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

[BloatedGuppy]

If the plane's gonna crash, i want mother****ing chesley sullenberger! but for reals...having good management always matters. doesn't matter if the team's on the upswing or downswing.

for example, we could be crashing right now but with a surplus of draft picks...instead of, y'know, being buyers at the deadline.

Well of course it matters. I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying it's not the most important thing. The most important thing is that the plane is crashing.

Until this team acknowledges there's a need for a rebuild, we're basically shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Once we have a mandate for a rebuild, we can start talking about getting more competent people in here to manage it.

If we'd messaged "REBUILD" to the owners back at the end of Gillis's tenure instead of "Fire Gillis" maybe we wouldn't be in this stupid mess.

 

[clunk]

I've taken my best crack at decoding it:

It all makes sense now..

 

[opendoor]

It seems that their is a consensus that Benning is a bad manager because the Canucks have a bad team 3 years into his term. add that together with many inconsequential deals and it is checkmate. However I think it is much more complicated than that we had a stale aging lineup with no prospects in 2013. Now we have a little less stale lineup with a few prospects. Next year if Boeser, virtanen and OJ arrive it is a bit less stale year after this years first and Demko. In 3 years this should be a young exciting team with perhaps only the Sedins Ericksson over 30. A great manager could have done it a year quicker perhaps. However that we were going to the bottom was determined by the 2006 to 2012 drafts .

No, a great manager could have it turned the team around into the right direction in 3-4 years, while Benning is setting the Canucks up to be 7-10 years at the bottom at this rate.

You're just assuming that in 3 years he'll have built a young exciting and good team, but what evidence of there of his ability to do that based on his first 2.5 years on the job? What if more of his future top picks track like Virtanen has? What if he continues to trade away good prospects and picks for older players like he has so far? As it stands, the Canucks have absolutely no one in the system who can realistically provide top line offense. If everything pans out maybe Boeser will get there, but that's pretty far from a sure thing. And the defense is a complete mess.

Even if someone competent came in right now and made all the right moves, the Canucks are still 5+ years out from being any kind of quality team. If Benning stays on the job for the next few years and performs like he has so far it'll be double that

 

[racerjoe]

No, a great manager could have it turned the team around into the right direction in 3-4 years, while Benning is setting the Canucks up to be 7-10 years at the bottom at this rate.

You're just assuming that in 3 years he'll have built a young exciting and good team, but what evidence of there of his ability to do that based on his first 2.5 years on the job? What if more of his future top picks track like Virtanen has? What if he continues to trade away good prospects and picks for older players like he has so far? As it stands, the Canucks have absolutely no one in the system who can realistically provide top line offense. If everything pans out maybe Boeser will get there, but that's pretty far from a sure thing. And the defense is a complete mess.

Even if someone competent came in right now and made all the right moves, the Canucks are still 5+ years out from being any kind of quality team. If Benning stays on the job for the next few years and performs like he has so far it'll be double that

I am slightly disagreeing with this.

The leafs were in a worse place than we are now and two years later are clearly on the rise. If things go well next year, year 3 they could be a quality team, probably still far from being a top team, but realistically in three years with good management, and everything going right, we could be a respectable team.

 

[CanaFan]

I am slightly disagreeing with this.

The leafs were in a worse place than we are now and two years later are clearly on the rise. If things go well next year, year 3 they could be a quality team, probably still far from being a top team, but realistically in three years with good management, and everything going right, we could be a respectable team.

Expecting everything to go right isn't very realistic though. Not every prospect pans out, not every decision will be the right one (hell, at the moment we'd be lucky if 1 in 5 decisions fit that bill).

Tough to compare us to the Leafs since they brought in possibly the most qualified management group available (esp Lamorello) and picked a clear mandate to rebuild, which resulted in the trading of current assets for pure futures (something this regime has so far refused to do) and also got some luck in the lottery/draft year. We have not only to contend with a rebuild-averse group but also a draft landscape where there is no Matthews on the immediate horizon as well as having to contend with 1 (possibly 2 in near future) expansion teams tanking at the exact same time we are finally in a position to pick high.

We are a terrible team today with arguably a still-decent top line. Once they go, the real measure of how far we are from rebuilding will become apparent. Guys like Horvat, Boeser, Juolevi etc are nice pieces but are far from completing the foundation for a strong team going forward.

 

[racerjoe]

Expecting everything to go right isn't very realistic though. Not every prospect pans out, not every decision will be the right one (hell, at the moment we'd be lucky if 1 in 5 decisions fit that bill).

Tough to compare us to the Leafs since they brought in possibly the most qualified management group available (esp Lamorello) and picked a clear mandate to rebuild, which resulted in the trading of current assets for pure futures (something this regime has so far refused to do) and also got some luck in the lottery/draft year. We have not only to contend with a rebuild-averse group but also a draft landscape where there is no Matthews on the immediate horizon as well as having to contend with 1 (possibly 2 in near future) expansion teams tanking at the exact same time we are finally in a position to pick high.

We are a terrible team today with arguably a still-decent top line. Once they go, the real measure of how far we are from rebuilding will become apparent. Guys like Horvat, Boeser, Juolevi etc are nice pieces but are far from completing the foundation for a strong team going forward.

I am just saying, we are in a better spot than where the leafs were. It is possible. I fully admit how hard it is, and would say the leafs aren't even there yet.

But I want good management, and would like a team for it more like the leafs.

Have Maloney/Tallon as Lu, find some good young guys like Dubas, and personally I would ad a cap guy like a Gilman too. We just need a better Shanny than Linden.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I am slightly disagreeing with this.

The leafs were in a worse place than we are now and two years later are clearly on the rise. If things go well next year, year 3 they could be a quality team, probably still far from being a top team, but realistically in three years with good management, and everything going right, we could be a respectable team.

I'm less concerned personally about time spent turning around into competition again (which realistically is a long process) and more concerned with time spent turning around to where fan engagement with the product returns.

The Leafs might be a bad team this year, but the fans are engaged. There's plenty to be hopeful and optimistic about, even when the team is struggling/getting blown out. There's a narrative, a product that you can sell people.

Sports is an entertainment business, first, last and foremost. The Leafs as constructed are entertaining. The Canucks are not. Watching this SAME SQUAD limp around under the banner of "we're tearing it down and rebuilding" would be significantly more tolerable. But this looming dream that they're going to trade a young asset away to get some immediate help to chase the mechanical rabbit called "Playoffs" is draining all pleasure from an already ragged season.

 

[racerjoe]

I'm less concerned personally about time spent turning around into competition again (which realistically is a long process) and more concerned with time spent turning around to where fan engagement with the product returns.

The Leafs might be a bad team this year, but the fans are engaged. There's plenty to be hopeful and optimistic about, even when the team is struggling/getting blown out. There's a narrative, a product that you can sell people.

Sports is an entertainment business, first, last and foremost. The Leafs as constructed are entertaining. The Canucks are not. Watching this SAME SQUAD limp around under the banner of "we're tearing it down and rebuilding" would be significantly more tolerable. But this looming dream that they're going to trade a young asset away to get some immediate help to chase the mechanical rabbit called "Playoffs" is draining all pleasure from an already ragged season.

I can fully agree with this, but it goes back to my first statement, I don't want the guys pouring Gas on this tire-fire doing the rebuilding.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I can fully agree with this, but it goes back to my first statement, I don't want the guys pouring Gas on this tire-fire doing the rebuilding.

Fair. Short term, what would your preference be...

1. Benning fired for failure to make the playoffs. New coach/GM/President brought in with same mandate of rebuild-on-the-fly. "This fanbase won't tolerate a rebuild" is re-uttered, empty seats are pointed at as evidence that the team must return to competitive primacy ASAP.

2. Owner issues a mandate of tear/down rebuild. Benning is allowed at least one more year on the job. Bloviating about meat and potatoes or culture carrying possibly continues, but no more chasing Evander Kanes or trading for age-gap players.

Note: I'm not saying you couldn't get the idealized scenario of a complete tear down with new people, just trying to present an actual difficult choice.

 

[CanaFan]

I am just saying, we are in a better spot than where the leafs were. It is possible. I fully admit how hard it is, and would say the leafs aren't even there yet.

But I want good management, and would like a team for it more like the leafs.

Have Maloney/Tallon as Lu, find some good young guys like Dubas, and personally I would ad a cap guy like a Gilman too. We just need a better Shanny than Linden.

I'm not sure we are in a better place. Both teams have/had some solid pieces in place prior to the "**** we suck NOW let's rebuild" moment. We could debate them but I don't think there's enough difference between Kadri, JVR, Gardiner, Reilly, Bozak etc and our group of Horvat, Hutton, Tanev, Stecher, etc. At the end of the day both groups had some solid pieces in place but lacked the high end pieces. Now the Leafs have 3 such pieces and we have none. Perhaps we will get those pieces in the near future but it takes a combination of timing, luck, and willingness to be bad enough to get to the part of the draft where those pieces are most common.

That could take 2-3 years, it could take 5-6. It really comes down to everything going right and I'm not a big believer in counting on that to happen.

 

[Proto]

Fair. Short term, what would your preference be...

1. Benning fired for failure to make the playoffs. New coach/GM/President brought in with same mandate of rebuild-on-the-fly. "This fanbase won't tolerate a rebuild" is re-uttered, empty seats are pointed at as evidence that the team must return to competitive primacy ASAP.

2. Owner issues a mandate of tear/down rebuild. Benning is allowed at least one more year on the job. Bloviating about meat and potatoes or culture carrying possibly continues, but no more chasing Evander Kanes or trading for age-gap players.

Note: I'm not saying you couldn't get the idealized scenario of a complete tear down with new people, just trying to present an actual difficult choice.

Why would anyone choose either of these terrible options?

Benning sold himself on a quick rebuild and, by all accounts, believes in that and doesn't believe in rebuilding.

Benning is similar to a lot of sports management types that manage to win a championship in an atypical fashion. Rather than have the humility to chalk some of that up to good circumstance and luck, he fashions himself a genius that knows better than anyone else and goes about trying to accomplish everything the hard way again.

Why else would someone try to emulate a model that relies on finding a giant first-ballot HOF defenseman, trying to find an aging goaltender that peaks in his mid 30's, drafting a bunch of top-of-the-lineup talent in the later rounds, moving picks for character veterans, etc? I don't think it's incredibly complicated to see what happened in Vancouver.

 

[mathonwy]

Or a management team that has a mandate to sell season tickets and keep the roster competitive. I'm not sure anyone is as delusional as you're suggesting. This would hardly be the first time the management of a professional sports franchise smeared lipstick all over a pig and tried to sell kisses at the county fair.

Yeah we can't demand new owners, but we can message to ownership properly. "Fire Benning" isn't the right chant, any more than "Fire Gillis" was the right chant. "We want a rebuild" is the right chant. If Benning wasn't running around trying to plug age gaps and find 30 year old culture carriers to mentor the team in the playoffs, he'd be doing a lot less damage right now. Trades like Gudbranson and Gralund aren't even BAD VALUE, necessarily, so much as they're WRONG DIRECTION. If Benning stepped into this job with a rebuild mandate and had spent all this time trading for picks and under 22's, he'd still be a dubious GM with some bad contracts and weird predilections on his docket, but the overall outlook for the franchise would be a lot brighter.

We can chant "Fire Benning" later. This team needs a goddam direction. Or the next clown at the top might chase the playoffs even harder.

• Everybody and their dog has a different definition of what a rebuild means.
• I don't mind the Gudbranson trade one bit. He hasn't been injured and I haven't cursed his name.
• There is no such thing as a generic "rebuild" strategy. It's situational to the team and it's situational to skill and talent of the general manager.

Based on the entirety of his work here in Vancouver, Jim Benning is not qualified to be a general manager. Period, end of story.

Two consecutive pivots. Jimbo has pivoted in two consecutive years and has failed miserably both times costing us both tangible assets (draft picks etc) and intangible assets (the passion and motivation of the 2011 core). Last season was a catastrophic failure and this season is shaping up to be an even bigger failure.

Regardless of what the owner's mandate was, Jimbo has failed.
Regardless of what the owner's mandate is, Jimbo is failing
Regardless of what the owner's mandate will be, Jimbo is destined to fail.

Why? Because Jimbo is not qualified to be the general manager of an NHL team (and will never be qualified due to genetics).

I'm honestly not cool with a moron using my team as his GM training wheels or president training wheels.

Maybe two years down the road, Jimbo is finally going to get on the adstat bandwagon?

Jimbo's intellectual limitations means that your Canuck team will FOREVER be behind the rest of the league.

And you might as well replace Linden with a tape recorder because he adds ZERO to the equation. Linden does not add ANY type of critical thinking nor does he add any management experience; two qualities that are completely lacking in the entire Canuck organization.

The sooner we can get someone that is competent in charge of the team, the sooner we can start the "rebuild" (or what I term as the "series of informed and logical decisions based on empirical data that lasts longer than a year").

Fire Benning is absolutely the right message.

#JimboMustGo

 

[Jyrki21]

It all makes sense now..

Yeah, I don't know how anyone can say "there's no plan" when here it is before our eyes – it involves getting backing from the BC Lions and the Jackson family to buy territory in Central Europe, and bedazzle it with jewels and art... and possibly family literature.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Why would anyone choose either of these terrible options?

Benning sold himself on a quick rebuild and, by all accounts, believes in that and doesn't believe in rebuilding.

Benning is similar to a lot of sports management types that manage to win a championship in an atypical fashion. Rather than have the humility to chalk some of that up to good circumstance and luck, he fashions himself a genius that knows better than anyone else and goes about trying to accomplish everything the hard way again.

Why else would someone try to emulate a model that relies on finding a giant first-ballot HOF defenseman, trying to find an aging goaltender that peaks in his mid 30's, drafting a bunch of top-of-the-lineup talent in the later rounds, moving picks for character veterans, etc? I don't think it's incredibly complicated to see what happened in Vancouver.

Yea who wins cups on oddities like giant hall of fame defenecemen or twin top line hall of famers?

 

[tantalum]

Well again, you're treating this like a debate on which we must coalesce into two camps...Pro and Anti Linden/Benning. We are both critical of the current management group. We both think they've failed to meet their goals...either the goals they should have, or the goals they purported to have. We both think surer hands should guide the rebuild, if and when a rebuild ever occurs.

However, Benning and Linden and the present direction of the team seem more symptomatic to me than the actual disease. We could have a genius for a GM take over, and if there's still a "playoffs or bust" mentality pervading the organization things are going to continue to trend in an ugly direction. That's what I'm saying, here. We're in a plane that's slowly been losing altitude for years because it's out of gas. Arguing about which pilot we want to crash with is something of a secondary concern.

No I don't think arguing about the pilot is secondary. Something has to happen at the end of the crash. Either you've radioed in where exactly you are going to crash and a rescue is waiting, willing or able or you've crashed alone in Andes and start to each the dead. We are going to experience the latter under this regime rather than the former which could have happened and perhaps with some proper management still could...or at least the rescue team could be on the way.

It matters a great deal who the pilot is.

 

[racerjoe]

Fair. Short term, what would your preference be...

1. Benning fired for failure to make the playoffs. New coach/GM/President brought in with same mandate of rebuild-on-the-fly. "This fanbase won't tolerate a rebuild" is re-uttered, empty seats are pointed at as evidence that the team must return to competitive primacy ASAP.

2. Owner issues a mandate of tear/down rebuild. Benning is allowed at least one more year on the job. Bloviating about meat and potatoes or culture carrying possibly continues, but no more chasing Evander Kanes or trading for age-gap players.

Note: I'm not saying you couldn't get the idealized scenario of a complete tear down with new people, just trying to present an actual difficult choice.

Preferably neither.

But if I absolutely had to chose, it's pretty easy. A. I know JB can't do B, and I know he can't do A, therefore a new person doing A, is a better option. Hopefully we pick someone better than JB.

I'm not sure we are in a better place. Both teams have/had some solid pieces in place prior to the "**** we suck NOW let's rebuild" moment. We could debate them but I don't think there's enough difference between Kadri, JVR, Gardiner, Reilly, Bozak etc and our group of Horvat, Hutton, Tanev, Stecher, etc. At the end of the day both groups had some solid pieces in place but lacked the high end pieces. Now the Leafs have 3 such pieces and we have none. Perhaps we will get those pieces in the near future but it takes a combination of timing, luck, and willingness to be bad enough to get to the part of the draft where those pieces are most common.

That could take 2-3 years, it could take 5-6. It really comes down to everything going right and I'm not a big believer in counting on that to happen.

We have less terrible contracts though. We do have a few pour ones, but none that are Clarkson bad. We should be able to move them all more easily than Clarkson.

Again I think it will take longer, I am just saying it could be less with great management, and luck.

 

[CanaFan]

Preferably neither.

But if I absolutely had to chose, it's pretty easy. A. I know JB can't do B, and I know he can't do A, therefore a new person doing A, is a better option. Hopefully we pick someone better than JB.

We have less terrible contracts though. We do have a few pour ones, but none that are Clarkson bad. We should be able to move them all more easily than Clarkson.

Again I think it will take longer, I am just saying it could be less with great management, and luck.

Re: Clarkson contract. Thing is it only became moveable once Toronto decided to move the contract. Do you see our current management even wanting to move Eriksson's 6 year albatross any time soon?

Re: Better management and luck. Sure but we'd need both to actually exist in this city before factoring it into our plans. But yes, if there was a new, more competent management team and a healthy dose of luck then anything is possible.

 

[yvrtojfk]

Saw WD at Starbucks just now. Wonder if he's getting coffee for the management team.

 

[RandV]

However, Benning and Linden and the present direction of the team seem more symptomatic to me than the actual disease. We could have a genius for a GM take over, and if there's still a "playoffs or bust" mentality pervading the organization things are going to continue to trend in an ugly direction. That's what I'm saying, here. We're in a plane that's slowly been losing altitude for years because it's out of gas. Arguing about which pilot we want to crash with is something of a secondary concern.

Let me have fun with some semi-realistic hindsight.

- Get OTT and ANA 1st in Kesler deal
- draft Ehlers, Larkin, Pastrnak
- keep Kassian, Matthias, Hamhuis
- Keep Lack+Markstrom
- trade one of Lack+Markstrom+ for Ben Bishop
- Acquire/sign Jamie McGinn
- sign Jonathan Marchessault

Daniel-Henrik-Pastrnak
Maroon-Larkin-Ehlers
Marchessault-Horvat-Hansen
McGinn-Richardson-Kassian
Burrows
Edler-Stetcher
Hutton-Tanev
Hamhuis-Garrison
Forsling-Tryamkin
Bishop
Lack

See, easy contender

 

[valkynax]

Re: Clarkson contract. Thing is it only became moveable once Toronto decided to move the contract. Do you see our current management even wanting to move Eriksson's 6 year albatross any time soon?

Re: Better management and luck. Sure but we'd need both to actually exist in this city before factoring it into our plans. But yes, if there was a new, more competent management team and a healthy dose of luck then anything is possible.

Didn't Toronto have to bite down Horton's contract or something?

I feel that the particular move didn't showcase much more than Leaf's wealth - basically took a dumb@ss contract put him on LTIR and called it a day.

 

[Hit the post]

Didn't Toronto have to bite down Horton's contract or something?

I feel that the particular move didn't showcase much more than Leaf's wealth - basically took a dumb@ss contract put him on LTIR and called it a day.

It showed that the Blue Jackets weren't smart enough to insure Horton's contract to avoid this problem in the first place...

 

[RandV]

Didn't Toronto have to bite down Horton's contract or something?

I feel that the particular move didn't showcase much more than Leaf's wealth - basically took a dumb@ss contract put him on LTIR and called it a day.

Toronto getting to move Clarkson was entirely situational. Columbus had Nathan Horton, who for some reason didn't have insurance covering his contract. So while he wasn't counting against the cap he was still costing them real $$$, and Columbus had their own internal Salary Cap.

The reasoning for Columbus was its better to be paying $5M to a guy who can at least maybe be a good veteran 4th liner, than $5M for a guy who wouldn't even be in the press box. So the catalyst for Toronto getting to move Clarkson was a budget team having an uninsured long term LTIR contract.

Eriksson shouldn't be anywhere near as bad as Clarkson to require this, but it took a pretty unique situation for the Leafs to be able to move him.

 

[CanaFan]

Didn't Toronto have to bite down Horton's contract or something?

I feel that the particular move didn't showcase much more than Leaf's wealth - basically took a dumb@ss contract put him on LTIR and called it a day.

Like I say, once they decided to move the contract.

It takes recognition of the problem to then fix the problem. We're still signing guys to Clarkson-type contracts, let alone figuring out ways to get out from underneath them. We're still waiting for recognition of the problem out here.

 

[valkynax]

Like I say, once they decided to move the contract.

It takes recognition of the problem to then fix the problem. We're still signing guys to Clarkson-type contracts, let alone figuring out ways to get out from underneath them. We're still waiting for recognition of the problem out here.

Compare with Eriksson I am far more worried about Benning's seemingly light-hearted take to **** away picks after picks after picks after picks after picks...

And yeah so far Eriksson doesn't look too good...

Oh well, just another stone on the monument of epic stupidity with Benning's name carved into it.

 

[CanaFan]

Compare with Eriksson I am far more worried about Benning's seemingly light-hearted take to **** away picks after picks after picks after picks after picks...

And yeah so far Eriksson doesn't look too good...

Oh well, just another stone on the monument of epic stupidity with Benning's name carved into it.

Agree. There's no shortage of things to throw on that pile. *sigh