Canucks Management and Ownership Thread v30.0 (Post #186)
- Thread starter PG Canuck
- Start date
-
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
JuniorNelson
Registered User
Canucks have to go with a superboss, like Quinn was, President, Chief Scout, GM, Head Coach and alternate Governor. I am imagining Patrick Roy or Wayne Gretzky type creds but perhaps not those actual guys. I can't think of a Canuck alumni, except Mike Keane or maybe Marcus Naslund. Personally I'd like Vigneau but I imagine that bridge is burnt.
Dale Tallon? A Sutter?
The reason I think a superboss is needed is because the players don't fear WD. Or Benning. Or Linden. Of course, why would they? It's only an issue with WD, who can't control them. If the coach hints publicly he might make a move, the Captain shouldn't be able to just refuse. That's ****ed up. But it was played out here. The new boss has to have the power to make real changes.
Will Aquilini give control to somebody else? I doubt it. He has never hired a real boss, just wee pretendy wannabes that he can push around. Unless he suddenly grows up this will always be a clownshow.
It's possible but again if we are talking about probability then it is still far more probable that poor performance over 70 events indicates poor drafting than a run of bad luck. Assuming there is any ability to be "good" or "bad" at drafting in general (which you confirm by saying a good drafter) then outcomes must be chalked up to a mixture of ability and luck. Since every GM is succeptible to the same amount of luck, then the resulting differences must be attributable to ability. Over a small number of events then yes, luck can obscure ability. But over a decade (70 events)? No, that would [edit: almost certainly] be indicative of ability.
Re-sign hutton (step forward) -> take out Stecher for Larsen (step back)
I sincerely hope this is not true.
Squad rotation is fine, as long as they continue to do it. It's when they are inflexible or become dogmatic ("Can't change a winning lineup!", especially after a shootout result) that you start to worry.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
They're not wrong if they're referring to
heh....Benning would be this guy (to continue this talk):
coolboarder
Registered User
I hope that Benning stays for three more seasons to show how his draft picks pan out and if they do pan out then he is more of a genius drafter. The ownership needs to be a little bit more patience with lean years. Too mich of a high expectation has hurt his bottom line more as it costs more money to fire them and dwinling fan bases.
Most GM from day 1 on a bottom team needs to be given 7 years for his plan to become fruition not 5 years because most of their draft picks needs 3-5 years for them to make the team and develop properly. 2 more seasons in junior and 1-3 seasons at AHL decelopment years after the draft so to say 5 years plan does not make sense to have him fired after 3 years. Not to mention, two extra years after year 5 of the plan is also necessary because you need to have at least 9-10 of its own picks to make the team after 5th year, averaging 3 draft picks per year in the first 3 years and the rest of the roster consists of older players and acquired players through trades to pan out as well with a stronger farm system to replenish the supplies year to year.
To speed up the process to a playoff team through trades has proven diaster for any teams even tradiing away majority of veterans to all teams in the league througout the history. Perfect example, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto without their veteran presence to help their youngster to mature. Toronto should have tried resign Sundin for a top dollars even he was considering retirement. They would not last a decade of no playoffs.
The Canucks during their worst years in late 90's had Messier and other veteran presence has helped the Canucks to come out of their dark years no longer than 5 years. The Cannucks has benefitted from Sundin's signing the most and helped them to transform into a cup contender, So having the veteran presence is the key influencing the youngster to work hard and work smarter as well, two for one deal teaching them to work smarter as well because most of the older guys tend to lose their steps and still maintain their productivity. The fanbase needs to see this benefit of retaining some of declining veterans and look at Burrows, he will rub on the youngster and they will develop faster rate than if they had traded away Burrows. The Canucks wont be at bottom for long like Calary, Toronto, and Edmonton went through for a decade.
So i would say to the ownership group, keep Benning for at least three years no matter what the fans say about him. Scouting GM is a wonderful idea because he will know what to look for and expect some growing pain because every player develop at different rates and not everybody can develop at the same rate. He is a proven scout and he needs to be given a chance to see his plan pan out as he did in Buffalo and Boston and it took time during Buffalo and Boston years to become one of the top team and it doesnt happen overnight. I mean, he was 2 for 2 in term of playoff run during each of his stint with other teams.
After their performance last week for a week and half has shown to me that the Canucks do have what it takes to become a winning team with longer sustainability in two years with his young defense core is panning out perfectly on their term. All he needs is to round up the forward group and i see some potential even if they had a hard time scoring currently. So if you fire Benning, then, it wont be sustainability winning team anymore because a new GM will have different vision and destroy whatever we have now. Fans will be happy to see him gone but after 3-4 more years of no playoff hockey, they will want another GM gone and the cycle will repat itself.
Most GM from day 1 on a bottom team needs to be given 7 years for his plan to become fruition not 5 years because most of their draft picks needs 3-5 years for them to make the team and develop properly. 2 more seasons in junior and 1-3 seasons at AHL decelopment years after the draft so to say 5 years plan does not make sense to have him fired after 3 years. Not to mention, two extra years after year 5 of the plan is also necessary because you need to have at least 9-10 of its own picks to make the team after 5th year, averaging 3 draft picks per year in the first 3 years and the rest of the roster consists of older players and acquired players through trades to pan out as well with a stronger farm system to replenish the supplies year to year.
To speed up the process to a playoff team through trades has proven diaster for any teams even tradiing away majority of veterans to all teams in the league througout the history. Perfect example, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto without their veteran presence to help their youngster to mature. Toronto should have tried resign Sundin for a top dollars even he was considering retirement. They would not last a decade of no playoffs.
The Canucks during their worst years in late 90's had Messier and other veteran presence has helped the Canucks to come out of their dark years no longer than 5 years. The Cannucks has benefitted from Sundin's signing the most and helped them to transform into a cup contender, So having the veteran presence is the key influencing the youngster to work hard and work smarter as well, two for one deal teaching them to work smarter as well because most of the older guys tend to lose their steps and still maintain their productivity. The fanbase needs to see this benefit of retaining some of declining veterans and look at Burrows, he will rub on the youngster and they will develop faster rate than if they had traded away Burrows. The Canucks wont be at bottom for long like Calary, Toronto, and Edmonton went through for a decade.
So i would say to the ownership group, keep Benning for at least three years no matter what the fans say about him. Scouting GM is a wonderful idea because he will know what to look for and expect some growing pain because every player develop at different rates and not everybody can develop at the same rate. He is a proven scout and he needs to be given a chance to see his plan pan out as he did in Buffalo and Boston and it took time during Buffalo and Boston years to become one of the top team and it doesnt happen overnight. I mean, he was 2 for 2 in term of playoff run during each of his stint with other teams.
After their performance last week for a week and half has shown to me that the Canucks do have what it takes to become a winning team with longer sustainability in two years with his young defense core is panning out perfectly on their term. All he needs is to round up the forward group and i see some potential even if they had a hard time scoring currently. So if you fire Benning, then, it wont be sustainability winning team anymore because a new GM will have different vision and destroy whatever we have now. Fans will be happy to see him gone but after 3-4 more years of no playoff hockey, they will want another GM gone and the cycle will repat itself.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Most NHL GM's (good ones and/or bad ones) don't get 7 years. That's just reality.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 17,989
- 10,781
the fact it takes place over a decade is irrelevant and my whole point is you cannot adjust for luck in a sample size as small as 70 of attempts for events with low probabilities of success at all. i believe it is totally incorrect to say "everyone is susceptible to the same amount of luck" without a much larger sample size.
and your example is over a decade, which we don't actually have for continuity for comparing performance. try doing it over 20 picks in three seasons.
and you are missing the fact the difference between bad and good scout is less than the total percentage chance of hitting a generically "good" pick who plays a lot of games (which is itself a feat). it's picking the best guy available. in the first round it's might be the difference between a .250 hitter who is a role player over a .285 hitter who is a star. both will play a lot of games.
Even if Benning is the best drafter in the world, the fact he sucks at development (look at Virtanen) makes it not even worth it. And consider the fact he has messsd up the 6th overall pick and seem to pass on a better play with he 5th overall, I don't know how anyone can suggest Benning is a good drafter. Look at his history at Boston and Buffalo and he is just a very average performing scout.
In what world do you wait to analyze a manager if the one thing he may be doing well takes 3-5 years to properly analyze and is largely a crap shoot? So it doesn't matter what he does with the roster in the present, the key factor to whether he should be fired or not rests on waiting 3+ years to see if guys like Brisebois and Lockwood become NHLers?
Seems like some of you have fooled yourself into thinking this way, that become Gillis was good at everything but drafting then as long as Benning can draft well that's all that matters?
y2kcanucks
Better than you
Quite the opposite. The further the probability of a binomial event diverges away from 50/50 (i.e. towards 0% or towards 100%) the smaller the confidence intervals for any specific sample size. 30 events is sufficient to make the assumption that a distribution is 'normally distributed' which is the basis for most statistical inference. Again the key is "what is the expected or mean # of draft successes for the entire league"? We don't have this info so it is impossible to answer this with any precision, however the number doesn't have to be very high in order to show statistical significance. Roughly 8 successes out of 70 events (11.4%) vs 1 success out of 70 (1.4%) would show with extreme certainty that the GM with 1 success in 70 tries is "bad" due to ability, not luck (randomness).
No. A much larger sample size is not required. "Luck" is simply a way of describing "randomness". You do not need a large sample size to account for randomness/luck in binomial probabilities.
Try this calculator to illustrate:
http://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/ztest/Default2.aspx
The N is your number of events (draft picks). I used 70 for each (7 picks per year x 10 years).
The Proportion (total number) is the number of 'successes' or in this case, draft picks that work out. I used 8 for the "average GM" and 1 for the "bad GM". You can see the results for yourself.
Now it is fair to say that there could be factors that aren't random or "luck", for example working for a team that has less budget for a farm system which could impede the development of prospects. But if we are simply talking about the role of "luck" then this is pretty much how you can quantify it's role.
20 picks is quite a bit different than 70. I am responding to the "decade" scenario that you described earlier and only that. 20 events is on the small side and certainly makes it difficult to weed out luck from ability.
No argument, how you 'quantify' the success of any pick is difficult. Games played is one way but it is flawed. A 50 goal scorer that plays 6 seasons then retires due to injury is definitely a better pick than a 4th line energy player who plays 1000 games. But that is a different matter than what we are talking about. That is a classification issue, not a sample size issue.
Intangibos
High-End Intangibos
The thing is that even if Benning's picks pan out, he's still done terrible. He's lost virtually every trade he's made. Not only that, he's thrown away not just prospects like Forsling to get Clendenning (great scouting for sure), but draft picks all over the place. Wouldn't a drafting guru GM want picks to actually draft?
Then on top of that he's signed terrible contracts that hurt the team in the standings, and may even cost us one of those kids down the line.
Even if his picks pan out, he would belong in the scouting department, not a general manager.
Then on top of that he's signed terrible contracts that hurt the team in the standings, and may even cost us one of those kids down the line.
Even if his picks pan out, he would belong in the scouting department, not a general manager.
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
If he sets up the next GM like Nonis/Burke did with Gillis, it will be worth while imo.
y2kcanucks
Better than you
Gillis didn't leave Benning with turd-like contracts like Sutter and Eriksson.
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
Gillis certainly didn't leave
D Sedin
H Sedin
Edler
Burrows
Luongo
Kesler
Type players in their prime either!
y2kcanucks
Better than you
Gillis certainly didn't leave
D Sedin
H Sedin
Edler
Burrows
Luongo
Kesler
Type players in their prime either!
He didn't leave Luongo at all.
Edler is arguably in his prime. And Kesler was a prime trade chip.
OMG players age through time...blame Gillis!
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
Gillis took the job being left:
Luongo
H Sedin
D Sedin
Edler
Kesler
Burrows
Schneider
Hansen
Gillis left:
Aging Sedins
Disgruntled Kesler
No Luongo and a poor goalie situation
Back broken Edler with a NTC
Hutton
Old, sad and homesick hamhuis
Jason "I only want to play on the beach" Garrison
Horvat
Missing anything?
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 17,989
- 10,781
ok, i am not a statistician but i think you are oversimplifying the calculation. i am saying that if you take 30 teams and you then give them each 70 chances each to pick the best player available in a draft, the random chance element of drafting is going to outweigh the skill element in those choices to the point you just cannot necessarily spot the best drafters.
to put it another way, i don't think anyone can tell me which team has had the best draft results in the nhl over the last decade adjusted for draft position. but assuming someone calculated that even on a completely unweighted basis (e.g., somehow determining who the best pick was at every draft position over ten years, and then weighted the best player available in the 7th round as being just as important as picking the best available to you in the first round), you would then have to adjust that performance for luck. that is to say, a team may have picked that best player but not due to any application of skill. perhaps it was obvious. perhaps it was luck.
i don't think you can get there.
You're missing the part how Benning took that hand and made it infinitely worse.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Not to mention that other guy got fired & rightly so; I should hope you're doing better than at the end of the previous regime.
y2kcanucks
Better than you
Goalie situation wasn't poor.
Edler who's still our top or number 2 defenseman
Chris Tanev
Bo Horvat
Ben Hutton
Dan Hamhuis (what's this BS about being sad and homesick?)
Jason Garrison (who only wanted to play in Florida after he was traded by Benning without being asked to waive his NTC)
bundles of cap space
Not saying he left Benning in the same situation that he received, but let's not act like Benning had nothing to work with. Meanwhile, if Benning's fired this season, the next GM will have a huge problem with the turd contracts Benning has signed.
"Picking the best player available in a draft" isn't the goal we are (were) discussing. It was simply picking "an NHL player" versus "garbage". The bar isn't to pick the BEST player, no single team can ever lay claim to doing that repeatedly. It's simply to be above, at, or below the league average. It doesn't even matter that drafting is HARD because that is already factored into the league average. But if you are well below that threshhold (average) for an extended period of time (10 years) then I'm afraid there is very little chance that you are actually GOOD at drafting. For a year or two, sure. For 10 years in a row? <1% chance that happens.
On any single pick? Sure. On 70 picks? Nope. It is easy to factor out luck using probability. As I say, you can simply look at how MUCH you are above or below the average/expected success rate and if it is LARGE ENOUGH then you can (with strong certainty) factor out dumb luck and start to look at other factors (eye for talent, good development system, coaching, etc). 70 draft picks certainly is enough to be able to determine that (see my previous post and link).
Otherwise how do you ever get to say someone is "good" at drafting in the first place? If you don't accept that drafting poorly for 10 years is more than bad luck, then certainly you would have to conclude that drafting well for 10 years is just as likely to be good luck. So either you accept that you can look beyond luck and determine if someone has skill/ability for drafting, or you dismiss it all and conclude that all drafting is luck and that NO ONE is actually good or bad at it. You can't have it both ways.
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
Markstrom has a long road to go still and at times looks like a backup and Lack won't be in the NHL in a couple years. I'd say that's pretty darn poor. We traded two all star goalies and Gillis plan was to let two mediocre back ups take the reigns?
- Status
Latest posts
-
LD Tyson Jugnauth - Portland Winterhawks, WHL (2022, 100th, SEA)- Latest: Jersey Fan 12
-
-
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Beanpot Boston University vs Harvard - TD Garden, BostonWagers: 4Staked: $656.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
