Canucks Managerial Thread II

[Powder]

Everybody makes it out to be as if there are two categories:

- Pro-Benning: Approve all or most of the moves, support his tenure, and play nice.
- Anti-Benning: Disapprove all or most of the moves and do not support his tenure, and name-call.

Surprise, everyone, if we're throwing categories, there's at least a third, whatever you want to call it:

- Disapprove all or most of the moves and do not support his tenure, and play nice.

Just because someone doesn't like his moves doesn't mean they're insulting him. So I think it's unfair that many people (especially those apologizing to Benning's apparent cousin) here are insinuating that if you don't approve of Benning's decisions, that you're generally insulting and mean-spirited. There's a difference between attacking the decision and attacking the decision-maker.

 

[DL44]

Everybody makes it out to be as if there are two categories:

- Pro-Benning: Approve all or most of the moves, support his tenure, and play nice.
- Anti-Benning: Disapprove all or most of the moves and do not support his tenure, and name-call.

Surprise, everyone, if we're throwing categories, there's at least a third, whatever you want to call it:

- Disapprove all or most of the moves and do not support his tenure, and play nice.

Just because someone doesn't like his moves doesn't mean they're insulting him. So I think it's unfair that many people (especially those apologizing to Benning's apparent cousin) here are insinuating that if you don't approve of Benning's decisions, that you're generally insulting and mean-spirited. There's a difference between attacking the decision and attacking the decision-maker.

What about the people who approve a move getting nailed as pro-Benning?

i.e I'm not pro-Benning.... but I'm definitely not anti-Benning. Actually now that i think about it... i don't have a take or give any thought into assessing the job Benning is doing on an overall basis... no thought on it yet beyond the individual transaction evaluation..

 

[mathonwy]

I've lurked on this site for a number of years looking for info on players and such, but ever since my cousin became gm in Vancouver I've followed the Canucks forum a little more actively. I gotta say the stuff written about Jim makes my stomach crawl. He is a quiet soft spoken person, and he knows hockey and he knows team building. His family is probably one of the most knowledgeable hockey families in Canada. I get that people get upset at certain trades or contracts he's done but just know there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than anybody realizes. Anyway just needed to say that

A person's job performance has no bearing on who that person is as a human being so taking any of the criticism/abuse that is being hurled Jim's way on these types of hockey forums personally is non-productive and frankly, a bit silly.

If you can separate the two and look purely at Jim's job performance you will see that we aren't wrong in our criticism. I don't know Jim the person whatsoever but I do know Jim the business man because I see the results of his work. What I can also do is compare his results to everyone else's results and make my own conclusions.

And actually no there isn't a lot more going on behind the scenes than anybody realizes as we have more than enough information to piece together what's going on.

If you can get past the fact that we aren't criticizing Jim the person you'll have a happier stomach.

 

[Tinhorn1]

A person's job performance has no bearing on who that person is as a human being so taking any of the criticism/abuse that is being hurled Jim's way on these types of hockey forums personally is non-productive and frankly, a bit silly.

If you can separate the two and look purely at Jim's job performance you will see that we aren't wrong in our criticism. I don't know Jim the person whatsoever but I do know Jim the business man because I see the results of his work. What I can also do is compare his results to everyone else's results and make my own conclusions.

And actually no there isn't a lot more going on behind the scenes than anybody realizes as we have more than enough information to piece together what's going on.

If you can get past the fact that we aren't criticizing Jim the person you'll have a happier stomach.

Respectfully, this is just not true. To take one example, the recent revelations about Kassian go a long way towards explaining his treatment and his trade, and that was information that we didn't really have, even if it was sometimes referred to obliquely on this board. Another example: We didn't know what was going on with Rypien back when he played here. We really don't know that much except what's spoken about publicly and what we can see on the ice.

 

[Powder]

Side note: Mr. Benning's Cousin's quoted-to-post ratio will give anyone a run for their money.

 

[rune74]

Respectfully, this is just not true. To take one example, the recent revelations about Kassian go a long way towards explaining his treatment and his trade, and that was information that we didn't really have, even if it was sometimes referred to obliquely on this board. Another example: We didn't know what was going on with Rypien back when he played here. We really don't know that much except what's spoken about publicly and what we can see on the ice.

Good point.

 

[mathonwy]

Respectfully, this is just not true. To take one example, the recent revelations about Kassian go a long way towards explaining his treatment and his trade, and that was information that we didn't really have, even if it was sometimes referred to obliquely on this board. Another example: We didn't know what was going on with Rypien back when he played here. We really don't know that much except what's spoken about publicly and what we can see on the ice.

The recent revelations about Kassian have absolutely zero bearing on his trade.

If JB wanted Kassian gone, he should have just waived him.

If JB wanted Prust, he should have traded Kassian for a 5th and used that 5th to acquire Prust.

What JB did was negotiate with Bergevin based on Kassian's worth to the Canucks which was basically less than zero (and everybody knows this). JB showed his cards before the flop was even dealt, Bergevin took full advantage and got a 5th out of it.

Just like how JB negotiated with Jim Rutherford for Sutter and how he had to throw in Clendening.

And just like how he got such an incredibly horrid return for Eddie Lack.

Everytime JB goes into a negotiation, the other GM already knows the outcome. It's more of a game of how much additional value the other GM can squeeze out of JB.

 

[Fat Tony]

Would others question a Sutter qualifications to be hired by a hockey team?

Ask a Flames fan that question.

================

Opinion on Corrado:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/1...-guarantee-night-first-game-is-the-best-game/

 

[fancouver]

What in the eff are you talking about?

Are you just picking statements randomly to reply to in hopes that something will stick?

Why are you replying to a statement I wrote that was in response to drax0s and COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY taking it out of context?

Is everything ok?

Everything is ok here. How about you?

I can quote anyone anytime on this board and respond to it.

It wasn't out of context. Your quote was:

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.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Yep...

Way better plan to trade Kassian and a 5th for Prust who is older, costs more and is a UFA next season.

Mentorship, meat and potatoes and intangibles.

Winning is Winning. Last year the Canucks improved while trading Kesler/Garrison. You are missing the forest for the trees. Sure you could measure every move and grade the GM on that. Or you could look at the success of the team and the organization. The team is winning more and the organizational depth is good, while getting younger. You and others are micro grading the GM as a failure. What is the GM's purpose? For me it is to create a winning model club now and maintain it into the future. To you it is to win every trade and contract negotiation. With my model Stan Bowman is doing a very good job under your belief he is mediocre at best as he has done many poor trades and some very poor contracts as well. The Canucks could win the cup and by the way you are judging Jim Benning will still be a poor general manager. To me you are a very poor critic, you judge without giving a basis for it. If you disagree with the above tell me what you think the general manager's job is and why Jim Benning based on tangible facts like team performance or organizational depth why he is doing it poorly.

 

[Pip]

So if we're worse this year then the trades are bad correct?

 

[PM]

Ask a Flames fan that question.

================

Opinion on Corrado:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/1...-guarantee-night-first-game-is-the-best-game/

The part about Gillis, MacT and the Schneider trade in there is hilarious.

 

[Tinhorn1]

Yep...

Way better plan to trade Kassian and a 5th for Prust who is older, costs more and is a UFA next season.

Mentorship, meat and potatoes and intangibles.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have read nothing about Kassian's situation, including the fact that he was reportedly in Stage 1 of the Substance Abuse and Behavioural Health Program while in Vancouver. They wanted him gone, presumably from the entire system, which would not work if he were to clear waivers. Here is a bit of background, for your reading pleasure:

http://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/montreal-canadiens/stu-cowan-a-qa-with-chris-nilan-on-zack-kassian-and-battling-substance-abuse

 

[banme*]

Ask a Flames fan that question.

================

Opinion on Corrado:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/1...-guarantee-night-first-game-is-the-best-game/

Thought

The Canucks tried to trade Linden Vey this preseason but no takers for the 24-year-old tweener.

was the most interesting part of that piece.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Ask a Flames fan that question.

================

Opinion on Corrado:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/1...-guarantee-night-first-game-is-the-best-game/

Did not say they think he did a good job, but if he would be qualified to be given the job in the first place. Being in the game at various positions is a qualification. It is not nepotism, it is hiring a person in the profession.

 

[Powder]

Winning is Winning. Last year the Canucks improved while trading Kesler/Garrison. You are missing the forest for the trees. Sure you could measure every move and grade the GM on that. Or you could look at the success of the team and the organization. The team is winning more and the organizational depth is good, while getting younger. You and others are micro grading the GM as a failure. What is the GM's purpose? For me it is to create a winning model club now and maintain it into the future. To you it is to win every trade and contract negotiation. With my model Stan Bowman is doing a very good job under your belief he is mediocre at best as he has done many poor trades and some very poor contracts as well. The Canucks could win the cup and by the way you are judging Jim Benning will still be a poor general manager. To me you are a very poor critic, you judge without giving a basis for it. If you disagree with the above tell me what you think the general manager's job is and why Jim Benning based on tangible facts like team performance or organizational depth why he is doing it poorly.

For the sake of simplicity, let me give you this analogy.

You see a profitable company and say "they're profitable, it means they're performing well, keep doing what you're doing". That is the basis of your position, correct? A very high-level, simple to assess standard. Not saying it's right or wrong, but I do think it's ineffective when compared to the following style.

Others see the same profitable company and look into their operations, sales, distribution, marketing, and financial processes to see how each operates. What if this investigation determined that the marketing department is missing an important target market, the operations function has some redundancies that can be removed, and the distribution can be more effectively routed. However, on the positive side, the sales team is managing to close 80% of their contracts when the industry standard is only 50% to make up for the deficiencies in the other departments and still come out profitable.

Now, this is the same profitable company you looked at, but even though they're profitable, with the second approach, why can't you say "let's better market to our customers, cut out needless operations, and distribute our products more efficiently to become more profitable"? The problem is that going with your high-level approach, this business would never improve in those areas. Just because a machine, a business, an organization, or even a person is successful, it doesn't mean they can't be improved.

You say that the most tangible numbers to look at in this scenario would be profitability, but trust me, every department and subdivision has very effective performance measurements as well. In fact, you go nowhere if all you look at is profitability.

 

[Verviticus]

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.

Agree 100%.

haha wow, looks like we need a law degree to post on a forum too (hint: this isnt even close to slander)

 

[Jay Cee]

haha wow, looks like we need a law degree to post on a forum too (hint: this isnt even close to slander)

Interestingly, and scarily that might actually be true.

The lower courts, but not yet the supreme court have ruled on this and have actually treated the internet pretty much like normal society in where people are 100% accountable for their actions, and actually the forum owners themselves are responsible. IPs are forced to be produced so further action can take place etc.

 

[Powder]

Interestingly, and scarily that might actually be true.

The lower courts, but not yet the supreme court have ruled on this and have actually treated the internet pretty much like normal society in where people are 100% accountable for their actions, and actually the forum owners themselves are responsible. IPs are forced to be produced so further action can take place etc.

Let the record state, that I did not mean anything that could be negatively misconstrued.

 

[Verviticus]

Interestingly, and scarily that might actually be true.

The lower courts, but not yet the supreme court have ruled on this and have actually treated the internet pretty much like normal society in where people are 100% accountable for their actions, and actually the forum owners themselves are responsible. IPs are forced to be produced so further action can take place etc.

id be interested to read the decision(s) that rendered hfboards inherently responsible for slanderous opinions despite their pretty zealous attempts to regulate it

though thats a different topic, if you have some, please pm them to me

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Everybody makes it out to be as if there are two categories:

- Pro-Benning: Approve all or most of the moves, support his tenure, and play nice.
- Anti-Benning: Disapprove all or most of the moves and do not support his tenure, and name-call.

Surprise, everyone, if we're throwing categories, there's at least a third, whatever you want to call it:

- Disapprove all or most of the moves and do not support his tenure, and play nice.

Just because someone doesn't like his moves doesn't mean they're insulting him. So I think it's unfair that many people (especially those apologizing to Benning's apparent cousin) here are insinuating that if you don't approve of Benning's decisions, that you're generally insulting and mean-spirited. There's a difference between attacking the decision and attacking the decision-maker.

The people that disagree with Benning and post in a calm and clear way are great... Very few do though... Most will never give him any credit for anything and do Attack him personally... There are probably 90% of posts that use sarcasm to belittle, name call, root for moves to fail so he looses his job...

And ironically the poster who is most disgusted by a 2 decade old peace of racism throws personal insults Bennings way every chance...

 

[Aphid Attraction]

You should not be able to say things about a player, management or any person that you cant say about a poster... Everyone should be given the same respect...

If for no other reason than to make this place a nice place to read again and cut out the filth

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

I have no idea where to put this.....

but why isn't there an Armchair thread anymore? Last one was closed with under 800 posts.

 

[RandV]

Winning is Winning. Last year the Canucks improved while trading Kesler/Garrison. You are missing the forest for the trees. Sure you could measure every move and grade the GM on that. Or you could look at the success of the team and the organization. The team is winning more and the organizational depth is good, while getting younger. You and others are micro grading the GM as a failure. What is the GM's purpose? For me it is to create a winning model club now and maintain it into the future. To you it is to win every trade and contract negotiation. With my model Stan Bowman is doing a very good job under your belief he is mediocre at best as he has done many poor trades and some very poor contracts as well. The Canucks could win the cup and by the way you are judging Jim Benning will still be a poor general manager. To me you are a very poor critic, you judge without giving a basis for it. If you disagree with the above tell me what you think the general manager's job is and why Jim Benning based on tangible facts like team performance or organizational depth why he is doing it poorly.

But where is the bar set for 'winning'? By the last regime while spending to the Cap, it was playoff success. They got reamed when they lost in the first round in back to back years following 2011, and that's where we were again last year against an extremely favourable matchup.

What we have right now is a situation where the strength of the organization (Sedins, Edler, Hamhuis, Tanev, Horvat, etc) is propping the team up, while many of the moves management is making to supplement the team show a horrible use of asset & cap management. Guys like Lack, Kassian, Richardson, Matthias, etc can be bled out because this is a deep team. And it looks even less painful now because a number of kids have unexpectedly made the jump (so far). But eventually it's going to catch up to you.

Best example, and the last GM I was this hard on (Edmonton aside), is Daryl Sutter in Calgary. Came into the team and had a sudden spike of success due to some unexpected breakouts, and he followed up his Stanley Cup run by futility spinning the wheels with a handful of 1st round losses to a few years of just missing the playoffs and getting canned. Although in Sutter's case I felt the mismanagement was in continually reshuffling the deck every year and never building a team identity beyond his few elite players. That and little to no focus on drafting & development.

Anyways, If Benning remains consistent to what he's done the past year+ that's the eventual outcome we're looking at. The penciled in lineup heading into training camp looked like a pending disaster, but Benning may get a saving grace through the kids that stepped up. Actually I used Calgary as an example above, but maybe Boston is a better pick to what we could see happen. The kids step up but when it comes time to pay them there's no cap room because we're spending millions on scrubs.

 

[Powder]

The people that disagree with Benning and post in a calm and clear way are great... Very few do though... Most will never give him any credit for anything and do Attack him personally... There are probably 90% of posts that use sarcasm to belittle, name call, root for moves to fail so he looses his job...

And ironically the poster who is most disgusted by a 2 decade old peace of racism throws personal insults Bennings way every chance...

You should not be able to say things about a player, management or any person that you cant say about a poster... Everyone should be given the same respect...

If for no other reason than to make this place a nice place to read again and cut out the filth

No argument from me on that front.

On that note, if Sutter plays like he did last game, Benning should get credit for the player analysis portion of it. I still won't like the trade as I think he paid more than he had to, but he still can be complemented for bringing him in if he meshes in well. That would still suggest he should be in more of a player analysis/pro or prospect scouting position though. I still wish he left the contract negotiations to Gilman (and kept him).