Speculation: The Second Team Presidency Discussion Thread

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I thought it was common knowledge but "old boys club" is not necessarly referencing to age but rather getting positions/promotion due to name recognition and not by being qualified for the job. Chayka or Dubas could be 70 years old and wouldnt be considered part of the "old boys"

Then Cam Neely is a shining example of an 'old boys 'network..and getting the 'unearned privilege' of being the President..Basically a figurehead....He's very close to getting his second Stanley Cup.

The whole 'Presidency' thing is overrated IMO...

 

[Javaman]

what would you like to dispute?

Everything and nothing at the same time. It's a bit of a conundrum to be sure.

On the one hand, reducing the totality of the Gillis regime the way you have is so wildly misleading that it needs to be countered.

On the other hand, the mere fact you'd offer up such a gross mischaracterization in the first place suggests you're not interested in a reasonable discussion of the topic.

So I'm stuck between respond or ignore. I need more time to think about it.

 

[member 290103]

They don’t buy certain posters have to derail everything to defend benning

This thread sucks. I keep coming here hoping there is a tweet or something with some news of someone to oversee the clown show, but all I read is the same nonsense from the bros. Yawn.

 

[Jay Cee]

Same nonsense from everyone.

 

[Jyrki21]

The whole 'Presidency' thing is overrated IMO...

Well yes, in most cases there is really little that trickles down the the fan level. I never once cared about the presidency of the Canucks until the owner decided to let an underqualified GM run rampant without meaningful supervision. Now it matters for that reason.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Well yes, in most cases there is really little that trickles down the the fan level. I never once cared about the presidency of the Canucks until the owner decided to let an underqualified GM run rampant without meaningful supervision. Now it matters for that reason.

Makes no sense to hire a President to be a watchdog over a GM...... Either ,let the GM do his job without interference, or hire a new GM and let him do his job without interference...

It's no secret the Canucks ownership have demanded and also nixed trades in the past..(thats your supervision right there)...Seems to me that ownership and the GM are currently on the same page, so I highly doubt that they're going to be bringing in a dissenting voice in the room (been there, done that)...Thats probably why there will not be a POHO.

Looking through the list of NHL teams presidents..Many of them have hardly any connection to the sport (in Buffalo,the owners wife is the President)

 

[pitseleh]

Those that have a sub should go read:

How the Canucks' outdated roster construction is undermining...

Some great stuff by Harman. His work is impressive.

Outlines how bad this teams bottom 6 is

Was coming here to post about this. Key bit:

This raises major concerns when you consider just how much salary sits either scratched or in Vancouver’s bottom six. Between Brandon Sutter, Jay Beagle, Loui Eriksson, Tim Schaller, Ryan Spooner and Markus Granlund the Canucks have nearly $20-million committed to six players who combined for below replacement level value (-0.9) according to Evolving Hockey’s WAR model.

UFA spending should reasonably get you one WAR per $5-6 million spent, based on the latest numbers I have seen, meaning the Canucks likely left 8-10 points on the table last season due to garbage roster construction. For context, that nets out against the WAR created by Pettersson and Boeser last year.

 

[Peter10]

Makes no sense to hire a President to be a watchdog over a GM...... Either ,let the GM do his job without interference, or hire a new GM and let him do his job without interference...

It's no secret the Canucks ownership have demanded and also nixed trades in the past..(thats your supervision right there)...Seems to me that ownership and the GM are currently on the same page, so I highly doubt that they're going to be bringing in a dissenting voice in the room (been there, done that)...Thats probably why there will not be a POHO.

Looking through the list of NHL teams presidents..Many of them have hardly any connection to the sport (in Buffalo,the owners wife is the President)

The nobody want the new President to be the watchdog but rather bring one in who will clean house. At this stage I would say it is unlikely that Aquilini will fire Benning himself unless the beginning of next season goes absolutely south in the first quarter. Whether or not he is satified with the job Benning is doing, I think he is also concerned about his own image, just have a look how desperate he denied the Lombardi and Gillis rumors.

Also a new President will "officially" give Benning time to evaluate him rather than firing him on the spot. Much easier to sell to the public if you wait a few months and then say something like "different vision".

 

[TruGr1t]

Was coming here to post about this. Key bit:

This raises major concerns when you consider just how much salary sits either scratched or in Vancouver’s bottom six. Between Brandon Sutter, Jay Beagle, Loui Eriksson, Tim Schaller, Ryan Spooner and Markus Granlund the Canucks have nearly $20-million committed to six players who combined for below replacement level value (-0.9) according to Evolving Hockey’s WAR model.

UFA spending should reasonably get you one WAR per $5-6 million spent, based on the latest numbers I have seen, meaning the Canucks likely left 8-10 points on the table last season due to garbage roster construction. For context, that nets out against the WAR created by Pettersson and Boeser last year.

This point has been made by many people here repeatedly, which basically boils down to the fact the Canucks are significantly over-paying for replacement-level, or below, players. I'm not even sure Benning would disagree with that fact. The problem is that management believes they are paying for attributes that are not captured in the stat models (i.e. intangibles). So well some of these guys are effectively statistically "below replacement level," management would argue they are more valuable due to things like leadership, experience, toughness, grit, etc. etc.

So you could well have similar on-ice results with Dowd versus Beagle ... but you would not get the sweet, sweet Beagle mentorship and experience, which is apparently worth like $2M AAV per year.

That doesn't explain Granlund, however, and I have no idea why the hell he's still here.

 

[Jyrki21]

This point has been made by many people here repeatedly, which basically boils down to the fact the Canucks are significantly over-paying for replacement-level, or below, players. I'm not even sure Benning would disagree with that fact. The problem is that management believes they are paying for attributes that are not captured in the stat models (i.e. intangibles). So well some of these guys are effectively statistically "below replacement level," management would argue they are more valuable due to things like leadership, experience, toughness, grit, etc. etc.

It's insane to me that managers of a for-profit business would willy-nilly throw around dozens of millions of dollars on players who don't push the needle, yet not invest the equivalent of their quarterly mouthguard budget to hire a guy like Harman onto their staff to do evidence-based analysis (or to keep him away from competitors). Like, how is this inefficiency even possible? (Don't answer that – I know NHL franchises are not operating in a free market).

 

[tantalum]

Those that have a sub should go read:

How the Canucks' outdated roster construction is undermining...

Some great stuff by Harman. His work is impressive.

Outlines how bad this teams bottom 6 is

Yep. A really good piece. I didn't check the Athletic for a few days but saw it this morning. Glad someone one linked it.

I'm more than willing to buy Aquilini a subscription. Hell I'd even read it to him.

Garbage roster construction.

Note there was also a recent piece by Duhatschek that I found very interesting on the changing relationship between media and player. It is well worth the subscription price IMO.

 

[4Twenty]

They could have a million Harman's, if the folks making the decisions aren't going to use the data analysis to base their decisions on it won't matter.

Thus a fundamental change in how the front office operates is required IMO. It actually shocks me that an owner, going from the data driven, constantly in search of competitive advantages front office who experienced the greatest era in franchise history to what we've seen under Benning, is actually ok with what he sees.

I guess it all comes down to the entry draft, and measuring constant top 5 picks vs bottom 5 picks.

 

[pitseleh]

This point has been made by many people here repeatedly, which basically boils down to the fact the Canucks are significantly over-paying for replacement-level, or below, players. I'm not even sure Benning would disagree with that fact. The problem is that management believes they are paying for attributes that are not captured in the stat models (i.e. intangibles). So well some of these guys are effectively statistically "below replacement level," management would argue they are more valuable due to things like leadership, experience, toughness, grit, etc. etc.

So you could well have similar on-ice results with Dowd versus Beagle ... but you would not get the sweet, sweet Beagle mentorship and experience, which is apparently worth like $2M AAV per year.

That doesn't explain Granlund, however, and I have no idea why the hell he's still here.

The problem with that argument is that to the extent "intangibles" have value, they only have value insofar as they affect the tangible value on the roster. To the extent this intangible value is not directly captured in the tangible value of these players, the value has to show up in the tangible value provided by other players on the roster.

And for the intangible value these players provide to be worth what the team is paying for them, you have to assume that Pettersson and Boeser would be replacement level players without them, or that Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat and Stetcher are barely above replacement level players without them.

Aside from the fact that is completely implausible, you can't have it both ways. Either the team has good young players and are wasting money on trash in their bottom six, or they have mediocre young players that are being kept afloat by the good value players they have playing in their bottom six. Suggesting both is the case is double counting.

 

[Dana Murzyn]

The problem with that argument is that to the extent "intangibles" have value, they only have value insofar as they affect the tangible value on the roster. To the extent this intangible value is not directly captured in the tangible value of these players, the value has to show up in the tangible value provided by other players on the roster.

And for the intangible value these players provide to be worth what the team is paying for them, you have to assume that Pettersson and Boeser would be replacement level players without them, or that Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat and Stetcher are barely above replacement level players without them.

Aside from the fact that is completely implausible, you can't have it both ways. Either the team has good young players and are wasting money on trash in their bottom six, or they have mediocre young players that are being kept afloat by the good value players they have playing in their bottom six. Suggesting both is the case is double counting.

Ah, but what about the bottom six's effect on *each other*? Without Beagle, Granlund would have been even worse, and vice versa. So we need a lot of those guys, because we have a lot of them. Checkmate Benning.

 

[Lindgren]

The problem with that argument is that to the extent "intangibles" have value, they only have value insofar as they affect the tangible value on the roster. To the extent this intangible value is not directly captured in the tangible value of these players, the value has to show up in the tangible value provided by other players on the roster.

And for the intangible value these players provide to be worth what the team is paying for them, you have to assume that Pettersson and Boeser would be replacement level players without them, or that Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat and Stetcher are barely above replacement level players without them.

Aside from the fact that is completely implausible, you can't have it both ways. Either the team has good young players and are wasting money on trash in their bottom six, or they have mediocre young players that are being kept afloat by the good value players they have playing in their bottom six. Suggesting both is the case is double counting.

I'm quoting it because it's so well said, especially the bolded.

 

[pgj98m3]

Here’s my hot take....
The team doesn’t have a President and appears to be drifting in mediocrity.
Should we do anything about it?

Is this too on-topic??

Mods please advise.

 

[mathonwy]

Is it just me or have the last bunch of posts had nothing to do with the Canuck's still not having a President.