The Management Thread | Part Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers

[ProstheticConscience]

Last thread hit 1,000.

MOD EDIT:

Play within the rules or you’ll be warned and removed from the discussion.

Click to read more...

 

[Lindgren]

Apologies if it's already been posted and discussed, but Chatfield, Brisebois, and Bailey have all been qualified, as per Canucks Army.

Vancouver Canucks will issue qualifying offers to Justin Bailey, Jalen Chatfield and Guillaume Brisebois

 

[Peen]

Of course NHL GM's should be open to informed criticism. But rumour-mongering and unearned belittling of Jim and his supporters are more common. It got so bad that Jim's family was being affected by a conglomeration of Internet experts who talked about Jim in horrible ways, as if he was mentally handicapped or ruining their lives. Sometimes we put others down in order to feel better about ourselves. It's much more difficult to build something, than it is to endlessly critique and nitpick. A lot have the no-plan plan; just tank and wait; don't make aggressive moves ever; 90% of NHL players suck for some reason, while 90% of draft picks are going to be superstars. But sometimes you have to put your reputation on the line and pull off moves that won't be popular, like the JT Miller trade, or the Pettersson draft pick.

At this point in time, Jim is a top-10 GM in the league objectively, and has built a top-3 future core in the NHL after fixing a franchise with the worst drafting record in the league. We just enjoyed a very fun playoff run with Jim's roster shining both on and off the ice. On other team boards, they point to Jim's job as a model to follow. Yet here, where he should be most celebrated, he's constantly torn down. That's fine, but keep in the mind that the grass isn't always greener, and our grass is looking pretty green right now to many media members and even opposing fans.

Top ten gms with a top three young core would mean that this team should see a 5-8 year run with a few really good rosters that go deep.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

I saw a post in the past thread that gets to the root of of the issue here. They said that some here ascribe to the "Church of Benning." This seems ludicrous to me. As the opening to this thread suggests, it's much more like the "Church of anti-Benning" around here.

Benning supporters around here, including myself, mostly consider him an average/above average GM with both strengths and weaknesses, but showing steady improvement. If sometimes he's referred to an hyperbolically positive fashion, it's likely a counter to hyperbole on the other side: i.e. the laughable worst management in professional sports/darkest Canuck era comments.

I consider most NHL GM's not to be idiots or savants, but often somewhere in between. They are called upon to make highly risky decisions on an annual basis, and sometimes they strike out; sometimes they hit a home-run. Often times, they operate within constraints (appeasing owners, appeasing season-ticket holders, appeasing players) that most fans have no idea of.

GM's like Cheveldayoff, Rutherford, and Sakic have all gone through the process of being the worst GM in the world to the best, and sometimes back again. GM's like Chayka and Dubas which were hailed by some as a meteorite into the dinosaur profession have been total disasters.

Is it really such trouble for some to admit that Benning has risen at least to the status of an average GM and doesn't deserve the schoolyard vitriol constantly directed at him (e.g. "mouth-breather" and worse)? That Mike Gillis was also an average GM, with strengths and weaknesses? Is that the Church of Benning?

 

[m9]

I saw a post in the past thread that gets to the root of of the issue here. They said that some here ascribe to the "Church of Benning." This seems ludicrous to me. As the opening to this thread suggests, it's much more like the "Church of anti-Benning" around here.

Benning supporters around here, including myself, mostly consider him an average/above average GM with both strengths and weaknesses, but showing steady improvement. If sometimes he's referred to an hyperbolically positive fashion, it's likely a counter to hyperbole on the other side: i.e. the laughable worst management in professional sports/darkest Canuck era comments.

I consider most NHL GM's not to be idiots or savants, but often somewhere in between. They are called upon to make highly risky decisions on an annual basis, and sometimes they strike out; sometimes they hit a home-run. Often times, they operate within constraints (appeasing owners, appeasing season-ticket holders, appeasing players) that most fans have no idea of.

GM's like Cheveldayoff, Rutherford, and Sakic have all gone through the process of being the worst GM in the world to the best, and sometimes back again. GM's like Chayka and Dubas which were hailed by some as a meteorite into the dinosaur profession have been total disasters.

Is it really such trouble for some to admit that Benning has risen at least to the status of an average GM and doesn't deserve the schoolyard vitriol constantly directed at him (e.g. "mouth-breather" and worse)? That Mike Gillis was also an average GM, with strengths and weaknesses? Is that the Church of Benning?

Mike Gillis' teams won the division 5 times in a row, won 2 Presidents trophies, and made a Stanley Cup final. Calling him an average GM is completely understating how good his team was during that run.

If Benning sustains success like that, there will be plenty of accolades to go around. But just as many Benning fans preached patience when assessing his early Canucks resume, you need to be equally patient in waiting for sustained success before he earns respect similar to Gillis.

 

[Canucks LB]

This thread has to be cleaned up, People need to relax and stay on topic.
Throwing insults back-and-forth to each other, and bending the lines of the rules is not gonna be tolerated.

This thread will be temporarily locked while we take care of it

 

[Canucks LB]

Let’s try this again shall we.

cheers

 

[I am toxic]

Apologies if it's already been posted and discussed, but Chatfield, Brisebois, and Bailey have all been qualified, as per Canucks Army.

Vancouver Canucks will issue qualifying offers to Justin Bailey, Jalen Chatfield and Guillaume Brisebois

Better than li . . . letting them walk.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Better than li . . . letting them walk.

Finish your sentence. You were about to say something about Linden?

 

[Canucks1096]

Mike Gillis' teams won the division 5 times in a row, won 2 Presidents trophies, and made a Stanley Cup final. Calling him an average GM is completely understating how good his team was during that run.

If Benning sustains success like that, there will be plenty of accolades to go around. But just as many Benning fans preached patience when assessing his early Canucks resume, you need to be equally patient in waiting for sustained success before he earns respect similar to Gillis.

Most like to discredit Benning when they bring up Markstrom Horvat Tanev Edler since he never acquire those guys and all 4 are big part of the team. Then we should be able to use the same argument with Gillis. Sedins Kesler Burrows Luongo Edler Bieksa. Gillis never acquire those players so we can discredit Gillis as well and call him an average GM. It works both ways. If one argument applies to Benning, it should be the same for Gillis as well.

 

[Melvin]

How many other GM's, besides Benning, do you consider good GM's despite a similar overall level of on-ice success?

 

[m9]

Most like to discredit Benning when they bring up Markstrom Horvat Tanev Edler since he never acquire those guys and all 4 are big part of the team. Then we should be able to use the same argument with Gillis. Sedins Kesler Burrows Luongo Edler Bieksa. Gillis never acquire those players so we can discredit Gillis as well and call him an average GM. It works both ways. If one argument applies to Benning, it should be the same for Gillis as well.

Nobody likes to discredit Benning for not acquiring those guys. Or if they do, they shouldn't and I would disagree with them.

What people do specifically dispute is the notion that Benning was left with some sort of awful situation when he arrived in terms of assets, which he wasn't.

 

[tradervik]

How many other GM's, besides Benning, do you consider good GM's despite a similar overall level of on-ice success?

There aren’t any because they’ve all been fired.

 

[krutovsdonut]

anyway, i just want to compliment the architect on the renovations. thanks @Lucbourdon. it won't last long, but i think it is a good tradition that the first post of the management thread not be salty. just so each time we can briefly renew our hope in human nature.

 

[Melvin]

Nobody likes to discredit Benning for not acquiring those guys. Or if they do, they shouldn't and I would disagree with them.

What people do specifically dispute is the notion that Benning was left with some sort of awful situation when he arrived in terms of assets, which he wasn't.

Consider what a GM would have to work with if taking over today. Yikes.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Consider what a GM would have to work with if taking over today. Yikes.

The team as it is constituted today has far more assets than the one Benning took over, including two young superstars and a solid farm system. Any GM wanting to retool the current roster rather than contend with it immediately would be in a fantastic situation.

 

[Melvin]

The team as it is constituted today has far more assets than the one Benning took over, including two young superstars and a solid farm system. Any GM wanting to retool the current roster rather than contend with it immediately would be in a fantastic situation.

No cap space, no draft picks, and what solid farm system? The team has virtually nothing in the farm. The roster is overloaded with unmovable veteran junk and the star players are about to come off their ELC requiring huge raises. It's far from a fantastic situation. I would *much* rather take over the 2014 team which has way more flexibility.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

We have nothing in the farm..apparently
https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-farm-system-rankings/

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

This is ridiculous.

Questioning the mass opinion of thousands of highly educated experts because you've watched a Youtube video is not the same thing is saying that a single high-school educated NHL GM who got to where he is mainly through nepotism and has a string of easily identifyable terrible moves to his name might not be good at his job.

Jim is a hardworking and intelligent man who after having a promising NHL career derailed due to injuries steadily worked his way up from amateur scout (5 years) to director of amateur scouting (6 years) to assistant GM on a Stanley Cup winning squad (8 years) to finally an NHL GM after two decades of hockey experience. He experienced high degrees of success at every step of his career, including this one. I think you need to rethink your usage of the word nepotism, and show some respect.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

I would *much* rather take over the 2014 team which has way more flexibility.

Lundqvist sucks, OEL sucks, and then this gem. These takes are so cold that my coffee becomes iced just by reading them.

 

[bandwagonesque]

No cap space, no draft picks, and what solid farm system? The team has virtually nothing in the farm.

The one that's universally regarded as an above-average farm system by literally every analyst who has discussed it. Incidentally, the farm system in 2014 was regarded as terrible and in fact produced among the least NHL value of any system at that time.

The roster is overloaded with unmovable veteran junk

Nearly all of it is off the payroll in two years.

and the star players are about to come off their ELC requiring huge raises.

Trading one of them plus JT Miller would probably return more than trading every single movable veteran player on the 2014 team.

I would *much* rather take over the 2014 team which has way more flexibility.

I think you're advancing and now attempting to defend an argument you don't really believe out of habit and antagonism.

 

[Melvin]

The one that's universally regarded as an above-average farm system by literally every analyst who has discussed it.

Source?

Nearly all of it is off the payroll in two years. Trading one of them plus JT Miller would probably return more than trading every single movable veteran player on the 2014

Well I didn't talk about a GM taking over "in two years." I said now. They have very little flexibility at the moment, and a lot of it is still on the books next year, as you say.

As the team is currently constructed, with just one goalie signed and an aging defense that is full of holes and they have little capspace to address it. Too, with Pettersson and Hughes coming off their ELC's will make next year difficult as well, and the lack of draft picks this year makes it unlikely that they will be adding another top talent ELC player.

I think you're advancing and now attempting to defend an argument you don't really believe out of habit and antagonism.

Ad hominem. If you truly want to remove the toxicity from this thread, you would keep this stuff to yourself.

 

[Pip]

I would imagine that by next week our prospect ranking will plummet

 

[xtra]

We have nothing in the farm..apparently
https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-farm-system-rankings/

Using the same logic you use on JD Burke that’s just some guy with a blog so disqualified

 

[Melvin]

I would imagine that by next week our prospect ranking will plummet

I guess I was taking "farm system" as meaning Utica which is pretty barren. Pod and Hog are good prospects, but there really isn't a whole lot else since they traded Madden and don't have much to work with in this year's draft.