Francesco Aquillini and Jim Benning --Tales of a Rebuild: Misconceptions, Misery, and Money

[conquestofbaguettes]

12 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

What's that really based on?  You mean the financial merits of doing a real strip down rebuild? 

What am it basing this "opinion" on?

 

Well, firstly I wouldn't call it an opinion.  Its an actual thing in the real world.  As Geoff Molson is quoted above admitting its what he is doing in Montreal.  Its the way Chicago got their shot at Bedard.  Its the way the Sharks will have a shot at Celebrini or Eiserman this upcoming draft.

 

You seem to have a cast in iron antiquated business model that doesn't take into account the uniqueness of owning a professional sports team. Where there is a restraining cap on all teams.  Like some kind of socialist system inside of a capitalist system. And that even though, in your words, if I'm reading you right, you are saying that a rebuild was totally the best way to go back in Benning's early days...the owners just COULDN'T do it.  Because?  short term profits would be reduced for a few years? And that they were obliged by the great Capitalist Business Gods who trump the Hockey Gods I guess?  They had no choice.

 

And you can't fathom that they ' be just dumb' so you arrive at the conclusion that in the end no one is really at fault.

 

Benning: A GM candidate who HAD to accept the position even if he disagreed with the owners vision. Who knows, maybe he had gambling debts.  And then proceeded to try his best to fulfill it but ultimately failed because he wasn't cut out for the job. But he tried real real hard, but it was doomed anyways because it was the owners fault for hiring him and telling him how to do his job.

>

Aquilini:  Except it wasn't actually the owners fault at all because he was compelled by forces outside of his control. Some unwritten business rule that you never should take a step back, clear the baggage, re-invest and re-build to make the product better in a few years than it is now and reap the profits later.  No...you keep slogging away barley keeping above water, giving your customer just enough to keep enough of them satisfied and to not go into the red.  That no matter how "dumb" that sounds.....it just CAN'T be dumb because they is rich, so they is smart.

>

No one:  Yes! its all HIS fault!!

 

But if you can think of a rational reason why they would choose such a path,  I'm all ears. Because so far you and others have provided no other explanations beyond "they just dumb." Which is laughable on its face.

 

Why do we have to provide for you a "rational reason" why they would shoot themselves in the foot for years before you could ever admit they did that?  There is no rational reason. But there may be an irrational human reason. They are human, with ego involved. Could you entertain the idea that decisions made, even in the billionaire world, might be made by flawed humans or mistaken humans, humans so wealthy that everyone around them tells them their ideas are brilliant? (Musk buying Twitter) Francesco had stated he wanted to win a Stanley Cup while his father was alive. So its not necessarily evil intentions. Humans make mistakes. Ego and impatience can make us humans make "dumb" decisions sometimes.

 

 

 

You and others want to judge what you think they ought to do and ought to have done with zero insight as to why they chose the path they did in the first place... except this surface level idea "they just dumb." 

 

Yes, there are sometimes legitimate constraints and barriers to doing what we want in life, what a business might otherwise like to do. In this case, the intentional tank we all wanted.

 

Also original six teams like Montreal and Chicago are not good examples. As I mentioned before not all markets are equal. Any idea what mean by that? Or just more "word salad" for you?  Think demographics, population, and even region.

 

The reason I'm saying it's no one's "fault" because I understand how  market economics works.

 

It pins us all against eachother, limits us from doing what we might like to do sometimes. For example for most us  peasants, if we want to stay alive we  have to sell our labour.  If you're a business and want to stay alive you need peddle your wares.

 

We don't know what kind of financial or even social obligations come packaged with this organization.

 

What's is there overhead? What kind of partnerships and contracts to do they need to adhere to, and what kind of deals are they trying to expand on?  Does a product that gets murdered 6-1 every night, help to hold consumer interest help? Not really. Certainly not with this fairweather fanbase. 

 

And yes, we are mostly (but not really) theorizing the specific reasons they chose to stay competitive. Obviously. We don't have that specific inside knowledge. Having said that, it's not some giant leap here to think money and protecting the brand, could be a core reason. And a likely one at that. A business...concerned....with their product and attracting consumers? Never!

 

But the shit your saying is just theorizing, too!  And given all the other possible reasons at play, this whole "they just dumb" argument leaves much to be desired. Not a whole lot of scientific rigour there from what I can see.

 

Especially considering you and others seem to reject and willfully ignore other these possible variables before even really engaging with them in any real capacity. Jumping straight to claiming devil worshiper and heretic to boot.

 

They should have done this; They should have done that. Who are you to say. And who the am I to say. Not our  place... especially when we don't have enough information to really talk about it with any real certainty.

 

The only difference here is I don't pretend to know why they did or didn't take the ideal path we all wanted

 

But you do. You pretend to know when in reality you actually know nothing.

 

"They just dumb."

 ?

 

Extremely doubtful.

[conquestofbaguettes]

10 hours ago, Ballisticsports said:

 

When the reference that Benning could be a pylon, I thought, then why herald a pylon?

If we take FA at his word, when Smyl was beside him at a news conference giving JB all the resources and support and big as staff as he wanted

Where is proof that he has always meddled otherwise?

 

I think an owner states what he hopes to have and when, but I don't believe he calls a GM and says sign Sam Gagner etc at whatever cost

It is up to the GM to work to meet that goal to build a team

 

Interesting to re watch this

 

also in another article

 

“The end of that game was difficult. Just hearing the fans,” Smyl said. “That’s when I felt ‘I have to get involved here a lot more’ and express my views a little stronger. At the end of the day, we’re all responsible — from the players to the management, to the coaches, to the ownership. And we’ve got to make it better. . We’ve got to put thaI think we’ve taken a step back in the direction we want to got game plan together and follow through with it.”

Smyl said he felt the players were “waiting for something to happen” and that finger pointing had begun in management. His team is off the rails, so Steamer is stepping up.

The 63-year-old was named interim general manager on Sunday, but don’t expect him to be a puppet for ownership. He cares too much to be that.

“When I talked to Francesco [about] the position, I told him that I don’t want to be just sitting there watching. I’m going to present things to you. I’m going to be evaluating players. Seeing how the team is going down the road the next three to four weeks, and then make the decisions as we move forward. “I’m going to push Francesco. I think if there’s something to be had that’s going to help this organization, I will talk to Francesco. I will push him on it.” (OMG who talks to their boss like this)?  -I thought Benning supporters say they can't

Francesco Aquilini doesn’t look comfortable in media conferences (1st since hiring TL), and Smyl doesn’t have a ton of recent experience with them either. But Smyl put the team on his back in this presser. Sitting next to the billionaire owner in his first media conference in his new role, Smyl’s passion for the team was obvious.

“I have been a Canuck for 40 years. This is my team. My only team.

“I will always do what’s best for this organization. I will always step up when asked to help. Bottom line, our performance this season has not been good enough. We do have some talented young players and a good core to build around. But we need to be better… There is pride in wearing this Canuck jersey. There is also a huge responsibility that comes with pulling on that jersey… It’s an honour to be sitting here today. This opportunity and responsibility means the world to me, and I will work extremely hard to get this team back on track.”

Eventually a new general manager will be hired, and Aquilini hinted that a president of hockey operations could be brought in also. Smyl, it appears, will help in the selection. Whoever they pick, it’s clear that Smyl hated the way the team played under Jim Benning and Travis Green this season.

“I talked to Francesco about an identity. What is our identity? Where does it start? It starts with your accountability. It starts with your effort,” said Smyl.

“To get out of it, it’s not just going to be one individual. It’s going to take a team and they’ve got to come back to being a team, and make it hard to play against. That’s the identity I want for this organization, to be hard to play against. If I’m lining up against you, I’m going to make it as miserable as possible. That was my message to Francesco. I talked to the players about that this morning. I think that’s an important area and that’s an area we’ve got to start in.”

Smyl wasn’t someone that many people were expecting much from in this role, so his passion and honesty was a nice surprise. He’s been with the team for over 40 years, but judging by the reaction from fans on social media, the Steamer just became a fan favourite with a whole new generation of fans.

 

I don't think Smyl was on the plane to Rutherford's North Carolina house when Aqua hired him. Who knows if Aqua even asked him. Rutherford did say the owner hired Bruce Boudreau. How much say did Steamer have in that gaffe? Or are gonna do the "all the good is X. All the bad is Y" like people love do for Benning and Brackett and drafting.

 

And I'm not sure what the point of your post even is. We're talking about why they "rebuilt" and stayed competitive for the duration.

 

Secondly, this article is an opinion piece. Most these sections you've emphasized (outside of quotes) aren't fact. It's conjecture.

 

Yes, it's okay to share your opinion with your superiors. And any rational human should do exactly that. But there are lines. And if you keep at it when it's not well received you find yourself out of job. **Waves at Trevor Linden** Yes, there are power hierarchies and they are inescapable.

 

And poor Steamer.  Wanted to help in all these ways he states and then was out as GM in a flash.  And now basically out of the organization entirely.

 

Also, I think you completely missed the point of the pylon as GM comment. It's not about specific trades so much as it is about the underlying demands of staying competitive which forces those kinds of trades to begin with. And any GM, even a pylon, would have that same demand the table.

 

Sure we can theorize this player over that player (who was available in the market place) but if it wasn't Gagne it would have been someone similar ie. NHL calibre. They wanted to win games.

 

To yet again go back to what former Canucks AGM Chris Gear stated,

 

"I've always been a supporter of trying to accumulate picks and young players, but you're also limited by what instructions you're given and the dynamics you have to work with."

"...[in 2018]... the organization want[ed] to be competitive. And competitive doesn't mean you have to get into the playoffs or else, but it means we want a winning environment. We want fans to see competitive hockey; We don't want to get shelled 6-1 every night. So that's the environment you're trying to navigate."

 

And if that's the mandate, the particular GM doesn't matter that much. It's still a (soft) win now approach no matter who sits at the desk.

 

Yes. The GMs job is to build a team. 

 

To do what is the question.  For what purpose.

 

And those answers are aren't always same for every GM at a given place in time with certain teams (depending on the stage of team development ie. Contender v rebuilders) or even the same markets.

 

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

15 hours ago, DSVII said:

The Canucks iced a shit product. The market still stuck with the team despite the bottom 10 results in consecutive years. The Canucks have a unique moat in Vancouver (as Warren Buffet would say), since there are no other major sports here. It's a captive market essentially and can help the org weather that shitty result.

You are ASSUMING this to be the case. Clearly the organization disagreed with that assumption. And even if you are right, it was clearly not a risk they were going to take. Nor can I say I blame them. Risking a hell of a lot on the assumption people would still support a team getting shelled 6-1 every single night.

 

Everybody knows Vancouver has a fairweather fanbase. But of course we hardcores are a different breed. Not everyone is like us, dude.

 

Most aren't.  They only watch when we're winning.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/fans-fall-out-of-love-with-canucks/article20417821/

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-canucks-bandwagon-fans-come-out-for-nhl-playoffs-1.3030051

 

https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/move-over-this-canucks-bandwagon-is-getting-crowded

 

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/sports/a-vancouverites-guide-to-bandwagoning-for-the-canucks-1931559

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/1924311/canucks-fans-ready-to-jump-on-bandwagon-if-they-keep-on-winning-survey/

 

15 hours ago, DSVII said:

And corporations, in both small and big markets, have chosen to build a better product through the rebuild route because it has been shown to have the highest probability of getting that better product down the line, especially given that is how the league is set up with the draft system and salary cap rules for ELCs. All the modern day cup winners have gone through a rebuild of sorts.

And those organizations in those markets are specific to those markets and those organizations.

 

Of course we all know what the best path is. The best theoretical way to build a team in GM mode in CHEL. But that doesn't neccessarily mean it's realistic in the real world.

 

We can't pretend to know why they didn't do what we all wanted.  We're talking about the tons of different potential reasons.

 

And there are tons of different ways to a "rebuild" a hockey club. Some better than others? Sure.... if you actually hit those top picks ala 1OA like so many love to point to.

 

But then you could end up like Buffalo missing McDavid. Or Anaheim missing on Bedard.  There are no guarantees here. There's still a lot of luck involved as well as educated guessing on the picks you do get.

 

Sometimes you can essentially 'win the draft' without even landing in the top 3. Petey and Huggy are perfect examples. You can still get the stars you need to move forward with and build around without damaging or potentially damaging your product (more than you otherwise might) in the meantime.  It is possible.

 

Of course the intentional tank approach could potentially get you there faster, with a longer window, and better equipped. But that doesn't mean we can replace with real with the ideal just because it's perceived to be the best. And even that is wholly dependant on ones frame of reference and the circumstances you have to work with.

 

Because I agree. Wholeheartedly.

 

What interests me is why they didn't do it.  What possible reasons are there. Just dumb people? Or... is there more to it than that? And to that I say, how could there not be given the institution, it's place in the world, and the people involved.

 

16 hours ago, DSVII said:

And if we're talking business, there is what is called taking a 'big bath' in the accounting world. That is if you're going to be bad, you may as well be EXTREMELY bad. Dump as much crap as you can into that business year or period that you are purging bad assets off your books. That way, the following year, you will look extremely good. 

 

So, why didn't they do that? I'm sure the folks involved would be quite  aware of such an approach. The sheer number of assets the Aquilini Group has at their disposal. So why would the organization choose to stay competitive.

 

16 hours ago, DSVII said:

And in some cases, owners may not mind their teams losing money for a little bit because it is a way to bury their tax obligations with loss carryforwards that can offset their other profitable businesses. So with that in mind, I don't necessarily agree that all teams are allergic to low attendance and ratings if there is a good reason to incur that loss for that period of time. 

 

And I don't neccesarily disagree with that. Different markets, different circumstances, different owners. Some can absolutely make it work. Some can't. The "can't" part is obviously the contentious issue with this club at that time. Could they? Could they really? I don't know. And I'm not sure what their investors in the Italian mob were demanding for returns.

 

We just really don't know enough to judge... but of course we do anyway. 

 

16 hours ago, DSVII said:

And you have owners like Geoff Molson, who saw a stanley cup finals berth two years ago :  “We’re not afraid of that word,” the Canadiens’ owner/president said during a lengthy one-on-one interview Thursday afternoon in his seventh-floor office at the Bell Centre. “We played a lot of games with five rookie defencemen this year. That’s a rebuild.”

 

“I don’t know how patient our fans will be, but I’m very impressed with how supportive they are of a team that’s in 28th place,” the 52-year-old Molson added. “It’s been 14 years I’ve been doing this and I don’t know of a point in my lifetime where the Montreal Canadiens have said: ‘We’re doing a rebuild,’ and I did it. The fans, it’s almost like they’ve been waiting for it and they’re happy that we’re doing it.

What works in an original six market may or may not be true for others. In fact I would wholeheartedly expect it wouldn't.  And I'm not sure I've ever heard the Canadiens fanbase referred to as "fairweather" that's for sure.

 

And wait... didn't the Canucks play with a ton of rookies those years too? Yeah they did. Not many good ones mind you, but they did... and some arguably way before they even should have. eg. Hutton, Gaudette, Virtanen, McCann (short lived)... etc.

 

And again, there's lots of ways to rebuild a team.  In the end, it's just a made up concept anyway: "a rebuild is like X and if you don't do exactly like X it's not a rebuild."  Never found the idea all that convincing tbh. Every cup team has a combination of in house drafted, trades, and free agent players Lots of ways to get there.

16 hours ago, DSVII said:

A rebuild is essentially that chance for the org to reset

Absolutely. And that's as far as it needs to go really.

 

They had an old aging allstar core that needed replacing.

 

They have now a new all star core to move forward and compete with.

 

That's the essence of a rebuild. That's what matters.  Not so much more how you get them all ( within reason) but the important part is you get them at all. 

[conquestofbaguettes]

On 11/24/2023 at 1:43 AM, LillStrimma said:

On 11/24/2023 at 12:36 AM, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

We have delved into that aspect too much now

Oh? Damn near every one of your comments reveals you haven't delved into it at all.

 

Not even sure what the rest of your comment said. I stopped reading after the first line above. And I'm not going to. I mean it's not like you're actually reading or engaging with anything I write so I'll return the favor.

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

20 hours ago, nzan said:

 

I've never understood this saying - you totally can.

Literally every time I've ever eaten cake I also had the cake.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it (too) is a popular English idiomatic proverb or figure of speech. The proverb literally means "you cannot simultaneously retain possession of a cake and eat it, too".

 

Once the cake is eaten, it is gone.

 

It can be used to say that one cannot have two incompatible things, or that one should not try to have more than is reasonable. The proverb's meaning is similar to the phrases "you can't have it both ways" and "you can't have the best of both worlds."

 

For those unfamiliar with it, the proverb may sound confusing due to the ambiguity of the word 'have', which can mean 'keep' or 'to have in one's possession', but which can also be used as a synonym for 'eat' (e.g. 'to have breakfast'). Some find the common form of the proverb to be incorrect or illogical and instead prefer: "You can't eat your cake and [then still] have it (too)". Indeed, this used to be the most common form of the expression until the 1930s–1940s, when it was overtaken by the have-eat variant. Another, less common, version uses 'keep' instead of 'have'.

 

Choosing between having and eating a cake illustrates the concept of trade-offs or opportunity cost.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it⁰

[LillStrimma]

7 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Oh? Damn near every one of your comments reveals you haven't delved into it at all.

 

Not even sure what the rest of your comment said. I stopped reading after the first line above. And I'm not going to. I mean it's not like you're actually reading or engaging with anything I write so I'll return the favor.

 

I am a bit jealous of folks like you that can be an ostrich and seems to like it also.

[conquestofbaguettes]

19 hours ago, SV. said:

influence of ownership on the team? 

Not ownership but the "nature of  business" itself. Even owners don't always gets to do exactly what they want the way they want it. Market variables dictate in what is a realistic or an idealistic request or outcome.

 

19 hours ago, SV. said:

Tough to see how people are standing on each other's soldiers when everything from you up until this comment has implied that history is a chess game, where the pieces have no control over what they're doing and how they acted.

The standing on the shoulders of giants is in reference to what was done before us and building on it.  We could be talking about most anything that builds on and progresses a given thing. Whether philosophical ideas or hell even music changing setting new bars or even technology and physical property. Building on what came before us. Someone else did the work to which we now use to build on.

 

Same can be said for the work of Nonis and Burke and Gillis building a hockey team. Same as we can say for Benning and Weisbrod for Rutherford and Allvin.

 

Nobody ever said "they had no control" in those terms. What's being said is we don't always know the totality of influence or the guiding forces of a given decision. The difference here is I KNOW I don't know exactly what that looks like in this particular case of the rebuild. And neither do you. But you certainly pretend to know.

 

A GM is at fault because they have full control of the team. The ownership is at fault because they have full control of the organization.

 

On paper written in crayon, sure.

 

But that isn't neccessarily in fact the case. We have to dig pretty damn deep to answer those kinds of questions.

Edited November 25, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

13 minutes ago, LillStrimma said:

I am a bit jealous of folks like you that can be an ostrich and seems to like it also.

Which is rich coming from you.

 

How's the sand taste. Lol

[filthy animal]

21 hours ago, nzan said:

 

I've never understood this saying - you totally can.

Literally every time I've ever eaten cake I also had the cake.

 

i love dessert. Cake is pretty good, but Im a pie man myself. Poontang is definetely my favorite

Edited November 25, 2023 by filthy animal

[filthy animal]

14 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Not ownership but the "nature of  business" itself. Even owners don't always gets to do exactly what they want the way they want it. Market variables dictate in what is a realistic or an idealistic request or outcome.

 

The standing on the shoulders of giants is in reference to what was done before us and building on it.  We could be talking about most anything that builds on and progresses a given thing. Whether philosophical ideas or hell even music changing setting new bars or even technology and physical property. Building on what came before us. Someone else did the work to which we now use to build on.

 

Same can be said for the work of Nonis and Burke and Gillis building a hockey team. Same as we can say for Benning and Weisbrod for Rutherford and Allvin.

 

Nobody ever said "they had no control" in those terms. What's being said is we don't always know the totality of influence or the guiding forces of a given decision. The difference here is I KNOW I don't know exactly what that looks like in this particular case of the rebuild. And neither do you. But you certainly pretend to know.

 

A GM is at fault because they have full control of the team. The ownership is at fault because they have full control of the organization.

 

On paper written in crayon, sure.

 

But that isn't neccessarily in fact the case. We have to dig pretty damn deep to answer those kinds of questions.

 

So what youre saying is youre posting the Chris Gear interview?

[LillStrimma]

2 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Which is rich coming from you.

 

How's the sand taste. Lol

Actually, you don’t deserve more because you spew rhetoric bs over and over again.

 

Talking about an organisation that has blinders on them and can’t see what is good for them. Then you call them intelligent also… Somethings very wrong with such organisation. 
The only thing that explains what happens in your scenario is corruption.

Corruption makes intelligent people put blinders on themselves so they can accept the stupid decisions.

[Ballisticsports]

9 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

I don't think Smyl was on the plane to Rutherford's North Carolina house when Aqua hired him. Who knows if Aqua even asked him. Rutherford did say the owner hired Bruce Boudreau. How much say did Steamer have in that gaffe? Or are gonna do the "all the good is X. All the bad is Y" like people love do for Benning and Brackett and drafting.

 

And I'm not sure what the point of your post even is. We're talking about why they "rebuilt" and stayed competitive for the duration.

 

Secondly, this article is an opinion piece. Most these sections you've emphasized (outside of quotes) aren't fact. It's conjecture.

 

Yes, it's okay to share your opinion with your superiors. And any rational human should do exactly that. But there are lines. And if you keep at it when it's not well received you find yourself out of job. **Waves at Trevor Linden** Yes, there are power hierarchies and they are inescapable.

 

And poor Steamer.  Wanted to help in all these ways he states and then was out as GM in a flash.  And now basically out of the organization entirely.

 

Also, I think you completely missed the point of the pylon as GM comment. It's not about specific trades so much as it is about the underlying demands of staying competitive which forces those kinds of trades to begin with. And any GM, even a pylon, would have that same demand the table.

 

Sure we can theorize this player over that player (who was available in the market place) but if it wasn't Gagne it would have been someone similar ie. NHL calibre. They wanted to win games.

 

To yet again go back to what former Canucks AGM Chris Gear stated,

 

"I've always been a supporter of trying to accumulate picks and young players, but you're also limited by what instructions you're given and the dynamics you have to work with."

"...[in 2018]... the organization want[ed] to be competitive. And competitive doesn't mean you have to get into the playoffs or else, but it means we want a winning environment. We want fans to see competitive hockey; We don't want to get shelled 6-1 every night. So that's the environment you're trying to navigate."

 

And if that's the mandate, the particular GM doesn't matter that much. It's still a (soft) win now approach no matter who sits at the desk.

 

Yes. The GMs job is to build a team. 

 

To do what is the question.  For what purpose.

 

And those answers are aren't always same for every GM at a given place in time with certain teams (depending on the stage of team development ie. Contender v rebuilders) or even the same markets.

 

 

My stuff was taken from the interview I posted of when so called puppet was let go (it wasn't my opinion)

Funny , You're whole posting is based on conjecture, assumptions and opinions of what FA wants and behaves

We all have seen and heard so much since over the course of his tenure (a lot forgotten and remembered as opinion)

I think you just want to make your thread longer by ignoring what most say and even the ownership

Chris Gear is what you are fixated on

What about what the "Great Pylon" said in 2016

that we would be up competing with the elite teams in 2018 and 2019 

Linden at the same time said it was 4-5 years (sticking with a plan)

 

From those close to Linden, the story was that it was Weisbrod who went directly to ownership, directly or indirectly, and worked to convince them Linden's  plan was the wrong direction for them and promised Ownership 2 yrs instead

 

“Realistically, if you’re asking me when will the day be that we can compete with the best teams in the league, I think that [Sedin contract] timeline is fair,” said Benning. “This is year two, and by our fourth or fifth year, I hope we’ll be there with the elite teams in the league.”

 

In response to later questions asking for more of a plan or a timeline, Benning said that, after seven years, he needs a couple more. (and after the fans and FA had enough of it)

 

FA says in firing interview that a false narrative been around that he interferes and that owners own, managers manage, coach's coach and player's play, He said he gave what the GM wanted  and spending to the cap and as big of staff that he needed.

Don't you believe that hard working honest less paid players with less term couldn't have given us the same results as we got with the pricier ones (a bottom feeder team) that we got by getting rid of future picks, cap and  future cap and more assets (only to get rid of the same players shortly after) /

FA now realized TL vision was right and he supported the wrong vision

 

If You don't want to listen to this whole interview listen on from 7min ,where he talks about  with new management and new direction and will STICK to a game plan and you need the GM experience (JB couldn't stick with a game plan and that was easy to see and get frustrated while in charge) Identity comes from the Management on down he said and that we had no identity as a team in JB years

 

After the firing BB talking of Stan

Smyl was a rock in a sea of chaos, Canucks veteran Brock Boeser said.

“Things were crazy. And just to dial us back in and talk about what it really means to be part of this organization, because it was such a shitshow, it’s just nice to hear from a guy like that.

 

Stan Smyl on stepping back from his Hockey Operations role with the Canucks and career - YouTube

 

I've read what you said and you have what I have said (and others) and I don't see how things will change and am just so glad that I can enjoy being a fan of the team, to comment and see a direction and commitment I like from the entire organization and that will bring us together as one united with joy, so for that I will try not to contribute to lengthening this thread any further

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Ballisticsports

[DSVII]

10 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

You are ASSUMING this to be the case. Clearly the organization disagreed with that assumption. And even if you are right, it was clearly not a risk they were going to take. Nor can I say I blame them. Risking a hell of a lot on the assumption people would still support a team getting shelled 6-1 every single night.

 

Everybody knows Vancouver has a fairweather fanbase. But of course we hardcores are a different breed. Not everyone is like us, dude.

 

I'm not assuming anything, I'm looking at the data (the team performance metrics, the attendance and revenue numbers) the product says enough for itself. Bottom 10 finishes, a goal differential over the span of years that is comparable to the Arizona Coyotes and other rebuilding teams. 

 

I also think everybody knows that fairweather fans are universal, every team has them. I disagree with your assertion that Vancouver's is so unique of an environment for a team with fairweather fans that they have to make different decisions from everyone else. I mean if I have to think of a tougher Canadian market than Vancouver. Smaller, more negativity from fans due to lack of success , I think it'll be Ottawa, and even then, a team with less success and value than the Canucks have chosen to rebuild. They haven't folded last I checked.

 

And again, the numbers speak for themselves, but the Canucks under Benning were getting shelled 6-1 every night. And it doesn't matter what Chris Gear says, the market came back next year to support the team. 

 

Again, there was goodwill left over from 2011 that enabled the team to sell whatever direction they went. I'm of the opinion they took the riskier route by trying to compete with that aged roster and they definitely had a choice to rebuild with full fan support.

 

Here's the goal differential of the LA kings when they started their rebuild in 2017/18 (which they are actually coming out of now).

 

Again, the Canucks team you are labelling as competitive is still getting shelled out 6-1 at the same rate as a rebuilding team. You can't ignore that fact.

 

Here's the 'competitive' Canucks

 

 

Quote

Most aren't.  They only watch when we're winning.

 

Vancouver has ranked in the top ten for team values almost consistently. The fairweather fan effect is real but the core of the fanbase was enough to maintain that valuation throughout the Benning years.

 

Quote

And those organizations in those markets are specific to those markets and those organizations.

 

Your original post cites the Colorado Rockies, the NBA, the Houston Astros and Kansas City Royals (MLB) as comparable situations to the Canucks if they had chosen the rebuild route as well. You can't have it both ways.

 

Also why I chose a more extreme example in the Tampa Bay Lightning, they were worth less than a third of what the Canucks were before, with more fairweather fans and in a market that has to compete with both the NFL (Tampa Bay Bucs) and MLB (Rays) and they STILL chose the rebuild route.

 

Same with Ottawa and their smaller fanbase. It's because the league is designed to give rebuilding teams the highest probability of building that good, sustainable product.

 

Quote

Of course we all know what the best path is. The best theoretical way to build a team in GM mode in CHEL. But that doesn't neccessarily mean it's realistic in the real world.

 

We can't pretend to know why they didn't do what we all wanted.  We're talking about the tons of different potential reasons.

 

There's several NHL teams today in larger (Chicago, Philly, St Louis, Montreal) and smaller (Anaheim, Arizona, San Jose, Columbus, Calgary) markets than Vancouver that disagree with you then, because they're pursuing that path and are deeming it realistic. That's the real world going on today.

 

In both market situations tougher and easier than Vancouver, that was the realistic option. We aren't that unique. 

 

Quote

But then you could end up like Buffalo missing McDavid. Or Anaheim missing on Bedard.  There are no guarantees here. There's still a lot of luck involved as well as educated guessing on the picks you do get.

 

Buffalo still got Eichel (how they handled him is another story) who turned out to be a Franchise Centre. And I doubt Anaheim is losing sleep over Leo Carlsson.

 

There are no guarantees, it's an expected value game and if you're rebuilding it's the GMs job to maximize that value. There's a difference between having your roster finish bottom ten but accumulating assets, having a surplus of draft picks to increase your chance of hitting those picks

 

and finishing bottom ten but buying aged veterans, capping out and with a draft deficit.

 

Quote

Sometimes you can essentially 'win the draft' without even landing in the top 3. Petey and Huggy are perfect examples. You can still get the stars you need to move forward with and build around without damaging or potentially damaging your product (more than you otherwise might) in the meantime.  It is possible.

 

Of course the intentional tank approach could potentially get you there faster, with a longer window, and better equipped. But that doesn't mean we can replace with real with the ideal just because it's perceived to be the best. And even that is wholly dependant on ones frame of reference and the circumstances you have to work with.

 

Because I agree. Wholeheartedly.

 

I think you can agree at least that it is a lower probability outcome to 'win the draft' without landing in the top three. Based on expected value of draft position. 

Forecasting and business planning is an expected value game here. 

 

It's not perceived to be the best. It has been shown through math to give you the highest probability of getting there. And of course, the circumstances will always hinder your plan. But at least in that scenario you put yourself in the best position to succeed.

 

Slight tangent but I ascribe the bare minimum credit to the last regime for that unintentional tank.

 

If you ask me, the team was lucky enough to hit on a series of circumstances (us being in that unplanned position + teams passing on Petey/Hughes) that had even lower probability to hit than a rebuild. 

What happened wasn't Management's plan. If they had their way, they would not be in a position to draft Petey and Hughes. That was by pure luck of being shelled out 6-1 and bottoming out in the standings despite their attempts to make the product 'competitive'. It was an outcome they worked actively to avoid (they wanted a playoff team finish).

 

And any loss in draft position or capital traded away to compete was then simply written off by management as 'we could recoup it later' or 'we'll find comparable value with our scouting prowess'. I don't think it is realistic to hope you can beat 31 other teams and make up value in round 1 by hitting on your round 3. That is wishful thinking. Irresponsible wishful thinking.

 

Quote

So, why didn't they do that? I'm sure the folks involved would be quite  aware of such an approach. The sheer number of assets the Aquilini Group has at their disposal. So why would the organization choose to stay competitive.

 

Who says they didn't? I'm sure Aquilini softened the blow of the pandemic with those loss carryforwards that he'll be applying to this year.

 

Again, it's been posted before, but there is an irrational reason for wanting to compete. Aqualini Winning the cup for his dad while he's still alive

 

 

Quote

And I don't neccesarily disagree with that. Different markets, different circumstances, different owners. Some can absolutely make it work. Some can't. The "can't" part is obviously the contentious issue with this club at that time. Could they? Could they really? I don't know. And I'm not sure what their investors in the Italian mob were demanding for returns. 

 

We just really don't know enough to judge... but of course we do anyway. 

 

I think you can make comparisons between markets and arrive at a hypothesis for ours. Businesses do it all the time. Netflix and other tech companies roll out features in the Philippines because it is a test market that can simulate how consumers behave in the United States.

 

Obviously none of us truly knows, but when I see teams in the middle of nowhere with smaller markets make the same decisions as the big markets (Which I count us as by the way, Vancouver is definitely on the top half for NHL market sizes), you start to question, for us in the middle, why cant it work as well?

 

The owner is another can of worms, but I do see it in the range of outcomes that emotion can sometimes get the better part of business. And when you're that far ahead of the game that you're a billionaire, it's hard to ignore your ego as one of the voices at the table (See Elon musk losing half the value of Twitter)

 

Online forum of course, everyone is judging all the time haha. Otherwise there wouldn't be social media in general. (which wouldn't be a bad thing if you ask me)

 

 

Quote

What works in an original six market may or may not be true for others. In fact I would wholeheartedly expect it wouldn't.  And I'm not sure I've ever heard the Canadiens fanbase referred to as "fairweather" that's for sure.

 

And wait... didn't the Canucks play with a ton of rookies those years too? Yeah they did. Not many good ones mind you, but they did... and some arguably way before they even should have. eg. Hutton, Gaudette, Virtanen, McCann (short lived)... etc.

 

And again, there's lots of ways to rebuild a team.  In the end, it's just a made up concept anyway: "a rebuild is like X and if you don't do exactly like X it's not a rebuild."  Never found the idea all that convincing tbh. Every cup team has a combination of in house drafted, trades, and free agent players Lots of ways to get there.

 

What works for Tampa Bay in a tougher market (a <$250M team during their rebuild, now more than the Canucks), and what smaller markets like Ottawa/Columbus have chosen to pursue as a realistic path may also potentially be something we can learn from and leverage as an org.

 

They did rush them, I think McCann would have been great as a top 6 option had he had time to marinate. But he was rushed because the Canucks wanted that competitive product. Again, I think a retool would have worked, but management really made some reckless decisions during that delicate window of time when you have to thread the needle and balance getting value now and in the future.

 

There are a lot of different ways to arrive at the same destination (the cup!). Of course I don't want to see the team get shelled 6-1 every night, but it's been shown at least in the cap era, how even just landing on one generational player can set you up for the decade. Hopefully we have ours in Petey/Hughes.

 

And you're right in the sense we got Petey and Hughes without the traditional rebuild route. I just hope it is enough because the traditional rebuild route isn't just about getting that generational talent at the top. It's about seeing yourself up with enough depth on the farm from the surplus of picks you've had for multiple drafts, and to weaponize that cap flexibility you've allowed yourself to get to the next stage.

 

(Carolina is the example of a model org where they set themselves up so well at the draft from their tanking years in the 2010s they're just perpetually competing and restocking the cupboards at the same time)

 

Currently our team is operating with a questionable prospect pipeline to sustain us (but is slowly recovering!) and with zero cap flexibility due to us buying out the mistakes of the last regime (which cost us a 1st, and multiple 2nds to clean up, feeding into problem 1). If we win the cup I'll be estatic, because the league today is a game of inches and having those handicaps could very well be that inch.

 

I'm hoping it works out.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by DSVII

[kilgore]

On 11/25/2023 at 12:41 AM, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

You and others want to judge what you think they ought to do and ought to have done with zero insight as to why they chose the path they did in the first place... except this surface level idea "they just dumb." 

 

Yes, there are sometimes legitimate constraints and barriers to doing what we want in life, what a business might otherwise like to do. In this case, the intentional tank we all wanted.

 

Also original six teams like Montreal and Chicago are not good examples. As I mentioned before not all markets are equal. Any idea what mean by that? Or just more "word salad" for you?  Think demographics, population, and even region.

 

The reason I'm saying it's no one's "fault" because I understand how  market economics works.

 

It pins us all against eachother, limits us from doing what we might like to do sometimes. For example for most us  peasants, if we want to stay alive we  have to sell our labour.  If you're a business and want to stay alive you need peddle your wares.

 

We don't know what kind of financial or even social obligations come packaged with this organization.

 

What's is there overhead? What kind of partnerships and contracts to do they need to adhere to, and what kind of deals are they trying to expand on?  Does a product that gets murdered 6-1 every night, help to hold consumer interest help? Not really. Certainly not with this fairweather fanbase. 

 

And yes, we are mostly (but not really) theorizing the specific reasons they chose to stay competitive. Obviously. We don't have that specific inside knowledge. Having said that, it's not some giant leap here to think money and protecting the brand, could be a core reason. And a likely one at that. A business...concerned....with their product and attracting consumers? Never!

 

But the shit your saying is just theorizing, too!  And given all the other possible reasons at play, this whole "they just dumb" argument leaves much to be desired. Not a whole lot of scientific rigour there from what I can see.

 

Especially considering you and others seem to reject and willfully ignore other these possible variables before even really engaging with them in any real capacity. Jumping straight to claiming devil worshiper and heretic to boot.

 

They should have done this; They should have done that. Who are you to say. And who the am I to say. Not our  place... especially when we don't have enough information to really talk about it with any real certainty.

 

The only difference here is I don't pretend to know why they did or didn't take the ideal path we all wanted

 

But you do. You pretend to know when in reality you actually know nothing.

 

"They just dumb."

 ?

 

Extremely doubtful.

 

I don't know if you are just being purposely oblivious because you don't want to hear the answers or you just dumb.

Or you love debating and don't want to lose this one no matter how many pages it takes.

 

You start off here with repeating that all you are hearing is that our only reasoning for ownership not doing the proper rebuild back then was that "they just dumb".  When more than one post here has given you other, more plausible reasons.  Ego..and thought he knew more than he did on how hard it is to rebuild a team and at the same time hang onto your cap eating veterans that he no doubt had personal relationships with and also loved..and/or pleasing his father, or a combination of those. But ultimately, why do we have to give you a reason at all in order for it to have been...especially  in hindsight... a dumb plan?  We are just schmucks on a hockey board.

 

You're whole giant mini-essay compilation can be summed up by you basically proclaiming that a billionaire businessman hockey team owner MUST choose to continue to keep a more stale lineup, with less talent in the pike coming by trading futures away, just to not bottom out to the point of a huge fan exodus...which supposedly will cripple the business severely. 

 

But more than one of us has explained that

a) there are countless examples of a rebuild paying for itself in droves. It doesn't always work, true, but it gives you the best shot. There will always be an element of gambling in sports ownership and management. If the Aquilinis didn't want to own that kind of business with such chance-based variables then don't buy a sports team.

b) Despite Benning trying his hardest to ice a competitive team, we fell to the bottom and we had a losing team for years...but surprise surprise, even with the same effect of bottoming out purposely with a rebuild..it didn't cripple the business severely.  We just lost our farm by going that way.

 

You seem to move the goalposts all the time.  At some point you admit that Benning probably was wrong to not initiate a total rebuild, but then fight back at anyone suggesting he did anything wrong.  You explain this contradiction by the good old excuse "he was just following orders".

 

And those orders were not even wrong....because the big smart businessman who obviously never does anything "dumb", gave those orders.  If he hadn't, Aquilini Inc would be no more.  Or at least  suffer irreparable harm.

Except we've given you examples to show how investing now, can reap even more rewards later. That the sports industry is a different breed of business. So maybe it wasn't "dumb", AND it wasn't about making a good business decision.  It was a human mistake.

 

I don't know how many times or words I am going to keep repeating myself.  You love to debate, as well as others here. I do too which is why I get suckered  into these verbose threads.  But there comes a point when one is just firing pucks at an empty net and the game whistle has gone off long ago.  

 

It would have been best back then for a rebuild as you admit.  Because we may already have been a contending team for a few years already.  But we are...fingers crossed....there now.  So its a little delayed,  but at least its starting to happen.  I don't want to live in the what it could have been world anymore.  Go Canucks Go!

[Ghostsof1915]

Bottom line, is Benning is gone.

Whatever mistakes he's made, the current regime seems to be addressing the issues. There's always going to be armchair GM's second guessing every move.

Bottom line. Don't like Aqua's? Get some other wealthy guys together and try to buy the team from them. Bitching doesn't get anyone anywhere.

 

JR/PA has had flak coming from fans as well. But they have made pretty sharp, shrewd moves. Are these moves enough? No, but you weren't going to get the deal to trade Bo, without taking back some salary. Beau is that salary. They are working on it. Worst case Myers/Beau will be gone in the offseason. Maybe Myers will accept a cheap 1-2 season show me deal.

At least with JR/PA we aren't fixing holes and making new ones. They are trying to make the team better. They don't have magic wands that can turn Garland or Beau into Bedard. If the coaching staff can get some scoring out of our forwards, and improve our defense overall, that's improvement.

 

As much as I'm not a fan of the Aquas, unlike other sports owners, they at least are willing to spend to the cap. We don't have some internal cap the GM has to deal with.

Once we start hopefully clearing some salary, if the team is smart/lucky we can get players moving up from the farm team on inexpensive cap hits. And start getting better without blowing money on UFA's. Or make smart trades to get prospects that are close to NHL ready.

 

What's past is past. Let's learn from it, and move forward and try to get better every season.

 

[TheGuardian]

On 11/15/2023 at 12:46 AM, conquestofbaguettes said:

Francesco Aquillini and Jim Benning --Tales of a Rebuild: Misconceptions, Misery, and Money

 

It's no secret the past decade triggers rage, resentment, contempt, or whatever other adjective we choose to use to describe our feelings. So I ask, where does it all stem from? It's certainly a messy past and not one specific thing, but a mountain of things that require unpacking.

People believe (myself included) that there were far better, more ideal ways to rebuild this hockey club than the path they ultimately chose.
So, let's explore what the organization did vs. what many believe they should have done:

 

How to "properly" rebuild a hockey team: (not an exhaustive list)

Don't spend to cap every year limiting yourself from becoming a dumping ground for expiring contracts to gain assets.
Don't try to win games. Get blown out every night, tank as hard as possible. Get high picks, as many picks as possible.
Don't trade picks or prospects for players in order to have a better product in the now, and certainly
Don’t build a team that is 'competitive' in the interim

If you find yourself agreeing with any of the above, you are also tacitly agreeing to these:

Do drive away ticket sales, viewership numbers/advertising dollars and merchandise sales for a few years. And additionally
Do ignore overhead costs and the revenue required to maintain and/or continue profiting (if able.)

We must remember...

 

NHL HOCKEY IS A BUSINESS

 

NHL hockey is entertainment; a product, a means to attracting consumers and generating money.
Needless to say, not many are entertained or compelled to invest time, energy, or money in a product with little chance of being entertaining and little chance of winning, especially so with zero mega stars/generational talents aka "attractions" to draw them in. See: Chicago Blackhawks recent season tickets sales winning the lottery.

If you're a team looking at few wins and no mega stars to draw good luck giving your tickets away let alone selling them in this scenario. And wouldn't you know it, tickets were a hard sell during the recent rebuild years. It wasn't even the intentional tank people wanted and yet product consumption was still down:

"Canucks season tickets a tough sell as NHL team struggles." Vancouver Sun. 2017.

"Canucks tickets, merchandise sales hit 'historic' lows." CBC News. 2016.

"Canucks season tickets not selling as well this year. Daily Hive. 2017.

Given they were forced (by who and by what conditions) to stay "competitive" and take a slower approach to rebuilding, what kind of financial losses would an intentional tank have caused?

Fear of dwindling attendance is not uncommon among ownership groups in other profesional sports leagues either. For example, the MLB and NBA:
As Colorado Rockies owner Dick Monfort stated, "We've never tanked and never will... Kansas City's not drawing anybody, right? If the Royals are on a rebuild, this is Year 8 of it. I don't see our fans wanting to come to the games and say we're gonna suck for eight years."

During the Astros' rebuilding years of 2011–2013, when they lost an average of 108 games per season, the team's attendance was cut in half, and one game had a television rating of 0.0.

The NBA sees tanking as a potential major issue, since one of the largest drivers of revenue generation for professional leagues is gate receipts. Canucks ownership is certainly not alone there. And remember...

 

Gates account over an estimated 1/3 of NHL organizations total revenue.

"The NHL generated 35.07% of their operating revenue from ticket sales in 2019-2020."

"Gate revenue is approximately 36.6% of the NHL’s entire revenue for a season (30% in baseball, 22% in NBA basketball, and 15% in the NFL). In contrast, the AHL generates 70-75% of its annual revenue from fans attending games.

And here's a decent dive on the average financials for an average home game if anyone is interested:
NHL financial impact: How much money does a team bring in each home game?

But somehow the hope, belief, demand was that the Canucks should intentionally lose for a 4 or 5 years the worst way possible to get all the picks, the highest picks, and worry about nothing else. In essence, to advocate losing potentially hundreds of millions of dollars from a business perspective. And that was clearly a financial risk this ownership group was never willing to take. So, who is at fault for refusing to tank?

 

Blame Game-- the long, slow, gradual process

 

Do we blame Benning and the management group for executing the "vision" ? With such rigid financial boundaries and guidelines set in front of them, I ask what could anyone reasonably expect.

As former Canucks AGM Chris Gear stated in an interview on Sekeres and Price from 9 months ago,

 

"...there were those of us that didn't agree with a lot of those decisions that fans didn't like either; some of them I supported some of them I didn't but regardless when a decision was made, whether it was the guy above me or two or three above me I supported it."

 

I ask who sits two or three above the AGM in the organizational chart?

Gear continues...

 

"I've always been a supporter of trying to accumulate picks and young players, but you're also limited by what instructions you're given and the dynamics you have to work with."

"...[in 2018]... the organization want[ed] to be competitive. And competitive doesn't mean you have to get into the playoffs or else, but it means we want a winning environment. We want fans to see competitive hockey; We don't want to get shelled 6-1 every night. So that's the environment you're trying to navigate."

 

 

And if you're a GM in that situation, what can you even do? And to that I say, if it wasn’t Benning and co. doing the job of "staying competitive" it would've been someone else in that seat at that time doing exactly the same thing with exactly the same blueprint and demands on the table.

Am I defending Benning and his management squad? Perhaps. I think they are, for the most part, scapegoats, just making the best of a tough situation.
Of course we can discuss all the "bad" moves. But how we judge a particular move during that time for the most part doesn't even matter. We must first ask, was that move means to an ends in terms stop gap fillers to be competitive in now? Or was it a perceived future piece to build around moving forward. Each decision is largely context dependant on the demands/needs being filled in a particular way. Even though the common criticisms tend to be strictly focused on future results and nothing but.

Lest we forget, Benning and co. lasted 8 years. By this we can reasonably deduce that their work kept the dollars and viewership levels to an adequate level for ownership. They did the best they could to balance the needs of the present and the needs of the future.

Of course it's easy to blame the ownership group putting the needs of the business above longer term gains that could otherwise be achieved at a faster rate... IN THEORY. Just as a tank rebuild always sounds great in theory.
But it was simply never a realistic scenario in this market-- never was and probably never will be. And I bet if you asked Francesco directly even he personally would've preferred to take a different approach.

But... business is business.

Am I defending the billionaires at the helm? Not so much. But criticizing their chosen path with some ideal in mind is sure easy for us to say... especially considering we have zero financial stake in the business. And if we did I wonder if we'd feel the same way about how things played out. Perspective is everything.

TL;DR: Ownership throwing hundreds of millions of potential dollars in the garbage to take the ideal path-- maximizing every asset/opportunity to get to a destination potentially faster for longer was never a realistic expectation.

Ownership chose to rebuild slowly over time to continue making money (as much as they could) for the duration-- chipping away building a new young core along the way. As Francesco Aquilini once stated "A rebuild is a long, slow, gradual process" and boy don't we know it.

You know your observations can apply to most Canadian teams.

 

37% gate driven revenue but doesn't the league get 30 to 40% or more of total gate revenue from Canadian teams?

 

Ottawa was spending like crazy and not making any and their arena was not full, then the owner stated he had enough and the team would rebuild with an internal cap that would expand each year. Attendance went up! And every year they had a nice new shiny penny to draw fans, just like the Canucks put Horvat, Boeser, Juloevi, Pettersson and Hughes for years as nice new young prospects (hope).

 

Even if there were instruction from the highest levels Benning could have done better easily. He was supposed to be a genius at scouting and he had only one of 32 jobs, so top 32 in the league.

 

There is an assumption that owners are all greedy and know nothing about hockey. How can self made billionaires be considered stupid? The Aquilini statement above indicate he does know the game. 32 teams, with all things be equal each team gets a cup shot once every 16 years. 16 teams in the playoffs would show a team making the playoffs for 4 to 8 years on average

 

At any rate most Canadian team suffer through close to a decade outside looking in at some point of their history. Often with the same byline of interference even when that inference results in an improved product.

 

Rebuilds are always compared to the three or four absolute failing teams. The failures. The successes are always attributed to pure luck but they did what they said they would do, rebuild or a massive retooling, followed with years of being contenders. The most interfering owner is Jeromy Jacobs, what is Boston's record the last 25 years?

 

Just about every Canadian team, no matter the skill levels of the players end up with massive holes. The 2010/11 Canucks may have been the most complete top to bottom.

 

TO has some of the best players but have a hole at goal and half the defence

Edmonton the same

Montreal and Ottawa are in rebuilds or just finishing, Ottawa is very young and need goal help, Montreal just doesn't care and they motor along with a content fanbase because they were told they are rebuilding.

Vancouver has EP and Hughes and Demko but lack depth mostly on defence and are smallish.

Winnipeg is pretty solid but small

Calgary has the defence and goaltending but need some high level skill up front, if they still had Johnny and Tckachuk they would be front runners

 

The story line above fits just about all Canadian teams except .... the one's that openly stated the planned decline

[conquestofbaguettes]

8 hours ago, TheGuardian said:

You know your observations can apply to most Canadian teams.

 

37% gate driven revenue but doesn't the league get 30 to 40% or more of total gate revenue from Canadian teams?

 

Ottawa was spending like crazy and not making any and their arena was not full, then the owner stated he had enough and the team would rebuild with an internal cap that would expand each year. Attendance went up! And every year they had a nice new shiny penny to draw fans, just like the Canucks put Horvat, Boeser, Juloevi, Pettersson and Hughes for years as nice new young prospects (hope).

 

Even if there were instruction from the highest levels Benning could have done better easily. He was supposed to be a genius at scouting and he had only one of 32 jobs, so top 32 in the league.

 

There is an assumption that owners are all greedy and know nothing about hockey. How can self made billionaires be considered stupid? The Aquilini statement above indicate he does know the game. 32 teams, with all things be equal each team gets a cup shot once every 16 years. 16 teams in the playoffs would show a team making the playoffs for 4 to 8 years on average

 

At any rate most Canadian team suffer through close to a decade outside looking in at some point of their history. Often with the same byline of interference even when that inference results in an improved product.

 

Rebuilds are always compared to the three or four absolute failing teams. The failures. The successes are always attributed to pure luck but they did what they said they would do, rebuild or a massive retooling, followed with years of being contenders. The most interfering owner is Jeromy Jacobs, what is Boston's record the last 25 years?

 

Just about every Canadian team, no matter the skill levels of the players end up with massive holes. The 2010/11 Canucks may have been the most complete top to bottom.

 

TO has some of the best players but have a hole at goal and half the defence

Edmonton the same

Montreal and Ottawa are in rebuilds or just finishing, Ottawa is very young and need goal help, Montreal just doesn't care and they motor along with a content fanbase because they were told they are rebuilding.

Vancouver has EP and Hughes and Demko but lack depth mostly on defence and are smallish.

Winnipeg is pretty solid but small

Calgary has the defence and goaltending but need some high level skill up front, if they still had Johnny and Tckachuk they would be front runners

 

The story line above fits just about all Canadian teams except .... the one's that openly stated the planned decline

 

But all not all markets are equal. For one reason or another some franchises have an easier time filling their arenas.

Some are original 6 and people come out no matter what.  Some draft a generational talent and can draw. Some can ice intentional garbage and fans will still come out.  Others not so much. 

 

So why. Why did the club in Vancouver choose to ice a competitive product from the duration if they knew for a fact they could draw just as well with a tanker?

 

It makes no logical sense. The only conclusion is that's not true.  Or at least very least whatever information the org was going off told them otherwise, and either way was a risk they were not willing to take.

 

We can say "of course they could've  intentionally tanked and been financially be ok in Vancouver" all we want. But talk is cheap.

 

Contrary to what others might like us to believe we don't know specifically why they did. We like pretend like we know (and then judge and slander incessantly) but we really don't know.

 

Secondly, gate is but one revenue stream. The post wasn't meant to be some exhaustive list, but a starting point. What other revenue streams could be or were at risk from having a garbage product (with no stars) driving consumers away. If 37% comes from gates, where does the other 63% come from?   Lots to dig into.

 

Either way the common "they just dumb" argument can be easily  dismissed on its face.

 

There are just so many other variables to decision making in a billion dollar corporation. And unless we're talking about that stuff we aren't talking about much.

[conquestofbaguettes]

On 11/26/2023 at 3:26 PM, kilgore said:

...more than one post here has given you other, more plausible reasons. 

More plausible?

 

Not really.  And I've explained countless times why that is.

 

On 11/26/2023 at 3:26 PM, kilgore said:

 Ego..and thought he knew more than he did on how hard it is to rebuild a team and at the same time hang onto your cap eating veterans that he no doubt had personal relationships with and also loved..and/or pleasing his father, or a combination of those. But ultimately, why do we have to give you a reason at all in order for it to have been...especially  in hindsight... a dumb plan?  We are just schmucks on a hockey board.

 

The schmucks part i certainly agree with.

 

The refusal even to float anything past mere "they just dumb" "ego" "corruption" "cup for daddy" "jobs for friend" "dumb plan" on and on and on. 

 

Christ. I didn't even say I disagreed with some of those things being true.

 

BUT MULTIPLE THINGS CAN BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME.

 

But this whole "finances could be a concern for a business! Never! You crazy!" BS is the issue.

 

You want "more plausible reasons" you better do a hell of a lot better than the above.

 

Buddy, just because you don't always have some object sitting in your hand right this second for explicit examination doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that you can disregard it outright. Try as you may, that shit doesn't fly.

 

The only problem I have with you and the vocal others in here is you act like you know. You act like you know more  than you really do.

 

And I know that I don't have the full picture. I know I don't have enough information to accurately judge.

 

But somehow you guys do? 

 

Absolute horseshit

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Jim Benning was a decent (granted not great) defenseman in his NHL career.  We could actually use a player of his calibre on the team right now.

 

That's about as close to a compliment you're going to get from me.

 

 

I wish Jim Benning well on the next job (so as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the Canucks). 

[kilgore]

1 hour ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

More plausible?

 

Not really.  And I've explained countless times why that is.

 

 

The schmucks part i certainly agree with.

 

The refusal even to float anything past mere "they just dumb" "ego" "corruption" "cup for daddy" "jobs for friend" "dumb plan" on and on and on. 

 

Christ. I didn't even say I disagreed with some of those things being true.

 

BUT MULTIPLE THINGS CAN BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME.

 

But this whole "finances could be a concern for a business! Never! You crazy!" BS is the issue.

 

You want "more plausible reasons" you better do a hell of a lot better than the above.

 

Buddy, just because you don't always have some object sitting in your hand right this second for explicit examination doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that you can disregard it outright. Try as you may, that shit doesn't fly.

 

The only problem I have with you and the vocal others in here is you act like you know. You act like you know more  than you really do.

 

And I know that I don't have the full picture. I know I don't have enough information to accurately judge.

 

But somehow you guys do? 

 

Absolute horseshit

sorry Buddy

i just can’t anymore. Even though it’s damn tempting to once again counter your own “acting like you know” conclusions point by point. Unless you are actually in the Aquilini family you too have no idea of their motives. In the end we are ALL schmucks on a message board simply speculating. 
 

just to summarize… They lost just as many fans with a failed retool as they would have with a successful rebuild and still didn’t lose their business. So if they would have never been in trouble, then they are either terrible businessmen for even projecting that , or they didn’t embrace a rebuild for reasons other than traditional business reasons. Also….MULTIPLE THINGS CAN BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME.

[conquestofbaguettes]

On 11/25/2023 at 12:12 PM, DSVII said:

Im looking at the data (the team performance metrics, the attendance and revenue numbers)

 

Which once again are not indicative of what you're arguing.

 

1) They did not do an intentional tank rebuild.

 

2) Those data points are from a "stay competitive" approach. Ie. They spent to the cap every year. Traded for vets. Traded picks. Tried to compete. Is that what happens in tbe typical intentional tank rebuild ? No.

 

Therefore, that data shows a team that did THAT. And not the former. Ergo, making inferences and leaping to conclusions which you simply cannot leap to.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics

 

 

On 11/25/2023 at 12:12 PM, DSVII said:

I also think everybody knows that fairweather fans are universal, every team has them. I disagree with your assertion that Vancouver's is so unique of an environment for a team with fairweather fans that they have to make different decisions from everyone else.

 

Easy for us to say. Obviously the organizations data showed otherwise or they would have done exactly what we think they should have. But what's more likely here. Us random internet joes know with complete certainty

 

the org could have executed an intentional tank rebuild and still met their plethora of metrics (whatever they are) or...

 

that that this billion dollar org had contraindicative data which they used to inform their decision making?

 

I know what I'm going with.

 

And doesn't matter what we think anyway.  It was clearly not a risk they were willing to take.

 

And it doesn't matter what particular fanbase bandwagons harder. We know Vancouver fans do it. Sales drop, ticket prices drop, and eyeballs on TVs are driven away. That's the take away here.

 

Ergo, chose to stay to competitive to keep that from happening (more than it otherwise would have with a different approach.)

 

You're looking at the team saying "oh by they lost x amount of games anyway it doesn't matter the approach."  But it absolutely does matter.

 

It's not a matter of winning or losing.  But a matter of HOW.

 

Fans will pay if they think there is a case to see a win.  A chance to see a show.

 

But you're getting absolutely  shitkicked every single night, the masses aren't watching that garbage. They aren't paying for that garbage.

 

Big difference.

 

 

On 11/25/2023 at 12:12 PM, DSVII said:

What happened wasn't Management's plan. If they had their way, they would not be in a position to draft Petey and Hughes. That was by pure luck of being shelled out 6-1 and bottoming out in the standings despite their attempts to make the product 'competitive'.

 

And getting shelled 6-1 every night is exactly what DIDN'T happen! Go back and check out all the scores from those games

 

The games weren't all some Ottawa Senators expansion, 70s Washington Capitals, or 2023 San Jose games here.

 

Secondly, the draft is the draft. You land where you land. There are no guarantees. Sometime you hit sometimes you don't. Sometimes you get lucky.  That's how it works and that's how it works around the league. And this so called criticism doesn't hold water for Benning anymore than it does for any other GM in the league.  Of course you the scouting staff you employ can help you make better educated guesses but there are no guarantees.

 

Even bringing it up as some legitimate gripe towards the previous group is kinda ridiculous.

 

Like only in the tiniest window are we allowed to credit the previous regime with any good works.   And frankly if these things don't hold for them, it doesn't hold for any management group. Because they all do it.  It happens to all of them.

 

 

On 11/25/2023 at 12:12 PM, DSVII said:

Forecasting and business planning is an expected value game here. 

 

Exactly.  In ALL the different facets.

 

And that's the stuff we need to to dig into.

[conquestofbaguettes]

3 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Unless you are actually in the Aquilini family you too have no idea of their motives. In the end we are ALL schmucks on a message board simply speculating.

 

Has absolutely nothing to do with "being in the family" and everything to do with how a business functions, especially as large as the one in question.

eg.

 

https://theorg.com/org/vancouver-canucks

 

 

People act like this shit was "all Frankie and Bennings idea" with zero input from other departments and zero other interests on the table except "the hockey team."

 

It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

10 minutes ago, kilgore said:

just to summarize… They lost just as many fans with a failed retool as they would have with a successful rebuild and still didn’t lose their business.

 

Baseless conjecture.

 

They may have lost fans as we can see by user DSVII bar graphs they did well enough in that area while "staying competitive."

 

Whether we can say that would be the case getting absolutely murdered every game with the intentional tank  we all wanted who can say.

 

I certainly have my suspicions though. 

 

And I'm guessing the organization had more than suspicions to go off when they consciously chose the path they did.

 

17 minutes ago, kilgore said:

So if they would have never been in trouble, then they are either terrible businessmen for even projecting that, or they didn’t embrace a rebuild for reasons other than traditional business reasons. Also….MULTIPLE THINGS CAN BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME.

 

Or maybe your narrative is simply incomplete.  How about that? Doesnt even register as a possibility?

 

Making all these declaratory statements, broad sweeping claims  and judgmentz knowing full well you don't have all the facts. Or worse not even realizing there are other things to discuss, and then handwave when there is an attempt to do so.  Again I state, You don't know. You only pretend to.

 

"Sorry buddy I just can't anymore?"

 

Good. That means you'll try actually listening for a change?  

 

I have my doubts.

[conquestofbaguettes]

On 11/25/2023 at 9:40 AM, Ballisticsports said:

My stuff was taken from the interview I posted of when so called puppet was let go (it wasn't my opinion)

Funny , You're whole posting is based on conjecture, assumptions and opinions of what FA wants and behaves

We all have seen and heard so much since over the course of his tenure (a lot forgotten and remembered as opinion)

I think you just want to make your thread longer by ignoring what most say and even the ownership

Chris Gear is what you are fixated on

What about what the "Great Pylon" said in 2016

that we would be up competing with the elite teams in 2018 and 2019 

Linden at the same time said it was 4-5 years (sticking with a plan)

 

From those close to Linden, the story was that it was Weisbrod who went directly to ownership, directly or indirectly, and worked to convince them Linden's  plan was the wrong direction for them and promised Ownership 2 yrs instead

 

“Realistically, if you’re asking me when will the day be that we can compete with the best teams in the league, I think that [Sedin contract] timeline is fair,” said Benning. “This is year two, and by our fourth or fifth year, I hope we’ll be there with the elite teams in the league.”

 

In response to later questions asking for more of a plan or a timeline, Benning said that, after seven years, he needs a couple more. (and after the fans and FA had enough of it)

 

FA says in firing interview that a false narrative been around that he interferes and that owners own, managers manage, coach's coach and player's play, He said he gave what the GM wanted  and spending to the cap and as big of staff that he needed.

Don't you believe that hard working honest less paid players with less term couldn't have given us the same results as we got with the pricier ones (a bottom feeder team) that we got by getting rid of future picks, cap and  future cap and more assets (only to get rid of the same players shortly after) /

FA now realized TL vision was right and he supported the wrong vision

 

If You don't want to listen to this whole interview listen on from 7min ,where he talks about  with new management and new direction and will STICK to a game plan and you need the GM experience (JB couldn't stick with a game plan and that was easy to see and get frustrated while in charge) Identity comes from the Management on down he said and that we had no identity as a team in JB years

 

After the firing BB talking of Stan

Smyl was a rock in a sea of chaos, Canucks veteran Brock Boeser said.

“Things were crazy. And just to dial us back in and talk about what it really means to be part of this organization, because it was such a shitshow, it’s just nice to hear from a guy like that.

 

Stan Smyl on stepping back from his Hockey Operations role with the Canucks and career - YouTube

 

I've read what you said and you have what I have said (and others) and I don't see how things will change and am just so glad that I can enjoy being a fan of the team, to comment and see a direction and commitment I like from the entire organization and that will bring us together as one united with joy, so for that I will try not to contribute to lengthening this thread any further

 

 

"My stuff was taken from the interview I posted of when so called puppet was let go (it wasn't my opinion)"

 

That "puppet line" was the writers opinion. You bolded a few different places which were not primary sources . Whether they were "your opinions" or not you bolded them for a reason. Ie. a safe bet you agree with those 3rd party opinions or you wouldn't have highlighted them in the first place. Care to revise your previous statement?

 

"Funny , You're whole posting is based on conjecture, assumptions and opinions of what FA wants and behaves"

 

I never said it wasn't! Lol The difference here is I'm not claiming to know with some 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' shit that others are.

 

Way way too many other things to look at and ponder before making such claims.

But what I do know is that this "they just dumb" narrative contains very little actual fact to back it up.  And this is coming from someone that would have preferred they rebuild properly as well.

 

"From those close to Linden, the story was that it was Weisbrod who went directly to ownership, directly or indirectly, and worked to convince them Linden's  plan was the wrong direction for them and promised Ownership 2 yrs instead"

 

You mean more unverifiable rumors?

 

And that doesn't sound at that plausible anyway. A two year plan... with every person there understanding full well they had no stars to rebuild around? I'll go ahead and call bullshit on that.

 

Be competitive but also build slowly towards the future was a logical play for the business writ large (especially given what they had [which was very little]  in the pipeline. That's what they did. That was apparently the plan. Which again Gear confirmed in his interview:

 

"I've always been a supporter of trying to accumulate picks and young players, but you're also limited by what instructions you're given and the dynamics you have to work with."

"...[in 2018]... the organization want[ed] to be competitive. And competitive doesn't mean you have to get into the playoffs or else, but it means we want a winning environment. We want fans to see competitive hockey; We don't want to get shelled 6-1 every night. So that's the environment you're trying to navigate."

 

Direct quote from one of the people that was there. 

 

I'll go with that one.

 

 

As for the "great pylon," that would be better described as Trevor Linden as President, tbh. His job was little more than PR and he figured that out and that his idealistic plan wasn't happening he bailed. And then the org  moved forward without a President. Put a pylon there and it would hold the same amount of weight for decision making as he did.  Poor fucker.

 

Also I've heard the Smyl interview you posted a few times.

 

You're reading into a hell of a lot there, mate. But of course since you view the previous regime with such disdain of course you'd spin Smyls words in that direction.

 

Smyl is talking in generalizations, not pointed criticisms about anyone or anything directly outside of "lost identity" which can be frankly due to a number of different things.

 

Pandemic hell? I reckon would be a big one. Bruce Boudreau leaving the kids to fend for themselves?

 

Smyl makes no specific mention of what he's talking about or why or how.

 

Secondly, youre taking his words to mean the players NEVER had faith in the management group before JR and PA?  Never bought in?

 

Of course it's easy to say at the end it was bad.  But doesn't mean we can extend that to mean "identity" was lacking the entire time as you are trying to do. A leap way way too far.

 

And even if it is true (which hasn't been established other than your opinion) , where the fuck was Smyl then? You want to give this guy kudos for saying X Y Z now, but where was he then? Obviously he felt they did have that "identity" and "culture" before or he wouldn't have gone along, right?  He's so bold and truthful?

 

Must be he didn't always feel that way.  Or are you willing to call Smyl a coward for not blasting his own part in the work the last decade? Let's cut the bullshit here. Hell, even Hank and Danny were "special advisors" to the Benning regime!!  Ian Clarke is all things goalies. We saying he had ZERO part in picking Holtby or Halak? or Hank and Danny had no input on bringing over fellow Swede in say Loui Eriksson or even an Oliver Ekman Larsson? What's the over under on that.

 

The whole thing is ridiculous.

 

The plan was working for the org... until it wasn't and they moved on. End of fucking story.

 

 

[kilgore]

17 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Has absolutely nothing to do with "being in the family" and everything to do with how a business functions, especially as large as the one in question.

eg.

 

https://theorg.com/org/vancouver-canucks

 

maybe that’s why you’re confused. The link you gave shows Benning as the GM at the same time Tocchet is the coach. 

 

17 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

People act like this shit was "all Frankie and Bennings idea" with zero input from other departments and zero other interests on the table except "the hockey team."

 

It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

Baseless conjecture.

 

They may have lost fans as we can see by user DSVII bar graphs they did well enough in that area while "staying competitive."

 

Whether we can say that would be the case getting absolutely murdered every game with the intentional tank  we all wanted who can say.

 

I certainly have my suspicions though. 

 

And I'm guessing the organization had more than suspicions to go off when they consciously chose the path they did.

 

So…you admit you are basing your opinion on “suspicion”.

 And then that you are “guessing” the reason ownership chose the path they did?

i have already admitted I’m a schmuck and it’s all conjecture. That’s all anyone can do on a message board (pssst including you)

 

17 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

 

Or maybe your narrative is simply incomplete.  How about that? Doesnt even register as a possibility?

 

Making all these declaratory statements, broad sweeping claims  and judgmentz knowing full well you don't have all the facts. Or worse not even realizing there are other things to discuss, and then handwave when there is an attempt to do so.  Again I state, You don't know. You only pretend to.

 

"Sorry buddy I just can't anymore?"

 

Good. That means you'll try actually listening for a change?  

 

I have my doubts.

You are absolutely correct! but I don’t remember anyone in this thread claiming they know the whole story or they have all the facts.  If there’s anyone who comes off the most bullish about being adamant about the reasons for ownership not going down the rebuild path it’s you pal.

 

 It’s all opinions. that’s what a message discussion board is for fer fucks sake.

 

 Your own conjecture seems to be that some invisible hand of the market shouted down from on high to the Aquilini family that they dare not do a rebuild. (Even though many teams have done just that and are thriving today. Fans of NY, NJ and in LA are glad their owners ignored that big old hands demands)

 

or that Franceso was only “pretending”? To care that his father saw a Cup here. Or that when Francesco said “Once you’re in the playoffs, anything can happen. Certain players can get really hot and make a difference and you just never know.”

 he was lying, or just deluded, because actually it was all a pure (but in hindsight flawed) business decision. He had zero choice. Or that nasty giant hand in the sky would slap him upside the head.

 

i don’t think the Aquilinis are that dumb. But Francesco is that human and even he can succumb to conjecture as well as us. He still believed the Sedins would rise again. He didn’t want to lose that lovin feeling in the city. He wanted that praise and approval from his dad. He believed so much that he ignored more experienced hockey minds. He was a lifelong Canucks fan and I can actually have some sympathy for his loyalty.

 

My opinion, and my opinion only, is that it had very little to do with a perceived temporary drop in gate revenue and more to do with the paragraph above.   
 

But that’s all conjecture… based on quotes from the parties involved through the years, and their actions. but what do I know?  Let’s just agree to disagree at this point

 

Can we agree that we are both stoked at watching the team this season and Aquillini made the right choice in his management hires at present, we have a great coaching staff, and can’t wait for playoffs again?  

 

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by kilgore

[filthy animal]

Is this thread seriously still a thing? You got an OP that pretends that he's a business know it all but absolutely knows nothing and CONSTANTLY contradicts himself in every corner