Moneyball & Canuckville

[oldnews]

Overall I tend to think that aligning the business side more closely to the on-ice product and incentivizing success is the most effective approach...

Uh, yeah right! If you can’t win, then you won’t make the playoffs.

This may come as a surprise, but this is news to no one.

If you're trying to partronize the franchise, then your post may have some merit in that respect (although still an ironic fail imo), but it's almost impossible to take seriously.

You'll have to point out the 'underlying' wisdom that I've missed here.

You're upset that they fired Tortorella, but you're arguing that success should be the incentive?

Do you smell the obvious contradiction there?

Do you honestly believe there is a single franchise in the NHL that doesn't regard advanced statistics and anyalytics?

Ironically, if anyone can be questioned in that regard, it would be Tortorella, who makes comments to the effect that he's not all that concerned with x's and o's or corsi schmorsi.

If you're complaining about Gillis, the irony here would be his relatively outstanding success where 'moneyball' acquisitions were concerned - borderline obvious - Santorelli, Tanev, Malhotra, Lack, Richardson, Higgins, Stanton....

Nothing whatsoever new here about the idea of bang-for-the-buck found on the margins.

Easy to post this kind of prescription - would be more interested in a money-where-your-mouth is thing - as in what moneyball picks out there do you suggest?

[timberz21]

Baseball analytics is much simpler than Hockey.

1. Batting stats is an average. Average hits, average on base %, average slugging %. It can easily be determined based on 3-4 at bat per game.

Hockey you have two different stats, PPG and point per TOI. Increasing TOI, will not necessary mean scoring at the same pace per TOI. PPG might increase, but TOI will realistically decrease.

2. In baseball when you hit the ball, you hit the ball. The batting average goes to you.

In hockey you can have an assist, just by redirecting a puck in the corner on a chip in. or deflecting a shot.

3. Baseball batting average is based on over 600+ at-bat appearrances.

In Hockey PPG, GPG is based on 82 games. It's much easier to extrapolated based on 600 population than 82. Best examples, is you can't even extrapolate numbers in a shortened lock-out season, has a lot had got stats avec 40+ games, but usually that production dips on a 82 season span. A lot of players have 40pts after 40 games, but a lot of them usually end up with less than 82 after the season.

Not saying ignore it completely, but baseball is a different sport, it's a 1v1 between the pitcher and the batter. In hockey the game keeps on moving and there are so many intangible that baseball doesn't have.

[elvis15]

For what it's with OP, I know what you're saying.

But sadly in the NHL with it's climate and pay/contact structures the whole premise doesn't really work

I'm glad you do, because I scanned through that for something worth reading and didn't find anything. I have no idea what the point of that was.

I think everyone in this site is a little more stupid for reading 99% of any threads started in the last 3 days...

Well, the bar's pretty low already for some people. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of intelligent people on CDC, and some people that are smart but post very stupid things, but there are certainly still people who just genuinely don't have a clue.

[aqua59]

TIL every problem on the team can be cured with baseball metaphors, movie references and Brad Pitt

I hope money ball is done. This isn't baseball not even close.

[Millerdraft]

Forget Billy Beane, he doesn't have a World Series ring.

However, the guy who's sabremetric approach he was emulating does. See: Bill James.

FWIW, Gillis was a big fan of the concept of "Moneyball".

[Fred65]

Interesting the name Mike Smith came up, I've asked myself a number of times if he's a guy that Linden needs to bring into the fold.

Achievements[edit]

- In his first year presiding over the Toronto Maple Leafs, Smith established a franchise record for wins at 45 after years of poor play. Many site the omnibus FA signings he made after he was hired during the summer of 1998 which included Steve Thomas, Curtis Joseph, Glen Healy, Sylvain Cote, and checking forwards Derek King and Kris King who played an integral support role for the team.

- Mike Smith has drafted moderately to highly successful NHL players, most of whom are still playing:

Brent Seabrook

Duncan Keith

Dustin Byfuglien

Alexei Zhamnov

Igor Korolev

Nikolai Khabibulin

Keith Tkachuk

Nikolai Antropov

Kris Draper

Craig Anderson

Corey Crawford

Adam Burish

James Wisniewski

Tuomo Ruutu

Aaron Ward

Stu Barnes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Smith_(ice_hockey,_born_1945)

He certainly seems to have a comendable drafting record...many of these players were not first round picks remember

[Nino]

The whole idea of moneyball is not something that will or ever would work in hockey. Sure you want to find the diamond in the rough and add the player the will improve there game and give you great value but that's not moneyball and it's the same thing all the other GM's in the league are trying to do. If you want to understand how moneyball works and why it works first you have to look at baseball and what the game is and how hockey is different. Baseball has a set number of bats that rotate with all players getting a relative equal number of bats.

You could have 2 high paid players that put you on the edge of your seat or you could have a balanced team of moneyball type players and your offense would be relatively equal but yet you could avoid the superstar (in hockey first line type players) payroll. You see in baseball everyone on the team gets the same chance to create offense.

How is hockey different? Players don't get an equal time to produce offense and it's a greater value to the team to pull in the players that have a better chance of creating offense. Not only that but hockey has a greater need for roll players and players that can match up to other great players.

In baseball it's more of a whole teams offense vs the oppositions but hockey although it's more about how your line matches up to the line your playing.

Sure you can call something moneyball by saying your looking for underachieving players or players that fill third line rolls well like MG did but it doesn't work in hockey because you need the great players that can score goals or shut down the oppositions great players. Every GM wants the same thing and the diamonds in the rough but it's not moneyball you still need to have skill to win.

[dura_mater]

The Red Sox did win a world series though and if you watch the movie, they've been using "moneyball" analytics as well. So the whole "Oakland hasn't won anything therefore moneyball doesn't work" is very weak.

[TrevorLinden4ever]

This may come as a surprise, but this is news to no one.

If you're trying to partronize the franchise, then your post may have some merit in that respect (although still an ironic fail imo), but it's almost impossible to take seriously.

You'll have to point out the 'underlying' wisdom that I've missed here.

You're upset that they fired Tortorella, but you're arguing that success should be the incentive?

Do you smell the obvious contradiction there?

Do you honestly believe there is a single franchise in the NHL that doesn't regard advanced statistics and anyalytics?

Ironically, if anyone can be questioned in that regard, it would be Tortorella, who makes comments to the effect that he's not all that concerned with x's and o's or corsi schmorsi.

If you're complaining about Gillis, the irony here would be his relatively outstanding success where 'moneyball' acquisitions were concerned - borderline obvious - Santorelli, Tanev, Malhotra, Lack, Richardson, Higgins, Stanton....

Nothing whatsoever new here about the idea of bang-for-the-buck found on the margins.

Easy to post this kind of prescription - would be more interested in a money-where-your-mouth is thing - as in what moneyball picks out there do you suggest?

Oldnews, the crux of the post revolves around ticket pricing which is inflated and unnaffordable for Joe Blow and the possible relationship of that to maxing out the cap with high salaries that dont quantify in success (IE Edler and Booth).

I also have an opinion that Analytics should be more astutely instituted to create a more perfect approach to managing a franchise specifically in the Canadian market and that, why go a fraction of the way as Mike Gillis did, when you could just get the whole filet mignon as opposed to a McDonalds or Burger King hamburger?

I happen to believe that MG probably would've done something different if he stayed another year, either go more on the analytics route or pull out some other tricks, but he wasn't given more time.

I have ideas like everybody on this board on who the Cancuks could acquire. I'll throw you out one name and bold it: Cory Schneider. We need this guy back here ASAP. He was projected to be our number 1 guy, and the momentum on that was fizzled out. If he were here, we wouldve won a few more games and possibly squeaked into the playoffs.

[TrevorLinden4ever]

The Red Sox did win a world series though and if you watch the movie, they've been using "moneyball" analytics as well. So the whole "Oakland hasn't won anything therefore moneyball doesn't work" is very weak.

THANK YOU.

[Ghostsof1915]

The Red Sox did win a world series though and if you watch the movie, they've been using "moneyball" analytics as well. So the whole "Oakland hasn't won anything therefore moneyball doesn't work" is very weak.

Boston, because they are in the same division as the damn Yankees, has also been in the Top 7 in payroll since 2001.

Naaaaah...that's got nothing to do with it right?

Boston spends anywhere from 3 to 5 TIMES the payroll of the worst team in Baseball.

Hockey you need to see players play. Stats don't tell the whole story. Should we be looking for GWG, or GTG? That stat shows how clutch a player is? Or perhaps Goals against in the last 10 minutes of a game? Even +/- is more of an indicator rather than a real stat.

Corsi numbers try to give more detail, also weighted by factors such as ice time, your opposition, etc.

[TrevorLinden4ever]

Boston, because they are in the same division as the damn Yankees, has also been in the Top 7 in payroll since 2001.

Naaaaah...that's got nothing to do with it right?

Boston spends anywhere from 3 to 5 TIMES the payroll of the worst team in Baseball.

Hockey you need to see players play. Stats don't tell the whole story. Should we be looking for GWG, or GTG? That stat shows how clutch a player is? Or perhaps Goals against in the last 10 minutes of a game? Even +/- is more of an indicator rather than a real stat.

Corsi numbers try to give more detail, also weighted by factors such as ice time, your opposition, etc.

I guess the only way to get a point across is to repeat. Analytics is not geared only for low payroll. The A's were forced however to find new ways to scout players that had no market value because of payroll restrictions. The Red Sox owner was so serious about implementing analytics that he offered Beane a 14 million per year contract. When they couldnt get Beane, they still went hard to implement an analytics module which isnt surprising given the latter offer.

More GM's fuck up like Brian Burke's whipping boy Kevin Lowe or Nashvilles Poile (and some have called for his assistant to GM this team? LOL!) because they cant formulate a good team.

[TrevorLinden4ever]

If we get Benning, then hoobastank

[TrevorLinden4ever]

Interesting the name Mike Smith came up, I've asked myself a number of times if he's a guy that Linden needs to bring into the fold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Smith_(ice_hockey,_born_1945)

He certainly seems to have a comendable drafting record...many of these players were not first round picks remember

BOOYA. Get us a GM with a proven track record on drafting!

[AllyssaCruz]

For the sake of branding a meaning on things, let’s refer to “Moneyball management” as a GM using analytics regardless of what the payroll. Let’s refer to “Moneyball economics”, as exemplified in the movie, as using analytics to manage a team on a restricted low payroll, much like the meritorious Oakland Athletics. I happen to think the meritorious latter is interesting because it forces a GM to look deep into all corners and depths to find the Scott Hattebergs of hockey, as Dave Nonis admirably did when he signed Burrows out of the ECHL, but I digress.

With that noted, $15 a month will buy you membership to Trevor Linden’s fitness centre. (I would call it an awesome deal by an awesome guy, but he just fired Torts so I’ll have to withhold the compliment as I’m peeved right now). However, by comparison, $150 will buy you one game at Rogers Arena. As a consumer, would I rather see high-salaried underachieving players like Edler and Booth play losing uninspired hockey or go out to a White Caps soccer game after an hour of working the treadmills at a fraction of the price combined?

Speaking of combined economic value, the movie Moneyball starring Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill was more entertaining than the entire Canucks 2013-2014 season. It also indulged sports fans in the idea that, in the words and actions of Brad Pitts character Billy Beane, not only is baseball a “romantic sport”, but that a team that wins on a low payroll is something to be inspired over. The “we are all Canucks motto” is something for people who can afford their tickets and don’t mind watching a 2013-2014 Canucks, but it’s doubtful the average season ticket holder valued last years product.

The truth is, hockey is so popular here that it can be a premium sport without having a premium on-ice product – take the valueless season of 2014. The question is how long can they milk that cow? Having a GM in here that views hockey as a privileged source of entertainment regardless of product quality, and unlike Billy Beane, is non-reactionary, will likely take this team further down the slope into the realms of inviability.

The Canucks brass could take the example of Moneyball. Moneyball told us that it was hard work, creativity and prudency in sourcing out players that optimized the Oakland Athletics without the luxuries of payroll largesse. In fact, because Billy Beane had no choice but to trade in order to slash payroll, he was forced to innovate his approach, work harder and look for talent that mainstream MLB GM’s and scouts otherwise ignored or missed, and to that end the Oakland Athletics had more and continue to have more success than many of the highest payrolls in MLB. Let’s take the present as an example which have the Oakland A’s winning by a WHOPPING 12-1 against the Rangers and are now on top of the AL Western Division at 18-10.

Back to Canuckville, the cheapest Canucks ticket is considerably more expensive than the MLB. They will never be as affordable than at Oakland Coliseum but if they’re going to maintain the relevancy of their organizations motto, then they could slash the payroll and correlate that to ticket prices. Option two is to continue to have a boring, high priced on-ice product and maintain or increase ticket prices till the cow dries up. Option three is to continue to pay players to play against us like we’ve done with Lu and Ballard and maintain or increase ticket prices, till the cow dries up.

Option three is the worst of the worst, and ticketholders should be disgusted if we have to bear the burden of another buyout or partial payments on the salaries of Booth, Edler or Garrison. We already owe a fantastic coach we fired 4 more years of heavy salary.

If they can bring in a Billy Beane smart guy and magically execute certain roster rearrangements and win with a payroll at the cap then great, but let’s just hope a GM of another ilk doesn’t continue this trend we’ve had of losing with a few inflated salaries in tow. Help me out here but is it even possible to keep maxing out the cap and lose in the first round of the playoffs while lowering ticket prices and cover your profit margins through other streams? Sounds stretchy. Do not player salaries take up over half the total yearly costs of the organization during the season, if not more?

Overall I tend to think that aligning the business side more closely to the on-ice product and incentivizing success is the most effective approach rather than buttressing the marketing and relations departments whom have exhaustively exploited the popular status of the sport in this city. You can only punch in so many pleasant adjectives and how we are all in this thing together, because “we are all Canucks” who want to pay top dollar to see losing, boring hockey, just like Pat Quinns Canucks from ’96 to right before they hired Burkie.

Uh, yeah right! If you can’t win, then you won’t make the playoffs. A few of the faithful might even take out the calculator and notice that getting their hockey fix at the Ducks Pond through a vacation promo is a better deal. Heck, why not throw in the Oakland A’s while they’re at it?

Whether or not the Canucks hire a GM who can deliver, a Billy Beane of hockey if you will like hockey analytics guru Mike Smith…well it is unlikely anyway because the sports media here knows everything and they only narrow in on the big names that rock their socks. But regardless of how slow to adopt or adapt the NHL is, the analytics mode – which is what has worked wonders for the Oakland Athletics for the past 15 years, looks to make waves in the future in pro sports.

In reference to your post, regardless of the overall performance of the canucks this season, you can't truly justify your remarks because when you bring in a new coach who has an entirely different style than past coaches; trying to teach a team this style takes time and effort. For example; the Sedins' have guided the offence through thick and thin and they have only ever had to focus on the offense - and they are incredible at it - so placing them in defensive roles to start a season isn't going to happen. 3 to 4 months is not sufficient time to change a players style especially when they spent their entire lives playing offense. Players can take years to change styles and their performance will struggle but saying we should sacrifice our larger contract players to move in younger inexperienced players because they are cheaper is not going to win championships. By integrating younger players with players who are allowed to focus on what they are good at is what can win. Would you take Jensen and throw him between the pipes, of course not, he doesn't know how to play goal. His ability is that of a pure sniper and in order for him to reach his potential he has to be given the opportunity to learn from other snipers on where to be to get the shots. If "Danny" is playing defensively as a sniper, how is Jensen going to learn offensively from him.

I say let the players play what they know and they will succeed, do what torts did and you will have the next generation of hockey stars playing in the minors because nobody will learn to score. Let the defensive-minded players worry about blocking shots and playing in the defensive zone.

In closing, THIS IS NOT BASEBALL, IN BASEBALL THE CATCHER CAN'T HIT THE GUY AT THE PLATE WHEN HE MAKES CONTACT WITH BALL. OFFENSIVE PLAYERS SHOULD FOCUS ON OFFENSE. THEY CREATED TWO WAY FORWARDS FOR THAT REASON.

LET THE SHOOTERS SHOOT HITTERS HIT AN FOR GOD SAKES STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN AND BE HAPPY FOR COULD BE!!!!

[TrevorLinden4ever]

In reference to your post, regardless of the overall performance of the canucks this season, you can't truly justify your remarks because when you bring in a new coach who has an entirely different style than past coaches; trying to teach a team this style takes time and effort. For example; the Sedins' have guided the offence through thick and thin and they have only ever had to focus on the offense - and they are incredible at it - so placing them in defensive roles to start a season isn't going to happen. 3 to 4 months is not sufficient time to change a players style especially when they spent their entire lives playing offense. Players can take years to change styles and their performance will struggle but saying we should sacrifice our larger contract players to move in younger inexperienced players because they are cheaper is not going to win championships. By integrating younger players with players who are allowed to focus on what they are good at is what can win. Would you take Jensen and throw him between the pipes, of course not, he doesn't know how to play goal. His ability is that of a pure sniper and in order for him to reach his potential he has to be given the opportunity to learn from other snipers on where to be to get the shots. If "Danny" is playing defensively as a sniper, how is Jensen going to learn offensively from him.

I say let the players play what they know and they will succeed, do what torts did and you will have the next generation of hockey stars playing in the minors because nobody will learn to score. Let the defensive-minded players worry about blocking shots and playing in the defensive zone.

In closing, THIS IS NOT BASEBALL, IN BASEBALL THE CATCHER CAN'T HIT THE GUY AT THE PLATE WHEN HE MAKES CONTACT WITH BALL. OFFENSIVE PLAYERS SHOULD FOCUS ON OFFENSE. THEY CREATED TWO WAY FORWARDS FOR THAT REASON.

LET THE SHOOTERS SHOOT HITTERS HIT AN FOR GOD SAKES STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN AND BE HAPPY FOR COULD BE!!!!

You did not reference anything in the quoted post, you are obviously responding to my "John Tortorell is The Man" post which is locked. http://forum.canucks.com/topic/359558-john-tortorella-is-the-man-in-defence-of-our-head-coach/

Post your reply in the "I want to see Torts stay for one more year" thread and I'll reply in full there. This post is about "Moneyball" and exploring with my fellow fans the idea about the implementation of such philosophies or variations of it as seen in the movie.

[tas]

I guess the only way to get a point across is to repeat. Analytics is not geared only for low payroll. The A's were forced however to find new ways to scout players that had no market value because of payroll restrictions. The Red Sox owner was so serious about implementing analytics that he offered Beane a 14 million per year contract. When they couldnt get Beane, they still went hard to implement an analytics module which isnt surprising given the latter offer.

More GM's frack up like Brian Burke's whipping boy Kevin Lowe or Nashvilles Poile (and some have called for his assistant to GM this team? LOL!) because they cant formulate a good team.

poile is one of the best gm's in the league. its not his fault he hasn't had the budget to compete. the american national team seemed to think pretty highly of him, and his last assistant gm seems to be doing pretty well for himself.

[TrevorLinden4ever]

poile is one of the best gm's in the league. its not his fault he hasn't had the budget to compete. the american national team seemed to think pretty highly of him, and his last assistant gm seems to be doing pretty well for himself.

David Poile is the reason Nashville has floated around in the league since they got a hockey team. While Stu Jackson was basketballs version of David Poile 3.0, Poile is one of the worst GM's in the western conference.

[bigbadcanucks]

I dont think Burrows was found as a result of analytics. ie mathematical analysis of performance, probably computer aided...

I imagine scouts watched an ECHLplayer with an extreme level of feist and competitiveness. Who fought guys who outweighed him by 20 lbs, and were minor league hired goons. Then boarded guys on the fore check the very first shift out of the box. That's the legend. The same scouts who watched this and licked their chops would have observed well above average speed and puck skills which supported the player. Its hard to miss aguy who outworks everyone else on the ice?

Would agree...too bad the decision makers didn't apply similar thought process to Antoine Roussel...the kid was here for the taking and for whatever reason, he was passed over. Roussel could very well have been the second coming of Burrows on the Canucks roster...Roussel is the exact same type of player as Burrows, but several years younger and waaaaay cheaper.

[bigbadcanucks]

What is the point you are trying to make?

Are you suggesting that the recently fired management and coaching staff failed to apply your definition of "moneyball management" or that we need to bring in a GM that is better at it than what we had? Last time I checked, MG/LG et. al. were at the tops of the league in using advanced analytics; even to the point that the players were managed on the ice based on their strengths (that is, under AV, but completely ignored by Tortorella).

BTW, "moneyball management" is defined as utilizing advanced analytics to acquire players on the cheap, so your definition to support whatever thesis you were trying to make is already skewed to serve your point, whatever that is. Put another way, moneyball management is spending at league minimum and winning the cup, or having a legit shot at winning the cup.

For the Canucks, an example of moneyballing is the signing of Richardson at $1.1M, Santorelli at $550k and picking up Stanton on waivers for a cap hit of $550k. I'm sure Canucks management of the day studied their stats and made the conscious choice to go after these players with the offers that were made to them. That is moneyballing.

Moneyballing would be deciding to not sign Burrows at a cost of $4.5M and opting for a kid Antoine Roussel for league minimum who arguably is comparable (or projected to be comparable) to Burrows...or replacing Burrows with someone like Santorelli for, say $1.25M (based on offensive stats, ice time, versatility at forward positions, and other underlying data that make up advanced analytics in hockey).

One thing I agree with your post is bringing in someone like Mike Smith, who IMO is one of the most underrated hockey men out there (e.g., he was the brains behind bringing players like Selanne, Zhamnov, Khabibulin, Tkachuk into the NHL, giving the Leafs fans something to cheer about, and writing one of the most interesting books titled "Life After Hockey"). IMO, he would be great as a Senior Advisor.

But really, what's your point?

For the sake of branding a meaning on things, let’s refer to “Moneyball management” as a GM using analytics regardless of what the payroll. Let’s refer to “Moneyball economics”, as exemplified in the movie, as using analytics to manage a team on a restricted low payroll, much like the meritorious Oakland Athletics. I happen to think the meritorious latter is interesting because it forces a GM to look deep into all corners and depths to find the Scott Hattebergs of hockey, as Dave Nonis admirably did when he signed Burrows out of the ECHL, but I digress.

With that noted, $15 a month will buy you membership to Trevor Linden’s fitness centre. (I would call it an awesome deal by an awesome guy, but he just fired Torts so I’ll have to withhold the compliment as I’m peeved right now). However, by comparison, $150 will buy you one game at Rogers Arena. As a consumer, would I rather see high-salaried underachieving players like Edler and Booth play losing uninspired hockey or go out to a White Caps soccer game after an hour of working the treadmills at a fraction of the price combined?

Speaking of combined economic value, the movie Moneyball starring Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill was more entertaining than the entire Canucks 2013-2014 season. It also indulged sports fans in the idea that, in the words and actions of Brad Pitts character Billy Beane, not only is baseball a “romantic sport”, but that a team that wins on a low payroll is something to be inspired over. The “we are all Canucks motto” is something for people who can afford their tickets and don’t mind watching a 2013-2014 Canucks, but it’s doubtful the average season ticket holder valued last years product.

The truth is, hockey is so popular here that it can be a premium sport without having a premium on-ice product – take the valueless season of 2014. The question is how long can they milk that cow? Having a GM in here that views hockey as a privileged source of entertainment regardless of product quality, and unlike Billy Beane, is non-reactionary, will likely take this team further down the slope into the realms of inviability.

The Canucks brass could take the example of Moneyball. Moneyball told us that it was hard work, creativity and prudency in sourcing out players that optimized the Oakland Athletics without the luxuries of payroll largesse. In fact, because Billy Beane had no choice but to trade in order to slash payroll, he was forced to innovate his approach, work harder and look for talent that mainstream MLB GM’s and scouts otherwise ignored or missed, and to that end the Oakland Athletics had more and continue to have more success than many of the highest payrolls in MLB. Let’s take the present as an example which have the Oakland A’s winning by a WHOPPING 12-1 against the Rangers and are now on top of the AL Western Division at 18-10.

Back to Canuckville, the cheapest Canucks ticket is considerably more expensive than the MLB. They will never be as affordable than at Oakland Coliseum but if they’re going to maintain the relevancy of their organizations motto, then they could slash the payroll and correlate that to ticket prices. Option two is to continue to have a boring, high priced on-ice product and maintain or increase ticket prices till the cow dries up. Option three is to continue to pay players to play against us like we’ve done with Lu and Ballard and maintain or increase ticket prices, till the cow dries up.

Option three is the worst of the worst, and ticketholders should be disgusted if we have to bear the burden of another buyout or partial payments on the salaries of Booth, Edler or Garrison. We already owe a fantastic coach we fired 4 more years of heavy salary.

If they can bring in a Billy Beane smart guy and magically execute certain roster rearrangements and win with a payroll at the cap then great, but let’s just hope a GM of another ilk doesn’t continue this trend we’ve had of losing with a few inflated salaries in tow. Help me out here but is it even possible to keep maxing out the cap and lose in the first round of the playoffs while lowering ticket prices and cover your profit margins through other streams? Sounds stretchy. Do not player salaries take up over half the total yearly costs of the organization during the season, if not more?

Overall I tend to think that aligning the business side more closely to the on-ice product and incentivizing success is the most effective approach rather than buttressing the marketing and relations departments whom have exhaustively exploited the popular status of the sport in this city. You can only punch in so many pleasant adjectives and how we are all in this thing together, because “we are all Canucks” who want to pay top dollar to see losing, boring hockey, just like Pat Quinns Canucks from ’96 to right before they hired Burkie.

Uh, yeah right! If you can’t win, then you won’t make the playoffs. A few of the faithful might even take out the calculator and notice that getting their hockey fix at the Ducks Pond through a vacation promo is a better deal. Heck, why not throw in the Oakland A’s while they’re at it?

Whether or not the Canucks hire a GM who can deliver, a Billy Beane of hockey if you will like hockey analytics guru Mike Smith…well it is unlikely anyway because the sports media here knows everything and they only narrow in on the big names that rock their socks. But regardless of how slow to adopt or adapt the NHL is, the analytics mode – which is what has worked wonders for the Oakland Athletics for the past 15 years, looks to make waves in the future in pro sports.