Toggle sidebar

Canucks Management and Ownership Thread v30.0 (Post #186)

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
arttk said:
Because they called him foundational and it's obvious their ego is more important than doing what is best for the team.
Click to expand...
Sutter's been better than Eriksson and Willie sets the lines. Don't see what that has to do with Benning
 
Nuckles said:
That might be because he's getting 19 minutes per game, including 1st unit PP time.
Click to expand...
And playing well. A coach on the cusp of getting fired wouldn't be force feeding him minutes if he wasn't our best option. Eriksson has outside of 4-5 games flat out sucked, Hansen is hurt, Baertschi has 1 goal. Burr is too slow to get in on the forecheck like he used to. Virtanen?.
What would you do?
 
lousy said:
Seems like many here will just **** and moan and offer no real solution other than the dream fantasy of fire everyone then everything will be all better.
Click to expand...

Well firing people who are objectively bad at their jobs is always a good place to start. It's not the total solution but you can't even start to fix the problem until then.
 
This would have been necessary in a re-tool:

http://canucksarmy.com/2016/10/19/the-canucks-should-look-to-acquire-more-draft-picks

As far as the Canucks are concerned, increasing the total number of picks they have in their arsenal may be the single best way to beat conventional wisdom and build a strong core of prospects while still remaining competitive.
Click to expand...

Historically, teams with the greatest amount of draft picks have always come away with the largest amount of NHL-calibre talent.
Click to expand...

Benning went the opposite way...

In a strange way, this leads me back to analytics. By acquiring players that have unrecognized value, you are able to overload the veteran pieces on your team. When that's done, you are able to trade off the bigger-money surplus, pick up more picks, and still hopefully tread water at the NHL level. After a time, the picks mature and start to make a mark on the roster.

Ken Holland talked about pick frequency in one of his videos. He felt that with a weaker draft position year to year, the team needed to load up on picks in order to gain advantage at the draft. They have been doing this. Another team that does this well? Tampa Bay, who is referenced in this article. They had 10 picks in 2015 despite being a much better/competitive team. And yet another is Chicago, who used pick frequency to sustain their pipeline of talent.
 
Bleach Clean said:
This would have been necessary in a re-tool:

http://canucksarmy.com/2016/10/19/the-canucks-should-look-to-acquire-more-draft-picks





Benning went the opposite way...

In a strange way, this leads me back to analytics. By acquiring players that have unrecognized value, you are able to overload the veteran pieces on your team. When that's done, you are able to trade off the bigger-money surplus, pick up more picks, and still hopefully tread water at the NHL level. After a time, the picks mature and start to make a mark on the roster.

Ken Holland talked about pick frequency in one of his videos. He felt that with a weaker draft position year to year, the team needed to load up on picks in order to gain advantage at the draft. They have been doing this. Another team that does this well? Tampa Bay, who is referenced in this article. They had 10 picks in 2015 despite being a much better/competitive team. And yet another is Chicago, who used pick frequency to sustain their pipeline of talent.
Click to expand...
But Benning is so good at drafting that he doesn't even need draft picks to get good players. He makes them like golems out of meat, potatoes and hope. Then he gives the picks and players away to the teams that need them most. A charitable, like, holy fellow is our, like, real good GM.
 
DanCloutiersFiveHole said:
But Benning is so good at drafting that he doesn't even need draft picks to get good players. He makes them like golems out of meat, potatoes and hope. Then he gives the picks and players away to the teams that need them most. A charitable, like, holy fellow is our, like, real good GM.
Click to expand...


The interesting thing here is that not everyone agrees that this is the best way to re-tool... There has been support for Benning's method of Packaging picks + futures for mid-aged players. Also, an aversion to cycling vets per possession metrics.

It's interesting to me that posters can be so divergent on how to re-tool, given the fact that every GM has a limited amount of resources with which to re-tool.
 
Bleach Clean said:
Ken Holland talked about pick frequency in one of his videos. He felt that with a weaker draft position year to year, the team needed to load up on picks in order to gain advantage at the draft. They have been doing this. Another team that does this well? Tampa Bay, who is referenced in this article. They had 10 picks in 2015 despite being a much better/competitive team. And yet another is Chicago, who used pick frequency to sustain their pipeline of talent.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the gist of your point. But Ken Holland's idea of loading up on picks has generally been to trade down from their late first round pick. As for Tampa Bay, they actually had 9 picks in 2015 rather than 10. I think they have generally done a good job of accumulating draft picks, but most of the extra draft picks you see recently came from trading failed first round picks. Getting a 2nd in the 2015 draft (along with a 2nd in 2016) is a good trade but it's for a player who was picked 6th overall in 2010. They got a high 2nd round pick in 2016 but they traded a guy whom they picked 19th overall in 2014. I mean I'm not going to applaud Benning if he trades Virtanen for 2 second round picks and go look he accumulated draft picks.

As for Chicago, they traded some quality players to get those extra picks. Getting a 2nd in 2016 and a 3rd in 2017 by trading Teravainen, a guy they picked 18th overall in 2012 isn't something to be applauded.
 
F A N said:
I don't disagree with the gist of your point. But Ken Holland's idea of loading up on picks has generally been to trade down from their late first round pick. As for Tampa Bay, they actually had 9 picks in 2015 rather than 10. I think they have generally done a good job of accumulating draft picks, but most of the extra draft picks you see recently came from trading failed first round picks. Getting a 2nd in the 2015 draft (along with a 2nd in 2016) is a good trade but it's for a player who was picked 6th overall in 2010. They got a high 2nd round pick in 2016 but they traded a guy whom they picked 19th overall in 2014. I mean I'm not going to applaud Benning if he trades Virtanen for 2 second round picks and go look he accumulated draft picks.

As for Chicago, they traded some quality players to get those extra picks. Getting a 2nd in 2016 and a 3rd in 2017 by trading Teravainen, a guy they picked 18th overall in 2012 isn't something to be applauded.
Click to expand...


Right, Tampa had 9 in 2015... and 10 in 2016. Wrong year.

Given the scenario's you have outlined, if Virtanen turns out to be a "failing" prospect 3-5 years into his stint with the Canucks, you would have to absolutely applaud Benning for recouping value for that type of asset. Two 2nds for a borderline asset is a coup, regardless of pedigree.

That's why these teams are run by high end GMs. No matter what the mode, they gain or recoup value at the draft almost every year. It's a focus for them. Whether it's trading down for Holland, or flipping prospects that will shake loose from rosters for Yzerman or Bowman, they get draft tickets to try and find the next significant player.

They are light years ahead of where Benning needs to be in terms of thought process and execution. The difference is staggering.
 
I for one prefer this that they don't want to rebuild. The organisation is so badly rotten, and that's just a very bad position to start a rebuild. The rebuild would be rotten too, nothing good will come out of it and it's only more and more years wasted. They'll get fired faster doing the same they've been doing the last 2½ years, and then you can start the proper rebuild with a competent management.
 
georgevanlynn said:
I for one prefer this that they don't want to rebuild. The organisation is so badly rotten, and that's just a very bad position to start a rebuild. The rebuild would be rotten too, nothing good will come out of it and it's only more and more years wasted. They'll get fired faster doing the same they've been doing the last 2½ years, and then you can start the proper rebuild with a competent management.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt a badly rotten organisation scream for a rebuild? I mean what else can you do? Just suck for 3 more years because its not quite as rotten then? Maybe I just misunderstand your point.

But yeah it has to start with new management. I just listen to Bennings interview from yesterday, he is so out of touch with reality, its not even funny anymore. Listening to McGuire afterwards was quote funny, he kinda threw Benning under the bus if you read beneath the lines.
 
Peter10 said:
Wouldnt a badly rotten organisation scream for a rebuild? I mean what else can you do? Just suck for 3 more years because its not quite as rotten then? Maybe I just misunderstand your point.

But yeah it has to start with new management. I just listen to Bennings interview from yesterday, he is so out of touch with reality, its not even funny anymore. Listening to McGuire afterwards was quote funny, he kinda threw Benning under the bus if you read beneath the lines.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that rotten and bad are the same thing. Yes the team is bad and they suck, but that's because the organisation is rotten starting from the top. The only way this rot is removed is by getting rid of the people that cause it. If these same people are tasked with the rebuild, the rebuild will be rotten too.

The only thing a rebuild with this management would do is give the casual fan base, media and the ownership a reason to give them even more benefit of the doubt because "they're supposed to be bad, they are now rebuilding". But the fact is this management group will never ever have the kind of intelligence and ability needed to build a Cup contender, so giving them the keys to rebuild would be the absolute worst case scenario and it would set back the organisation years and years.

It's the same kind of thing Leafs went through. Imagine if they had started a full blown rebuild with Burke/Ferguson/Nonis. It would've been a disaster because those morons were terrible at their jobs, but they would've been stuck with them for many more years because the general feeling towards the team being bad would've been more friendly - "we're rebuilding! Watch out in few years!". Like the Oilers.
 
Last edited:
I am alarmed at how soft Eriksson plays.

Does not fight his way to the net. A wisp on the boards.
 
mathonwy said:
Based on the way things are going, I actually think we have Eriksson's usefulness gradient reversed.

So far, WD hasn't been able to find a line combination that works to allow Eriksson to be productive. But, this might change 2 or 3 years down the road when, gods willing, Jake matures into a real NHL player, Boeser comes on board and Bo keeps getting better.

So Eriksson might start off bad and end up playing well as our young players start getting older and better.

I actually think this might be what happens.
Click to expand...

Yes, hockey players are like fine wine, they only get better with age :huh:

polarbearcub said:
Sutter is actually having a good offensive year. 4 +6
Click to expand...

How many ES points?
 
F A N said:
As for Chicago, they traded some quality players to get those extra picks. Getting a 2nd in 2016 and a 3rd in 2017 by trading Teravainen, a guy they picked 18th overall in 2012 isn't something to be applauded.
Click to expand...

In a vaccum, and especially on a team with a dearth of skill like the Canucks, I think you're right about this. But, the example here shows how Chicago has built such a strong foundation through drafting + development, that part of their keys to success is to develop prospects to the point where they can then use them in trades to replenish their picks and prospect pool. It's like a perpetual motion machine. They keep their core, supplant them with fresh, strong young players, then trade those players for more picks and prospects when new young players are ready to make the jump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom