Canucks Management and Ownership Thread v30.0 (Post #186)
- Thread starter PG Canuck
- Start date
- Status
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 25,681
- 11,337
Benning really should be the fall guy. He's on record just saying way too much straight up nonsensical stuff to justify dumb moves and a team that is floundering with no identity. Weisbrod also looks like a liability, though he tries to stay under the radar. It wouldn't surprise me to see Benning end up in a scout position somewhere and never get a sniff at a c-suite job again. He's a total disaster.
Linden is just a mouthpiece and WD has no clue what's going on with the roster construction. I can't see a new GM keeping him around though.
Linden is just a mouthpiece and WD has no clue what's going on with the roster construction. I can't see a new GM keeping him around though.
Reverend Mayhem
Serial Hanlon's Razor Ignorer
- Feb 15, 2009
- 30,053
- 7,316
Jimbo may land as an assistant GM somewhere like Edmonton cuz of Chia.
Weisbrod won't ever be employed again.
Unfortunately we also lost Crawford in all this
Intangibos
High-End Intangibos
This is what really bothers me. Gillis spent his entire tenure here trying to rebuild the atrocious scouting department he inherited. Benning came on board, fired key personnel like Gilman, Henning and Crawford, and proceeded to **** up picks.
The Canucks have never had good scouting, and we were finally addressing that very issue, and we threw away all the progress for nothing.
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
Reverend Mayhem
Serial Hanlon's Razor Ignorer
- Feb 15, 2009
- 30,053
- 7,316
So overrated Montreal, one of the best scouting depts in the nhl thought it would be a good idea to get him on board. He had a horrid start but by 2012 and 2013 was turning a corner.
I still don't understand drafting so many overagers though, it's been a thing for 5 or 6 drafts now and we've gone thru two head scouts and regimes. One or two here or there is fine but at least two or three a year? Cmon.
polarbearcub
Registered User
Haha, so the Yotes have to play themselves in the first round just so the Canucks make it to round 2 or do they get a bye in the quarter finals?
Nah. Weisbrod will find another job. The guy is very personable apparently. I have always questioned Crawford's scouting ability. It's not a big loss.
Gilman wasn't much of a scout. Henning and obviously Crawford were more influential. Crawford's scouting was a hit and miss and I'm not sure I like the idea of drafting based on regions. It seems like you're drafting by odds rather than drafting based on actual scouting. The Canucks under Crawford would have almost certainly bypassed a player like Tarasenko. Benning? Maybe not.
I actually think Benning's drafts have outperformed Gillis' drafts in terms of draft +1/+2 years overall.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 18,210
- 11,053
drafting is like hitting in baseball except it takes 5 years for an at bat to be completed, and there are 5 batters trying to agree as a committee on how to swing at every pitch, and the the team won't tell you who the batters are.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 18,210
- 11,053
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 18,210
- 11,053
statistically it is possible for an excellent skilled scouting group to produce garbage for a decade. that would just be a slump.
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
conspiracy theory: Weisbrod saw Benning as a mark right away, and weaseled his way into the organization in order to seize the reins when Dim Jim is inevitably fired. Yes, the weasel grabbed the reigns, I don't care that I mixed those metaphors. Weasels can ride horses.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 18,210
- 11,053
my point is that given the low batting average for a successful draft pick and the low number of draft picks a team has, it is statistically possible for an excellent and highly skilled set of drafters to hit a slump that last years.
combine that with the number of people with input into a draft selection, and the fact we don't know who lobbied for whom, and it is incredibly difficult to evaluate the skill set of individual scouts.
it's the equivalent of evaluating baseball players as hitters based on a couple of plate appearances a year where you only have game stats for all batters without their names.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 18,210
- 11,053
and that's without taking into account what an organization can do to a perfectly good prospect after they are drafted.
Who knows but I always saw Weisbrod as more of a GrÃma Wormtongue. Saw Benning as an easy mark and weaseled his way in sure, but the problem with taking the reigns is you're placing yourself in the spotlight and now its your head on the chopping block if things don't go well.
We saw that with Weisbrod when he got to run an NBA team for a season, to disastrous results. Since then he seems like a guy who prefers to stay out of the spotlight and work behind the scenes.
Well first of all, what are you using to qualify this group as "highly skilled drafters"? Because the variability of the draft makes it just as likely to get "lucky" as "unlucky". The data that you are using to qualify them as "good" could be just as erroneous as the data that you later use to say there were just "unlucky". It runs both ways.
And a few years is not "a decade". That's a fairly significant difference in terms of data points. Assuming 7 picks a year that is the difference between 70 data points and 21-28 data points. Huge difference.
Using your initial assertion of a decade worth of garbage picks, that would imply approx. 0 quality picks out of 70 opportunities. Depending on what the league wide average was - I don't know the number but let's put it around 8-12 NHLers over the same span - then statistically it would be very low probability that this group is actually "good" at drafting. Possible, but extremely unlikely.
PRNuck
Benning is gone so I’m back
I'm ok with this analogy if we change it so TL is Theoden King. That way we can excuse his behaviour the last three years and he can return to his former glory.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 18,210
- 11,053
i am speaking hypothetically, not about this team or any scout in particular. my proposition is that the odds of drafting "successfully" are comparable to getting a hit in baseball. a sample size of 70 at bats for a major league hitter would not tell you how good a hitter he is. and in this case, the individual scouts in a given organization get a lot less than 70 at bats in a decade.
my current analysis of a pro hockey team rebuild is that it is closer to shooting craps than a home renovation. hence you see some teams that take decades to hit a hot streak.
And this is why it took Gillis a few years to transform the scouts, into what we had before Benning fired the good ones.
Yet somehow benning gets a pass for years of bad drafting with the bruins,
- Status
