The Management Thread | We live Page to Page here

[Melvin]

I am trying to picture a baseball GM trading for a guy who was good 4 years ago but has been declining since, is 30, and is owed a trillion dollars for the next six years and saying "he's a middle of the order bat, he does everything, he's good on the basepaths, he'll hit for power, drive in runs, score runs..." (none of these things have been true for several years,) and then, pausing almost as if to think for half a second, "I don't know why he's hit .180 the past few years. That is weird, I'm sure it'll be better with us."

And then all the sycophants in the media just stare blankly and nod their empty heads up and down as if they have one of the brain slugs from Futurama attached to it. Sure, yeah, sounds good man. Totally.

 

[Melvin]

"He's 30 so I think he's got 5 or 6 good years left."

How did that work out for you with the three players that you literally just traded away in this trade, the trade you are talking about right now, the THREE GUYS YOU JUST TRADED IN THIS SAME TRADE YOU ARE RIGHT NOW TALKING ABOUT LITERALLY RIGHT NOW.

 

[Hit the post]

3) He's invested nearly $50 million in cap space in a guy, when he 'doesn't know why' that player has struggled. Like, doesn't even attempt to have an opinion on it.

He'd actually be a worse bartender as he'd give away all the liquor for free (ie., easy to spend other people's money & the regime has alot of money to burn).

 

[F A N]

But what is that point? Just confirming that two people have said similar things?

The point is I posted comments from OEL's former coach that sounded very similar to Benning's. That is all. Not every post on here has to be a long discourse.

As for fan expectations, the guy is taking up $7M+ in cap space. The personal expectation may be less, but the real expectation is that he would log heavy minutes and be good in those minutes. I don't see what the big deal is. Do you think OEL is going to play a sheltered role behind Hughes? I don't think so. I expect OEL to be playing the type of heavy matchup minutes that Edler has been playing the past few years. If he sucks, I'm not going to blame Benning for his words. I'm going to blame him for the acquisition itself. I'm guessing if OEL sucks you're not going to go "Well if only Benning didn't say those nice things about OEL and set him up for failure he would have played well but alas it was those nice things that Benning said..."

 

[F A N]

"He's 30 so I think he's got 5 or 6 good years left."

How did that work out for you with the three players that you literally just traded away in this trade, the trade you are talking about right now, the THREE GUYS YOU JUST TRADED IN THIS SAME TRADE YOU ARE RIGHT NOW TALKING ABOUT LITERALLY RIGHT NOW.

They weren't defenseman.

Seriously man. Chill. You're getting all worked up over what Benning said about OEL like two weeks ago?

 

[Peen]

Meh, I think that portion is getting overblown.

I think they believe that this is solely him not liking the coach and losing motivation in the desert.

Can’t really publicly say that.

The rest of it is worrying, though.

Edit: And yes, the fact they think it’s solely off ice issues is also concerning. I’m just saying I don’t think Benning could have said what he really believes for that specific comment.

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

They weren't defenseman.

Seriously man. Chill. You're getting all worked up over what Benning said about OEL like two weeks ago?

Are you saying that unlike forwards, defensemen do not age like yogurt in their 30s?

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Two things,

1) I don't think that it's a lack of due diligence or gauging things or whatever. I honestly think it's a matter of Jim Benning thinking that he knows better than everyone else and doesn't need to bother with things like that. It speaks of an arrogance that has led to a number of bright personnel fleeing this organization as quickly as possible.

2) One thing left out from Benning's comments is his hilarious belief that OEL would have been a perennial Norris finalist if he played in the East. But he is mystified as to why his plus/minus was so bad.

 

[M2Beezy]

I might wanna think about changing my city.

Hey Jerr

 

[Hodgy]

The funny thing is, the OEL trade is super easy to understand from Benning’s perspective. Benning lives “day to day” and has been told he needs to make the playoffs next year. The only way that Benning could dump the garbage that is Beagle, Roussel and Eriksson for next year is to take on a long term boat anchor of a contract. There was just no other feasible way for Benning to dump these contracts. I suspect Arizona desperately wanted a first back given that they lost their first, and I think us give up our first was a condition to the deal which is why Garland was added. Otherwise, it doesn’t really make sense for the Canucks to try to improve their forwards given our defense, but again, seen in the context of being required to get rid of our trash contracts, it was a price Benning was easily willing to pay since he essentially had no alternatives.

Now, of course it probably made more sense to hold onto the contracts and just let them expire, but this was obviously not something an idiot living day to day trying to save his job would do.

 

[strattonius]

I keep coming back to these quotes because I feel like it's impossible to even capture how stupid they are.

Like if you're driving in your car and the guy on the radio says "I don't know why his +/- has been bad the past few years, but I expect it to be better with us," you would cringe at how embarassingly low this radio DJ's knowledge of hockey is and you would change the station. Like, you don't know? YOU DONT KNOW? Leaving aside that it's not a good way to evaluate players, how do you not know? How do you not know? You just traded for this player. You don't know? Yeah, I don't know why he's gotten scored on so much the past few years, I didn't look into that or anything, I'm sure it won't be a problem for us. You expect it to better for us? Why? How can you say that when you don't know what the problem was in the first place. "I don't know what the problem was, but I'm sure it won't be a problem anymore" is something you say when you haven't the faintest idea how to do your job. YOU DIDNT LOOK INTO IT? YOU DONT KNOW? HOW IS "I DONT KNOW" AN ACCEPTABLE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. THIS MAN, sorry. This man has been the GM for 7 seasons. THE GM. THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE HOCKEY TEAM. THE GUY IN CHARGE. HE DOESNT KNOW. HE DOESNT EVEN PRETEND TO KNOW. If you're Aquilini, how do you put up with this? This man just spent $50,000,000 on a player, and says to the public that he "doesn't know" why that player has had poor numbers the past few years. He hasn't bothered to look into it, it wasn't an important question to answer before committing $50,000,000. FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS. FIFTY MILLION. HE DOESNT KNOW.

And that's just like, one, thing. Like you said, it's one of like six things in three sentences that shows he doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's doing, which we already knew of course but it still boggles my mind. If I said to my boss tomorrow "I don't know why that pipeline wasn't working, but I expect it will be working tomorrow," he would be like, the f***? It's your job. It's your job to know these things. It's your

This gave me a good laugh. I'm with you I think the guy is an imbecile; However, do you think it's possible that the conversations GM's have with their coworkers about players are largely left unsaid or unchecked when speaking to the media? Perhaps the answer is very convoluted and not appropriate to answer in full. I mean I DON'T KNOW either....

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

This gave me a good laugh. I'm with you I think the guy is an imbecile; However, do you think it's possible that the conversations GM's have with their coworkers about players are largely left unsaid or unchecked when speaking to the media? Perhaps the answer is very convoluted and not appropriate to answer in full. I mean I DON'T KNOW either....

There's a couple of ways of looking at what Benning said.

The first is that maybe it's just another case of Jim Benning being his plain speaking self.

Maybe he intended to say something like "Based on our standards for evaluating players, and what we've seen from scouting him, I am a little uncertain as to why he has struggled so much on ice, but we are confident that he can rebound here in Vancouver with different expectations and an expanded role. I really think that he'll rise to the challenge, especially after talking with him and his agent."

That doesn't sound so bad, even if you could disagree with how he arrived at that conclusion. It doesn't come across as an idiot who is utterly mystified at how his most recent pickup performed.

The other is that he's a bloviating idiot who became enamored with this new toy, and ignored all the warning signs that existed, because Jim knows better. We've seen hints of this elsewhere with executives leaving the team, rumors of disagreements between Benning and Linden (which led into the Great Pettersson Debate of the 2020s), players being left out in the cold and not really being treated respectfully (Toffoli and his agent waiting by the phone, Edler booking it out of Vancouver), plus his general demeanor.

 

[strattonius]

There's a couple of ways of looking at what Benning said.

The first is that maybe it's just another case of Jim Benning being his plain speaking self.

Maybe he intended to say something like "Based on our standards for evaluating players, and what we've seen from scouting him, I am a little uncertain as to why he has struggled so much on ice, but we are confident that he can rebound here in Vancouver with different expectations and an expanded role. I really think that he'll rise to the challenge, especially after talking with him and his agent."

That doesn't sound so bad, even if you could disagree with how he arrived at that conclusion. It doesn't come across as an idiot who is utterly mystified at how his most recent pickup performed.

The other is that he's a bloviating idiot who became enamored with this new toy, and ignored all the warning signs that existed, because Jim knows better. We've seen hints of this elsewhere with executives leaving the team, rumors of disagreements between Benning and Linden (which led into the Great Pettersson Debate of the 2020s), players being left out in the cold and not really being treated respectfully (Toffoli and his agent waiting by the phone, Edler booking it out of Vancouver), plus his general demeanor.

I don't think management is looking at OEL as a shiny new toy. I think they are looking at Garland as that. I think everyone is aware OEL's contract is too long in tooth and aav.

 

[RobertKron]

There's a couple of ways of looking at what Benning said.

The first is that maybe it's just another case of Jim Benning being his plain speaking self.

Maybe he intended to say something like "Based on our standards for evaluating players, and what we've seen from scouting him, I am a little uncertain as to why he has struggled so much on ice, but we are confident that he can rebound here in Vancouver with different expectations and an expanded role. I really think that he'll rise to the challenge, especially after talking with him and his agent."

That doesn't sound so bad, even if you could disagree with how he arrived at that conclusion. It doesn't come across as an idiot who is utterly mystified at how his most recent pickup performed.

The other is that he's a bloviating idiot who became enamored with this new toy, and ignored all the warning signs that existed, because Jim knows better. We've seen hints of this elsewhere with executives leaving the team, rumors of disagreements between Benning and Linden (which led into the Great Pettersson Debate of the 2020s), players being left out in the cold and not really being treated respectfully (Toffoli and his agent waiting by the phone, Edler booking it out of Vancouver), plus his general demeanor.

Most of the time, Benning seems to just say whatever he thinks people will want to hear at that time.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

I don't think management is looking at OEL as a shiny new toy. I think they are looking at Garland as that. I think everyone is aware OEL's contract is too long in tooth and aav.

You clearly haven't heard Jim Benning gushing profusely over OEL or missed the nearly year long saga where he was infatuated with him.

Dude thinks he's a perennial Norris candidate who is going to be Vancouver's new #1 defender going into this season. He clearly thinks very highly of him and thinks that he can mine 5-6 good years out of him, because they are literal things Jim Benning has said in interviews about OEL. They aren't embellishments. They aren't paraphrased quotes. They are the honest to god verbatim statements Benning has made.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Most of the time, Benning seems to just say whatever he thinks people will want to hear at that time.

I view it more like that bit South Park did on Scientology and its origins.

There should be a caption underneath Jim Benning every time he does a televised presser with the words: "THIS IS WHAT JIM BENNING ACTUALLY BELIEVES"

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

I don't think management is looking at OEL as a shiny new toy. I think they are looking at Garland as that. I think everyone is aware OEL's contract is too long in tooth and aav.

I disagree here. He said he is going to be a first pairing defencemen here, and said he wins a Norris in the east.

 

[The Vasili Jerry]

Hey Jerr

Hey M2B. What’s new?

 

[strattonius]

I disagree here. He said he is going to be a first pairing defencemen here, and said he wins a Norris in the east.

We're pretty thin on the back end. I would be surprised if OEL doesn't log the most minutes on our blueline. OEL being a 1st pairing guy here is accurate.

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

We're pretty thin on the back end. I would be surprised if OEL doesn't log the most minutes on our blueline. OEL being a 1st pairing guy here is accurate.

But again, if the Canucks had every Dman go down with COVID or the mumps and John Weisbrod had to play on the first pair, then by that logic Weisbrod would be a first-pairing defenseman.

Player usage is often correlated with how good they are, but it shouldn't be. OEL being given first-pairing minutes is not indicative of him being a first-pair-caliber Dman

 

[Hit the post]

But again, if the Canucks had every Dman go down with COVID or the mumps and John Weisbrod had to play on the first pair, then by that logic Weisbrod would be a first-pairing defenseman.

Player usage is often correlated with how good they are, but it shouldn't be. OEL being given first-pairing minutes is not indicative of him being a first-pair-caliber Dman

Stecher & Hutton had first pairing minutes when we had a number of players go down with injuries (NoGoodBranSuck of course didn't really get any increased minutes because well, he sucked). They (Stecher/Hutton) didn't play all that bad for that small stretch but that doesn't mean they're 1st pairing guys either.

 

[Melvin]

This gave me a good laugh. I'm with you I think the guy is an imbecile; However, do you think it's possible that the conversations GM's have with their coworkers about players are largely left unsaid or unchecked when speaking to the media? Perhaps the answer is very convoluted and not appropriate to answer in full. I mean I DON'T KNOW either....

I mean, I know for a fact it is. Obviously, but I think a few things:

1) If you're going to make a trade like this, you should be prepared to defend it (particularly in a 'tough hockey market' according to Elliotte Friedman.) And even the posters on this board have done a better job defending the trade than Benning does to the media. That's pretty sad? Like, just talk about how you think he needs a change in scenery and you have a plan in place that you think will help him get his career on track. It's not that hard. It's not much, but it's something.

2) I think that Benning "spins" things less than probably any GM in the sport, maybe in history. I don't think he even knows how to spin. In a way, this is what makes him appealing to some people. I really do believe that he means what he says and he says what he means. He's a simple man. He's not some mastermind manipulator who knows exactly what to say to achieve his goals. In my opinion, of course.

3) More than anything, it's a shot at our "tough media" that they let him get away with junk like this. He knows he doesn't have to put in any effort, he can just go up there and say a bunch of blatant falsehoods and sound like a complete fool, and nobody in the media will call him out on it. Iain McIntyre will dutifully write a glowing column about him no matter what he says. Nobody, I mean NOBODY is going to say "uh Jim, everything you just said is false. And what do you mean you don't know why his +/- is bad? How can you not know that?" Nobody is going to push back, nobody is going to put any pressure on him or roast him for his comments. iMac will spin what he says into gold and Aquilini and 60% of the fanbase will take whatever iMac says as gospel. That is a huge part of the reason why he's survived as long as he has. In my opinion.

 

[carrotshirt]

So the savior of the defensive structure is only going to be working with forwards and PP? And the defence is going to be run by the guy that’s overseen the last few years of train wreck. Sounds good! Plenty to be hopeful about.

 

[F A N]

Are you saying that unlike forwards, defensemen do not age like yogurt in their 30s?

I think top 4 Dmen are better able to maintain their play than forwards into their 30s. You rarely see a Louie Eriksson or Wayne Simmonds type drop in performance in Dmen due to age.

An aging top 4 Dman can still be effective relying on their skill, experience, and hockey IQ. Doesn't work as well for top 6 forwards.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

So the savior of the defensive structure is only going to be working with forwards and PP? And the defence is going to be run by the guy that’s overseen the last few years of train wreck. Sounds good! Plenty to be hopeful about.

I have a feeling they will get the players to collapse back and help out the D since the D cannot really defend at all to save their lives. This team got killed by allowing too many opposing forwards to enter the zone at will.

Do I agree with this strategy? Hell no. This organization has blind loyalty towards Baumer, who was a replacement level dman. However you look at the Canucks blueline. The simple fact is, this team cannot be relied upon to defend in their own zone.