Management Thread | 5th Youngest Team in the League Edition

[Ernie]

Quite frankly your experience as a player adds almost nothing to conversations about team management and building a hockey team. If this was a thread about a player where you were weighing in on how a player could improve their skating, or their shot, or good/bad habits you've noticed on the ice, or what mistakes they make when playing in a system etc then your hockey experience would contribute a ton of value to the conversation. That's not what this is, and that's not what people have a problem with.

Even that's questionable. The game has changed tremendously. Being an expert at something 30 years ago does not make you an expert today, and that's assuming he was even at a high enough level to be considered an expert.

 

[andora]

He can participate. I welcome his participation. I don't even remember him from the Benning arguments. I'm explaining why I think his playing hockey is mostly irrelevant to an analysis of hockey management and that opinion is not "Q-level nonsense". In fact, I think he started it off by being incredible dismissive and condescending by referring to that opinion as "Q-level nonsense". He was condescending and dismissive, and in spite of that I was mostly polite with a single jab in my post. I could have dunked on him, but I even provided an example of where is experience is actually valuable. I was being nice.

Well good for being nice i guess

I just cant see how people who have played arent likely to have valid perspectives when discussing management topics

Former players are succeeding all the time in this aspect.. i dont see it any different because our scope is so much smaller relative to the big league

 

[andora]

Even that's questionable. The game has changed tremendously. Being an expert at something 30 years ago does not make you an expert today, and that's assuming he was even at a high enough level to be considered an expert.

That is kind of pigeonholing it isnt it? Doesnt the median lean towards non expert players being more successful on the other side?

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Jim Benning wasn't someone who was slightly on one side of the good/bad ledger or the other and for whom there were legitimate arguments. He was probably the worst GM in NHL history. He was an abject idiot. He was a coward who had the leadership skills of a potato. He had absolutely no idea what he was doing and this should have been obvious to anyone from a year or so into his regime.

People who were still defending him in 2021 are like the people who were still saying that Wayne Gretzky sucked in 1985. You got locked into a really bad position and instead of getting out of it just kept doubling down more and more until it reached the point of absurdity. And you don't really get to get out of it by saying 'oh, I guess his time was up in the end' or by dissecting some of the reasons you might have supported some individual moves. Unless you're out there saying 'HOLY SHIT did I get that wrong, and I'm making efforts to show an understanding of how I got it so wrong' I think it's fair that people are dubious and kind of annoyed.

___________

On playing the game :

Absolutely it makes a difference when understanding some of the things that are happening on the ice. As an example, one of my biggest pet peeves is when people angry about a hit read miles more intent into it than there actually is because they haven't played the game and don't understand how quick it happens and a bodycheck is literally 'see a target->drop shoulder->hope to get a good piece' happening in literally like a quarter of a second.

But as for playing the game helping to evaluate management and team building? Yeah, no. Doesn't mean a thing.

Once again, the voice of reason.

I don't have a problem with any of the on-ice shit, I have enough trouble making a C-cut as is, but once it goes into the locker room and the board room, it just comes across as annoying grandstanding. OP makes a lot of great points in evaluating on-ice play and is clearly knowledgeable about that. I have no problem with that. But dressing up a...controversial opinion to say the least with "I used to play, and I'm assuming you didn't" is not going to bring a lot of people to your side of the discussion. And I'm really sugar-coating my words there. Playing hockey and running a hockey team are 2 completely different things, if they were the same, maybe Benning would still be here and maybe this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

I'd liken it to saying "you haven't made an album so don't talk about music", and you aren't even talking about McCartney's Ram. You are talking about some bum's soundcloud raps. It's entirely exclusionary and then having the audacity to complain about exclusion when you are on the butt end of it. I don't know if I'm old school, but playground rules are don't dish it out if you can't take it.

 

[bossram]

Well yeah, the issue a lot of people have is that the posters that were wrong about the vast majority of Benning's massive mistakes still want to present themselves as the smartest people on the board. And then get mad when most other posters aren't buying it.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

But as for playing the game helping to evaluate management and team building? Yeah, no. Doesn't mean a thing.

I disagree on that slightly. I think being able to handle/understand the Type A personalities that typify pro athletes is useful.

"Playing the game" isn't solely the place where you can pick up what I'm talking about, but it's the most directly applicable.

It's something people advocating for a full on tear down/rebuild and assuming EP/Hughes/etc will be fine with being intentionally shitty don't really consider. Yeah, on paper that's the 'logical' course of action...but you run the risk of alienating key members of your team.

Again, factored in, not a hard stop.

 

[RandV]

some people are gonna be positive about whatever management does and some people are gonna be negative about whatever management does. i find it's better to avoid engaging with them because they're usually not actually open to changing their minds. sometimes it's hard to resist though

The generality doesn't really apply to Benning here. Like when I started closely following the Canucks I was a big positive supporter of Burke, Nonis, and Gillis. When Benning came on board it became pretty damn obvious in the first year that he was an utterly terrible GM that not only were the Canucks going to go absolutely nowhere with but it would take the next GM at least two years to clean up his mess before you can start turning things around. On the Benning fan base side it was less about a general optimism and more that Gillis main critique was in his drafting and Benning was sold as a good drafter. So a lot of people cheer leading Benning over the years were very anti-Gillis.

On the topic of 'drafting is the only thing that matters' philosophy under Benning though I always loved how there was supposed to be this magical transformation period where we had the kids so now we just need the cap space to clear up then the magic will happen. Completely ignoring that a) the only reason we need cap space to clear up in the first place was bad contracts Benning signed and b) with such a blatant history of poor signings and acquisitions when he had cap space how was this going to get better when Pettersson/Hughes/Horvat/etc were getting paid?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The generality doesn't really apply to Benning here. Like when I started closely following the Canucks I was a big positive supporter of Burke, Nonis, and Gillis. When Benning came on board it became pretty damn obvious in the first year that he was an utterly terrible GM that not only were the Canucks going to go absolutely nowhere with but it would take the next GM at least two years to clean up his mess before you can start turning things around. On the Benning fan base side it was less about a general optimism and more that Gillis main critique was in his drafting and Benning was sold as a good drafter. So a lot of people cheer leading Benning over the years were very anti-Gillis.

On the topic of 'drafting is the only thing that matters' philosophy under Benning though I always loved how there was supposed to be this magical transformation period where we had the kids so now we just need the cap space to clear up then the magic will happen. Completely ignoring that a) the only reason we need cap space to clear up in the first place was bad contracts Benning signed and b) with such a blatant history of poor signings and acquisitions when he had cap space how was this going to get better when Pettersson/Hughes/Horvat/etc were getting paid?

..and a lot of the Benning haters were/are very pro Gillis.

Another demonstration of the myopic thinking here...Interestingly, the myopic opposite was happening on CDC.. ..HF Canucks is literally CDC in reverse..

 

[Intangibos]

lol...I wasnt even a poster here to defend the Sbisa re signing, the McCann trade, ..the Virtanen selection. (I wanted Nylander) .acquiring Sutter..Forsling..?.I didn't even join here till October 2017..So unless you can source any of that .....you're completely talking out of your ass.

I wanted Tkachuk in 2016...I did not endorse the Gudbranson signing. ...Talking out of your ass again.


I've said for years, the team should have rebuilt in 2015.

At the time i joined here, things were finally starting to look up for the team..and the team was improving every year.

I'd say you're the clueless one, because you didnt even bother to research a whole page of verbal diarrhea ....(again, perfectly demonstrating the constant hyperbolic BS in this thread that gets eaten up, regardless if its true or not))...I'm not anti Benning, you and others are..if you dont like my opinions because they dont jibe with the Benning hating hysteria..Tough shit.

Yeah bro nobody discussed any of those things after 2017. No, I didn't research your post history because I've read enough of your posts for a lifetime. What I do remember about your posts was defending Benning's veteran acquisitions so we don't end up like Edmonton. Guess how we ended up.

Please reply to this post and cry about it some more.

Well good for being nice i guess

I just cant see how people who have played arent likely to have valid perspectives when discussing management topics

Former players are succeeding all the time in this aspect.. i dont see it any different because our scope is so much smaller relative to the big league

Again, I never said they can't have valid perspectives. If you followed the soldiers/general analogy, generals do benefit from soldiering experience by understanding how troop morale is going to affect their function. This is very relevant to hockey when it comes to locker room dynamics and how that can affect a team. It can also benefit in player analysis, but it clearly isn't hugely important given how many great players go on to be underwhelming scouts/coaches/managers.

Yes, former players are succeeding all the time in this aspect. Former players are also failing all the time in this aspect.

 

[andora]

Yeah bro nobody discussed any of those things after 2017. No, I didn't research your post history because I've read enough of your posts for a lifetime. What I do remember about your posts was defending Benning's veteran acquisitions so we don't end up like Edmonton. Guess how we ended up.

Please reply to this post and cry about it some more.



Again, I never said they can't have valid perspectives. If you followed the soldiers/general analogy, generals do benefit from soldiering experience by understanding how troop morale is going to affect their function. This is very relevant to hockey when it comes to locker room dynamics and how that can affect a team. It can also benefit in player analysis, but it clearly isn't hugely important given how many great players go on to be underwhelming scouts/coaches/managers.

Yes, former players are succeeding all the time in this aspect. Former players are also failing all the time in this aspect.

Ok

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Yeah bro nobody discussed any of those things after 2017. No, I didn't research your post history because I've read enough of your posts for a lifetime. What I do remember about your posts was defending Benning's veteran acquisitions so we don't end up like Edmonton. Guess how we ended up.

Please reply to this post and cry about it some more.



Again, I never said they can't have valid perspectives. If you followed the soldiers/general analogy, generals do benefit from soldiering experience by understanding how troop morale is going to affect their function. This is very relevant to hockey when it comes to locker room dynamics and how that can affect a team. It can also benefit in player analysis, but it clearly isn't hugely important given how many great players go on to be underwhelming scouts/coaches/managers.

Yes, former players are succeeding all the time in this aspect. Former players are also failing all the time in this aspect.

Dude,....you called me the most 'clueless poster' ever on HF Canucks ...and as evidence, you proceeded to post an entire page of manufactured BS (and being caught out, you're obviously not even going to rebut it ).

The irony of this.., is frankly hilarious.

 

[Intangibos]

Dude,....you called me the most 'clueless poster' ever on HF Canucks ...and as evidence, you proceeded to post an entire page of manufactured BS (and being caught out, you're obviously not even going to rebut it ).

The irony of this.., is frankly hilarious.

View attachment 709957

I said you're in the hall of fame of clueless. Believe me, nobody here is going to dispute your induction into those hallowed halls.

Now much like Benning, I think it's time for Pastor of Muppetz to go.

 

[MS]

Dude,....you called me the most 'clueless poster' ever on HF Canucks ...and as evidence, you proceeded to post an entire page of manufactured BS (and being caught out, you're obviously not even going to rebut it ).

The irony of this.., is frankly hilarious.

View attachment 709957

Dude, you were the biggest apologist on this board for maybe the worst GM in NHL history for years. You had a Benning avatar with a gun. You were wrong about pretty much everything.

You don't get to go up on moral high ground if someone isn't quite right about some of the specific arguments. The sum total of your arguments through the Benning era is ... not good. And you don't just get to go 'oh, I guess he probably deserved to be fired at the end' and own none of it and act like that never happened.

Jim Benning was an absolute f***ing disaster and you were a huge cheerleader for that disaster and wanted it to continue right up until the very, very end.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

PoM used to always ridicule me based on the fact that I posted a thread poll asking if Jim Benning was the worst GM in franchise history, as if this was a super irrational and unreasonable view to hold. He also mocked people for taking stances that ultimately were proven correct, such as the cap hit on Pearson’s extension.

 

[andora]

I dont want this to turn into a 5 pager... but near the end.. the people that were still in support of benning what was the good to keep him? I mean what were people saying was progressing and was strong enough to say he was doing ok?

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I dont want this to turn into a 5 pager... but near the end.. the people that were still in support of benning what was the good to keep him? I mean what were people saying was progressing and was strong enough to say he was doing ok?

Sunk cost fallacy in not wanting to believe their original opinion of him was grossly incorrect; basically petty ego bullshit.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Dude, you were the biggest apologist on this board for maybe the worst GM in NHL history for years. You had a Benning avatar with a gun. You were wrong about pretty much everything.

You don't get to go up on moral high ground if someone isn't quite right about some of the specific arguments. The sum total of your arguments through the Benning era is ... not good. And you don't just get to go 'oh, I guess he probably deserved to be fired at the end' and own none of it and act like that never happened.

Jim Benning was an absolute f***ing disaster and you were a huge cheerleader for that disaster and wanted it to continue right up until the very, very end.

Admittedly, the Benning thing with a gun, was over the top (I am a fan of that Clint Eastwood pic though).

I wasnt wrong about everything at all..Its Bennings fault there wasnt a rebuild..?, Benning apparently acted alone on these stupid trades etc...When I was obviously wrong I admitted to it (Benning was a head scout when he was AGM in Boston)...As far as you were concerned..Everything was Bennings fault.

You're a radical anti Benning poster, who repeatedly attacked him on a personal level (which I thought was classless)...

I'm not on any moral high ground here, and I still stand by all the arguments I made (all in my history is there, for anyone to revisit)...I never said Benning was great, or really good ..ever...I thought he was average GM (until he wasnt)..Big deal, its another of a failed bunch of Canuck GM's

If you think calling out all the manufactured nonsense,BS and hyperbole on a radical anti Benning site is cheerleading..then thats your opinion....

It was all going quite well after the 2020 covid playoffs (a poll here showed the majority of posters believed the 2019-20 season a success)..and then it went sideways for a year and a half.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Petty ego BS, stubbornness, lack of objectivity, and overwhelming stupidity.

 

[andora]

Petty ego BS, stubbornness, lack of objectivity, and overwhelming stupidity.

Is this answering me or bennings profile

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Yeah bro nobody discussed any of those things after 2017. No, I didn't research your post history because I've read enough of your posts for a lifetime. What I do remember about your posts was defending Benning's veteran acquisitions so we don't end up like Edmonton. Guess how we ended up.

Please reply to this post and cry about it some more.

Yeah, anyone who has a working memory should be well acquainted with Pastor's endless defense of Benning and his tactics (dismissing Benning's "100 point playoff team" comment outright while holding up a single article where Benning uses the word "retool" or whatever, playing semantic games until you have no idea what you were originally discussing, etc.)

Hell, off the top of my head, he was making snide comments about Forsling like less than a year ago.

But here's where the pedantry comes in. Pithy comments about Forsling that are just ambiguous enough (if you have a room temperature IQ) does not equal "defending trading Forsling" or whatever.

Or if you do find a word-for-word quote they get pissy. "Oh, whatever. Why are you looking at the things I said? Loser, this isn't a big deal, blahblahblah."

It's the HF equivalent of the Narcissist's Prayer.

"That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was bad, it's not a big deal. And if it is a big deal, I didn't say it. And if I did say it, I didn't mean it. And if I did mean it, you're a loser for pointing it out."

You actually do what he claims he wants? (Talk and discuss the points.) He flat out ignores you because he knows his special brand of hypocrisy will out him as being a weather vane.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Anyway...enough about discussing other posters here (its boring)....I've said my bit (I'm not apologizing for anything I said)..I expected pushback from other posters who dislike my opinions, and I'm not the slightest bit offended by their reactions...Goes without saying.

Now back to hockey.

 

[Intangibos]

Yeah, anyone who has a working memory should be well acquainted with Pastor's endless defense of Benning and his tactics (dismissing Benning's "100 point playoff team" comment outright while holding up a single article where Benning uses the word "retool" or whatever, playing semantic games until you have no idea what you were originally discussing, etc.)

Hell, off the top of my head, he was making snide comments about Forsling like less than a year ago.

But here's where the pedantry comes in. Pithy comments about Forsling that are just ambiguous enough (if you have a room temperature IQ) does not equal "defending trading Forsling" or whatever.

Or if you do find a word-for-word quote they get pissy. "Oh, whatever. Why are you looking at the things I said? Loser, this isn't a big deal, blahblahblah."

It's the HF equivalent of the Narcissist's Prayer.

"That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was bad, it's not a big deal. And if it is a big deal, I didn't say it. And if I did say it, I didn't mean it. And if I did mean it, you're a loser for pointing it out."

You actually do what he claims he wants? (Talk and discuss the points.) He flat out ignores you because he knows his special brand of hypocrisy will out him as being a weather vane.

Yeah, exactly. Why would I crawl through his post history? I know who he is, we all do. His little act isn't fooling anyone. If I had gone through his history to provide examples of his exact opinions then it would just be "obsessive" and "bullying" or whatever. This isn't my first BenningBuddy rodeo.

 

[MS]

Admittedly, the Benning thing with a gun, was over the top (I am a fan of that Clint Eastwood pic though).

I wasnt wrong about everything at all..Its Bennings fault there wasnt a rebuild..?, Benning apparently acted alone on these stupid trades etc...When I was obviously wrong I admitted to it (Benning was a head scout when he was AGM in Boston)...As far as you were concerned..Everything was Bennings fault.

You're a radical anti Benning poster, who repeatedly attacked him on a personal level (which I thought was classless)...

I'm not on any moral high ground here, and I still stand by all the arguments I made (all in my history is there, for anyone to revisit)...I never said Benning was great, or really good ..ever...I thought he was average GM (until he wasnt)..Big deal, its another of a failed bunch of Canuck GM's

If you think calling out all the manufactured nonsense,BS and hyperbole on a radical anti Benning site is cheerleading..then thats your opinion....

It was all going quite well after the 2020 covid playoffs (a poll here showed the majority of posters believed the 2019-20 season a success)..and then it went sideways for a year and a half.

As expected.

Thinking Benning was 'average' (and that's a pretty big misrepresentation of your position IMO) was just a really, really, really, really bad take. So is 'thinking it was going well until 2020'. Horrible. Awful. He wasn't 'just like other failed Canuck GMs'. And until you own that ... it's difficult to give any of your other positions a huge amount of credibility.

I didn't attack Benning on a personal level other than when his personal traits led to incompetence. If you're stupid in a job that requires you to be smart. that's fair game. If you're a coward in a job requiring leadership, that's fair game. If you can't speak coherently in a job requiring communication skills, that's fair game.

Nobody thinks Benning was acting alone. But he was the GM, and the endless string of incompetence falls on his shoulders.

 

[Intangibos]

Bro MS you should stop posting, you've been EXPOSED as an anti-Benning radical. You've been caught out, just give up!

 

[MS]

Bro MS you should stop posting, you've been EXPOSED as an anti-Benning radical. You've been caught out, just give up!

The funny thing is that despite being one of the most anti-Benning posters here I was continually giving his moves *far* too much benefit of the doubt and trying too hard to be fair.