[Discussion]What if Benning trades

[IBatch]

[Lazurus]

Why the ridicule?

It is all fantasy stuff here anyway.

Not one thing posted makes a difference.

 

It is just something to waste away the hours.

 

I could do as good or better job, right now, than Benning for less money.

 

And still have a "competitive" team, all I have to do is play Pettrsson and Hughes and the fans are happy especially when I have the media in the palm of my hand to guide fans opinions.

[Lazurus]

Laugh? Why not try a test instead?

 

After all it is an "armchair GM" forum

Edited September 15, 2020 by Lazurus

[theo5789]

And here I thought this was just a joke/drunk post...turns out to be serious.

 

If you can do a better job than Benning for less money, then why did you make such ridiculous claims? Those certainly weren't Benning's ideas, they were yours, so it kind of makes me doubt your ability as a GM.

[IBatch]

16 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

Why the ridicule?

It is all fantasy stuff here anyway.

Not one thing posted makes a difference.

 

It is just something to waste away the hours.

 

I could do as good or better job, right now, than Benning for less money.

 

And still have a "competitive" team, all I have to do is play Pettrsson and Hughes and the fans are happy especially when I have the media in the palm of my hand to guide fans opinions.

Wow.  I’d like to watch 90% of the arm chair GMs epically fail on one tiny important part of this job which is public speaking.   Most people suck at this.   But I suppose you’d do a much better job too.   The Gaurdian would be proud that his legacy has lived on in your ridiculous posts thanks for coming out. 

[Lazurus]

4 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Wow.  I’d like to watch 90% of the arm chair GMs epically fail on one tiny important part of this job which is public speaking.   Most people suck at this.   But I suppose you’d do a much better job too.   The Gaurdian would be proud that his legacy has lived on in your ridiculous posts thanks for coming out. 

When in the public, speaking is always necessary. The trick is to talk to one person at a time, select a person at the back of the hall or room and talk to that person regardless of who asked the question. Once acclimatized to the crowd then start talking to each individual questioner.

Radio people actually have a problem speaking in public at first because they sit in a little room, for the most part, by themselves.

 

As far as the post, that is your opinion and all have them. But there are fewer and fewer posters on this website I have noticed lately.

 

Still you haven't asked a question? BTW I have spoken hockey in front of audiences.

 

What makes you think that being a hockey GM requires a degree or any special intelligence?

[Lazurus]

I was taught "Don't blame the tools because you keep hitting your thumb or missing the nails, blame the carpenter"

[IBatch]

21 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

When in the public, speaking is always necessary. The trick is to talk to one person at a time, select a person at the back of the hall or room and talk to that person regardless of who asked the question. Once acclimatized to the crowd then start talking to each individual questioner.

Radio people actually have a problem speaking in public at first because they sit in a little room, for the most part, by themselves.

 

As far as the post, that is your opinion and all have them. But there are fewer and fewer posters on this website I have noticed lately.

 

Still you haven't asked a question? BTW I have spoken hockey in front of audiences.

 

What makes you think that being a hockey GM requires a degree or any special intelligence?

 

Really?  Thanks for the tips but I’m ok and can talk to anyone in public including hundreds if I need to.  But thanks for the tips - why not “just imagine them naked”.  No need for toastmasters here.   I started a company at 20 - didn’t have anything handed to me either worked full-time mostly from grade 10 through.   Didn’t go to university until I sold it at 35 - got my BCOM and watched all these bright kids who could do anything with a computer fail miserably talking infront of even their class, worse infront of potential investors.   9/10.   Sure there is toastmasters for that.   If you think for a minute you don’t need to have a lot of brains to be a GM then wow.   Sure some get gifted it because of who they were (Lowe comes to mind) - most have MBAs or some sort of background, law degrees too.   Don’t be silly suggesting it doesn’t take some IQ... sure it also takes a lot of hockey smarts/experience and other things.   Leadership.   Another 1/10 or even less common trait.   Good grief, most people are happy to be lambs and make a paycheque and then whine about how much better they’d do the job then rather apply for “the Boss” job.  Supervising at a Circle K doesn’t qualify BTW. 

[IBatch]

27 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

I was taught "Don't blame the tools because you keep hitting your thumb or missing the nails, blame the carpenter"

Wow.  Thanks for that epic proverb. Ha ha.  Sorry that was mean.  Seriously maybe blame the teachers patience to help the green kid learn how to do the job.   

Edited September 15, 2020 by IBatch

[Lazurus]

7 minutes ago, IBatch said:

 

Really?  Thanks for the tips but I’m ok and can talk to anyone in public including hundreds if I need to.  But thanks for the tips - why not “just imagine them naked”.  No need for toastmasters here.   I started a company at 20 - didn’t have anything handed to me either worked full-time mostly from grade 10 through.   Didn’t go to university until I sold it at 35 - got my BCOM and watched all these bright kids who could do anything with a computer fail miserably talking infront of even their class, worse infront of potential investors.   9/10.   Sure there is toastmasters for that.   If you think for a minute you don’t need to have a lot of brains to be a GM then wow.   Sure some get gifted it because of who they were (Lowe comes to mind) - most have MBAs or some sort of background, law degrees too.   Don’t be silly suggesting it doesn’t take some IQ... sure it also takes a lot of hockey smarts/experience and other things.   Leadership.   Another 1/10 or even less common trait.   Good grief, most people are happy to be lambs and make a paycheque and then whine about how much better they’d do the job then rather apply for “the Boss” job.  Supervising at a Circle K doesn’t qualify BTW. 

Actually while there are some that have those types of credentials there those like Linden and Benning, just as examples, that have GED. It isn't necessary to be a genius is all I am saying.

Building a "team" is  something that can be easy for some people. There is no educational route that provides a degree or anything.

It isn't the amount of wits you have, it is the quality and how they are used.

 

I suppose this is topical as this is a forum for armchairing and GMing.

 

And I am not arguing, just responding, communicating. 

 

I don't know what you think it takes to be a GM, but it is not degree's. Being a lawyer helps keep attention to details and on topic. It also helps in how to research.

 

That I say I could do as good a job or better is not a stretch, there are probably many posters who could muddle through the business and "goal" side of the operation mostly because of all the information available, much of which used to be behind closed doors or subject to the old boys club. The cap removes much of those past privileges.

 

Most of the trades I posted were in relation to many posts and teh media bringing up those names combined with other reports of cap restrictions. And in some case, they do make sense.

 

IMO moving Brock Boeser will become paramount, not because he is a bad player, hopefully he improves more if not dealt immediately.

Quite the opposite.

At the end of the 2022 season his contract pays him 7.5 mil., That makes a qualifying offer at least 8.25 mil. In a cap strapped world that will be too much. Not only in percentage of the cap but with regards to how other players will expect similar money. Horvat, Miller, possibly even Virtanen although I think he can inked right now to a multiyear deal. But that contract's existence sets the bar for other similar deals for players of similar stats. Already Hughes and Pettersson's agents are aware for their next deals. Like it or not a flat cap will play heck with teams, this is something that can be planned for, to be able to take advantage of other team's cap restrictions

 

In moving Boeser I would hope for either getting a dman with reasonable term at a reasonable cap hit.

Possibly getting a #1 pick and prospect.

Or with a small additive, all three.

 

There are teams that might find him useful, Buffalo comes to mind in that they have a very unhappy super star and BB might be the trigger man for him. There are others as well because like I posted he is not a bad player.

[Lazurus]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Wow.  Thanks for that epic proverb. Ha ha.  Sorry that was mean.  Seriously maybe blame the teachers patience to help the green kid learn how to do the job.   

You really don't blame Eriksson for his contract do you? Or his play?

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Lazurus

[RomanP]

Wow, I think I got dumber by reading this "genius" post...

[vannuck59]

Bad Bad Bad

[Alienhuggyflow]

On 9/10/2020 at 9:47 AM, Lazurus said:

Don't understand. Why would this be locked?

 

Internal cap? Because this franchise made huge millions from the gate, which has evaporated. Contracts are in US dollars so there is more loss.

 

The trades listed are simply extensions of other posters thoughts, maybe taken to an extreme, but then my opinion is that all the young players should be kept in a rebuild and cap management and not traded away so the post essentially is what some posters think are good deals to get rid of bad contracts.

 

Is it necessary to list a finite and exactly worded post?

 

So what are other posters opinions about trading and what would be a generalized bad trade.

 

There is a new reality, covid. The effects of a flat cap could go on for 3 years so salary and cap hit becomes more important. The absence of gate receipts and lower Canadian dollar will affect trades.

 

Which, in your opinion, becomes more important, getting rid of bad contracts or rebuilding using youth?

 

No matter what it will not be the owner's fault.

 

 

 

On 9/9/2020 at 12:59 PM, Lazurus said:

New cap ceiling, internal - 75 mil due to no fans and low Canadian dollar, bonuses to be paid out and cap recapture

 

So he trades Pettersson with Eriksson, Sutter, Beagle and Rousell. just to get rid of bad salaries and cap hits. Bad idea eh?

 

 

okay, Just to get rid of the bad contracts.

Jake and Eriksson

Gaudette and Beagle

Motte and Sutter

MacEwen and Rousell

 

Better?

 

 

He trades Demko under the premise of getting a draft pick back, a pick he traded to begin with and then Markstrom gets hurt again but there is no money because he spent all he had

He moves Tryamkin for a bag of pucks and Tryamkin is snapped up by Boston, a team that wants him already and are exceptionally good at the draft and player evaluation

He is going to have to trade Boeser because of his commitment to pay over 8 mil in a cap strapped world

 

If he is still here.

The game is all about winning now, not filling the arena. Now the team is a performance based group and it ain't been so good.

 

 

 

 

So our entire bottom six and 90% of guys who kill penalties, no bottom-six centres and on and on and on. Part of me hopes your fooling around because nobody sane would think anything you suggested even makes a lick of sense. 

[Lazurus]

12 hours ago, Alienhuggyflow said:

 

So our entire bottom six and 90% of guys who kill penalties, no bottom-six centres and on and on and on. Part of me hopes your fooling around because nobody sane would think anything you suggested even makes a lick of sense. 

In the "old" days owners could buy their way out or not, now hockey is almost two things at the same time, the entertainment side and the business side. The cap widened the gap between the two.

 

The listed trade post are extremes of what Benning has been hinting at. The cap is pressing and he may have to make a "tough" decision. Seeing as how the media immediately jumped all over Virtanen being a just I just thought, what if it took more young players to move these bad contracts out, maybe not all those at once but some of them. What if? This is pure speculation taken to an extreme. BUT it would solve many problems, keep the essential core but is almost blowing it up. After all the big sell now is watching Pettersson and Hughes play, wins and losses appear to be secondary in this forum.

 

What if he had to get the cap under control? Who could he possibly move that other team covet? The tough decision will obviously be moving a good young player whether this is with a bad contract, for a pick or a trade. I ran with what appears to be the consensus for moving Eriksson's contract, but then Beagle, Rousell and Sutter's have been brought up too as being over priced and eating up too much cap space and roster spots.

 

ALL bottom 6 centers, both of them? Alright sure why not? It would mean Miller, who was a top FO winner and Horvat are taking a few more FO's, then there is Pettersson and Motte was a center, MacEwen and ? These guys are not the only ones in the league or even on the team.

 

There is a very good chance that Benning will have to restrain his spending at the least and a have decent chance that he will have to get under the cap for ALL the contracts without burying any in the minors, the cap could dictate the makeup of the team.

 

So there was a story about the Canucks maybe interested in Dumba with Boeser going the other way.
 

[spur1]

10 hours ago, Lazurus said:

In the "old" days owners could buy their way out or not, now hockey is almost two things at the same time, the entertainment side and the business side. The cap widened the gap between the two.

 

The listed trade post are extremes of what Benning has been hinting at. The cap is pressing and he may have to make a "tough" decision. Seeing as how the media immediately jumped all over Virtanen being a just I just thought, what if it took more young players to move these bad contracts out, maybe not all those at once but some of them. What if? This is pure speculation taken to an extreme. BUT it would solve many problems, keep the essential core but is almost blowing it up. After all the big sell now is watching Pettersson and Hughes play, wins and losses appear to be secondary in this forum.

 

What if he had to get the cap under control? Who could he possibly move that other team covet? The tough decision will obviously be moving a good young player whether this is with a bad contract, for a pick or a trade. I ran with what appears to be the consensus for moving Eriksson's contract, but then Beagle, Rousell and Sutter's have been brought up too as being over priced and eating up too much cap space and roster spots.

 

ALL bottom 6 centers, both of them? Alright sure why not? It would mean Miller, who was a top FO winner and Horvat are taking a few more FO's, then there is Pettersson and Motte was a center, MacEwen and ? These guys are not the only ones in the league or even on the team.

 

There is a very good chance that Benning will have to restrain his spending at the least and a have decent chance that he will have to get under the cap for ALL the contracts without burying any in the minors, the cap could dictate the makeup of the team.

 

So there was a story about the Canucks maybe interested in Dumba with Boeser going the other way.
 

What are the Wild throwing in with it. 

[Lazurus]

On 9/17/2020 at 3:59 AM, spur1 said:

What are the Wild throwing in with it. 

Just the rumor stuff from the media. Me, I'd like to pursue Zarorev or Ristolenien

 

Winning teams are built from the net out and with determination from the top (owners)

 

Not sure but I wonder now if Chris Gear, who was promoted to Asst GM and given charge of finances and cap management is really in charge now? Canucks would have to cut the total payroll by over 25 mil, not that hard if they move Eriksson and Baertcshi, can get let Toffoli, Tanev, Markstrom and can trade Sutter and give Green a mil a season, he could always say no and take one of the other coaching jobs.

 

Even with all those gone this is still a pretty stout core group and it certainly gives the prospects a chance.

[ABNuck]

On 9/15/2020 at 3:32 PM, Lazurus said:

Why the ridicule?

It is all fantasy stuff here anyway.

Not one thing posted makes a difference.

 

It is just something to waste away the hours.

 

I could do as good or better job, right now, than Benning for less money.

 

And still have a "competitive" team, all I have to do is play Pettrsson and Hughes and the fans are happy especially when I have the media in the palm of my hand to guide fans opinions.

I've never been a GM of a hockey club, but I was once an AGM of a Jr club...if you think for a second that all that GM's do is player related movements, then you have no idea what it takes to be a GM at the NHL level. Firstly, I would say that either being a lawyer or at minimum a CMA would be a starting point. Then you need to be a little bit of a sales rep, a spokesperson and a savvy purchasing agent. You need to understand the hockey "business", not just the hockey world. And that just gets you an interview. Who are your contacts in the hockey world? Who do you bring to the table? And again, not just locally or even nationally...how about internationally? And before you go making decisions and agreements with suppliers for goods and services, what do the players need or want? Have you spent time around the league knowing what NHLPA preferences are? ETC ETC ETC. 

A pro sports GM is a massive undertaking...it takes special skills, a huge network and a great deal of charisma to get the team to follow the direction you are leading them. This is why there are few people truly qualified to hold down such a unique position. You have to be a truly special talent to make it as a player in the NHL...and there's about 800-850 guys a year that get to do that...but there's only 32 jobs for GM available...the elite of the elite.

[Chickenspear]

How is this thread still a thing?

[Lazurus]

15 hours ago, ABNuck said:

I've never been a GM of a hockey club, but I was once an AGM of a Jr club...if you think for a second that all that GM's do is player related movements, then you have no idea what it takes to be a GM at the NHL level. Firstly, I would say that either being a lawyer or at minimum a CMA would be a starting point. Then you need to be a little bit of a sales rep, a spokesperson and a savvy purchasing agent. You need to understand the hockey "business", not just the hockey world. And that just gets you an interview. Who are your contacts in the hockey world? Who do you bring to the table? And again, not just locally or even nationally...how about internationally? And before you go making decisions and agreements with suppliers for goods and services, what do the players need or want? Have you spent time around the league knowing what NHLPA preferences are? ETC ETC ETC. 

A pro sports GM is a massive undertaking...it takes special skills, a huge network and a great deal of charisma to get the team to follow the direction you are leading them. This is why there are few people truly qualified to hold down such a unique position. You have to be a truly special talent to make it as a player in the NHL...and there's about 800-850 guys a year that get to do that...but there's only 32 jobs for GM available...the elite of the elite.

Now there are GM's that never played the game or were not involved until they got into the front office.

 

There is a huge difference between Jr. and NHL. In the NHL there are as many as 60+ staff members to do much of the work. 2 assistant GM's in Vancouver, why is that? The new assistant is in charge of team finances, the cap and contracts, why do they need him if the top guy is elite? They never had him while the top dog was doing all those other contracts and deals, or he never had a say in those other than the language, now he makes the decisions. Why?

 

GM elite of elite? No there you are totally wrong. Often it is the "old boys club" that makes or breaks a GM. Quinn was well liked and respected, his trades were hugely impactful, they dealt with him and he didn't get fleeced.

Like you said today is much different, except right now. Before players were held at the whim of dictators, then FA and they had to back off, now the hard cap and covid which results in a lack fans in arena's suddenly hitting gives GM some of that back.

Canadian clubs often earn 40+ mil in arena  attendance, this is a loss of income and contracts in US dollars that many fans don't think of and this will affect team spending immensely.

 

One last thing how does a GM get his job? How do they lose them? Why would they be dismissed if they are so rare? Benning is not a lawyer, an accountant he has always worked under an umbrella until he got hired here and now there is an umbrella again. Chris Gear Assistant GM hire Jan 7. No contracts since then smells of getting control of unrestrained spending.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Lazurus