Canucks Managerial Thread II

[Bleach Clean]

No, that wasn't the best way to put it. I think often the value talked about in these trades ignores the function of the team. IMO there's value in things like culture and character. Sometimes, those things need to be looked at over corsi and counting stats.

You're right though… that's not ignoring value. There's value there.

Yes, there's still value there. You're just sliding the scale based on how much more value you place upon "culture and character" in a given trade. It's never null.

To your general point: I don't like that there's a dichotomy being formed here between the "function of a team" served by "culture and character" vs. value and "counting stats". This assumes that the previous traits aren't also available in good possession players. They are. Just comes down to accurately valuing the quality of each player (pro scouting + acquisition cost).

Place too much value in character and culture, and the GM is very likely to regret said trade. Even if said player 'fits' in the locker room.

The problem I began to have with the previous regime was valuing deals independent from the impact it had on the team. Too many times they put the "value" of a deal ahead of the on ice product. In the end, a GM is a team builder. Gillis started off well in this regard and then lost his way imo.

For instance

It's great to say you're going to have a hard internal cap and keeping Bieksa to 4.6m worked well. But what was the cost to the team losing a PMD that couldn't be replaced? And then to use the "savings" to carry Keith Ballard around at the bottom of the roster… they lost me there.

I think the Garrison contract is another instance. He's a good player. He had a good contract. The defence as constructed, though, was far less than ideal. Really disappointing considering the investment.

The Schneider trade is another example imo. Horvat is saving it but chances are good the team can never replace that level of goaltending. Hopefully, we get lucky and Horvat represents that kind of player.

So yeah… I'm looking for someone that's focused on building a team with an eye on value to do it. IMO Gillis became someone that was looking for value with barely an eye on the team.

There's just too much to disagree with/contest here, that I'm not sure I can/should entertain it...

1. The 'Cap Covenant' helped that team achieve what it had. It was and excellent concept - and if you get buy in from everyone, it can take a team to another level.

2. Ballard didn't prevent Ehrhoff from getting re-signed. Ehrhoff prevented Ehrhoff from getting re-signed.

3. Garrison was a good signing. With how difficult it is to find good Dmen, it mattered less that he was an ideal fit and more that he was competent... and he was. I still think Gillis intended to move Edler, so that would have re-balanced the pairs.

4. For the Schneider incident, see Luongo BDC drama. This trade cannot be seen in isolation of that 'ratification'.


Gillis made mistakes. He should have fired the scouting staff, he should have moved Luongo earlier, and he should have cut bait on Ballard and Booth sooner. However, on balance, it's a 'no contest' for me between regimes. I _hope_ Benning gets to be as competent overall.

 

[mathonwy]

I actually don't follow you here. A "secondary education" can mean a lot of things that wouldn't directly translate into running an organization. Would he be a much better GM with a graduate degree in chemical engineering? civil engineering? It's not like there's a "Life skills 101" class Benning missed.

Secondary education being a business education.

And yep, I would most definitely take a chemical engineer to be the GM. Being a chemical engineer means one has the mental ability and discipline to pass all of the advanced chemical/biological engineering, math and statistics courses required.

(And these courses are MUCH more complicated than managing a salary cap)

JB has shown that he knows how to do one and only one thing good and that's how to draft.

And your Canucks aren't a minor league team to train rookies.

 

[NoShowWilly]

No, that wasn't the best way to put it. I think often the value talked about in these trades ignores the function of the team. IMO there's value in things like culture and character. Sometimes, those things need to be looked at over corsi and counting stats.

You're right though… that's not ignoring value. There's value there. Maybe not as much as Benning is putting into it, though, so he needs a stats guy he can trust. Someone that won't just stick up their nose and scoff at the things we can't put a number on but can help Benning measure the value there against the value we can count.



The problem I began to have with the previous regime was valuing deals independent from the impact it had on the team. Too many times they put the "value" of a deal ahead of the on ice product. In the end, a GM is a team builder. Gillis started off well in this regard and then lost his way imo.

For instance

It's great to say you're going to have a hard internal cap and keeping Bieksa to 4.6m worked well. But what was the cost to the team losing a PMD that couldn't be replaced? And then to use the "savings" to carry Keith Ballard around at the bottom of the roster… they lost me there.

I think the Garrison contract is another instance. He's a good player. He had a good contract. The defence as constructed, though, was far less than ideal. Really disappointing considering the investment.

The Schneider trade is another example imo. Horvat is saving it but chances are good the team can never replace that level of goaltending. Hopefully, we get lucky and Horvat represents that kind of player.

So yeah… I'm looking for someone that's focused on building a team with an eye on value to do it. IMO Gillis became someone that was looking for value with barely an eye on the team.

one other thing that always needs to be remembered about that goalie trade was that the team needed to drop salary and a lot of it. That team in the 2013-2014 season was a team scrapping the bottom of the barrel just to be able to field a roster after the cap drop. Add on a retroactive punishment of a contract and we got what we got.

Gillis was really good at building a team. He put the offence in positions to maximize their opportunities and the team thrived. We cannot really sit there and look at a roster in his last year that had to drop 8million in cap while keeping Booth and then field a full roster.

 

[Intangibos]

As much as I think Benning isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, his education means nothing, as we've seen with Weisebrod. I dropped out of highschool for personal reasons, and never went back because I made money playing poker, which a highschool degree doesn't help me with.

A lot of Highschool and University is just showing up, there are a lot of people I'd take to run the Canucks without an education over Weisebrod, for example.

 

[Addison Rae]

As much as I think Benning isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, his education means nothing, as we've seen with Weisebrod. I dropped out of highschool for personal reasons, and never went back because I made money playing poker, which a highschool degree doesn't help me with.

A lot of Highschool and University is just showing up, there are a lot of people I'd take to run the Canucks without an education over Weisebrod, for example.

Yeah, this is my stance on this too. Having a degree may or may not be importat but the underlying issue here is Benning is ****ing up, if he wasn't this discussion wouln't be taking place.

There's a lot of posters on here without any post secondary education to speak of that I'd easily trust running the team over Jim.

 

[Fat Tony]

A lot of Highschool and University is just showing up

Anybody who's been to university know you only have to show up in Dec. and Apr.

 

[me2]

No, that wasn't the best way to put it. I think often the value talked about in these trades ignores the function of the team. IMO there's value in things like culture and character. Sometimes, those things need to be looked at over corsi and counting stats.

So Gillis did the right thing leung the 'Hoff go even if he wasn't a dressing room fit?

You're right though… that's not ignoring value. There's value there. Maybe not as much as Benning is putting into it, though, so he needs a stats guy he can trust. Someone that won't just stick up their nose and scoff at the things we can't put a number on but can help Benning measure the value there against the value we can count.

There has never been any indication that Gillis did not rate those things as highly, simply didn't use them as excuses for bad contacts.

The problem I began to have with the previous regime was valuing deals independent from the impact it had on the team. Too many times they put the "value" of a deal ahead of the on ice product. In the end, a GM is a team builder. Gillis started off well in this regard and then lost his way imo.

Not really. Garbage drafting before Crawford took over killed the team. Character always seemed good. The lost their way for a year or so but Gillis was refocusing the team back to what worked when he got sacked, which is a shame because the team would be much better off if had not sacked Gillis, prospect pool would be better, avoided bad contacts, less bad deals for the sake of change.

It's great to say you're going to have a hard internal cap and keeping Bieksa to 4.6m worked well. But what was the cost to the team losing a PMD that couldn't be replaced? And then to use the "savings" to carry Keith Ballard around at the bottom of the roster… they lost me there.

Maybe they kept Ballard around for his mentoring, he seemed like a great dressing room guy. Thatjustified the contract it true over say keeping Ehrhoff which would have been "money puck".

Maybe Sbisa is great in to room too.

The Schneider trade is another example imo. Horvat is saving it but chances are good the team can never replace that level of goaltending. Hopefully, we get lucky and Horvat represents that kind of player.

That trade is looking good, Schneider might be great but he would just damage any rebuild and honestly could be too old by the time Canucks retool.

So yeah… I'm looking for someone that's focused on building a team with an eye on value to do it. IMO Gillis became someone that was looking for value with barely an eye on the team.

Difference stages of a team, Gillis would have rebuilt with different priorities in mind than during the SC challenge years where cap was tight and dollars matter more. The team is in a worse position now than if they had allowed Gillis to continue.

 

[NoShowWilly]

Anybody who's been to university know you only have to show up in Dec. and Apr.

i had a teacher have a breakdown over how few students showed up to his class on non-test/assignment due days.

 

[mathonwy]

As much as I think Benning isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, his education means nothing, as we've seen with Weisebrod. I dropped out of highschool for personal reasons, and never went back because I made money playing poker, which a highschool degree doesn't help me with.

A lot of Highschool and University is just showing up, there are a lot of people I'd take to run the Canucks without an education over Weisebrod, for example.

Don't get me wrong. Education is important but critical, analytical and logical thinking is more important (which a lot of people attain through education).

The only reason why we got onto the subject of education is because JB tried to trade Corrado at a time where the demand for such an asset was nil due to circumstances.

It's a basic supply and demand economic concept... but... it's also common sense.... which unfortunately isn't all that common these days.

If we're getting extremely nit picky then we would be saying that Jim should not have been surprised how well Hutton played in the preseason and should have traded Corrado in the summer. But Jim is a rookie so maybe next time he won't be surprised...

I just hope to god that Jimbo is learning here and not patting himself on the back for a job well done.

 

[Hit the post]

Anybody who's been to university know you only have to show up in Dec. and Apr.

Fantastic scene (in an otherwise so-so 80s movie) in "Real Genius" where a professor uses a tape recorder to teach......in an *EMPTY* classroom full of tape recorders.

 

[GPNuck]

God I sure hope we don't sign Lucic in the off-season what a baby he is. Can't take a clean hit without throwing a temper tantrum

 

[SillyRabbit]

I think the education argument is brought up simply to illustrate that Benning is not a good businessman. If he had street smarts and savvy no one would care that he didn't graduate high school.

The fact of the matter is he doesn't have what it takes to be a successful general manager, whether it's his lack of education, lack of business knowledge or some combination of both.

God I sure hope we don't sign Lucic in the off-season what a baby he is. Can't take a clean hit without throwing a temper tantrum

Was just thinking the same thing. I don't want him anywhere near this team.

 

[Zaddy91]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=107654827&postcount=904

this sums it up

 

[F A N]

As much as I think Benning isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, his education means nothing, as we've seen with Weisebrod. I dropped out of highschool for personal reasons, and never went back because I made money playing poker, which a highschool degree doesn't help me with.

A lot of Highschool and University is just showing up, there are a lot of people I'd take to run the Canucks without an education over Weisebrod, for example.

"Education" means everything. By education, I don't mean simply attending classes but learning. Heck, the best poker players don't just become good just playing poker. They spent countless of hours educating themselves on poker theories etc.

Highschool teaches certain skills and so does University. You still got to take advantage of it. Gillis is highly educated. He honed his skills negotiating contracts as a player agent. But he was the type to study everything. He studied how successful teams were constructed and he tried to bring that to the GM job. Benning lives and breathes hockey. He has the reputation of being a very hard working man and it's been reported that he's on the road scouting players a lot. He has his own ideas on how to build a team and we have seen that he favors players with certain skill sets.

 

[Iceberg Slim]

Does anyone have an explanation for why the team is able to be over the cap right now? The salary tracking websites have Vancouver at nearly 400K over the upper limit, after the Backman recall.

And no players on LTIR.

I didn't think you could use the emergency recall provision (CBA Article 50.10.e) until after playing a game when the team failed to dress the 18 and 2 minimum (18 skaters plus 2 goalies).

But Bachman was dressed last night and nobody was demoted to make room for him.

So why are the Canucks being allowed to go over the cap?

Is it that the salary websites are wrong on something (like a player's contract) and we had more space than assumed?

Or is there some provision that allows emergency recall at the start of the season (without having to first fail to dress the minimum)? Every past emergency recall I've seen has come during the second game, after a team had to dress an incomplete lineup the previous game.

Or are the Canucks actually in violation (with league action pending)? Seems unlikely, even given this management group.

But I thought every team had to make their roster cap compliant for opening night, and then could use options like LTIR if they needed to exceed the cap with their injury replacements.

But sites like General Fanager have Vancouver listed with cap space in red, and show a number exceeding the upper limit, yet with no LTIR and nothing indicating (on those sites or in the press reports) that Bachman was an emergency call up.

So what's the deal? Why are the Canucks going over the salary cap?

 

[F A N]

Does anyone have an explanation for why the team is able to be over the cap right now? The salary tracking websites have Vancouver at nearly 400K over the upper limit, after the Backman recall.

The salary tracking websites you were looking at probably include ELC salary bonuses in their calculations. They don't really count against this year's cap per se because if the players meet their bonuses and that causes the Canucks to be over the cap, the overages gets applied to next year's cap. For example, Virtanen's and Horvat's cap hit is listed as $1.744M but that's only if they reach all bonuses.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

I posted this earlier this summer with the Sutter signing....but essentially this:

Group A
Dorsett | 2.65
Sbisa | 3.6
Prust | 2.5
Sutter | 3.3
Bartowski | 1.75
Miller | 6.0
TOTAL | 19.8M - 6 players + 3rd (lack trade) + 3rd (sutter trade) + 7th (lack trade)

Group B
Bonino | 1.9
Stanton | 0.575
Bieksa | 4.6
Matthias | 2.3
Richardson | 2.08
Kassian | 1.75
Lack | 1.15
TOTAL | 14.35M - 7 players + forsling + 5th (prust trade)
*removed 2nd for sutter trade because we acquired that from bieksa trade

Which group would you rather have?

If only there was a non bias way to measure team performance. There should be a point system or something so we can compare seasons and teams. That way people would know if teams were improved by player changes or not.

I am starting to feel many posters here are critical of how Benning plays checkers when he is playing Chess. Then insult his intelligence for his poor play of checkers.

Benning has been involved in this game all his life he comes from a hockey family. Would others question a Sutter qualifications to be hired by a hockey team?

 

[absolute garbage]

I think the education argument is brought up simply to illustrate that Benning is not a good businessman. If he had street smarts and savvy no one would care that he didn't graduate high school.

The fact of the matter is he doesn't have what it takes to be a successful general manager, whether it's his lack of education, lack of business knowledge or some combination of both.

This sums it up.

Even if he was somehow a terrific "hockey mind" and scout who hit all his talent evaluations right on the nose down the line, got the best possible outcome of every acquisition and won the Stanley Cup in 2 years, he would've still done atrocious job acquiring those assets.

He is not capable of assessing what the general consensus around the league is. He has his ideas and views of what is good and what is bad, and the current market has absolutely zero impact on what he does. He cannot negotiate, so he constantly ends up buying high and selling low as other actual competent businessmen (other GMs and agents) are having a field day with him.

He's a terrible businessman, he's a terrible GM. He has none of the qualities that make a good businessman/GM, education or not.

It's the same guy negotiating with other GMs and agents as we hear speaking in media. Now imagine that guy getting a good deal on anything. Yeah, that's not going to happen. He's the complete opposite of a savvy smooth-spoken businessman who is trying to screw you over. He's the guy getting ripped off.

 

[Iceberg Slim]

The salary tracking websites you were looking at probably include ELC salary bonuses in their calculations. They don't really count against this year's cap per se because if the players meet their bonuses and that causes the Canucks to be over the cap, the overages gets applied to next year's cap. For example, Virtanen's and Horvat's cap hit is listed as $1.744M but that's only if they reach all bonuses.

Nope. I would have noticed that. They are using the cap hit minus performance bonuses.

Virtanen and Horvat are at $894,166 each.

For example, on General Fanager, the team is being listed at $71,778,748 against the cap. That's $378,748 above the upper limit ($71,400,000).

NHL Numbers has the Canucks at $73.691 million with bonuses and a $1.913 million bonus cushion. They have Vancouver $0.379 million (all their numbers are in millions) over the cap.

Hockeybuzz has the Canucks cap at $71,728,751, which again is $328,751 over (and they are missing the $50,000 cap hit from Vey's buried contract). So make that $378,751 over the cap.

EDIT: They're basically reporting the exact same numbers with the only differences due to how each site is rounding things off.

Have a look:

http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/vancouver-canucks

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/team.php?team=VAN

http://stats.nhlnumbers.com/teams/VAN?year=2016

 

[opendoor]

Does anyone have an explanation for why the team is able to be over the cap right now? The salary tracking websites have Vancouver at nearly 400K over the upper limit, after the Backman recall.

And no players on LTIR.

I didn't think you could use the emergency recall provision (CBA Article 50.10.e) until after playing a game when the team failed to dress the 18 and 2 minimum (18 skaters plus 2 goalies).

But Bachman was dressed last night and nobody was demoted to make room for him.

So why are the Canucks being allowed to go over the cap?

Is it that the salary websites are wrong on something (like a player's contract) and we had more space than assumed?

Or is there some provision that allows emergency recall at the start of the season (without having to first fail to dress the minimum)? Every past emergency recall I've seen has come during the second game, after a team had to dress an incomplete lineup the previous game.

Or are the Canucks actually in violation (with league action pending)? Seems unlikely, even given this management group.

But I thought every team had to make their roster cap compliant for opening night, and then could use options like LTIR if they needed to exceed the cap with their injury replacements.

But sites like General Fanager have Vancouver listed with cap space in red, and show a number exceeding the upper limit, yet with no LTIR and nothing indicating (on those sites or in the press reports) that Bachman was an emergency call up.

So what's the deal? Why are the Canucks going over the salary cap?

My only guess would be Higgins was put on LTIR. IIRC you can't even use the Roster Emergency Exception if you have anyone who's eligible for LTIR.

 

[fancouver]

Secondary education being a business education.

And yep, I would most definitely take a chemical engineer to be the GM. Being a chemical engineer means one has the mental ability and discipline to pass all of the advanced chemical/biological engineering, math and statistics courses required.

(And these courses are MUCH more complicated than managing a salary cap)

JB has shown that he knows how to do one and only one thing good and that's how to draft.

And your Canucks aren't a minor league team to train rookies.

Just because someone is an engineer doesn't make them great at being a businessman. They are smart at what they do: engineering. But Engineering and Business are two completely different fields. It doesn't matter if you can calculate Bernoulli's equation if you can't negotiate a contract.

 

[MS]

As much as I think Benning isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, his education means nothing, as we've seen with Weisebrod. I dropped out of highschool for personal reasons, and never went back because I made money playing poker, which a highschool degree doesn't help me with.

A lot of Highschool and University is just showing up, there are a lot of people I'd take to run the Canucks without an education over Weisebrod, for example.

This isn't playing poker, though.

This is running a multi-million dollar organization via the interpretation of a complicated collective bargaining agreement. It requires a high degree of understanding of economics, contracts, and law.

I don't think it should be controversial to say that people who have an understanding/background in economics and law should have a leg up on those that don't. And there's a reason that EVERY organization (except us) has people like this in high positions on their hockey operations side.

For the record, I'm actually criticizing Linden and the Gilman firing more than directly criticizing Benning. It isn't ideal, but yeah I can see situations where a quality talent evaluator/team builder could be a good GM if he's surrounded himself with the right people to make up for his weaknesses.

That isn't the case here.

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=86312

The 6 guys at the top of the list here simply do not have the qualifications you'd expect to run an NHL team in the cap era.

And the results speak to that - bizarre contract after bizarre contract, completely mis-judged this summer's UFA market, etc.

This whole thread is bordering on slander. Slamming his education and intelligence seems very petty and looks incredibly bad. I think it's fine to discuss his moves etc, but to get personal like that it seems to me is crossing the line.

I'm not even sure this is allowed under the rules.

Nothing said here has been even remotely close to slander.

 

[mathonwy]

Benning has been involved in this game all his life he comes from a hockey family. Would others question a Sutter qualifications to be hired by a hockey team?

So go nepotism right?

 

[Intoewsables]

Benning has been involved in this game all his life he comes from a hockey family. Would others question a Sutter qualifications to be hired by a hockey team?

Many people questioned Darryl Sutter's work as Calgary GM, so uhh...

 

[Catamarca Livin]

So go nepotism right?

Another critic without merit. It is not nepotism to be in hockey your whole life and make it to the top. That is called success. Is he related to Aqua man. Was Gillis/Torts, he was a front runner who got the job. Him and Linden were not close at all.

I am amazed that many of the people i consider the best more knowledgeable posters are the people most against Benning. If it was only about hockey i would question my position. However, much of the debate is over Bennings intelligence based on what they perceive as poor hockey moves, and poor communication skills. It is understandable that people will disagree about hockey moves. However, when i bring up the players lost by Benning as being minor players, no one has a good arguement against it. When people bring up the 100 point season last year no one as a response to why that is not a positive for Benning. Benning and Linden's state their goal to make this team younger and faster. There is no one that argues this team is not faster, to the point they are on the verge of being a very fast team. I do not know how this season will turn out. We still depend on too few vets too much. However the haters do not even blame Benning for that. They blame him for not getting value in deals or contracts. Which is important to a team that is not winning, however when you have a team that went from not winning to winning how valid is this complaint? If the Canucks are winning while developing their youth what is there to complain about? It is like these posters will only be happy if the team wins by building the team the way, they see as the right way. They think we are guaranteed to lose so complain now. What if the team wins? What the four young players play well, the vets continue their play and Miller has a good year. That would be a 100 point team while developing 4 young players (2 Benning draft picks), is that not a good thing? Poster were wrong about the young players making the team, so they complain about Biega instead. Really people care which 27 year old dman sits out, is that going to affect if the Canucks now or in the future. Corrado was our 10th dman and people think he had trade value? It is a witch hunt here with many of our leading posters leading the group.