zack in many ways is an interesting double standard for all three of the last Canucks coaches. This team has consistently gotten into trouble and ultimately lost games when they tried to be 'bang and crash'. Guys like Tanner Glass didn't hit often or well.

Oddly Torts was the one who gave him the most chances IMO but overall he was such a hot mess that it barely registered. And I feel the team consciously tried to wipe away anything associated with that season.

Zack is also going to a team that can't score. They are literally desperate for offence. This is another reason to think he will have a different fate in Montreal - the expectations are far different.

 

[mossey3535]

Again, all you have to do is compare Benning's moves to similar moves for similar (and sometimes worse) players on other organizations to see Benning has gotten ripped off on almost every transaction so far. There are literally dozens of these moves.

For example, the Lack trade. In the 2013-2014 season here were the goaltender transations that involved picks (so no Miller trade etc):

-Halak + 3rd for Neuvirth + Klesla
-Berra for a 2nd
-Dubnyk for futures
-Viktor Fasth for a 3rd + 5th
-Scrivens for 3rd

Berra was coming off a season with a .897 save percentage. None of the goalies above had ever played more than 29 games in a season, and none had been in the league for more than 3 seasons. IF you add in this year's trades including the outlandish price for Jones and three picks for Talbot and it's evident that a 2nd round pick and a later round pick would have been fair compensation.

Also, Benning just seems to have no clue what he is doing in things like cap management.

The fact that we are once again missing draft picks in the 2016 season (if Wisp is correct) when Benning basically failed to restock the picks he traded away in the first place is alarming. Is he going to be scrambling to do this every year?

As pitseleh pointed out, the idea that he didn't pick up the arbitration option on Sbisa is mind boggling.

I'm also trying to keep an open mind but it's more like 'well, this dude has been stabbed through the chest so I hope he lives' moreso than 'these moves might turn out to be good'.

 

[me2]

The thing is, that's what a rebuild ultimately is. It's doing things that you hope in the end, might make you a better team in 5 years.

That end result is what really matters. There's a fixation in what you're saying, with evaluating "value" based on what we got for players who are no longer here, no longer part of the team, and on individual pieces of a larger and as yet incomplete whole.

There have been multiple instances of apparent "poor value" with Benning in trades/signings...but ultimately, the goal is, and should be, to build a future Canucks team, not to "win" every trade or signing the day of.

And in that regard...it's crazy to close the book on a total regime one single year into their project.

Evaluate on what is being put together, not what is being torn apart imo.

There is a difference between a controlled landing, a crash landing and a mid explosion. Sure they all end up on the ground but which would you rather. If you have to go down do it smartly and controlled.

 

[van22]

If benning isnt trying to win a cup next year why are trades like vey. And contractslike sbisa. At all an indication of his talent. I look at things like moving bieksa and drafting virtanen over nylander as the things u know signal a championship is close

Listening to Burrows interview earlier this month in french on RDS it sure sounds like a re-tool. He was asked if the team was in an "all-in mode" given that the Sedins are getting older and he said he didn't think so. He said that management has come to realise that they need to transition and that they're going to be trying to give ice time to their young players and develop them. That being said they don't want to be like the Oilers so they will try to reach the play-offs where anything can happen but for now he thinks they are in transition.