Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Jim the Scout, not the Asset Manager

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

So near 50% right? Which is my point with Benning............."IF" he had traded 50%, there would be no argument by the author or me

 

To me, and I will say it again...........keeping the guys we did, artificially kept us higher than we should have been and lost us assets and drafting position

So do your work and prove it then. Go back to every year and look at all the players we realistically could have moved out.

 

So no Edler's, no twins, no Sutter with his entire family and team during a Covid outbreak or Pearson that we wanted to re-sign, with a busted ankle and Covid outbreak. No Vrbata with his NTC he intentionally used to block a trade. No Hamhuis with his NTC and getting dicked around by Dallas etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I think it's an over simplified and unrealistic take.

 

Guys like Edler, the twins... were NEVER moving. 

 

We weren't going to trade guys like Markstrom and Tanev in the new core's first playoff run. This is silly 'video game' #asset management thinking.

 

Contrary to your theory, good teams have players walk, every year. I even gave you two pretty clear, recent examples from your own list of supposedly 'better run' teams.

 

Otherwise, when Benning hasn't been f'd over by circumstances beyond his control, he largely has in fact moved the limited amounts of saleable vets we had. We simply haven't had that many.

I honestly never knew you took so many things out of context before.......

 

I never said "all", I suggested 50% as a number.............give or take

I also never said that team do not let players walk............Of course they do

But usually playoff teams that are in the position of going for it all, or have to keep them because they have no market to speak of

I did say, our playoff run was ill timed, and we should not have been there (but honestly it did not matter, because we had no picks anyways)

But Bennings acquisition of Toffoli is questionable, because he did not plan on keeping him or Tanev or Markstrom, etc.........

Just ill timed...IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, King Heffy said:

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

It's 2021. Are people really still rejecting analytics?

 

I guess it makes sense because hockey is by far the least analytically progressive of the "Big 4" sport leagues in North America. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL has more former players in management positions than all three of the other league's combined. Other sports seem to have realized that it's not necessary to have played an outdated form of the sport 20 years ago to become a successful GM, while hockey still holds on to those who "know and breathe and live hockey." That's going to change in a hurry as better analytic tools start getting developed, and you'll see more of these "dweebs" in high end positions.

 

 

Edited by Grape
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I think it's an over simplified and unrealistic take.

 

Guys like Edler, the twins... were NEVER moving. 

 

We weren't going to trade guys like Markstrom and Tanev in the new core's first playoff run. This is silly 'video game' #asset management thinking.

 

Contrary to your theory, good teams have players walk, every year. I even gave you two pretty clear, recent examples from your own list of supposedly 'better run' teams.

 

Otherwise, when Benning hasn't been f'd over by circumstances beyond his control, he largely has in fact moved the limited amounts of saleable vets we had. We simply haven't had that many.

Why wouldn't we trade Markstrom or Tanev? We didn't know we were going on a playoff run. Imagine what we could've fetched for Markstrom at that time. Hell, we probably could've traded his rights for picks after the season to give a team like Calgary the opportunity to talk to him and extend him before anyone else. 

We pretty much played half of Tanev's career without him (injuries) we could've traded him to a cup-contender for some picks as well.

Then all these draft picks that people are mentioning could have a few more names to get excited about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, aGENT said:

So do your work and prove it then. Go back to every year and look at all the players we realistically could have moved out.

 

So no Edler's, no twins, no Sutter with his entire family and team during a Covid outbreak or Pearson that we wanted to re-sign, with a busted ankle and Covid outbreak. No Vrbata with his NTC he intentionally used to block a trade. No Hamhuis with his NTC and getting dicked around by Dallas etc.

Why re-sign Pearson? He's a replaceable player who's reportedly was going to net a larger return then Hall. What's the reason that Sutter, Vrbata, and Edler couldn't be moved? Because they got signed to these NMC. That's part of asset management. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I honestly never knew you took so many things out of context before.......

 

I never said "all", I suggested 50% as a number.............give or take

I also never said that team do not let players walk............Of course they do

But usually playoff teams that are in the position of going for it all, or have to keep them because they have no market to speak of

I did say, our playoff run was ill timed, and we should not have been there (but honestly it did not matter, because we had no picks anyways)

But Bennings acquisition of Toffoli is questionable, because he did not plan on keeping him or Tanev or Markstrom, etc.........

Just ill timed...IMO

What did I take out of context? I never mentioned 'all'... That's you bringing that up bud.

 

And even at '50%', I think your whining amounts to very little outside that 50% range, of actual, moveable assets. And any 'shortfall' is likely a couple picks in the mid-late range and or another prospect or two of the Goldobin/Dahlen > Karlsson variety. The latter of which we're loaded with despite our 'poor' #asset management and none of which would be enough sweetener to dump the likes of Eriksson et al.

 

What makes you think he wasn't planning on keeping Toffoli or Tanev before Covid?

 

 

Edited by aGENT
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Top Sven Baercheese said:

Why wouldn't we trade Markstrom or Tanev? We didn't know we were going on a playoff run. Imagine what we could've fetched for Markstrom at that time. Hell, we probably could've traded his rights for picks after the season to give a team like Calgary the opportunity to talk to him and extend him before anyone else. 

We pretty much played half of Tanev's career without him (injuries) we could've traded him to a cup-contender for some picks as well.

Then all these draft picks that people are mentioning could have a few more names to get excited about.

 

17 minutes ago, Top Sven Baercheese said:

Why re-sign Pearson? He's a replaceable player who's reportedly was going to net a larger return then Hall. What's the reason that Sutter, Vrbata, and Edler couldn't be moved? Because they got signed to these NMC. That's part of asset management. 

Honestly this isn't even with responding to. NHL teams simply don't move their starting goalie and key, hard minute defensemen in the middle of a playoff push.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about with silly, unrealistic 'video game' takes on #asset management.

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

What did I take out of context? I never mentioned 'all'... That's you bringing that up bud.

 

And even at '50%', I think your whining amounts to very little outside that 50% range, of actual, moveable assets. And any 'shortfall' is likely a couple picks in the mid-late range and or another prospect or two of the Goldobin/Dahlen > Karlsson variety. The latter of which we're loaded with despite our 'poor' #asset management and none of which would be enough sweetener to dump the likes of Eriksson

 

What makes you think he wasn't planning on keeping Toffoli or Tanev before Covid?

 

 

Noooo.........It is the NTC's the NMC's all that is part of bargaining......if you want to be a a GM, there are hard choices, and getting painted into a corner purposely is not a good choice. 

 

If you look at the Covid contracts today, you will see every one is signing for less dollars, and there are more players of solid ability being let go, so...........no, you don't sign a player to a NTC...especially not a average player.........

 

We have a ways to go, and Benning is not doing ant better of a job than he  did 5 years ago, when talking about Free agents or re-signings..............it is worrisome to say the least

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Won't somebody think of the asset management!?!? :frantic:

there was 32 buyer-seller trades in the last 3 weeks before the deadline.

 

it is totally unacceptable that the canucks only made 2 of those trades.

 

san jose made 4.

detroit made 4

columbus made 4

buffalo made 4

ottawa made 3

calgary made 2

chicago made 2 and also made some "noise"

new jersey made 2

la made 2 but also bought

anaheim made 1

flyers made 1 

rangers made 1

nashville bought

mtl bought

oilers bought

tampa bought

carolina bought

Islanders bought

winnepeg bought

boston bought

washington bought

florida bought

pittsburgh bought

colarado bought

6 teams did nothing 

 

I have some questions

 

 

of the 13 buyers only one can be right and win. will all these players end up re-signing with thier new team?

of the 12 sellers only 5 made more trades than the nucks, are all of them better than jim?

of the 6 teams that did nothing, are they all worse than jim?

how does this list even add up to more than 31 teams?

 

 

Edited by Petey_BOI
  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Grape said:

It's 2021. Are people really still rejecting analytics?

 

I guess it makes sense because hockey is by far the least analytically progressive of the "Big 4" sport leagues in North America. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL has more former players in management positions than all three of the other league's combined. Other sports seem to have realized that it's not necessary to have played an outdated form of the sport 20 years ago to become a successful GM, while hockey still holds on to those who "know and breathe and live hockey." That's going to change in a hurry as better analytic tools start getting developed, and you'll see more of these "dweebs" in high end positions.

 

 

Analytics are an excellent tool of a team's tool box, when analyzed well.

 

They are not however the last word on how to manage an entire team, have limits particularly in measuring the value of defensive players and so called 'intangibles' and their value is highly dependent on the quality of the analyses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Honestly this isn't even with responding to. NHL teams simply don't move their starting goalie and key, hard minute defensemen in the middle of a playoff push.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about with silly, unrealistic 'video game' takes on #asset management.

I think you do if you are in it for the long game

 

I am fine with once we were in position, but really we were not, and it was the pre-playoffs we were fighting for

 

I think I have been pretty consistent on this..........it was not time yet, yet we went for it

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Grape said:

It's 2021. Are people really still rejecting analytics?

 

I guess it makes sense because hockey is by far the least analytically progressive of the "Big 4" sport leagues in North America. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL has more former players in management positions than all three of the other league's combined. Other sports seem to have realized that it's not necessary to have played an outdated form of the sport 20 years ago to become a successful GM, while hockey still holds on to those who "know and breathe and live hockey." That's going to change in a hurry as better analytic tools start getting developed, and you'll see more of these "dweebs" in high end positions.

 

 

I’m not anti analytics buttttt as to the rest of your post.... Steve and Joe say hi :p 

Edited by J-Dizzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Grape said:

It's 2021. Are people really still rejecting analytics?

 

I guess it makes sense because hockey is by far the least analytically progressive of the "Big 4" sport leagues in North America. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL has more former players in management positions than all three of the other league's combined. Other sports seem to have realized that it's not necessary to have played an outdated form of the sport 20 years ago to become a successful GM, while hockey still holds on to those who "know and breathe and live hockey." That's going to change in a hurry as better analytic tools start getting developed, and you'll see more of these "dweebs" in high end positions.

 

 

Well when you have unqualified idiots ruining Toronto, Arizona, and Florida, it's pretty obvious that actual knowledge of hockey needs to be a prerequisite to be a GM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Noooo.........It is the NTC's the NMC's all that is part of bargaining......if you want to be a a GM, there are hard choices, and getting painted into a corner purposely is not a good choice. 

 

If you look at the Covid contracts today, you will see every one is signing for less dollars, and there are more players of solid ability being let go, so...........no, you don't sign a player to a NTC...especially not a average player.........

 

We have a ways to go, and Benning is not doing ant better of a job than he  did 5 years ago, when talking about Free agents or re-signings..............it is worrisome to say the least

Nonsense. Trade clauses are a part of every team. And players of all sorts get them. Your falsely creating a narrative. Besides, a lot of the ones people have issues with weren't given out by Benning. Really, the only Benning trade clause that's given us issue was Vrbata...:bored:

 

You still haven't shown your work either stop dodging. Let's see the evidence of all this poor asset management given your '50% players moved' criteria. I doubt we're far off 50% and I doubt this molehill is anywhere near the mountain your suggesting it is.

 

I have zero issue with any contracts Benning has signed since the Beagle overpay. So I disagree that the contracts haven't gotten better since starting to exit a rebuild and no longer having to overpay.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I think you do if you are in it for the long game

 

I am fine with once we were in position, but really we were not, and it was the pre-playoffs we were fighting for

 

I think I have been pretty consistent on this..........it was not time yet, yet we went for it

No, we didn't 'go for it'. We made a reasonable, measured, push. Proven out as a solid tactic given that we pushed through 3 very good teams to game 7 of the second round.

 

'Going for it' would have entailed selling off the likes of Podkolzin, Rathbone etc in a silly attempt to force a run at the expense of long term success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick summary. Performance based I give leadership 

outa 1 - 10  1 being excellent 10 a fail.  I give a 6   
 

1 round picks 7

4 wins 3 losses.  I give a 4

 

Notable Free agent signings 

beagle roussel Loui  vrbata 

myers  vaneck benn  Ryan miller

 holtby  ferland. I give a 8

 

Notable trades 

Gudbranson sbisa smidth 

toffoli  jt Miller  Marky sutter 

I give a 7 

 

so considering ownership tampering and benning what he started with and COVID I give him about a 5 or 6 I’d give him one more season then go from there. not to optimistic at this point 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging Benning's tenure is a hard task as what he has built is just starting to mature to the point of hard results. Not this year, last year or 2 seasons ago. You simply can not put aside the hand he was dealt when he took over. There was no prospect pool, there was no Utica. Look at the rosters of the Canucks and Comets in 2014! Building from the ground up is a sure fire way to get canned in the NHL. Fans talk a good story about being patient to build a winner but they really aren't. 

 

Fans should consider what the Canucks have going in their depth chart. Do Lind, Rathbone, Jasek, Brisbois, Depietro and Gadjovich have better chances of a NHL career based on the quality of their team mates while they learned their craft in the AHL? We don't have anymore Raymond's or Hutton's because they didn't get enough time in the AHL. 

 

Using hindsight is a easy option to criticize Benning especially when you don't know what he is dealing with. The reality is that Benning could do absolutely everything right and the Canucks might still not win a CUP. My Canuck sweater might be threadbare when they lower me down but it will still be on! With a CUP I will be smiling.    

  • Hydration 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Timråfan said:

Nope, I prefer that Benning act as a positive leader steering the ship forward. 
When he decided that Dahlen doesn’t fit the organisation he should have talked in a neutral mode. Not throw Dahlen to the wolves among Canuck fans. Really bad decision by Benning that I believe affected Peteys game.

This is something that always will be in Peteys head because they are old friends and have talked about this in private. They’ll probably meet at least every summer also.

I can tell you that Petey felt really bad when he saw how the fans behaved against Dahlen.

And it was Bennings fault.


So Benning showed he is a dirtbag trying to save face and/or criticism against Utica.

 

We just have to agree to disagree. Pro sports is a rough business, some guys just don't have what it takes. But I have serious doubts that Petey really cares about what Dahel did or didn't do here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Judging Benning's tenure is a hard task as what he has built is just starting to mature to the point of hard results. Not this year, last year or 2 seasons ago. You simply can not put aside the hand he was dealt when he took over. There was no prospect pool, there was no Utica. Look at the rosters of the Canucks and Comets in 2014! Building from the ground up is a sure fire way to get canned in the NHL. Fans talk a good story about being patient to build a winner but they really aren't. 

 

Fans should consider what the Canucks have going in their depth chart. Do Lind, Rathbone, Jasek, Brisbois, Depietro and Gadjovich have better chances of a NHL career based on the quality of their team mates while they learned their craft in the AHL? We don't have anymore Raymond's or Hutton's because they didn't get enough time in the AHL. 

 

Using hindsight is a easy option to criticize Benning especially when you don't know what he is dealing with. The reality is that Benning could do absolutely everything right and the Canucks might still not win a CUP. My Canuck sweater might be threadbare when they lower me down but it will still be on! With a CUP I will be smiling.    

Sorry I don't buy it. First of all the previous management purchased the AHL franchise, Utica. Up until that time we used independent operators (Chicago Wolf's ) or some times shared. Drafting had been a sore point but When  JB took over we did have a young  prospect named Horvat had signed a UFA from the NCAA named Tanev and traded for a goalie named Markstrom. The roster still had numerous players remaining from the 2011 run what was done with those players is not on the previous management. Such as 

 

2013-14 Vancouver Canucks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com (hockey-reference.com)

 

When you're the Captain of the ship you take responsibility.

 JB did review the team and roster and declared  " this team can be quickly turned around ... that was SEVEN years ago

 

Jim Benning introduced as Canucks' GM: 'This is a team we can turn around in a hurry' | theScore.com'

 

His first draft despite having 2 first round picks did not go well listen to this management BS

 

Canucks draft meeting: Jake Virtanen - All Access - YouTube

 

And to top it off despite the "Quick Turn around" we're now told it'll take a further 2 years

Edited by Fred65
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Sorry I don't buy it. First of all the previous management purchased the AHL franchise, Utica. Up until that time we used independent operators (Chicago Wolf's ) or some times shared. Drafting had been a sore point but When  JB took over we did have a young  prospect named Horvat had signed a UFA from the NCAA named Tanev and traded for a goalie named Markstrom. The roster still had numerous players remaining from the 2011 run 

 

2013-14 Vancouver Canucks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com (hockey-reference.com) 

what was done with those players is not on the previous management. Such as 

 

2013-14 Vancouver Canucks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com (hockey-reference.com)

 

When you're the Captain of the ship you take responsibility.

 JB did review the team and roster and declared  " this team can be quickly turned around ... that was SEVEN years ago

 

Jim Benning introduced as Canucks' GM: 'This is a team we can turn around in a hurry' | theScore.com'

 

His first draft despite having 2 first round picks did not go well listen to this management BS

 

Canucks draft meeting: Jake Virtanen - All Access - YouTube

 

And to top it off despite the "Quick Turn around" we're now told it'll take a further 2 years

We made the playoffs that first year, though.  So there was a quick rebound, at least regular reason wise.
 

I think the plan was to sign Loui and Ryan Miler and keep the Twins around to be in that borderline-playoff spot for a few years. Aquilini gets his playoff revenue, the twins get another kick or two at the can and JB gets a few seasons to refresh the prospect pool before the wheels fall off.
 

Unfortunately the Twins and Loui flopped harder than anyone predicted (funny how that always happens to us) and we were in no shape to promote younger guys to carry the load.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...