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.
You're missing the part how Benning took that hand and made it infinitely worse.

Maybe in the short term, he did. Frankly with the trajectory of the team in 2014 would have made tbhard for any GM to make this team better in 2.5 seasons.
 
long term too as he screwed the pooch by throwing away our draft picks and getting terrible returns (= more draft picks), trading away younger guys like Forsling, and making terrible draft picks


this place would be a hell of a lot more optimistic if we had gotten futures instead of Sbisa in the Kesler deal, futures for Bonino, Ehlers or Nylander and Tkachuk or Laine (if we dismantled the roster)
 
long term too as he screwed the pooch by throwing away our draft picks and getting terrible returns (= more draft picks), trading away younger guys like Forsling, and making terrible draft picks


this place would be a hell of a lot more optimistic if we had gotten futures instead of Sbisa in the Kesler deal, futures for Bonino, Ehlers or Nylander and Tkachuk or Laine (if we dismantled the roster)
Forsling was a bad one but I don't see much hem in trading away some picks especially with the Canucks track record in the 2nd round.

Kesler trade was a tough one as their isn't a single GM who would walk into a job and pick a fight with a disgruntled all star center.
 
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).

i don't think you can get there.
[/QUOTE]

That's the thing though, "strong certainty" means its likely but does not mean it's definitive. And when you have 30 teams making draft picks, it's likely that there's going to be a statistical anomaly or two that produces above or below their ability.

Case in point, it makes me wonder about Benning. His drafting reputation was built as the head scout in Buffalo, where as I pointed out earlier their 1st round selections were actually pretty bad but they made a lot of good hits in the 2nd and later rounds.

Now look at Boston's drafting while Benning was AGM. Outside of 2006 which was a transitional team doing the drafting Boston continued the Buffalo trend of being bad in the 1st round, but this time they weren't making any hits in the latter rounds. I believe that it's only 1 legit NHLer, Ryan Spooner, outside of the 1st round for Boston when Benning was there.

Of course things are more complicated than just putting it all on one guy, but all in all Benning's record seems pretty anomalous here.
 
have no problem dealing Kesler but Anaheim simply fleeced us in that trade

I can't imagine how Murray reacted when Sbisa was brought up as a positive piece without anything to sweeten it
 
long term too as he screwed the pooch by throwing away our draft picks and getting terrible returns (= more draft picks), trading away younger guys like Forsling, and making terrible draft picks


this place would be a hell of a lot more optimistic if we had gotten futures instead of Sbisa in the Kesler deal, futures for Bonino, Ehlers or Nylander and Tkachuk or Laine (if we dismantled the roster)

Right. And it's not like we're just being pessimistic. Benning is legitimately among the worst GMs in the league if not the worst. Even if you think Gillis was bad, he was never this bad. And it's not just Canucks fans either, it's known around the league at this point.

Whenever a trade happens, if I didn't learn about it first, I learn about it from one of my friends who is an Avalanche fan messaging me "I'm so sorry".

We're not talking nonsense here or exaggerating, regardless how good or bad Gillis was, Benning is unarguably worse and is one of the worst GMs in the league. I can't think of a GM I wouldn't take over Benning in a heartbeat. We're not trying to hate Benning, but his moves make it impossible not to.
 
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.

not really, no

you're dealing with an extremely inexact science where you cant even easily quantify a success, you're going to have a profoundly hard time showing that a GM has any inherent talent rather than good luck at a draft table

and thats all you need to do. find a single example where you can conclusively (or very probably) show that a gm has drafting talent, and we can assume that drafting talent is influential. until then, its not really safe to assume that it exists in a way that anyone should deeply care about
 
i'd suggest that a gms ability to acquire assets through judicious signings and trades and then to convert those assets into more lottery tickets is more likely to correlate with long-term drafting success than Draft Wizards using Draft Magic
 
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 (What the ...?)
Horvat

Missing anything?

Let's see ... oh yeah, objectivity and reality?

Hansen? Tanev?

So, let's see ... Aging Sedins still playing as average to solid first liners, with guys entering their prime like: Edler, Hansen
Younger guys like: Tanev, Horvat, Hutton
Average to decent goaltending with Lack and Markstrom (arguable)
Decent value for trade player - Kesler

Decent amount of cap space.

How anyone in their right mind so blindly defends Benning while blaming every misstep on Gillis is truly unfathomable. I keep thinking you must be joking.
 
This is a blue print for how to become the Edmonton Oilers.

Well, nobody has done that and how do you know that it's a blueprint? It has never been done with this type of management in the history. Most of them tear down by shipping out their veterans who is performing for returns that do not pan out can become Edmonton Oilers at any time. Nobody has tried rebuilt on the fly strategy. If this succeed, I'd bet you that other teams will try that strategy. There are too many teams to attempt a rebuild route and longer route than ever before. If you bottom out in 20 team league, you can rebuild faster but not in this era where it will be 31 teams and rebuild could take 20 years rather than 5-8 years as done in the past.

Toronto failed because they didn't have older Sundin to do that and the Canucks has signed him and in the meantime, the Leafs' attempt didn't work out. Right now, the Canucks do have enough veterans, to attempt such things and this things will work itself out because it teaches their young players how to be a professional and play for the team rather than individualism in this league to be successful with their past performance and carry them through. By the time they retire, the young players will become veterans themselves and entering their prime years is their goal for now.

If I see a team is in going through a rock bottom year, I'd offer my aging top veteran a top dollar for a year or two-year contract just to keep things afloat while developing my prospects in the minor should be the way to go to prevent an Edmonton Oilers. If I say top dollar, I mean, 8-10 million a year where my superstar is unlikely to bolt to other team. If I offer him 5-6 million dollars a year, then he is more likely to play for a cup contender during his UFA for same term. That is the wise business to give us some time to keep this afloat. Calgary should have offered Iginla 10 million a year to keep him in Calgary and to give the Flames time to develop properly. The ship has sailed and Calgary will struggle for a few more years.

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?

Most NHL GM's (good ones and/or bad ones) don't get 7 years. That's just reality.
Ken Holland is one of a few example where it has some kind of continuation from a scout to assistant GM and GM of the Red Wings. Another example, an expansion team from other sport, coach for Dallas Cowboy, Tom Landry went through a few losing season to a Super Bowl Champion. You need some kind of patience and sadly, nobody has patience for that kind of project in this business.

In today's era, drafting has been the key for all teams and a good drafting teams will have excess assets to do a trading business. The Canucks has paid premium and unload any assets for nothing because they are scraps and they do not have anything to offer. So Benning has some creativity to trade for players he wanted, Sutter, Dorsett, Sbisa, Baertschi, Grundlund and is not afraid to make moves to make this team look better in due time. Once this foundation has been set for a few years, he will keep his draft picks just to build excessive assets to get superstar players he wanted. You need excessive asset so that holes won't be created by trading markets. Once his draft picks is ready to replace, he can then trade Dorsett when the 4th line is looking good. Honestly, since his injury, the 4th line has looked good with two AHL call-ups. Sbisa is a stop-gap and has looked good with Tryamkin to get his asset value up for another trade when one of his other assets in the minor is ready to replace them guys like Subban, OJ, Brisebois or even Pedan ready to replace him. You don't want to rush those guys in the fire so this is a right move.
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.

Gillis regime had 6 years and all of his draft picks don't pan out except for two, Gaunce and Horvat. Even if he is able to assemble a cup contender roster in the short years but his greatest failure is ability to draft in latter rounds, even his top 10 pick in Hodgson is a bust. Gillis has left us without a suitable replacement to his core. He did not handle the Luongo situation well and imo was the main reason he was let go by the huge pressure from the fan base.

Benning has done a good job rebuilt on the fly with his defensive core and secondary scoring is beginning to show up for this team. All they need is to score the first goal to have a good chance on winning consistently and they have came back 6 times already even if they didn't have the benefit of playing with a lead for almost a whole season so far.

It is not Benning's fault that Sedin has not produce for them and has lost a step. What is he supposed to do when his first line is not doing a good job. For example, an open net shoot in which Sedin elected to pass? Is it his fault that the Canucks was not able to produce goals? Is it his fault that Rodin is not able to step in the line-up? Is it his fault that Tryamkin showed up in the camp out of shape? Is it his fault that Benning has inherited too many players with NMC/NTC contracts which handcuff ability to negotiate with few teams with a fair trade? If you are in his shoes dealing with this NTC/NMC, you'd be frustrated with this negotiation session with other teams and accept the lesser trade value otherwise you'd have a cancerous locker room.

If I see Benning's draft picks who are not in NHL yet is performing and even improved his craft elsewhere gives us hope that they will pan out within 2-3 years. If I doesn't see any improvement in their performance, then his draft picks are high likely becoming a concern.

So far, it is not a big concern on his drafting. Because of his pick, Tryamkin is a wrecking ball with some smart in his game. Because of Benning's honesty, Stecher chose to sign with us. Eriksson may be a bad signing because of his slow start but once he get going, he will finish the year with 20-25 goals and might even surprise us with 30 goals despite his slow start. Because of his negotiation, his contract could be friendly with NMC/NTC in each year and gives us room to trade him late in his term. If Demko is playing with lights out in Utica, then that's a better news for our goaltender situation when Miller's contract comes off the book.

There are many "what if" here in that I wouldn't jump to conclusion after 3 years. 5-7 years would be the best way to judge a GM, rather than 3 years.
 
not really, no

you're dealing with an extremely inexact science where you cant even easily quantify a success, you're going to have a profoundly hard time showing that a GM has any inherent talent rather than good luck at a draft table

and thats all you need to do. find a single example where you can conclusively (or very probably) show that a gm has drafting talent, and we can assume that drafting talent is influential. until then, its not really safe to assume that it exists in a way that anyone should deeply care about

And that may be the case. I was simply showing that if you believe ability/eye for talent *does* exist then it is possible to determine when performance is above/below average outside of the noise of randomness/luck.

If you don't believe that it exists in a meaningful form then it's all moot anyway.
 
And that may be the case. I was simply showing that if you believe ability/eye for talent *does* exist then it is possible to determine when performance is above/below average outside of the noise of randomness/luck.

I am not sure how you arrive at such a conclusion. This is a non-sequitor IMO.
 
Please elaborate.

You asserted that if you believe something exists, then therefore it is possible to measure it. That does not follow. It's entirely possible to believe that "drafting skill" exists while concurrently being unable to measure any GM's skill and thus rendering it irrelevant as an evaluation criterion.
 
if i had to guess, drafting talent would manifest almost entirely in philosophy and adaptation to league trends/analytics (and not being completely insanely stupid) than anything inherent in a scouts training

i figure the majority of scouts have an eye that's 99.9% capable of knocking out false positives (which is what you want them for) and drafting by eye alone ultimately becomes a test of whether or not a GM/scouting team fails catastrophically or not. you can probably say a bad drafting GM should be able to almost always avoid a draft like the 2007 canucks draft, but i dont know if you can say something like "a good gm should always get a hit in 5 picks" or whatever

You asserted that if you believe something exists, then therefore it is possible to measure it. That does not follow. It's entirely possible to believe that "drafting skill" exists while concurrently being unable to measure any GM's skill and thus rendering it irrelevant as an evaluation criterion.

if something exists, it has to be measurable - but our current nhl drafting process might be an order of magnitude off from providing enough information to separate that thing from noise

im being pedantic here, though

to be extremely pedantic to myself: this (maybe) doesn't apply to some particles


i just realized you might be saying that the belief in something doesn't mean its real which i overlooked because its obviously a given so maybe this doesnt apply to what youre saying
 
Last edited:
You asserted that if you believe something exists, then therefore it is possible to measure it. That does not follow. It's entirely possible to believe that "drafting skill" exists while concurrently being unable to measure any GM's skill and thus rendering it irrelevant as an evaluation criterion.

I'm not sure that follows.

If "drafting skill" exists then why would it not be measurable? What is obscuring the ability to measure it outside of randomness? And since randomness can be accounted for and removed then if what is left is not "drafting skill" then I'd strongly question that it exists at all or at least to enough of a degree to be considered "real".
 
I'm not sure that follows.

If "drafting skill" exists then why would it not be measurable? What is obscuring the ability to measure it outside of randomness? And since randomness can be accounted for and removed then if what is left is not "drafting skill" then I'd strongly question that it exists at all.

its like shootout talent. everyone has an idea of who the best shootout players are and who the worst ones are, but people have shown that virtually every outlier that we consider "true skill" will show up in a properly designed random system (ie: one that simulates the nhl under the proposition that shootout results are random)

something similar can probably be done with the draft, but unfortunately the draft is not score/miss and its extremely hard to get everyone to agree to an objective view of draft success

edit: note that im going off of at least reasonably old info about the shootout, i havent seen any analysis of it in the past few years and maybe someone has found that there's enough evidence for identifying good shooters in the nhl now, which you can just append (in 2009) somewhere in that last paragraph
 
its like shootout talent. everyone has an idea of who the best shootout players are and who the worst ones are, but people have shown that virtually every outlier that we consider "true skill" will show up in a properly designed random system (ie: one that simulates the nhl under the proposition that shootout results are random)

something similar can probably be done with the draft, but unfortunately the draft is not score/miss and its extremely hard to get everyone to agree to an objective view of draft success

The last part is true, however that is a qualitative issue, namely arriving at a sufficiently strong metric to define "success" in the draft. I believe it can be done using some combination of games played/scoring rates and perhaps a qualitative component as well. It would be a big task to compile the data but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility to do so.

Assuming an adequate classification system can be accomplished then the process of determining draft performance over a reasonable sample size is simple inferential stats.
 
i wont work to stop you from believing that because its tangential to the conversation, but a bunch of extremely intelligent, driven people that like to analyze the draft havent succeeded in doing it thus far. you could get a career in the nhl if you did a good job of it.
 
I'm not sure that follows.

If "drafting skill" exists then why would it not be measurable? What is obscuring the ability to measure it outside of randomness? And since randomness can be accounted for and removed then if what is left is not "drafting skill" then I'd strongly question that it exists at all or at least to enough of a degree to be considered "real".

If any drafting GM is able to consistent produce 3-4 NHLers per draft year within 5 years for next 10 years then drafting skills do exist and able to produce at least 1-2 NHLer in a weak draft year then this does exist. With too many 31 teams, every teams would want 31 McDavids on their team but unfortunately, it can get only one and if other GM can win the cup without McDavid then he is considered a great GM with great drafting skill.
 
i wont work to stop you from believing that because its tangential to the conversation, but a bunch of extremely intelligent, driven people that like to analyze the draft havent succeeded in doing it thus far. you could get a career in the nhl if you did a good job of it.

Well like I say it's a big job and since it isn't predictive but merely "grades" past performance I'm not sure there is a big incentive to undertake it. Certainly beyond my capacity/capabilities but then most things in this world are and they still happen.
 
The formula for successful drafting is pretty simple :

1) volume - the more picks you have, the more hits you'll have.

2) consistently draft players with high talent and high IQ with every pick. These are the guys that make it. Avoid wasting picks on low-upside guys, because they always busy.

It's like throwing darts. If you have 10 darts and manage to hit the board with all 10, you'll probably hit the bullseye a couple times. If you have 5 darts and throw 2 or 3 of them straight at the floor, you probably won't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad