What do you want to see out of a New Management Team?

Hank Moody · December 30, 2016

Hey guys!

Canuck fan for over 20 years here, so i've been through the doom-and-gloom of the late 90's and through the highs of the late 2000's... it's been a ride!

So I think a lot of us are losing faith in the current management team - For all the things I give credit to them for (building a solid D core, building a solid future inbetween the pipes), there are a lot more things that have left me scratching my head. I was a casual defender of the management team (the type that would hail for everyone to just "give them a chance") until last years Trade Deadline and subsequent draft. Passing on Tkachuk, who I had been dying to draft, for Juolevi who wasn't even the consensus top defenseman in the draft was an absolute head-scratcher. The Hamhuis/Vrbata TDL ordeal was also extremely embarrassing as a Canuck fan to deal with.

Now I understand that many of these answers may overlap - for example, you may want a guy who is currently an AGM in a successful system but is also analytics-based. Just pick the one that is MOST important to you as a factor.

So my question is - what kind of management do we want to see in whoever evidently takes over for the current group?

1) Keep the current management style/team - Let them finish what they started

Do you want to see the current management team finish what they started? They obviously have a long-term plan in place, but some may argue that to this date they haven't shown enough progress to gain the trust of the fanbase yet. Ticket sales are diving, and confidence is very low in the management team currently. But perhaps, it's all for a greater good. Is the hate unjustified?

2) Bring in a highly analytics-based management team - a Kyle Dubas type

Are analytics the way of the future? Do you want to see a management team that looks hard at data for major personnel decisions and acts accordingly, perhaps finding gems in the rough that other "old-school" GM's may not have found?

3) Bring in a highly innovative on the back end and off-ice type, a moneyball guy - a la Gillis (sleep doctors, etc)

I guess this one kind of blends with number 2 but Gillis wasn't exactly a massive analytics guy, but more a guy who liked to study the science of players through Sleep Doctors, Mind Rooms and analyzing the way players practice and how it affects their performance. If you have ever read "Ice Storm", which documents the Canucks' journey to the top of the league in 2011, you'd be amazed to find the length that Gillis and ownership went to study and research player performance. Do you believe our players would be better if we would have continued to innovate in these fields?

4) Bring in an old-school, Old-boys club style GM who has a ton of experience as GM and reputation around the league - a la Lou Lamariello/Jim Rutherford type

Obviously the two aforementioned guys are not available, but it's possible an old-school GM who has been around the league as a GM for a long time could be available come time for the next Management search to begin. These are the guys that have a steady reputation around the league, you know exactly what you're getting with them, and they have a ton of experience in all situations as a General Manager. From Trade Deadline deals, to asset management, to drafting, most of the time you know what you're getting with them. There's rarely a huge "shock" or question in what they're doing, as they're steady in their decision making.

5) Bring in an ex-Canuck, who we know truly cares about the team - a la Naslund

Would you prefer to see a guy who's played a prominent role as a player on the team, and therefore you know would live and breathe Canucks? A guy like a Trevor Linden who may not have the experience as his other competitors, but you know wants to bring a cup to this city more than anyone else probably on this list.

6) Bring in a guy who is familiar with the team, has been in management, and may not have gotten a chance to be GM before - a la Gilman, Tambellini, Henning

Finally, would you prefer to see a guy who's been in our management team as an AGM, VP, Scout, or any other role aside from GM who you may have felt would've been a better fit for GM? A guy like Gilman, who was a cap wizard, or Steve Tambellini who played second fiddle to several of our past GM's before finally taking a job with Edmonton? A guy who's been in the inner workings of the Canuck organization and could seamlessly fill in?

7) Bring in a guy from a successful organization that hasn't had a chance to be top guy yet - a la Mike Futa, Paul Fenton, David McNab

Do you perhaps want to go the Benning route again of finding an experienced AGM from a successful organization in hopes of them being able to take their experience from that organization and having them mimic their current organizations managing style? A guy responsible for several great drafts in LA with Mike Futa, a guy who's been an anchor in Nashville's system under Poile for several years in Paul Fenton, a guy who's been around Anaheim's successful system since the beginning of time with David McNab?

Personally, i'm going with number 4 - bringing in an old-school, old-boys club style GM. I think we've had our share of experimenting with innovators, scouts, guys who can promise to "do things differently" to get a leg up. I simply want a guy who's been through the trenches and has the years of experience in the top role, no matter how sour the end of his last job may have been. I want the guy who will pick BPA at the draft every time, not go way off the board because he feels he has a "scouts feel" on a certain player and will prove the rest of the league and analysts wrong. I want a guy who can pick up the phone and is respected by GM's around the league, and can deal a player at the deadline, even if for any assets rather than sit on his hands unable to move anyone or anything.

Simply put, give me the Ray Shero's, the Don Maloney's, the Brian Burke's, the Chiarelli's (when he was available) because they have the experience and you know exactly what you're going to get with them.

In my eyes, GM's can learn where they went wrong in their last gig and correct them on this go around with our team on a fresh slate. It's a mistake to bring in fresh new faces who think they can innovate everything by playing more of a scouts role or trying everything under the sun to get a leg up through means of "moneyball" or off-the-board decisions.

Just a guy who makes simple, old-school hockey decisions. A rugged veteran.

Excited to hear your thoughts as a collective!

Green Building · December 31, 2016

I don't want a new management team.

Let the plan of the current regime come to fruition. We don't know [but can speculate] what restrictions were placed on JB and TL by ownership when they were hired so dumping them in the middle of seeing their plan through would be ridiculous.

This team isn't destined to be a bottom feeder forever, but this is what growing pains look like when you have exactly what we have in our prospect pool. It takes time to restock those cupboards and I don't care for firing and trading everybody every so many years because of the impatience of a certain element of this fan base.

If in 2 or 3 more years the plan looks to be failing then we'll talk again, but at the moment a majority of the old group is gone and replaced by youth or fresh faces. In my opinion, development of assets both current, and future, is of the utmost importance, not a new management team who is in process of trying to maintain some semblance of a hockey team while gathering new pieces destined to replace old.

Regarding the previous, I don't care if people don't think we can have our cake and eat it too. I think we can. The patient hockey fans will be just as rewarded as their polar opposites; I'd just prefer we didn't run every goddamn person associated with this team out of town during the process.

lmm · December 31, 2016

Talon

I voted ex-Canuck but he is probably more like Rutherford

numb3r 16 · December 31, 2016

7 minutes ago, Green Building said:

I don't want a new management team.

Let the plan of the current regime come to fruition. We don't know [but can speculate] what restrictions were placed on JB and TL by ownership when they were hired so dumping them in the middle of seeing their plan through would be ridiculous.

This team isn't destined to be a bottom feeder forever, but this is what growing pains look like when you have exactly what we have in our prospect pool. It takes time to restock those cupboards and I don't care for firing and trading everybody every so many years because of the impatience of a certain element of this fan base.

If in 2 or 3 more years the plan looks to be failing then we'll talk again, but at the moment a majority of the old group is gone and replaced by youth or fresh faces. In my opinion, development of assets both current, and future, is of the utmost importance, not a new management team who is in process of trying to maintain some semblance of a hockey team while gathering new pieces destined to replace old.

Regarding the previous, I don't care if people don't think we can have our cake and eat it too. I think we can. The patient hockey fans will be just as rewarded as their polar opposites; I'd just prefer we didn't run every goddamn person associated with this team out of town during the process.

aGENT · December 31, 2016

Changing leadership at this point is far more likely to set us further back than ahead IMO. And that's if you think they're even doing a poor job, which I do not.

Kevin Biestra · December 31, 2016

Naslund as GM is the worst of the proposed options. It's just a worse version of our current approach.

JM_ · December 31, 2016

Analytics - at least what you see in the media and blogs - has proven nothing yet. That's the last model I'd want the management team to jump to. I suspect there is some useful internal statistical models being developed by many teams, but that will never become public knowledge.

Trevor and Jim have done a good job so far, inheriting a massive prospect gap from Gillis and an aging core. In 2 season this team will look nothing like the 2011 group and have one of the youngest lineups in the league. 2 season from that we'll know if Jim did a good job or not.

Fanuck · December 31, 2016

Keep present management.

Get new ownership!

appleboy · December 31, 2016

Keep this management and find fans with some patience.

aGENT · December 31, 2016

4 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Keep this management and find fans with some patients.

+'d for sentiment and humorous spelling error.

Sweathog · December 31, 2016

Management is doing good, most fans know that rebuilding a team takes time. Especially a team with a shallow prospect pool that we had when Benning took over. Anyone who thinks management can just snap their fingers and give us a young contending team is not holding reasonable expectations.