Canucks Managerial Thread | Part 19 | Maybe we are in on Tallon, maybe not? *Post #61

[Samzilla]

He just answered why adding more draft picks could be 'problematic.'

For example, if the Canucks traded Thatcher Demko and Bo Horvat for Brandon Gormley and a 7th round pick, even though they'd be adding a draft pick, such a move would be 'problematic.'

This argument doesn't really hold water. No one's suggesting we trade Demko and Horvat for picks. Here's a wild and crazy idea for another way we could have acquired picks...what if we traded our pending UFA's at the deadline for picks like every other rebuilding team?!?

Or what if we hadn't flipped our 2nd round pick for Garrison immediately for Linden Vey? Or our 2nd round pick for Bieksa for Sutter?

But nope, the ONLY way we could have gotten picks was by trading Demko and Horvat.

 

[TheWolf*]

This argument doesn't really hold water. No one's suggesting we trade Demko and Horvat for picks. Here's a wild and crazy idea for another way we could have acquired picks...what if we traded our pending UFA's at the deadline for picks like every other rebuilding team?!?

Or what if we hadn't flipped our 2nd round pick for Garrison immediately for Linden Vey? Or our 2nd round pick for Bieksa for Sutter?

But nope, the ONLY way we could have gotten picks was by trading Demko and Horvat.

The poster asked us to explain why it could ever be seen as 'problematic' to add draft picks given that Benning is a 'drafting guru.' I provided an example of an intentionally unrealistic scenario by which the addition of a draft pick could be problematic.

The point here is that not every deal whereby there are draft picks being added are good deals - regardless of whether or not Benning is a draft wizard.

 

[Samzilla]

The poster asked us to explain why it could ever be seen as 'problematic' to add draft picks given that Benning is a 'drafting guru.' I provided an example of an intentionally unrealistic scenario by which the addition of a draft pick could be problematic.

The point here is that not every deal whereby there are draft picks being added are good deals - regardless of whether or not Benning is a draft wizard.

Maybe we shouldn't trade for good players because they might get in a car accident on the way to the arena? Losing a good player to a car accident would suck so we should only trade for bad players.

Unrealistic reasons aren't justification.

 

[TheWolf*]

Maybe we shouldn't trade for good players because they might get in a car accident on the way to the arena? Losing a good player to a car accident would suck so we should only trade for bad players.

Yeah, you are right. It's always best to add draft picks. Does not matter the cost. The poster was right. You solidified the hypothesis with a completely relevant example. Well done.

 

[y2kcanucks]

The poster asked us to explain why it could ever be seen as 'problematic' to add draft picks given that Benning is a 'drafting guru.' I provided an example of an intentionally unrealistic scenario by which the addition of a draft pick could be problematic.

The point here is that not every deal whereby there are draft picks being added are good deals - regardless of whether or not Benning is a draft wizard.

Strawman argument. I ask why it's problematic to acquire draft picks if Benning is such a draft guru. Was not looking for examples of bad trades like Horvat for a 4th round pick. Really didn't address the discussion at all.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Yeah, you are right. It's always best to add draft picks. Does not matter the cost. The poster was right. You solidified the hypothesis with a completely relevant example. Well done.

I am right. I never once said we should acquire draft picks at all costs. I did say stockpiling draft picks is a good rebuilding strategy though, which is a point that for some reason was contested in the previous thread.

I'm still waiting for an answer. If our GM is such a drafting guru, why is acquiring draft picks problematic?

 

[Chairman Maouth]

Knock off the BS and stay on topic. Thanks.

 

[F A N]

Not a big fan of Tallon as I don't see him as anything special. I don't think the Panthers would have made the playoffs in the Pacific Division. Not saying they aren't on the right track, but it wasn't some amazing job Tallon did there.

I do believe there is something to the rumors, as Friedman is pretty reliable. I don't see him coming in as the team's GM. If he isn't taking an advisory role he may take the place of Linden. It sounds like Tallon is being pushed out in favor of a more "analytical" approach and here, if he is made a part of the management group, Tallon may feel more comfortable. Tallon, afterall, has philosophies similar to Benning.

Small sample size, but the Aquilinis have made a management change every time the Canucks have missed the playoffs. Would anyone be surprised if Aquilini "enlarged" the management group?

 

[JuniorNelson]

You could add Scotty Bowman to this group and still have a clown school if he isn't given authority. Canucks are poorly led by their top executive. If they really desperately wanted to win they could just pull Wellwood out of an alumni game and have him explain how things work. They won't because he wouldn't tell them to keep doing what they are doing and support the owner's ego. He, or any hockey man with brains, would shatter a lot of fantasies for the boss, so it won't happen.

 

[tantalum]

NOt sure what to think about the Florida situation. Friedman saying Tallon will be moved to the president role while those in the media close to the team saying he'll still be involved on the GM level but the other guys will be given more say. It's a murky situation. You look on the Panthers website and he's wearing about 4 hats which is too many. You do wonder that if he's going to be put into a president type role and giving up the other duties still associated with him on the website if he wouldn't look for a similar position elsewhere. It makes some sense a guy potentially transitioning to another stage in his career looking for what he thinks is a better fit OR wanting to continue to do what he likes best (GM).

Now the rumour before about looking for an advisor was also tied to the promotion of DeBonis to COO of the greater Aquilini group and his COO position in the Canucks S&E business would likely be backfilled at some point. I know some looked at that type of move as a prescursor to a potential team sale or at least shake up. Move the guy you really want to retain up the big corporation before making the other moves. So does a Tallon take on that COO role for CS&E putting him above all the three stooges? Is the rumour real? A lot of questions but I agree it's odd for Friedman just to throw something out without a good source. Unlike Dreger just because he has a poor relationship with the organization it doesn't mean he's just going to throw anything out there.

That said, I'd rather have Perreault than Tallon......

 

[TruGr1t]

Now the rumour before about looking for an advisor was also tied to the promotion of DeBonis to COO of the greater Aquilini group and his COO position in the Canucks S&E business would likely be backfilled at some point. I know some looked at that type of move as a prescursor to a potential team sale or at least shake up. Move the guy you really want to retain up the big corporation before making the other moves. So does a Tallon take on that COO role for CS&E putting him above all the three stooges? Is the rumour real? A lot of questions but I agree it's odd for Friedman just to throw something out without a good source. Unlike Dreger just because he has a poor relationship with the organization it doesn't mean he's just going to throw anything out there.

That said, I'd rather have Perreault than Tallon......

Tallon has an established hockey resume, but it doesn't scream COO to me. And I don't know why he'd want to be involved with the day-to-day grind of running Rogers Arena and all the managerial minutiae that comes with that role (DeBonis was a forensic accountant by training and ran pretty everything not related to the on-ice product). They'll need to find a specific c-suite executive for that spot I'd think.

And isn't this the second time Friedman has linked us to Tallon? I'd definitely be interested. My dream would be to somehow convince Benning to take an AGM role and straight up give Tallon the GM job, but that seems highly unlikely unless the Aquilini's lose the plot.

 

[Fat Tony]

But nope, the ONLY way we could have gotten picks was by trading Demko and Horvat.

Actually, this is a realistic scenario considering it would be Benning that would be trying to trade for draft picks.

 

[tantalum]

Tallon has an established hockey resume, but it doesn't scream COO to me. And I don't know why he'd want to be involved with the day-to-day grind of running Rogers Arena and all the managerial minutiae that comes with that role (DeBonis was a forensic accountant by training and ran pretty everything not related to the on-ice product). They'll need to find a specific c-suite executive for that spot I'd think.

I don't disagree. And it may be that Tallon doesn't feel comfortable in the elevated roles he is being given. I do wonder how much conversation went on between Tallon and all levels of the canucks during the Luongo stuff. I believe it was LeBrun who suggested Tallon was always interested in Luongo but there was no chance of a deal until the ownership changed. When it did they made the trade.

And isn't this the second time Friedman has linked us to Tallon? I'd definitely be interested. My dream would be to somehow convince Benning to take an AGM role and straight up give Tallon the GM job, but that seems highly unlikely unless the Aquilini's lose the plot.

I would argue that would be them finding the plot....or at least some of the plot. But I think if they wanted to go with a new GM and move Benning down a nothc there are probably better options.

With all that said, we know the Aquilini's like most businesses, work behind the scenes to have replacements in the works before they let go of the guys they are going to replace.

 

[Jyrki21]

If the three stooges are still in charge when we get to the Summer Summit, there's going to be an audible backlash from me. No questions this time, just a statement.

They probably have an "Avoid at all costs" card with your picture on it that they distribute before the event by this point, I'd think.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

Hmmm so Florida's new owners hire some analytics guys (former Canucks army bloggers), enjoy their most successful season basically ever, and now there's rumours they're pushing Tallon out. Why would we want him, exactly? His reputation around here was basically as low as it could possibly get, as recently as a year ago. Florida is obviously going in a modern, analytics-inclined direction, and Tallon... is not that kind of guy. I don't want to see him here. But Friedman reporting it twice makes me think there must be something to it.

So, ownership isn't happy with the front office and wants to make changes... we as fans must now face the inevitable Benning endgame: the owner is quite likely to hire another moron to replace our current moron. Damn.

 

[tantalum]

MOst of the information doesn't really seem to suggest they are pushing him out though yes they want these other guys to have a bigger voice. Panther ownership likes Tallon and basically never wants him to leave. They want him a part of things until he no longer wants to be a part of things.

Maybe he no longer wants to be a part of things.

 

[Jarko2004]

While deep down I know the Canucks will flounder until they are sold (idiots hiring idiots), I hope if Tallon turned them down , they are still looking.

Still time before the draft and free agency for some competency to join the organization.

 

[Hit the post]

But nope, the ONLY way we could have gotten picks was by trading Demko and Horvat.

I know right....I mean Ddmonton managed to get nothing for Justin flippin' Schultz at the trade deadline right?

 

[valkynax]

I know right....I mean Ddmonton managed to get nothing for Justin flippin' Schultz at the trade deadline right?

Quite a few trades like that happened, like Pirri and Polak and Staal - all of which are either difficult trades or trash players but other GMs made it work. Our dear ol Jim sat on his royal lower behind and did nothing.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Quite a few trades like that happened, like Pirri and Polak and Staal - all of which are either difficult trades or trash players but other GMs made it work. Our dear ol Jim sat on his royal lower behind and did nothing.

Yup, Benning deserves heat for the deadline for sure and comes out of the trade deadline looking 2nd worse to Jim Nill.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Yup, Benning deserves heat for the deadline for sure and comes out of the trade deadline looking 2nd worse to Jim Nill.

Benning traded away picks and prospects at the deadline. For a team that's supposedly rebuilding it's a very strange strategy.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Benning traded away picks and prospects at the deadline. For a team that's supposedly rebuilding it's a very strange strategy.

Yes I didn't like the Shinkaruk trade much. Very underwhelming trade deadline, really. This regime will not liquidate assets quickly the way many here want them to.

If around the league other GMs value Canuck assets so lowly as to have Russel on top of Hamhuis, I'm not for just stripping and shipping for any old lottery ticket. I can't agree with offloading assets for the sake of it.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Yes I didn't like the Shinkaruk trade much. Very underwhelming trade deadline, really. This regime will not liquidate assets quickly the way many here want them to.

If around the league other GMs value Canuck assets so lowly as to have Russel on top of Hamhuis, I'm not for just stripping and shipping for any old lottery ticket. I can't agree with offloading assets for the sake of it.

I don't think other GM's valued Hamhuis that low. I think Benning waited too long to even begin the process. He didn't ask Hamhuis about waiving his NTC until under a week before the trade deadline. Teams moved early, and Benning wasn't ready.

Trading away some veterans for draft picks is not a bad strategy.

 

[DL44]

I am right. I never once said we should acquire draft picks at all costs. I did say stockpiling draft picks is a good rebuilding strategy though, which is a point that for some reason was contested in the previous thread.

I'm still waiting for an answer. If our GM is such a drafting guru, why is acquiring draft picks problematic?

It isn't.

 

[DL44]

I don't think other GM's valued Hamhuis that low. I think Benning waited too long to even begin the process. He didn't ask Hamhuis about waiving his NTC until under a week before the trade deadline. Teams moved early, and Benning wasn't ready.

Trading away some veterans for draft picks is not a bad strategy.

But you mentioned shedding our vets for picks... who?
No one was biting on the players we had.

Our trade deadline was a disaster because our 2 pending UFA's played so damn poorly.
Hamhuis was a trainwreck and then was injured for weeks. Going into the injury and looking at the timetable for his return, it was easy to predict (and i did at the time) he would have no value to other teams and would go untraded.
His play upon return was good and gave me a glimmer of hope he would garner some value... but other teams also have pro scouts looking at the bigger sample and didn't bite on his 10 game sample of good games.
Hamhuis had a brutal season and came with $4.5 mil cap hit. Hamhuis carried NO value based on his play prior to his injury. Moving Hamhuis early wasn't option for Benning... no one was gonna touch him early.

And Vrbata.. 12g, disinterested and injured going to the TDL... gave 5 team list that apparently included non-playoff teams screwing over Benning's ability to move him for any value IF there were even interested parties in the first place.

Higgins? Prust?... well no.