The Management Thread | Live, Play, Repeat Edition

[Canucker]

I really don’t understand why people can’t believe this can be some sort of response of the players over the actions of the organization. “Give an example!” they say. Well there are countless examples of a player or two requesting trades and quitting on teams. You saw one a couple weeks ago do just that in Columbus. It wasn’t just a Torts thing. You see players moved because they didn’t get along with teammates. Etc.

Do I think they are tanking on purpose? No. But I can easily believe the attention to detail, focus and motivation to do those things has waned.

Players fail to get signed all the time. They don’t end up pissed and angry at an organization except every now and then (and often it’s a player woe is me act). Toffoli clearly upset with how things happened. Tanev upset and hurt. We had reports on this board it was the same with Stecher. So yes I can easily see the Canuck players being negatively impacted by the shenanigans of the off season. Friends and teammates are no longer there and it was done in an unprofessional manner. Worse was based on comments the management did not communicate with the remaining players well either.

It doesn’t provide a lot of motivation to give that extra effort when if the boss is an asshole and treating your co-workers like shit and you like some meaningless peon. And the NHL is all about extra effort.

This is where it pays to hire people who are more in-line with today's NHL...the majority of NHL'ers are now millenials, and you need to adjust your thinking when dealing with them...you don't have to roll over and show them your belly, but you need to be evolved enough as a person to listen to them, try and understand them as people and treat them differently than you may have been treated when you were a player in the NHL in the 80's. Being a relic from NHL yesteryear only has so much value these days and probably works more against a GM unless they can adapt to the changing times.

 

[y2kcanucks]

the collective bargaining agreement that limits ELCs is responsible for that.

i think the consistent criticism over the last couple of years has been the longterm albatross contracts wasting the ELCs of our good players?

i mean, sure it's great that those six players combine to cost just under $20m, but next year they will collectively cost more than colorado's.

I mean it’s kinda hard to count ELCs for high picks as good contracts. You litreally can’t give them anything else. All he had to choose was between the bonus packages to give him.

the other 4 I agree with though with Dennis results right now it’s not a slam dunk contract

I wouldn't discount this because 2 of our top players are on ELC's. That's exactly my point! The Canucks have a huge advantage right now because 2 of their top players are on ELC's. This should have been the time to load up and take a shot. Bringing in someone like Taylor Hall on a 1 year, $8M contract would have been perfect for this team. But we don't have a good foundation in place so adding a Taylor Hall to what we have right now wouldn't have made much of a difference.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I would add Hogs and Demko to the keeper list. Not so much that they are necessarily core (I hope they get there) but I doubt any return would be better.

Yeah I debated putting them on the list or not, but decided against it because if we got some crazy return for them then I'd go for it. But you're exactly right here. I like what I've seen out of Hoglander so far, and I'm still a Demko believer. Both are young enough to be part of the future core.

 

[I am toxic]

I know Podzilla hasn’t played for us yet, but I’d say he’s a keeper too. Not necessarily a core piece, but a heck of a good support player on an elc. Do we have any (good) young up and coming D?

No.

But to balance it out, 3 out of our top4 D (well, supposing a guy getting paid $6m is a top 4 D, which he isn't) are costing us just under $18 m and will all be into their thirties by July.

So . . . yay?

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Do we have any (good) young up and coming D?

Nope.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

In that vein, maybe Benn did it to make sure management remembered Tanev, but why was Benn able to grab Tanev's number immediately? On the other hand, maybe management did it to disrespect Tanev? Anyway, I thought there was some sort of honour system to delay players grabbing long serving, but departed, player's numbers?

 

[I am toxic]

This is where it pays to hire people who are more in-line with today's NHL...the majority of NHL'ers are now millenials, and you need to adjust your thinking when dealing with them...you don't have to roll over and show them your belly, but you need to be evolved enough as a person to listen to them, try and understand them as people and treat them differently than you may have been treated when you were a player in the NHL in the 80's. Being a relic from NHL yesteryear only has so much value these days and probably works more against a GM unless they can adapt to the changing times.

This is going to become even more true as every year goes by.

 

[Hodgy]

I honestly don’t think we should dignify @krutovsdonut with a response to his outlandish theory. He hasn’t provided any evidence that reasonably supports this theory because no such evidence exists. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Certainly not.

The fact that this team wasn’t grossly mismanaged by the two preceding GMs all but dismisses this wacky and virtually unsupported theory.

Does FA meddle? Probably? Is there any evidence that Jim Benning is not grossly incompetent at his job? Not really. Both can exist together. FA can meddle from time to time and Jim Benning can be a grossly incompetent manager. For example, FA could have wanted more grit and may have liked Beagle or Roussel, but does that mean that Elmer has to tender ridiculously poor terms to these players? Obviously not.

And players are not stupid. They don’t think FA has been making all the player personnel decisions; that’s a stupid and unsupported assertion.

 

[canucksfan]

There's a lot of talk about the worst contracts on this team, but what about the best?

Our top 6 players (Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Horvat, Miller, Demko) combined earn about $19.5M or 24% of the cap.

By comparison, the top 6 players for Tampa earn $48.875M (60% of the cap), Colorado: $30.5M (38% of the cap), Vegas: $38.5M (47% of the cap). The Canucks have a monster advantage over these other teams in that we have our best players on cheap contracts. The Canucks are also spending to the cap. So it's very clear that the players they brought in to fill out the rest of the team are what's wrong with this team. And who is responsible for that?

And this is why it is so frustrating. The Nucks could easily be contending for a SC instead, the Nucks are one of the worst teams in the league.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

All these "Benning being handcuffed by the owner, Aquaman was the de facto GM" excuse coming out recently is hilarious to me. 6 months ago when the Canucks were riding high and going to game 7 of round 2, all the credits went to Jim Benning, it wasn't "hey look, Aquaman built a good team!" It was all Jim Benning. Now when the team is crashing and burning, all the blame goes to "meddling owner." Once again uncle Jim bares no responsibility.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

I wouldn't discount this because 2 of our top players are on ELC's. That's exactly my point! The Canucks have a huge advantage right now because 2 of their top players are on ELC's. This should have been the time to load up and take a shot. Bringing in someone like Taylor Hall on a 1 year, $8M contract would have been perfect for this team. But we don't have a good foundation in place so adding a Taylor Hall to what we have right now wouldn't have made much of a difference.

Just goes to show how many bad contracts we have. Nobody should be looking up to the Buffalo Sabres in cap management, but they were able to bring back players and improve their team this year and have the cap space to do so next year. They are able to do that while paying their best player 10m, and paying Okposo and Skinner 15m.

 

[MS]

In that vein, maybe Benn did it to make sure management remembered Tanev, but why was Benn able to grab Tanev's number immediately? On the other hand, maybe management did it to disrespect Tanev? Anyway, I thought there was some sort of honour system to delay players grabbing long serving, but departed, player's numbers?

Nobody wore #2 for over 2.5 seasons after Hamhuis left, as an example.

 

[timw33]

Even if you handicap Benning and start from the premise that Gillis left him absolutely nothing, just a complete wasteland of a team throughout the org (which is of course completely false), it does not take 7 years to build a competent organization with how the NHL redistributes talent in the form of draft picks.

The premise that he starts with absolutely nothing also implies that everything from the start is a Jim Benning addition and that it now *his team*, so he gets to own that 100%.

 

[valkynax]

Even if you handicap Benning and start from the premise that Gillis left him absolutely nothing, just a complete wasteland of a team throughout the org (which is of course completely false), it does not take 7 years to build a competent organization with how the NHL redistributes talent in the form of draft picks.

The premise that he starts with absolutely nothing also implies that everything from the start is a Jim Benning addition and that it now *his team*, so he gets to own that 100%.

you would THINK that, yet Gillis will forever be brought up as a progressively weaker and more pathetic excuse for Benning's monumental incompetence.

 

[Takumi3000]

Don't worry guys. Out of all the negatives and shame this team is going through, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Good things that will happen that come from us losing includes:

-Clean house for management (Coach, GM etc)
-Hughes and Pettersson will not get as much money as originally thought due to down year (aka McKinnon)
-High draft pick (Luke Hughes?)
-Too many garbage contracts still remain (within the next 2 seasons) to reach full potential anyways

 

[DS7]

Even if you handicap Benning and start from the premise that Gillis left him absolutely nothing, just a complete wasteland of a team throughout the org (which is of course completely false), it does not take 7 years to build a competent organization with how the NHL redistributes talent in the form of draft picks.

The premise that he starts with absolutely nothing also implies that everything from the start is a Jim Benning addition and that it now *his team*, so he gets to own that 100%.

A complete wasteland of a team does not make the playoffs the following year with 100+ points. But yeah get what you mean.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

listening to ferraro on 1040. they ask him about benning saying he ran out of time. “well [pauses] that doesn’t seem very organized [stutters, not sure what else you can say]”

lol

 

[valkynax]

listening to ferraro on 1040. they ask him about benning saying he ran out of time. “well [pauses] that doesn’t seem very organized”

lol

Is that a burn? It really feels like one.

 

[Canucks1096]

you would THINK that, yet Gillis will forever be brought up as a progressively weaker and more pathetic excuse for Benning's monumental incompetence.

I think people are taking things the wrong way. When people say one thing and others will interpret it as something else.

I don't think anyone is blaming Gillis for Benning bad moves, Kesler trade was bad, Eriksson signing was bad, Gudbranson trade was bad. Yes Benning gets blame for it.

There is a difference if you say Gillis bad drafting is one of the main reason why Canucks missed the playoffs for 4 years vs I am blaming Gillis for Benning bad moves. Regardless if Benning move were great or bad, you can't go 7 straight years, six Gillis and one Nonis year and get just one good NHL player in Horvat and expect the team going forward to not to have any impact. Any picks outside of top 10, best player Hutton and he is no better than a number 6 D. The bad drafting caught up. When Sedins decline, they didn't have anyone to replace them. That is on Gillis, you can't expect GM to get star player right away to replace them.

Let's say Benning did do a rebuild and got some good rebuilding moves and got some good draft picks and good young players. Those picks and player still wouldn't been available for a few years. They still would of missed the playoffs for a few years.

Let this sink in, there is difference when someone said I am blaming Gilis because Benning moves vs I am blaming Gillis for Canucks missing the playoffs. First part make no sense and 2nd part it is definitely a valid argument.

I also blame Gillis for not getting strong enough supporting casts during their window from 2009 to 2013. I laugh when someone uses the supporting casts as their argument on why Gillis is the best GM. 2011 to 2013 playoffs there was no scoring behind the big 4 Sedins Kesler Burrows. Yes so many said Gillis did a good job on the supporting casts. Lol

Gillis is drafting is horrible. His analysis on young players is horrible. He thought Bernier was a top 6 forward, thought Mag can replace Ehrhoff offence. Traded pick for Dalph which mean Benning thought he was an NHL player.

If Pits was willing to trade Poliout, Gilis would traded Kesler for Sutter Pouliot and a 1st. That trade is the same level or worst than what Gillis made.

I give Gillis credit for thinking outside of the box with sports science and sleep doctors.

 

[valkynax]

I think people are taking things the wrong way. When people say one thing and others will interpret it as something else.

I don't think anyone is blaming Gillis for Benning bad moves, Kesler trade was bad, Eriksson signing was bad, Gudbranson trade was bad. Yes Benning gets blame for it.

There is a difference if you say Gillis bad drafting is one of the main reason why Canucks missed the playoffs for 4 years vs I am blaming Gillis for Benning bad moves. Regardless if Benning move were great or bad, you can't go 7 straight years, six Gillis and one Nonis year and get just one good NHL player in Horvat and expect the team going forward to not to have any impact. Any picks outside of top 10, best player Hutton and he is no better than a number 6 D. The bad drafting caught up. When Sedins decline, they didn't have anyone to replace them. That is on Gillis, you can't expect GM to get star player right away to replace them.

Let's say Benning did do a rebuild and got some good rebuilding moves and got some good draft picks and good young players. Those picks and player still wouldn't been available for a few years. They still would of missed the playoffs for a few years.

Let this sink in, there is difference when someone said I am blaming Gilis because Benning moves vs I am blaming Gillis for Canucks missing the playoffs. First part make no sense and 2nd part it is definitely a valid argument.

I also blame Gillis for not getting strong enough supporting cases during their window from 2009 to 2013. I laugh when someone uses the supporting casts as their argument on why Gillis is the best GM. 2011 to 2013 playoffs there was no scoring behind the big 4 Sedins Kesler Burrows. Yes so many said Gillis did a good job on the supporting casts. Lol

Gillis is drafting is horrible. His analysis on young players is horrible. He thought Bernier was a top 6 forward, thought Mag can replace Ehrhoff offence. Traded pick for Dalph which mean Benning thought he was an NHL player.

If Pits was willing to trade Poliout, Gilis would traded Kesler for Sutter Pouliot and a 1st. That trade is the same level or worst than what Gillis made.

I give Gillis credit for thinking outside of the box with sports science and sleep doctors.

Sure, this is totally fair. Not much I wanna say against it.

What I'm referring to is the continuous notion that after 7 years in the chair, some people still think that Benning's incompetence has a direct causal correlation with Gillis' shortcomings.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

do you honestly think pettersson perceives benning as the problem and believes everything will be rosy without him?

I think the players aren't happy with the personnel decisions made this offseason and the result is icing a less competitive roster. I also think the players are smart enough to know where the buck stops and who called the shots here. I don't think you're giving Pettersson enough credit here; he's not a moron like Benning is.

this team played hard for benning for years even when losing.

They were on the rise before and finishing their rebuild. Now they are regressing based on losing players because of mismanagement.

a series of changes were made this off season. pettersson and others are very angry about those decisions. they can do the numbers and see that valued team mates were swapped for other players earning roughly the same amount in the end.

the team is angry these decisions were made. they did not make the team better. they were ruthlessly done, and the team mates turfed were frozen out and kicked to the curb after years of bleeding canucks colours.

pettersson et all are angry that happened, in no small part because they don't want to be treated like those guys down the road. pettersson went so far as to change agents to make a strong statement about it.

your assumption that this anger is directed at benning assumes benning made those decisions alone and that this is how the players perceive it. it assumes that aquaman stood by helpless and mute while benning ghosted valuable veteran team mates.

They can be pissed at both Benning and Aquilini. Trying to shift all the blame to Aquilini is convenient for you, but doesn't make a persausive argument here. You've basically agreed with my position here, but then threw in a "but Aquilini!" at the end to try to negate it. Doesn't work that way, sorry pal.

but i think anyone watching the way tanev in particular was treated would assume aquaman must have been involved or else he would have intervened.

Baseless speculation. I could speculate too that Tanev was a Gillis acquisition and Benning wanted to put his own stamp on the team in picking up Schmidt. This is more supported by the evidence and history of Benning's time here, look at all the other Gillis players he dumped for shittier alternatives.

so i don't think the team makes the assumption this was benning. i think the only way pettersson remains a canuck is if he is convinced someone is in charge who has the ability to mute aquaman.

More baseless speculation.

i don't believe aquaman will hire such a person. i believe aquaman will try and hire a likeable guy he can still boss around in the background being more subtle and try and weather the situation.

i don't believe aquaman can hire such a person. i believe aquaman's act is understood around the league and nobody of caliber needed would work for him.

I agree with this, but it has nothing to do with the players being pissed at management's decisions and by extension management.

and so i think petey is gone. hughes probably also.

Shitty sarcasm to conclude a shitty argument, how poetic.

 

[4Twenty]

It’s aqua mans fault because Benning would be fired if it wasn’t is some spectacular reaching.

But yeah let’s try and move as much responsibility as possible from Benning.

 

[Canucks1096]

Sure, this is totally fair. Not much I wanna say against it.

What I'm referring to is the continuous notion that after 7 years in the chair, some people still think that Benning's incompetence has a direct causal correlation with Gillis' shortcomings.

I don't think there actually saying this, I might be wrong.

Can you provide a specific example on what someone said to prove your argument is valid?

 

[Bubbles]

Just to pour more gas on this fire, user Bad Goalie made a great point in the post game thread that I think should be repeated here.

Have you checked out the taxi turnstiles many of the NHL teams have been operating? Check out TSN Hockey transactions. Go back 7 days on their calendar and Scroll down through those last 7 days. Look at the huge number of transactions between the team rosters and the Taxi squads. Look at the repeated moves by teams of up to 5 or 6 players or more at a time from day to day. Check out the number of times Vancouver shows up on any of the daily transactions. You'll get your answer as to why the Canucks are so tired while the rest of the league seems to have figured out a way to rotate through the taxi squad and their scratches in order to rest some players and try to keep their teams as fresh as they feel they need to.

Green clearly doesn't trust Juolevi, Rathbone or Rafferty, than why the hell are they on the taxi squad? Sautner is wasting away in Manitoba, but he has at least shown he is competent in select games. And Michaelis is probably better than anyone on our bottom six other than Motte.

 

[wreckless]

There isn’t much evidence that Aquillini forced Gillis to do anything. Obviously the two didn’t see eye to eye in terms of a rebuild so Acquilini fired Gillis. The fact that Benning was hired clearly suggests he was aligned with Acquilini on rebuilding and makes it less likely that poor Elmer was a puppet of Acquilini’s.

Again, you have basically no evidence.

perhaps I'm reading what you've written wrong but are you saying Gillis did not want a rebuild and Benning did?