Jim the Scout, not the Asset Manager

[Makaramel MacKhiato]

An article by Andrew Harris from CanuckArmy. I couldn't help but agree 100% with what he has said. I long believed in Benning and was hoping he learned from his mistakes, but the lack of selling (yet again) at the deadline tells us differently. I didn't realize that we haven't acquired a top 90 pick for 5 years (amazing as Benning is known for his draft prowess), but we've traded a lot of these picks (amazing again, as we haven't been a playoff team). 
 

https://canucksarmy.com/2021/04/17/jim-scout-jim-asset-manager-canucks-price/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2xl5kYij6P2myKhe_lHylJHfzdIcQm8tgS0KL56OQhYRMw1pNOFuT05Co

 

 

From the onset, an NHL general manager is given a set of resources to work with that includes some combination of cap space, draft picks, and inherited prospects and roster players. A GM’s goal is to maximize the value of those assets within the constraints set forth by the CBA. From a high level, we call this “asset management”.

 

We’re going to modify a Warren Buffett quote here. The problem is that NHL GMs tend to come from backgrounds of scouting, playing, coaching, or sometimes, institutional politics. Once at the top, GMs from these backgrounds find themselves ill-equipped to handle their new asset managing responsibilities. A skill set like scouting, which equips a GM to say “player x is better than player y” isn’t as useful in the new asset management job. GMs are often left with holes in their understanding of foundational concepts such as scarcity, opportunity cost, and behavioural economics.

 

We’ve seen this play out time and time again with the Canucks’ front office. Jim the scout says “Tyler Myers has all the attributes we’re looking for. He’s big, strong, and can add an offensive component to our defence. We should sign him.” There is no Jim the asset manager that says, “Hang on, what’s the cost of acquiring Myers? Is this the best use of our cap space relative to alternatives? Why are we willing to acquire him at a price that’s chased all of the other bidders from the table?”

A mistake like Tyler Myers is plain and laid bare for us to see, but Jim Benning’s errors of omission (things he didn’t do) are almost invisible. We can’t see the forgone draft picks, the roster players retained, or the prospects not acquired that have likely been an overhang through his regime. These costs are very real, and form the bedrock of the key concept missing from Benning’s mental toolkit: opportunity cost. It’s economics 101 — an opportunity cost is an opportunity lost.

 

For example, the cost of signing Tanner Pearson was not only $3.25 million in cap space, but also the second-round pick Pearson could have fetched at the deadline. Jim the scout sees a leader with a host of offensive tools (we’ll ignore that Pearson is near replacement-level), while Jim the asset manager sees a skating second-round pick. It’s worse when thought of this way: Benning was a de facto deadline buyer by forgoing the draft pick he could have acquired for Pearson.

This is the problem with Jim Benning. He chases players his intuition deems “good” (intuition that is deserving of significant skepticism — see Sham Sharron or Jay Beagle) without giving pause to ask how it fits the bigger picture. Of course, there’s always a price to pay, and when Benning has to think about that price, he does one of two things 1) he just bids higher than the market or 2) he relies heavily on his own intuitive definition of a “fair price”.

 

A key responsibility of an asset manager is to consider how asset values diminish over time, something amateur scouting departments don’t have to do. In an appearance on Sportsnet 650, Benning said that contending teams tend to have players primarily between the ages of 24-34 (a hilarious answer – as Sam from the Broadscast pointed out on Twitter, the majority of all NHL players are between 24-34). Benning was going the intuition route, and nobody’s (except Petbugs’) intuition can possibly be developed to incorporate the ageing trends of the thousands of players in the NHL. A model is clearly better here, and what does the model say?

 

The result of this disjointed process is arguably the least efficient team of the salary cap era. It’s a team that’s lost asset value in Tanner Pearson, Dan Hamhuis, Troy Stecher, Chris Tanev, Ryan Miller, Shawn Matthias, and Frank Corrado. It’s a team that’s avoided alternative uses of cap space, and hasn’t traded for a draft pick in the top 90 since 2016.

That’s the problem with Jim Benning’s tenure as Canucks GM. We’ve got Jim the scout, not Jim the asset manager, and he doesn’t know about opportunity cost.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Top Sven Baercheese

[DeNiro]

The thing is Bennings drafts are producing talent at a level this organization has not seen too often.

 

So as much as fans complain about his managing of the roster, we badly need the talent that he’s able to find in the draft.

 

The Aquilinis see this and will give him more time to find talent before a new GM comes in and takes the team to the next level.

[King Heffy]

10 minutes ago, Top Sven Baercheese said:

 

The result of this disjointed process is arguably the least efficient team of the salary cap era. It’s a team that’s lost asset value in Tanner Pearson, Dan Hamhuis, Troy Stecher, Chris Tanev, Ryan Miller, Shawn Matthias, and Frank Corrado. It’s a team that’s avoided alternative uses of cap space, and hasn’t traded for a draft pick in the top 90 since 2016.

That’s the problem with Jim Benning’s tenure as Canucks GM. We’ve got Jim the scout, not Jim the asset manager, and he doesn’t know about opportunity cost.

 

 

Pearson is still here, so remove him from the list.  As for the others, Hamhuis, Tanev, and Miller all had NTCs.  Matthias and Corrado were both very marginal players, while Stecher was a free asset to begin with who had outlived his usefulness to the team.

 

Conveniently ignored are the UFA signings of Benn and Vanek that brought back a pick and Tyler Motte.  We likely were going to walk away from Gaudette or lose him in the expansion draft, so Benning got Highmore back instead of losing him for nothing.

[ilduce39]

Myers is an interesting case of all those fancy money words.
 

Considering the “cost” of acquiring different RHD like Dumba was said to include Boeser. The fact a premier player like Pietrangelo would only choose a contender.  Quality targets like Cernak simply aren’t available.  

Last season Myers when paired with a steady vet like Edler was earning his contract, not based on intuition but based on the nerds and their models.

 

I can see why it’s appealing to brush with broad strokes but this is just an amateurish attempt to paint JB - who runs a multi million dollar company replete with a capologist and analytics team - as a guy just pulling moves off the cuff.  

[Almighty$O$APettersson]

Lol this is a joke. Benning is doing fine these kids are lost thinking they know it all.

[Sell.the.team]

I was pretty anti-JB for the first several years of his tenure.  He won be back after the JT Miller trade, exceptional first round scouting (Boeser, Hughes, Petto), and exciting playoff run last year.

 

This year has been a disaster.  For me it isn't so much that we had an off year....I get it.  However, the '2 years away' comments were a huge F you to fans and really off-putting. The time to win a cup and build a great team was now with Hughes/Petto/Boeser/Horvat/Miller on bargain deals.  We should have been surrounding them with excellent veteran support....not the likes of Sutter, Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Luongo Recapture....Pearson....etc.... so much dead weight.  This isn't all JB's fault obviously.  He is working with a stubborn ownership group and inherited the Luongo ordeal .... However, the fact remains that other teams like the Leafs and Lightning have managed to shed dead weight when they need to.  Jim has signed and traded for A LOT of bad contracts that have not improved this team.  CDC has stood by for too long and not called him out on this BS.  The poor asset management at the TDL (Gaudette for nothing???) was really confusing to me.

 

Canucks seem to have had crap timing with lots of different things the last several years.... some of it outside JB's control.  However, the fact remains that asset management has been downright awful for the last 10 years.  JB has not helped the situation.  Wish JB could be promoted to a more executive role and they could bring someone else to be GM.

Edited April 17, 2021 by The.Burrowers

[iinatcc]

31 minutes ago, The.Burrowers said:

I was pretty anti-JB for the first several years of his tenure.  He won be back after the JT Miller trade, exceptional first round scouting (Boeser, Hughes, Petto), and exciting playoff run last year.

 

This year has been a disaster.  For me it isn't so much that we had an off year....I get it.  However, the '2 years away' comments were a huge F you to fans and really off-putting. The time to win a cup and build a great team was now with Hughes/Petto/Boeser/Horvat/Miller on bargain deals.  We should have been surrounding them with excellent veteran support....not the likes of Sutter, Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Luongo Recapture....Pearson....etc.... so much dead weight.  This isn't all JB's fault obviously.  He is working with a stubborn ownership group and inherited the Luongo ordeal .... However, the fact remains that other teams like the Leafs and Lightning have managed to shed dead weight when they need to.  Jim has signed and traded for A LOT of bad contracts that have not improved this team.  CDC has stood by for too long and not called him out on this BS.  The poor asset management at the TDL (Gaudette for nothing???) was really confusing to me.

 

Canucks seem to have had crap timing with lots of different things the last several years.... some of it outside JB's control.  However, the fact remains that asset management has been downright awful for the last 10 years.  JB has not helped the situation.  Wish JB could be promoted to a more executive role and they could bring someone else to be GM.

The 2 years away comment was just an excuse to cover his tracks for not having the cap space to improve the team during the off season. 

 

If he really believed the team was still 2 years away of being competitive he wouldn't have traded for JT Miller not he would have signed Myers to a 5 year contract

[drummer4now]

Don't worry he will be fired in the next couple of years to few years.... 

 

Then the next GM will take all the glory when our top players are in their prime. 

[rychicken]

Awesome, another JB thread....

[Timråfan]

1 hour ago, Top Sven Baercheese said:

An article by Andrew Harris from CanuckArmy. I couldn't help but agree 100% with what he has said. I long believed in Benning and was hoping he learned from his mistakes, but the lack of selling (yet again) at the deadline tells us differently. I didn't realize that we haven't acquired a top 90 pick for 5 years (amazing as Benning is known for his draft prowess), but we've traded a lot of these picks (amazing again, as we haven't been a playoff team). 
 

https://canucksarmy.com/2021/04/17/jim-scout-jim-asset-manager-canucks-price/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2xl5kYij6P2myKhe_lHylJHfzdIcQm8tgS0KL56OQhYRMw1pNOFuT05Co

 

 

From the onset, an NHL general manager is given a set of resources to work with that includes some combination of cap space, draft picks, and inherited prospects and roster players. A GM’s goal is to maximize the value of those assets within the constraints set forth by the CBA. From a high level, we call this “asset management”.

 

We’re going to modify a Warren Buffett quote here. The problem is that NHL GMs tend to come from backgrounds of scouting, playing, coaching, or sometimes, institutional politics. Once at the top, GMs from these backgrounds find themselves ill-equipped to handle their new asset managing responsibilities. A skill set like scouting, which equips a GM to say “player x is better than player y” isn’t as useful in the new asset management job. GMs are often left with holes in their understanding of foundational concepts such as scarcity, opportunity cost, and behavioural economics.

 

We’ve seen this play out time and time again with the Canucks’ front office. Jim the scout says “Tyler Myers has all the attributes we’re looking for. He’s big, strong, and can add an offensive component to our defence. We should sign him.” There is no Jim the asset manager that says, “Hang on, what’s the cost of acquiring Myers? Is this the best use of our cap space relative to alternatives? Why are we willing to acquire him at a price that’s chased all of the other bidders from the table?”

A mistake like Tyler Myers is plain and laid bare for us to see, but Jim Benning’s errors of omission (things he didn’t do) are almost invisible. We can’t see the forgone draft picks, the roster players retained, or the prospects not acquired that have likely been an overhang through his regime. These costs are very real, and form the bedrock of the key concept missing from Benning’s mental toolkit: opportunity cost. It’s economics 101 — an opportunity cost is an opportunity lost.

 

For example, the cost of signing Tanner Pearson was not only $3.25 million in cap space, but also the second-round pick Pearson could have fetched at the deadline. Jim the scout sees a leader with a host of offensive tools (we’ll ignore that Pearson is near replacement-level), while Jim the asset manager sees a skating second-round pick. It’s worse when thought of this way: Benning was a de facto deadline buyer by forgoing the draft pick he could have acquired for Pearson.

This is the problem with Jim Benning. He chases players his intuition deems “good” (intuition that is deserving of significant skepticism — see Sham Sharron or Jay Beagle) without giving pause to ask how it fits the bigger picture. Of course, there’s always a price to pay, and when Benning has to think about that price, he does one of two things 1) he just bids higher than the market or 2) he relies heavily on his own intuitive definition of a “fair price”.

 

A key responsibility of an asset manager is to consider how asset values diminish over time, something amateur scouting departments don’t have to do. In an appearance on Sportsnet 650, Benning said that contending teams tend to have players primarily between the ages of 24-34 (a hilarious answer – as Sam from the Broadscast pointed out on Twitter, the majority of all NHL players are between 24-34). Benning was going the intuition route, and nobody’s (except Petbugs’) intuition can possibly be developed to incorporate the ageing trends of the thousands of players in the NHL. A model is clearly better here, and what does the model say?

 

The result of this disjointed process is arguably the least efficient team of the salary cap era. It’s a team that’s lost asset value in Tanner Pearson, Dan Hamhuis, Troy Stecher, Chris Tanev, Ryan Miller, Shawn Matthias, and Frank Corrado. It’s a team that’s avoided alternative uses of cap space, and hasn’t traded for a draft pick in the top 90 since 2016.

That’s the problem with Jim Benning’s tenure as Canucks GM. We’ve got Jim the scout, not Jim the asset manager, and he doesn’t know about opportunity cost.

 

 

Agree fully and I can add that Benning lacks diplomacy and is quite dishonest.

[Timråfan]

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

The thing is Bennings drafts are producing talent at a level this organization has not seen too often.

 

So as much as fans complain about his managing of the roster, we badly need the talent that he’s able to find in the draft.

 

The Aquilinis see this and will give him more time to find talent before a new GM comes in and takes the team to the next level.

So you also say that Benning is a scout.

 

What is he good at more regarding his role as General Manager? 

 

 

[King Heffy]

8 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

Agree fully and I can add that Benning lacks diplomacy and is quite dishonest.

He isn't doing his job if he's completely honest.

[Honky Cat]

1 hour ago, Top Sven Baercheese said:

An article by Andrew Harris from CanuckArmy. I couldn't help but agree 100% with what he has said. I long believed in Benning and was hoping he learned from his mistakes, but the lack of selling (yet again) at the deadline tells us differently. I didn't realize that we haven't acquired a top 90 pick for 5 years (amazing as Benning is known for his draft prowess), but we've traded a lot of these picks (amazing again, as we haven't been a playoff team). 
 

https://canucksarmy.com/2021/04/17/jim-scout-jim-asset-manager-canucks-price/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2xl5kYij6P2myKhe_lHylJHfzdIcQm8tgS0KL56OQhYRMw1pNOFuT05Co

 

 

From the onset, an NHL general manager is given a set of resources to work with that includes some combination of cap space, draft picks, and inherited prospects and roster players. A GM’s goal is to maximize the value of those assets within the constraints set forth by the CBA. From a high level, we call this “asset management”.

 

We’re going to modify a Warren Buffett quote here. The problem is that NHL GMs tend to come from backgrounds of scouting, playing, coaching, or sometimes, institutional politics. Once at the top, GMs from these backgrounds find themselves ill-equipped to handle their new asset managing responsibilities. A skill set like scouting, which equips a GM to say “player x is better than player y” isn’t as useful in the new asset management job. GMs are often left with holes in their understanding of foundational concepts such as scarcity, opportunity cost, and behavioural economics.

 

We’ve seen this play out time and time again with the Canucks’ front office. Jim the scout says “Tyler Myers has all the attributes we’re looking for. He’s big, strong, and can add an offensive component to our defence. We should sign him.” There is no Jim the asset manager that says, “Hang on, what’s the cost of acquiring Myers? Is this the best use of our cap space relative to alternatives? Why are we willing to acquire him at a price that’s chased all of the other bidders from the table?”

A mistake like Tyler Myers is plain and laid bare for us to see, but Jim Benning’s errors of omission (things he didn’t do) are almost invisible. We can’t see the forgone draft picks, the roster players retained, or the prospects not acquired that have likely been an overhang through his regime. These costs are very real, and form the bedrock of the key concept missing from Benning’s mental toolkit: opportunity cost. It’s economics 101 — an opportunity cost is an opportunity lost.

 

For example, the cost of signing Tanner Pearson was not only $3.25 million in cap space, but also the second-round pick Pearson could have fetched at the deadline. Jim the scout sees a leader with a host of offensive tools (we’ll ignore that Pearson is near replacement-level), while Jim the asset manager sees a skating second-round pick. It’s worse when thought of this way: Benning was a de facto deadline buyer by forgoing the draft pick he could have acquired for Pearson.

This is the problem with Jim Benning. He chases players his intuition deems “good” (intuition that is deserving of significant skepticism — see Sham Sharron or Jay Beagle) without giving pause to ask how it fits the bigger picture. Of course, there’s always a price to pay, and when Benning has to think about that price, he does one of two things 1) he just bids higher than the market or 2) he relies heavily on his own intuitive definition of a “fair price”.

 

A key responsibility of an asset manager is to consider how asset values diminish over time, something amateur scouting departments don’t have to do. In an appearance on Sportsnet 650, Benning said that contending teams tend to have players primarily between the ages of 24-34 (a hilarious answer – as Sam from the Broadscast pointed out on Twitter, the majority of all NHL players are between 24-34). Benning was going the intuition route, and nobody’s (except Petbugs’) intuition can possibly be developed to incorporate the ageing trends of the thousands of players in the NHL. A model is clearly better here, and what does the model say?

 

The result of this disjointed process is arguably the least efficient team of the salary cap era. It’s a team that’s lost asset value in Tanner Pearson, Dan Hamhuis, Troy Stecher, Chris Tanev, Ryan Miller, Shawn Matthias, and Frank Corrado. It’s a team that’s avoided alternative uses of cap space, and hasn’t traded for a draft pick in the top 90 since 2016.

That’s the problem with Jim Benning’s tenure as Canucks GM. We’ve got Jim the scout, not Jim the asset manager, and he doesn’t know about opportunity cost.

 

 

So, Pearson should have fetched a 2nd round pick, and in the next breath the author is saying he's a replacement level player?

[Dazzle]

2 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

So, Pearson should have fetched a 2nd round pick, and in the next breath the author is saying he's a replacement level player?

That's how CDC logic works. Raymond, Ballard and a 2nd will get you a star player. In another thread, the fans will say "Raymond and Ballard SUCK".

[Rick Blight]

Can someone tell me who all of the successful NHL GM's are that don't come from any of these backgrounds. Or is it simply the writer's position that no GM is an asset manager?

 

The problem is that NHL GMs tend to come from backgrounds of scouting, playing, coaching, or sometimes, institutional politics. Once at the top, GMs from these backgrounds find themselves ill-equipped to handle their new asset managing responsibilities

 

[crobar]

Gotta admit Jake and Pearson  out,Toffo  in does look like better asset management.

[King Heffy]

2 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

Can someone tell me who all of the successful NHL GM's are that don't come from any of these backgrounds. Or is it simply the writer's position that no GM is an asset manager?

 

The problem is that NHL GMs tend to come from backgrounds of scouting, playing, coaching, or sometimes, institutional politics. Once at the top, GMs from these backgrounds find themselves ill-equipped to handle their new asset managing responsibilities

 

Seems to be they want to turn the team over to the analytics dweebs such as Chayba and Dumbass.

[DeNiro]

38 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

So you also say that Benning is a scout.

 

What is he good at more regarding his role as General Manager? 

 

 

He’s a very good scout that has reshaped our roster through the draft yes.

 

Right now that is very valuable to us.

 

Once we have all the core pieces in place it will be up to a GM like a Stan Bowman with championship experience to take the roster to the next level.

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by DeNiro

[DeNiro]

DP

Edited April 17, 2021 by DeNiro

[NewbieCanuckFan]

2 hours ago, DeNiro said:

The thing is Bennings drafts are producing talent at a level this organization has not seen too often.

 

So as much as fans complain about his managing of the roster, we badly need the talent that he’s able to find in the draft.

 

The Aquilinis see this and will give him more time to find talent before a new GM comes in and takes the team to the next level.

In a sense, the only GM we’ve ever had that was able to build from nothing was Pat Quinn.  And he had to manage in an era where there was no cap *BUT* we didn’t have ownership that had the financial ability to operate like one of the big spenders in the league.  Guys like Burke/Nonis and Gillis had the ability in certain stages.