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

filthy animal · November 29, 2023

14 hours ago, kilgore said:

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

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)

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?

Im just waiting for Conquestdonuts or whatever his name is to post the Chris Gear interview. Seems like whatever he's saying is the bible

Edited November 29, 2023 by filthy animal

conquestofbaguettes · November 30, 2023

On 11/28/2023 at 11:11 AM, kilgore said:

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

You missed what was being said

The names there don't much matter. It's all those departments you need to look at in terms of Canucks Sports and Entertainment corporation all that comes with.

There's more shit going, more interests involved, and especially more people involved in decision making for the path they ultimately chose at that time.

ALL just big bad Benning and Aquas doing?

Doesn't even register as a legitimate argument.

On 11/28/2023 at 11:11 AM, kilgore said:

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)

Difference here is Chris Gear didn't basically debunk the stuff I'm saying. Can't say the same for you guys. He was there. He was part of that process. Direct from the horses mouth.

What do you have? Rumors. Conjecture. 3rd party opinions.

This is a question of scientific rigor, my friend. Nothing more. And you act like talking about a capitalist business wanting to make money for themselves and their partners is some off the wall idea. That's the kicker.

We are simply not on equal footing here.

On 11/28/2023 at 11:11 AM, kilgore said:

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)

Adam Smith need not apply here.

Not all markets are equal. And not all teams start at the same starting position. NY and LA are especially terrible examples when you get into the details ie. what assets they actually had to use in order to build around. Vancouver was simply not in the same position.

Again, you act like it's some off the wall idea that a corporation would want to make money for themselves and their partners. or at the very least limit losses if they can by making a better (but still bad) product.

On 11/28/2023 at 11:11 AM, kilgore said:

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.

So, because he wants his dad to see a cup in Vancouver before he croaks that instantly negates the entire concept of wanting a profitable business?

Why does everything have to be some either/or scenario? Multiple reasons and multiple interests exist here.

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim; it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many.

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

On 11/28/2023 at 11:11 AM, kilgore said:

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

Gate is ONE of many things which needs to be discussed. My post was not meant to he some exhaustive list here, buddy. But gate, considering it makes up an estimated 37% of revenue, is a glaring one worthy of further discussion. And on that note, what, I might ask, accounts for the other 63%?? Care to get into any of that? Or no?

Yes, this stuff matters.

Edited November 30, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

conquestofbaguettes · November 30, 2023

Oh and this is for @filthy animal

As former Canucks AGM Chris Gear stated in an interview on Sekeres and Price 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."

Edited November 30, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

kilgore · November 30, 2023

2 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

We are simply not on equal footing here.

This is the only quote I can say we are in agreement.

later "buddy"

RU SERIOUS · November 30, 2023

After well over 20+ years being a STH and spending tens of thousands - I gave up! had enough of Aqualini and his short term Condo builder Boom/Bust way of managing this team. Hung in there as long as I could but it got to the point two years ago that I couldn't even give tickets away for free and that speaks volumes of how low this franchise has become under Aqualini's poor management. My only regret is that I should have bailed out of my ST's years earlier.

Aqua-lini should have sold the team years ago to responsible non-meddling adults!

TheGuardian · December 1, 2023

On 11/24/2023 at 9:30 AM, 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.”

Vancouver fans almost had a revolt demanding a rebuild. Would they have accepted those words and actions? In a heartbeat they would have embraced one with bells on. A real rebuild because during suffering with Benning it was clear he couldn't make trades, couldn't draft worth a s**t, and couldn't retool anything except maybe a bathroom and he had most fans in there worshiping the porcelain god after enduring his antics.

Fans rented airborne signs, discarded $300 jerseys, wore paper bags and chanted for real change, then started leaving early and not going at all. Stopped listening to media that did nothing but support the regime and the franchise lost money like a drunken sailor at a craps game.

So much distrust was built up only the life long fans still had anything to do with the team and that was in the negative, but they are fans of the team not just one or two players.

Mr Aquillini has done lots for the team finally dismissing that train wreck.

So much doubt, loss of interest and distrust was built up it has taken almost 3 years to recreate some belief that there could be better times.

After close to a decade of "it is too hard to make trades" even in the light of trades happening and "the cap, the cap" again while watching other teams manipulate the cap and win, Rutherford and Allvin have started to regain interest and win back fans.

DSVII · December 1, 2023

On 11/27/2023 at 7:44 PM, conquestofbaguettes said:

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

1.) They unintentionally produced a result that is comparable to tanking teams.

2.) I'm glad you're accepting the data now. That's a good step. So the revenue numbers / attendances etc..

The parts i feel we disagree on is according to you:

A.)

Bottom 10 finish + "We are rebuilding" = A rebuilding team, market will abandon the team,

Bottom 10 finish + "We are contending" = A contending team, market buys it hook line and sinker and spends money.

B.) Management chose the route they feel would lose them less money than a rebuild.

And you're making this with zero stats, comparable analysis, reasoning really... to really back it up. You quote inferential reasoning but there's a lot of bias overlayed in your observations on the market and assumptions that are really just your opinion on the nature of how businesses operate.

For me, i prescribe to abductive reasoning. As you said, we don't have all the information, so you take the observations you are given and come to a conclusion. So to me, if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, and if it sinks to the bottom of the standings like a duck, then it's a duck. Just without the benefits of growing into a swan because of all the moves 'being competitive' entails. (Trading away picks, capping out)

To each their own.

Quote

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...

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

You seem very certain in your opinion given the lack of data or use of any data to build a case.

Yes, and the stuff we are digging into are the datasets the league has given for team performance, the business data released by forbes and statistica. Not perfect, but that's what statistics is. Making a general hypothesis based on the limited samples you have.

You haven't shown any work to prove your market hypothesis aside from "it just works that way, I know it".

Quote

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.

I have no doubt you think you know. And you're right in the sense it doesn't matter what we type on this forum.

More multi billion dollar orgs, in tougher markets with more fair weather fans, with more data have deemed the rebuild route more economically viable and less risky, why not go with them? Same with teams that were a third of the size of the Canucks, they're rebuilding too.

So my interpretation of this is the ego driven explanation, Aquilini knew the risks of the core aging out, but he wanted the cup for his dad at any cost and not being patient enough to rebuild.

You appeal to Chris Gear, I appeal to our former president Linden who said in his own words decisions were made that were not conducive to the club's long term success for short term gain. Gains that the market data and NHL data have shown, did not materialize.

You can argue that is less risky as the rebuild route but I don't buy it.

Quote

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.

You're describing again, every sports market.

And Vancouver has one advantage that is unlike LA, New Jersey, Tampa. It is a traditional hockey market. That counts for something when factoring in the loyalty of the fans, and if not, why are non-traditional hockey markets with fans who are more fairweather rebuildng? The rewards outweigh the risks.

The takeaway here is that every market deals with bandwagon fans, some in even harder markets than Vancouver for engagement, and guess what? they still choose rebuilding because it is still the best way to build the best product, that is proven by stats, historical precedence, economics, the very mechanics the League puts in place to reward failure at the draft with higher picks.

Aquilini just made the choice to 'keep pushing his chips in' despite the reality of the product.

Good owners know how to sell this to their market.

Quote

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.

Quote

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

Here is how three of the bottom teams in the 2016/17 lost their games. You can take this data from hockey reference.

Can you guess which one is the Competing Canucks, and which one was the Rebuilding Arizona Coyotes and the Rebuilding/Retooling Kings?

It's Team A, we had more games that resulted in multi goal losses than the rebuilding teams.

I also threw in the putrid 2020/21 Columbus blue jackets for good measure to see how the Canucks did vs the average of those rebuilding teams.

% breakdown of losses by goal differentials in 2016-17

I think the take away is this. Rebuilding teams don't get shelled 6-1 every night. They can be in competitive games.

So to reiterate this statement. the team wasn't competitive at all. They weren't just losing, they were experience multi-goal losses at a worse rate than a rebuilding team. The market still didn't stop watching the team.

So yes, the competing product was shit kicked worse than a rebuilding team at the time. The market treated it that way. Your own articles cite the fans seeing that period of time as a rebuild.

You also aren't factoring in the brand and lingering market goodwill left over from 2011. It's not like the fanbase was going to melt away if the team decided to announce a rebuild/retool the next year.

Anyways....

Quote

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

I will start by saying that this is hyberbole. Unapplicable to a normal rebuild. Two expansion teams and the 2023 SJS haven't even finished their season yet.

I'm also just rejecting your definition what a rebuild is at the start of this thread really. This is a straw man you're building the foundation of this entire thread on to make your point. It doesn't hold up when you compare it to what rebuilding teams go through.

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

Getting Shelled 6-1 every night (The rebuilding Coyotes/Kings had more 1 goal losses than blowouts, the distribution of 1 goal losses for a rebuilding team is roughly 41%, 2 or less goal games is over 55% of their losses) And even going by the sample, 6-1 nights are 2% of losses. )
13-15 win seasons (The last place team averaged ~29 wins in the last 5 seasons) Early 2001 is where you need to go for wins in the <19, simply not the modern NHL)
Don't try to win games. Get blown out every night, tank as hard as possible. Get high picks, as many picks as possible. The product on the ice and the coach competes, that is their mandate, most losses are by 1-2 goals
Don’t build a team that is 'competitive' in the interim you want players who compete, so you can maintain their value and sell them if needed and/or mentor the prospects, again, most losses are 1-2 goals. The mandate of the Coach is not the same as the GM
Don't spend to cap every year limiting yourself from becoming a dumping ground for expiring contracts to gain assets. Cap space is an asset. You aren't limiting in how you deploy it as a rebuilding team. It was the difference between us paying a 3rd and Toronto paying a 1st for Zadorov.
Do drive away ticket sales, viewership numbers/advertising dollars and merchandise sales for a few years. And additionally Which rebound up on a successful rebuild, to higher levels than before the rebuild, even you point out it's a few years and acknowledge the opportunities to exponentially grow more upon rebuilding like the Astros.
The risk of that downturn hasn't been enough to fold even the Ottawa Senators.
- We've also established businesses can write off the losses in the down years to offset the tax obligations when the team makes money again. There are mechanisms for businesses can utilize to minimize this pain and maximize future profits.
- The Canucks maintained their revenue/attendance levels despite posting tanking results. The market had 2011 goodwill left over and stuck with the brand.
Do ignore overhead costs and the revenue required to maintain and/or continue profiting (if able.) Companies can cut overhead costs, we see it all the time. They're the first thing to go with any restructure/layoff in down cycles. Which are a normal part of business.

Quote

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.

Benning is being judged in the context of how his peers have operated under the same / better / worse constraints. He just doesn't hold up IMO. I think he's in bottom 5 of the cap era if you ask me, and it's because it's the CAP era. That's probably why my weighting is that much harsher.

And because the draft is a probability based game, it is incumbent upon management to maximize that probability and value. Good teams put themselves in positions to be lucky and the last group actively undercut their own draft capital by selling picks for a failing product.

And you don't just 'land where you land'. You get there with a purpose. You have an extra $5 mil in cap? Get a 1st for it, bundle it and then trade up to get your guy. The Canucks landed in those spots with no leverage, no cap room, no extra picks, Benning found himself at the top of the draft with his one remaining pick with his hands tied from his own moves and contracts and he couldn't meaningfully improve the team and the prospects more than he wanted.

How embarrassing is it for one of the leaders of a billion dollar franchise to come to the media and say "I ran out of time?". Simply not acceptable and I don't recall any moment with another GM like that at a TDL in a while.

The fact that Benning still walked away from the draft with a core while trading away the most picks a Canucks GM has had in recent memory speaks to just how colossal of a value handicap he had more than anything. (like starting out with $100,000 and burning $50,000 of it and saying he did a better job than the guy with $15,000).

You're allowed you credit the regime, but you gotta back it up with how he is performing relative to his cohorts.

And frankly, by any of those metrics (draft position, cap management, asset management, team/personnel management) there's only enough GMs that you can count on one hand who have done poorer than him.

Stepping up to the podium picking 5th overall on a season where you traded away all your draft assets and capped your team out to select a guy a hockey magazine would have scouted for you, while you get credit for agreeing with the pick, you don't earn any points for the burning dumpster fire around you that was the org.

Quote

Exactly. In ALL the different facets.

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

We have that data, and we're digging into it. You're just not using it in any of your points. I think realistically, if you're going to assert something where you claim no one has the data, you can't be making statements like "I know it works this way." and "Anything to the contrary is absurd/horseshit"

That's really where you're running into trouble here,.

Anyways I think we've reached the end of what this thread can contribute to the forum. You certainly are clearing up some misconceptions of what a rebuild is, and not in the way you imagined.

It's certainly got me to rethink a rebuild isn't as bad as advertised in the being shelled 6-1 department. And all the hyberbole around what a rebuild actually is. Selection Bias, i know we laughed at Edmonton for 10 years, but that's not a typical rebuild.

Anyways, have the last word, I'm done. This all boils down to: I don't agree and you really don't a convincing argument, at least not one backed by any data. But it's fine we all have our opinions.

Edited December 3, 2023 by DSVII

filthy animal · December 4, 2023

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

1.) They unintentionally produced a result that is comparable to tanking teams.

2.) I'm glad you're accepting the data now. That's a good step. So the revenue numbers / attendances etc..

The parts i feel we disagree on is according to you:

A.)

Bottom 10 finish + "We are rebuilding" = A rebuilding team, market will abandon the team,

Bottom 10 finish + "We are contending" = A contending team, market buys it hook line and sinker and spends money.

B.) Management chose the route they feel would lose them less money than a rebuild.

And you're making this with zero stats, comparable analysis, reasoning really... to really back it up. You quote inferential reasoning but there's a lot of bias overlayed in your observations on the market and assumptions that are really just your opinion on the nature of how businesses operate.

For me, i prescribe to abductive reasoning. As you said, we don't have all the information, so you take the observations you are given and come to a conclusion. So to me, if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, and if it sinks to the bottom of the standings like a duck, then it's a duck. Just without the benefits of growing into a swan because of all the moves 'being competitive' entails. (Trading away picks, capping out)

To each their own.

You seem very certain in your opinion given the lack of data or use of any data to build a case.

Yes, and the stuff we are digging into are the datasets the league has given for team performance, the business data released by forbes and statistica. Not perfect, but that's what statistics is. Making a general hypothesis based on the limited samples you have.

You haven't shown any work to prove your market hypothesis aside from "it just works that way, I know it".

I have no doubt you think you know. And you're right in the sense it doesn't matter what we type on this forum.

More multi billion dollar orgs, in tougher markets with more fair weather fans, with more data have deemed the rebuild route more economically viable and less risky, why not go with them? Same with teams that were a third of the size of the Canucks, they're rebuilding too.

So my interpretation of this is the ego driven explanation, Aquilini knew the risks of the core aging out, but he wanted the cup for his dad at any cost and not being patient enough to rebuild.

You appeal to Chris Gear, I appeal to our former president Linden who said in his own words decisions were made that were not conducive to the club's long term success for short term gain. Gains that the market data and NHL data have shown, did not materialize.

You can argue that is less risky as the rebuild route but I don't buy it.

You're describing again, every sports market.

And Vancouver has one advantage that is unlike LA, New Jersey, Tampa. It is a traditional hockey market. That counts for something when factoring in the loyalty of the fans, and if not, why are non-traditional hockey markets with fans who are more fairweather rebuildng? The rewards outweigh the risks.

The takeaway here is that every market deals with bandwagon fans, some in even harder markets than Vancouver for engagement, and guess what? they still choose rebuilding because it is still the best way to build the best product, that is proven by stats, historical precedence, economics, the very mechanics the League puts in place to reward failure at the draft with higher picks.

Aquilini just made the choice to 'keep pushing his chips in' despite the reality of the product.

Good owners know how to sell this to their market.

Here is how three of the bottom teams in the 2016/17 lost their games. You can take this data from hockey reference.

Can you guess which one is the Competing Canucks, and which one was the Rebuilding Arizona Coyotes and the Rebuilding/Retooling Kings?

It's Team A, we had more games that resulted in multi goal losses than the rebuilding teams.

I also threw in the putrid 2020/21 Columbus blue jackets for good measure to see how the Canucks did vs the average of those rebuilding teams.

% breakdown of losses by goal differentials in 2016-17

I think the take away is this. Rebuilding teams don't get shelled 6-1 every night. They can be in competitive games.

So to reiterate this statement. the team wasn't competitive at all. They weren't just losing, they were experience multi-goal losses at a worse rate than a rebuilding team. The market still didn't stop watching the team.

So yes, the competing product was shit kicked worse than a rebuilding team at the time. The market treated it that way. Your own articles cite the fans seeing that period of time as a rebuild.

You also aren't factoring in the brand and lingering market goodwill left over from 2011. It's not like the fanbase was going to melt away if the team decided to announce a rebuild/retool the next year.

Anyways....

I will start by saying that this is hyberbole. Unapplicable to a normal rebuild. Two expansion teams and the 2023 SJS haven't even finished their season yet.

I'm also just rejecting your definition what a rebuild is at the start of this thread really. This is a straw man you're building the foundation of this entire thread on to make your point. It doesn't hold up when you compare it to what rebuilding teams go through.

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

Getting Shelled 6-1 every night (The rebuilding Coyotes/Kings had more 1 goal losses than blowouts, the distribution of 1 goal losses for a rebuilding team is roughly 41%, 2 or less goal games is over 55% of their losses) And even going by the sample, 6-1 nights are 2% of losses. )

13-15 win seasons (The last place team averaged ~29 wins in the last 5 seasons) Early 2001 is where you need to go for wins in the <19, simply not the modern NHL)

Don't try to win games. Get blown out every night, tank as hard as possible. Get high picks, as many picks as possible. The product on the ice and the coach competes, that is their mandate, most losses are by 1-2 goals

Don’t build a team that is 'competitive' in the interim you want players who compete, so you can maintain their value and sell them if needed and/or mentor the prospects, again, most losses are 1-2 goals. The mandate of the Coach is not the same as the GM

Don't spend to cap every year limiting yourself from becoming a dumping ground for expiring contracts to gain assets. Cap space is an asset. You aren't limiting in how you deploy it as a rebuilding team. It was the difference between us paying a 3rd and Toronto paying a 1st for Zadorov.

Do drive away ticket sales, viewership numbers/advertising dollars and merchandise sales for a few years. And additionally Which rebound up on a successful rebuild, to higher levels than before the rebuild, even you point out it's a few years and acknowledge the opportunities to exponentially grow more upon rebuilding like the Astros.
The risk of that downturn hasn't been enough to fold even the Ottawa Senators.

We've also established businesses can write off the losses in the down years to offset the tax obligations when the team makes money again. There are mechanisms for businesses can utilize to minimize this pain and maximize future profits.

The Canucks maintained their revenue/attendance levels despite posting tanking results. The market had 2011 goodwill left over and stuck with the brand.

Do ignore overhead costs and the revenue required to maintain and/or continue profiting (if able.) Companies can cut overhead costs, we see it all the time. They're the first thing to go with any restructure/layoff in down cycles. Which are a normal part of business.

Benning is being judged in the context of how his peers have operated under the same / better / worse constraints. He just doesn't hold up IMO. I think he's in bottom 5 of the cap era if you ask me, and it's because it's the CAP era. That's probably why my weighting is that much harsher.

And because the draft is a probability based game, it is incumbent upon management to maximize that probability and value. Good teams put themselves in positions to be lucky and the last group actively undercut their own draft capital by selling picks for a failing product.

And you don't just 'land where you land'. You get there with a purpose. You have an extra $5 mil in cap? Get a 1st for it, bundle it and then trade up to get your guy. The Canucks landed in those spots with no leverage, no cap room, no extra picks, Benning found himself at the top of the draft with his one remaining pick with his hands tied from his own moves and contracts and he couldn't meaningfully improve the team and the prospects more than he wanted.

How embarrassing is it for one of the leaders of a billion dollar franchise to come to the media and say "I ran out of time?". Simply not acceptable and I don't recall any moment with another GM like that at a TDL in a while.

The fact that Benning still walked away from the draft with a core while trading away the most picks a Canucks GM has had in recent memory speaks to just how colossal of a value handicap he had more than anything. (like starting out with $100,000 and burning $50,000 of it and saying he did a better job than the guy with $15,000).

You're allowed you credit the regime, but you gotta back it up with how he is performing relative to his cohorts.

And frankly, by any of those metrics (draft position, cap management, asset management, team/personnel management) there's only enough GMs that you can count on one hand who have done poorer than him.

Stepping up to the podium picking 5th overall on a season where you traded away all your draft assets and capped your team out to select a guy a hockey magazine would have scouted for you, while you get credit for agreeing with the pick, you don't earn any points for the burning dumpster fire around you that was the org.

We have that data, and we're digging into it. You're just not using it in any of your points. I think realistically, if you're going to assert something where you claim no one has the data, you can't be making statements like "I know it works this way." and "Anything to the contrary is absurd/horseshit"

That's really where you're running into trouble here,.

Anyways I think we've reached the end of what this thread can contribute to the forum. You certainly are clearing up some misconceptions of what a rebuild is, and not in the way you imagined.

It's certainly got me to rethink a rebuild isn't as bad as advertised in the being shelled 6-1 department. And all the hyberbole around what a rebuild actually is. Selection Bias, i know we laughed at Edmonton for 10 years, but that's not a typical rebuild.

Anyways, have the last word, I'm done. This all boils down to: I don't agree and you really don't a convincing argument, at least not one backed by any data. But it's fine we all have our opinions.

Well the only opinion I care about is Chris Gear's if anybody can so kindly post the link for the interview EL oh El

conquestofbaguettes · December 5, 2023

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

We have that data, and we're digging into it.

No. You think you have data but it's inapplicable. There is no way around it.

Sorry.

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

How embarrassing is it for one of the leaders of a billion dollar franchise to come to the media and say "I ran out of time?". Simply not acceptable and I don't recall any moment with another GM like that at a TDL in a while.

Because the pandemic had nothing to do with it eh. They were trying to move money to keep guys. Flat cap prevented them. Other areas to improve which failed in hindsight but to say "embarrassing" is to essentially blame Benning for a flat cap nobody saw coming. That's the only embarrassing thing here.

But given your complete disregard for context in everything, I'm not surprised you'd hold the above positions. And on that note, are you big into analytics?? I bet you are. Context lacking statistics is the name of the game.

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

the draft is a probability based game, it is incumbent upon management to maximize that probability and value.

And that's not really true. You can't math this shit. Humans aren't numbers.

It's educated guessing. Sometimes you can get first OA and get garbage. Sometimes a top 3 ranked player falls in your lap and you take him at 6.. and turns out to be dogshit. Ie. Zadina.

Probability models like this, while obviously operating loosely in this fashion, doesn't guarentee a damn thing.

Life isn't like GM mode in CHEL, friend.

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

Benning is being judged in the context of how his peers have operated under the same / better / worse constraints.

Which isn't fair to do to ANY GM unless you account for the context in which they operate.

Hell, in reality, even critiquing how a film is made pointing the finger at the director for a shit film. When you understand how maybe it was stuck in developmental hell, or the script got 45 rewrites, the producers slashed the budget it half, fuck me maybe its a cannon film.

Like... there is just so much more to look at. Of course the guy at the helm the director is going to take the brunt of the criticism because the film is shit, but is it really an honest approach to the critique?

Not really.

And that's the stuff I'm trying to unpack here.

How much control did the director here really have. What was really within their control and what was forced upon them working with what they had.

But of course if you're not looking at or thinking about any of that stuff of course it's just all the big bad directors fault.

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

you claim no one has the data, you can't be making statements like "I know it works this way."

Yes I sure can. Just because we don't have the books doesn't mean we don't know how corporations work, mate.

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

conquestofbaguettes · December 5, 2023

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

2.) I'm glad you're accepting the data now.

The data shows a team that stayed "competitive." Not a team that chose a tank rebuild.

I never said I rejected the data. What's being said is you simply cannot apply it in the manner you are and cannot inferr what you are inferring.

Once again, see:

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

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

A.)

Bottom 10 finish + "We are rebuilding" = A rebuilding team, market will abandon the team,

Bottom 10 finish + "We are contending" = A contending team, market buys it hook line and sinker and spends money.

No. Not about "buying in", but people while paying money to see a damn show for their money on any given night. NHL Hockey is the Entertainment business. If they get blown out every single night, people won't come out. Wont be willing to spend their disposable income on the product.

The overall record is quite meaningless those years. While selling a "be competitive" product, as Gear stated it was NEVER playoffs or else but the product and value for your dollar on a given night.

6-1 losses don't do much.

4-3 OT losses on the other hand....

At least fans had a chance to win and spectators watched some "competitive" hockey.

This isn't about overall goal differentials. The comparables to other franchises aren't even relevant here. It was about the product on the ice.

And as i stated before, not all markets are equal. What it might take to fill Roger's arena or keep eyeballs in the TV may not be the same in other markets. Either due to location, population size, demographics, quality of life, etc. etc.

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

I think the take away is this. Rebuilding teams don't get shelled 6-1 every night. They can be in competitive games.

Yes. And even those teams often have some good veteran players to surround their young guys with. Shouldn't all Blackhawks fans be up in arms about that Beauvillier trade with the pick out the door? Tank tank tank... ?

The Benning regime still rebuilt the team. They just didn't do it in an "intentional tank" fashion is all.

We can pine over this trade or that trade, this pick or that pick until the cows come home. In the end, the value of such information is quite meaningless when you think about it.

As I stated at the beginning, once that initial decision to "stay competitive" was the demand everything that followed was a product of that decision. Like fruit of the poisonous tree. It's inescapable.

If you want to argue the merits of each individual decision after the fact, with wholly at the forefront, then sure. But if we want to handwave and act like this rebuild existed in a vacuum free from influence in perfect free will then it doesn't hold much water.

The definition of a tank rebulld i provided is apt. You have supplied the rationale for why a team should X, and that's cool. Nevertheless, there is this belief that "a rebuild is like X. And if you don't do X, its not a rebuild."

Not sure what you reject from the (non exhaustive) list i posted? Didnt seem like anything... except the added unfounded claim about "overhead." We don't know that. Of course I think Frankie could spare a few bucks to do it right... but.. it's not our money right? Who the fuck am I to say. Or anyone else for that matter. And on that note your comment about "rebounding later on from sales dropping."

Easy for us to say though. We have no stake in the business.

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

More multi billion dollar orgs, in tougher markets with more fair weather fans, with more data have deemed the rebuild route more economically viable and less risky, why not go with them

This is to say we think we know more than the organization. We think we have more data than they have for the route they chose. Therefore we are right to believe what we believe and they are wrong for doing what they did. I can guarantee you 100% this is not the case.

But maybe show me Sportsnet and Canucks internal ratings data, how many streams were turned off, how many ads were seen, or rather NOT SEEN, when the team is loosing in a blowout game.

More blowouts? Fewer viewers.

Fewer blowouts? More viewers.

Ergo, "competitive" product.

This is pretty simple stuff here.

filthy animal · December 5, 2023

17 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

The data shows a team that stayed "competitive." Not a team that chose a tank rebuild.

I never said I rejected the data. What's being said is you simply cannot apply it in the manner you are and cannot inferr what you are inferring.

Once again, see:

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

No. Not about "buying in", but people while paying money to see a damn show for their money on any given night. NHL Hockey is the Entertainment business. If they get blown out every single night, people won't come out. Wont be willing to spend their disposable income on the product.

The overall record is quite meaningless those years. While selling a "be competitive" product, as Gear stated it was NEVER playoffs or else but the product and value for your dollar on a given night.

6-1 losses don't do much.

4-3 OT losses on the other hand....

At least fans had a chance to win and spectators watched some "competitive" hockey.

This isn't about overall goal differentials. The comparables to other franchises aren't even relevant here. It was about the product on the ice.

And as i stated before, not all markets are equal. What it might take to fill Roger's arena or keep eyeballs in the TV may not be the same in other markets. Either due to location, population size, demographics, quality of life, etc. etc.

Yes. And even those teams often have some good veteran players to surround their young guys with. Shouldn't all Blackhawks fans be up in arms about that Beauvillier trade with the pick out the door? Tank tank tank... ?

The Benning regime still rebuilt the team. They just didn't do it in an "intentional tank" fashion is all.

We can pine over this trade or that trade, this pick or that pick until the cows come home. In the end, the value of such information is quite meaningless when you think about it.

As I stated at the beginning, once that initial decision to "stay competitive" was the demand everything that followed was a product of that decision. Like fruit of the poisonous tree. It's inescapable.

If you want to argue the merits of each individual decision after the fact, with wholly at the forefront, then sure. But if we want to handwave and act like this rebuild existed in a vacuum free from influence in perfect free will then it doesn't hold much water.

The definition of a tank rebulld i provided is apt. You have supplied the rationale for why a team should X, and that's cool. Nevertheless, there is this belief that "a rebuild is like X. And if you don't do X, its not a rebuild."

Not sure what you reject from the (non exhaustive) list i posted? Didnt seem like anything... except the added unfounded claim about "overhead." We don't know that. Of course I think Frankie could spare a few bucks to do it right... but.. it's not our money right? Who the fuck am I to say. Or anyone else for that matter. And on that note your comment about "rebounding later on from sales dropping."

Easy for us to say though. We have no stake in the business.

This is to say we think we know more than the organization. We think we have more data than they have for the route they chose. Therefore we are right to believe what we believe and they are wrong for doing what they did. I can guarantee you 100% this is not the case.

But maybe show me Sportsnet and Canucks internal ratings data, how many streams were turned off, how many ads were seen, or rather NOT SEEN, when the team is loosing in a blowout game.

More blowouts? Fewer viewers.

Fewer blowouts? More viewers.

Ergo, "competitive" product.

This is pretty simple stuff here.

The data is inapplicable because it doesnt suit your narrative.

You sound like an idiot everytime you post as if nobodys arguement matters other than yours

Can you post the chris gear link again? Seriously, i cant get enough of his insight

LillStrimma · December 7, 2023

On 12/5/2023 at 4:41 AM, conquestofbaguettes said:

The data shows a team that stayed "competitive." Not a team that chose a tank rebuild.

I never said I rejected the data. What's being said is you simply cannot apply it in the manner you are and cannot inferr what you are inferring.

Once again, see:

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

No. Not about "buying in", but people while paying money to see a damn show for their money on any given night. NHL Hockey is the Entertainment business. If they get blown out every single night, people won't come out. Wont be willing to spend their disposable income on the product.

The overall record is quite meaningless those years. While selling a "be competitive" product, as Gear stated it was NEVER playoffs or else but the product and value for your dollar on a given night.

6-1 losses don't do much.

4-3 OT losses on the other hand....

At least fans had a chance to win and spectators watched some "competitive" hockey.

This isn't about overall goal differentials. The comparables to other franchises aren't even relevant here. It was about the product on the ice.

And as i stated before, not all markets are equal. What it might take to fill Roger's arena or keep eyeballs in the TV may not be the same in other markets. Either due to location, population size, demographics, quality of life, etc. etc.

Yes. And even those teams often have some good veteran players to surround their young guys with. Shouldn't all Blackhawks fans be up in arms about that Beauvillier trade with the pick out the door? Tank tank tank... ?

The Benning regime still rebuilt the team. They just didn't do it in an "intentional tank" fashion is all.

We can pine over this trade or that trade, this pick or that pick until the cows come home. In the end, the value of such information is quite meaningless when you think about it.

As I stated at the beginning, once that initial decision to "stay competitive" was the demand everything that followed was a product of that decision. Like fruit of the poisonous tree. It's inescapable.

If you want to argue the merits of each individual decision after the fact, with wholly at the forefront, then sure. But if we want to handwave and act like this rebuild existed in a vacuum free from influence in perfect free will then it doesn't hold much water.

The definition of a tank rebulld i provided is apt. You have supplied the rationale for why a team should X, and that's cool. Nevertheless, there is this belief that "a rebuild is like X. And if you don't do X, its not a rebuild."

Not sure what you reject from the (non exhaustive) list i posted? Didnt seem like anything... except the added unfounded claim about "overhead." We don't know that. Of course I think Frankie could spare a few bucks to do it right... but.. it's not our money right? Who the fuck am I to say. Or anyone else for that matter. And on that note your comment about "rebounding later on from sales dropping."

Easy for us to say though. We have no stake in the business.

This is to say we think we know more than the organization. We think we have more data than they have for the route they chose. Therefore we are right to believe what we believe and they are wrong for doing what they did. I can guarantee you 100% this is not the case.

But maybe show me Sportsnet and Canucks internal ratings data, how many streams were turned off, how many ads were seen, or rather NOT SEEN, when the team is loosing in a blowout game.

More blowouts? Fewer viewers.

Fewer blowouts? More viewers.

Ergo, "competitive" product.

This is pretty simple stuff here.

Still rhetorical bs… I would say you are a politician first and foremost.

They like to spew such garbage for fun.

iinatcc · December 7, 2023

All I have to say is this thread lasted much longer than I would have imagined

6of1_halfdozenofother · December 7, 2023

13 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

All I have to say is this thread lasted much longer than I would have imagined

Former AGM Chris Gear would be pleased with all the airtime. :hurhur:

Silent Man · December 9, 2023

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

1.) They unintentionally produced a result that is comparable to tanking teams.

2.) I'm glad you're accepting the data now. That's a good step. So the revenue numbers / attendances etc..

The parts i feel we disagree on is according to you:

A.)

Bottom 10 finish + "We are rebuilding" = A rebuilding team, market will abandon the team,

Bottom 10 finish + "We are contending" = A contending team, market buys it hook line and sinker and spends money.

B.) Management chose the route they feel would lose them less money than a rebuild.

And you're making this with zero stats, comparable analysis, reasoning really... to really back it up. You quote inferential reasoning but there's a lot of bias overlayed in your observations on the market and assumptions that are really just your opinion on the nature of how businesses operate.

For me, i prescribe to abductive reasoning. As you said, we don't have all the information, so you take the observations you are given and come to a conclusion. So to me, if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, and if it sinks to the bottom of the standings like a duck, then it's a duck. Just without the benefits of growing into a swan because of all the moves 'being competitive' entails. (Trading away picks, capping out)

To each their own.

You seem very certain in your opinion given the lack of data or use of any data to build a case.

Yes, and the stuff we are digging into are the datasets the league has given for team performance, the business data released by forbes and statistica. Not perfect, but that's what statistics is. Making a general hypothesis based on the limited samples you have.

You haven't shown any work to prove your market hypothesis aside from "it just works that way, I know it".

I have no doubt you think you know. And you're right in the sense it doesn't matter what we type on this forum.

More multi billion dollar orgs, in tougher markets with more fair weather fans, with more data have deemed the rebuild route more economically viable and less risky, why not go with them? Same with teams that were a third of the size of the Canucks, they're rebuilding too.

So my interpretation of this is the ego driven explanation, Aquilini knew the risks of the core aging out, but he wanted the cup for his dad at any cost and not being patient enough to rebuild.

You appeal to Chris Gear, I appeal to our former president Linden who said in his own words decisions were made that were not conducive to the club's long term success for short term gain. Gains that the market data and NHL data have shown, did not materialize.

You can argue that is less risky as the rebuild route but I don't buy it.

You're describing again, every sports market.

And Vancouver has one advantage that is unlike LA, New Jersey, Tampa. It is a traditional hockey market. That counts for something when factoring in the loyalty of the fans, and if not, why are non-traditional hockey markets with fans who are more fairweather rebuildng? The rewards outweigh the risks.

The takeaway here is that every market deals with bandwagon fans, some in even harder markets than Vancouver for engagement, and guess what? they still choose rebuilding because it is still the best way to build the best product, that is proven by stats, historical precedence, economics, the very mechanics the League puts in place to reward failure at the draft with higher picks.

Aquilini just made the choice to 'keep pushing his chips in' despite the reality of the product.

Good owners know how to sell this to their market.

Here is how three of the bottom teams in the 2016/17 lost their games. You can take this data from hockey reference.

Can you guess which one is the Competing Canucks, and which one was the Rebuilding Arizona Coyotes and the Rebuilding/Retooling Kings?

It's Team A, we had more games that resulted in multi goal losses than the rebuilding teams.

I also threw in the putrid 2020/21 Columbus blue jackets for good measure to see how the Canucks did vs the average of those rebuilding teams.

% breakdown of losses by goal differentials in 2016-17

I think the take away is this. Rebuilding teams don't get shelled 6-1 every night. They can be in competitive games.

So to reiterate this statement. the team wasn't competitive at all. They weren't just losing, they were experience multi-goal losses at a worse rate than a rebuilding team. The market still didn't stop watching the team.

So yes, the competing product was shit kicked worse than a rebuilding team at the time. The market treated it that way. Your own articles cite the fans seeing that period of time as a rebuild.

You also aren't factoring in the brand and lingering market goodwill left over from 2011. It's not like the fanbase was going to melt away if the team decided to announce a rebuild/retool the next year.

Anyways....

I will start by saying that this is hyberbole. Unapplicable to a normal rebuild. Two expansion teams and the 2023 SJS haven't even finished their season yet.

I'm also just rejecting your definition what a rebuild is at the start of this thread really. This is a straw man you're building the foundation of this entire thread on to make your point. It doesn't hold up when you compare it to what rebuilding teams go through.

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

Getting Shelled 6-1 every night (The rebuilding Coyotes/Kings had more 1 goal losses than blowouts, the distribution of 1 goal losses for a rebuilding team is roughly 41%, 2 or less goal games is over 55% of their losses) And even going by the sample, 6-1 nights are 2% of losses. )

13-15 win seasons (The last place team averaged ~29 wins in the last 5 seasons) Early 2001 is where you need to go for wins in the <19, simply not the modern NHL)

Don't try to win games. Get blown out every night, tank as hard as possible. Get high picks, as many picks as possible. The product on the ice and the coach competes, that is their mandate, most losses are by 1-2 goals

Don’t build a team that is 'competitive' in the interim you want players who compete, so you can maintain their value and sell them if needed and/or mentor the prospects, again, most losses are 1-2 goals. The mandate of the Coach is not the same as the GM

Don't spend to cap every year limiting yourself from becoming a dumping ground for expiring contracts to gain assets. Cap space is an asset. You aren't limiting in how you deploy it as a rebuilding team. It was the difference between us paying a 3rd and Toronto paying a 1st for Zadorov.

Do drive away ticket sales, viewership numbers/advertising dollars and merchandise sales for a few years. And additionally Which rebound up on a successful rebuild, to higher levels than before the rebuild, even you point out it's a few years and acknowledge the opportunities to exponentially grow more upon rebuilding like the Astros.
The risk of that downturn hasn't been enough to fold even the Ottawa Senators.

We've also established businesses can write off the losses in the down years to offset the tax obligations when the team makes money again. There are mechanisms for businesses can utilize to minimize this pain and maximize future profits.

The Canucks maintained their revenue/attendance levels despite posting tanking results. The market had 2011 goodwill left over and stuck with the brand.

Do ignore overhead costs and the revenue required to maintain and/or continue profiting (if able.) Companies can cut overhead costs, we see it all the time. They're the first thing to go with any restructure/layoff in down cycles. Which are a normal part of business.

Benning is being judged in the context of how his peers have operated under the same / better / worse constraints. He just doesn't hold up IMO. I think he's in bottom 5 of the cap era if you ask me, and it's because it's the CAP era. That's probably why my weighting is that much harsher.

And because the draft is a probability based game, it is incumbent upon management to maximize that probability and value. Good teams put themselves in positions to be lucky and the last group actively undercut their own draft capital by selling picks for a failing product.

And you don't just 'land where you land'. You get there with a purpose. You have an extra $5 mil in cap? Get a 1st for it, bundle it and then trade up to get your guy. The Canucks landed in those spots with no leverage, no cap room, no extra picks, Benning found himself at the top of the draft with his one remaining pick with his hands tied from his own moves and contracts and he couldn't meaningfully improve the team and the prospects more than he wanted.

How embarrassing is it for one of the leaders of a billion dollar franchise to come to the media and say "I ran out of time?". Simply not acceptable and I don't recall any moment with another GM like that at a TDL in a while.

The fact that Benning still walked away from the draft with a core while trading away the most picks a Canucks GM has had in recent memory speaks to just how colossal of a value handicap he had more than anything. (like starting out with $100,000 and burning $50,000 of it and saying he did a better job than the guy with $15,000).

You're allowed you credit the regime, but you gotta back it up with how he is performing relative to his cohorts.

And frankly, by any of those metrics (draft position, cap management, asset management, team/personnel management) there's only enough GMs that you can count on one hand who have done poorer than him.

Stepping up to the podium picking 5th overall on a season where you traded away all your draft assets and capped your team out to select a guy a hockey magazine would have scouted for you, while you get credit for agreeing with the pick, you don't earn any points for the burning dumpster fire around you that was the org.

We have that data, and we're digging into it. You're just not using it in any of your points. I think realistically, if you're going to assert something where you claim no one has the data, you can't be making statements like "I know it works this way." and "Anything to the contrary is absurd/horseshit"

That's really where you're running into trouble here,.

Anyways I think we've reached the end of what this thread can contribute to the forum. You certainly are clearing up some misconceptions of what a rebuild is, and not in the way you imagined.

It's certainly got me to rethink a rebuild isn't as bad as advertised in the being shelled 6-1 department. And all the hyberbole around what a rebuild actually is. Selection Bias, i know we laughed at Edmonton for 10 years, but that's not a typical rebuild.

Anyways, have the last word, I'm done. This all boils down to: I don't agree and you really don't a convincing argument, at least not one backed by any data. But it's fine we all have our opinions.

Wow, what an outstanding effort!

I bet some media guys are using your writing for sure

This is better then most of the stuff professional writers create.

filthy animal · December 11, 2023

On 12/7/2023 at 3:57 PM, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Former AGM Chris Gear would be pleased with all the airtime.

I think this thread is needing another link to Chris Gear, wouldn't you agree?

The Aquaman · December 11, 2023

On 11/15/2023 at 9:48 AM, Ballisticsports said:

Sounds like poster should be defending Aquaman and calling Benning a puppet

TL had integrity then and stepped down when undersold by the guy he hired to be GM Aqua they would be elite in 2018 over TL 4-5 yr vision

You state fans have no investment in the Canucks?

Then contradict and say fans are 1/3 of revenue ?

Like other's stated was this long post necessary?

You are not going to change your stance and doubtful others will as well

It is not like it happened yesterday and we all have opinions on what we witnessed, heard and read

Can't we be glad that the worst years of complete futility in Canucks history is over and looking like we finally have a plan

What did I do?!?!?

kilgore · December 11, 2023

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, DSVII said:

1.) They unintentionally produced a result that is comparable to tanking teams.

2.) I'm glad you're accepting the data now. That's a good step. So the revenue numbers / attendances etc..

The parts i feel we disagree on is according to you:

A.)

Bottom 10 finish + "We are rebuilding" = A rebuilding team, market will abandon the team,

Bottom 10 finish + "We are contending" = A contending team, market buys it hook line and sinker and spends money.

B.) Management chose the route they feel would lose them less money than a rebuild.

And you're making this with zero stats, comparable analysis, reasoning really... to really back it up. You quote inferential reasoning but there's a lot of bias overlayed in your observations on the market and assumptions that are really just your opinion on the nature of how businesses operate.

For me, i prescribe to abductive reasoning. As you said, we don't have all the information, so you take the observations you are given and come to a conclusion. So to me, if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, and if it sinks to the bottom of the standings like a duck, then it's a duck. Just without the benefits of growing into a swan because of all the moves 'being competitive' entails. (Trading away picks, capping out)

To each their own.

You seem very certain in your opinion given the lack of data or use of any data to build a case.

Yes, and the stuff we are digging into are the datasets the league has given for team performance, the business data released by forbes and statistica. Not perfect, but that's what statistics is. Making a general hypothesis based on the limited samples you have.

You haven't shown any work to prove your market hypothesis aside from "it just works that way, I know it".

I have no doubt you think you know. And you're right in the sense it doesn't matter what we type on this forum.

More multi billion dollar orgs, in tougher markets with more fair weather fans, with more data have deemed the rebuild route more economically viable and less risky, why not go with them? Same with teams that were a third of the size of the Canucks, they're rebuilding too.

So my interpretation of this is the ego driven explanation, Aquilini knew the risks of the core aging out, but he wanted the cup for his dad at any cost and not being patient enough to rebuild.

You appeal to Chris Gear, I appeal to our former president Linden who said in his own words decisions were made that were not conducive to the club's long term success for short term gain. Gains that the market data and NHL data have shown, did not materialize.

You can argue that is less risky as the rebuild route but I don't buy it.

You're describing again, every sports market.

And Vancouver has one advantage that is unlike LA, New Jersey, Tampa. It is a traditional hockey market. That counts for something when factoring in the loyalty of the fans, and if not, why are non-traditional hockey markets with fans who are more fairweather rebuildng? The rewards outweigh the risks.

The takeaway here is that every market deals with bandwagon fans, some in even harder markets than Vancouver for engagement, and guess what? they still choose rebuilding because it is still the best way to build the best product, that is proven by stats, historical precedence, economics, the very mechanics the League puts in place to reward failure at the draft with higher picks.

Aquilini just made the choice to 'keep pushing his chips in' despite the reality of the product.

Good owners know how to sell this to their market.

Here is how three of the bottom teams in the 2016/17 lost their games. You can take this data from hockey reference.

Can you guess which one is the Competing Canucks, and which one was the Rebuilding Arizona Coyotes and the Rebuilding/Retooling Kings?

It's Team A, we had more games that resulted in multi goal losses than the rebuilding teams.

I also threw in the putrid 2020/21 Columbus blue jackets for good measure to see how the Canucks did vs the average of those rebuilding teams.

% breakdown of losses by goal differentials in 2016-17

I think the take away is this. Rebuilding teams don't get shelled 6-1 every night. They can be in competitive games.

So to reiterate this statement. the team wasn't competitive at all. They weren't just losing, they were experience multi-goal losses at a worse rate than a rebuilding team. The market still didn't stop watching the team.

So yes, the competing product was shit kicked worse than a rebuilding team at the time. The market treated it that way. Your own articles cite the fans seeing that period of time as a rebuild.

You also aren't factoring in the brand and lingering market goodwill left over from 2011. It's not like the fanbase was going to melt away if the team decided to announce a rebuild/retool the next year.

Anyways....

I will start by saying that this is hyberbole. Unapplicable to a normal rebuild. Two expansion teams and the 2023 SJS haven't even finished their season yet.

I'm also just rejecting your definition what a rebuild is at the start of this thread really. This is a straw man you're building the foundation of this entire thread on to make your point. It doesn't hold up when you compare it to what rebuilding teams go through.

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

Getting Shelled 6-1 every night (The rebuilding Coyotes/Kings had more 1 goal losses than blowouts, the distribution of 1 goal losses for a rebuilding team is roughly 41%, 2 or less goal games is over 55% of their losses) And even going by the sample, 6-1 nights are 2% of losses. )

13-15 win seasons (The last place team averaged ~29 wins in the last 5 seasons) Early 2001 is where you need to go for wins in the <19, simply not the modern NHL)

Don't try to win games. Get blown out every night, tank as hard as possible. Get high picks, as many picks as possible. The product on the ice and the coach competes, that is their mandate, most losses are by 1-2 goals

Don’t build a team that is 'competitive' in the interim you want players who compete, so you can maintain their value and sell them if needed and/or mentor the prospects, again, most losses are 1-2 goals. The mandate of the Coach is not the same as the GM

Don't spend to cap every year limiting yourself from becoming a dumping ground for expiring contracts to gain assets. Cap space is an asset. You aren't limiting in how you deploy it as a rebuilding team. It was the difference between us paying a 3rd and Toronto paying a 1st for Zadorov.

Do drive away ticket sales, viewership numbers/advertising dollars and merchandise sales for a few years. And additionally Which rebound up on a successful rebuild, to higher levels than before the rebuild, even you point out it's a few years and acknowledge the opportunities to exponentially grow more upon rebuilding like the Astros.
The risk of that downturn hasn't been enough to fold even the Ottawa Senators.

We've also established businesses can write off the losses in the down years to offset the tax obligations when the team makes money again. There are mechanisms for businesses can utilize to minimize this pain and maximize future profits.

The Canucks maintained their revenue/attendance levels despite posting tanking results. The market had 2011 goodwill left over and stuck with the brand.

Do ignore overhead costs and the revenue required to maintain and/or continue profiting (if able.) Companies can cut overhead costs, we see it all the time. They're the first thing to go with any restructure/layoff in down cycles. Which are a normal part of business.

Benning is being judged in the context of how his peers have operated under the same / better / worse constraints. He just doesn't hold up IMO. I think he's in bottom 5 of the cap era if you ask me, and it's because it's the CAP era. That's probably why my weighting is that much harsher.

And because the draft is a probability based game, it is incumbent upon management to maximize that probability and value. Good teams put themselves in positions to be lucky and the last group actively undercut their own draft capital by selling picks for a failing product.

And you don't just 'land where you land'. You get there with a purpose. You have an extra $5 mil in cap? Get a 1st for it, bundle it and then trade up to get your guy. The Canucks landed in those spots with no leverage, no cap room, no extra picks, Benning found himself at the top of the draft with his one remaining pick with his hands tied from his own moves and contracts and he couldn't meaningfully improve the team and the prospects more than he wanted.

How embarrassing is it for one of the leaders of a billion dollar franchise to come to the media and say "I ran out of time?". Simply not acceptable and I don't recall any moment with another GM like that at a TDL in a while.

The fact that Benning still walked away from the draft with a core while trading away the most picks a Canucks GM has had in recent memory speaks to just how colossal of a value handicap he had more than anything. (like starting out with $100,000 and burning $50,000 of it and saying he did a better job than the guy with $15,000).

You're allowed you credit the regime, but you gotta back it up with how he is performing relative to his cohorts.

And frankly, by any of those metrics (draft position, cap management, asset management, team/personnel management) there's only enough GMs that you can count on one hand who have done poorer than him.

Stepping up to the podium picking 5th overall on a season where you traded away all your draft assets and capped your team out to select a guy a hockey magazine would have scouted for you, while you get credit for agreeing with the pick, you don't earn any points for the burning dumpster fire around you that was the org.

We have that data, and we're digging into it. You're just not using it in any of your points. I think realistically, if you're going to assert something where you claim no one has the data, you can't be making statements like "I know it works this way." and "Anything to the contrary is absurd/horseshit"

That's really where you're running into trouble here,.

Anyways I think we've reached the end of what this thread can contribute to the forum. You certainly are clearing up some misconceptions of what a rebuild is, and not in the way you imagined.

It's certainly got me to rethink a rebuild isn't as bad as advertised in the being shelled 6-1 department. And all the hyberbole around what a rebuild actually is. Selection Bias, i know we laughed at Edmonton for 10 years, but that's not a typical rebuild.

Anyways, have the last word, I'm done. This all boils down to: I don't agree and you really don't a convincing argument, at least not one backed by any data. But it's fine we all have our opinions.

Seriously dude, good job.

But its like we are arguing with an AI bot.

After you or I or any sane fan that has watched this team for a long time, including the painful Benning years, refutes his subjective assertions, answers his points intelligently, offers reasoning as to why sports franchises shouldn't and don't always manage business the same as other businesses. A unique business that is a sports franchise, with an arbitrary cap on his and all of his competitors franchises, emotions of fans and egos of owners. and how a "day to day" short term thinking doesn't apply to all corporate businesses. And like a bot, it simply does not compute how human emotion or ego can derail healthy, longer term, sports franchise decisions.

What is the point in trying to rewrite and whitewash history? Mistakes were made. in fact mistakes upon mistakes were made.

To the point that it hurt the business way more than if they would have invested in a rebuild earlier. If JB, under Franks direction, had initiated a successful rebuild in 2014, the Aquilini's may have had sell out crowds by 2018/19. That is GOOD business practice, not bad. No one knows, but the odds are great that that would have been the case. Why not just accept the team was mismanaged by owners and management then and move on? I can forgive in the sense that hindsight is 2020, and I'm sure Frank really really believed he was the smartest man in Vancouver. That's history now. We have a winning team. Why start yet another OP on it? (But if you do, I, and others, are not going to let it stand)

Its exhausting. Its like Conquest just asks Chat GPT to rewrite his own unsubstantiated, subjective, tunnelvision essay once again. And posts that in every response. He's just saying the same things over an over in different sentence structures.

He has a lot of stamina Ill give him that. But we will never win against him because he thinks arguments are won with a "I know you are but what am I?" type of arguing. And if he gets that last word it means he is right. It wouldnt even matter the topic I gather.

He could argue that the Earth is flat, and even if you take the time to actually build the ship, and send it off to the horizon with him on the shoreline to watch the mast sink down as it disappears he will still argue all kinds of suppositions. That from his own research its all an illusion, or has something to do with the angle of the sun, or the tides, and besides, he knows one of the crew, Chris Gear, and he told him that from his point of view he didn't see any kind of curve ahead.

Edited December 11, 2023 by kilgore

conquestofbaguettes · December 12, 2023

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

Seriously dude, good job.

But its like we are arguing with an AI bot.

Funny. That's how I feel about you guys regurgitating misapplied statistics, unfounded narratives, and purporting surface level understandings of economics and the business that is NHL hockey.

Even when new insightful information comes to light you guys just hand wave and go on like nothing was said at all. It's pretty funny.

Benning hate is a religion. It's incredible.

conquestofbaguettes · December 12, 2023

4 hours ago, The Aquaman said:

You state fans have no investment in the Canucks?

They don't.

Fans don't own the team. They have zero financial stake in the business itself.

If you want to talk about a team like the Green Bay Packers or other publicly owned teams, then that would be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams

But as far as the Vancouver Canucks and the Canucks Sports and Entertainment Group goes, no.

conquestofbaguettes · December 12, 2023

On 12/9/2023 at 9:22 AM, Silent Man said:

Wow, what an outstanding effort!

I bet some media guys are using your writing for sure

This is better then most of the stuff professional writers create.

Their post is largely incorrect, unfortunately.

Silent Man · December 12, 2023

On 12/7/2023 at 3:43 PM, iinatcc said:

All I have to say is this thread lasted much longer than I would have imagined

Well, it is a highly interesting business case

conquestofbaguettes · December 12, 2023

On 12/6/2023 at 10:59 PM, LillStrimma said:

Still rhetorical bs… I would say you are a politician first and foremost.

They like to spew such garbage for fun.

No.

You just don't like me challenging your Benning hate religion is all.

The previous regime are mostly scapegoats. Always will be. And people like yourself are the perpetrators. Sorry

LillStrimma · December 12, 2023

54 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

No.

You just don't like me challenging your Benning hate religion is all.

The previous regime are mostly scapegoats. Always will be. And people like yourself are the perpetrators. Sorry

Ok, so you think I'm alone in my opinion?
You got really got response to your bs and still you answer my futile post... Get real.

Do you only count how many posts you trollish post generate?

DSVII · December 12, 2023

4 hours ago, kilgore said:

Seriously dude, good job.

But its like we are arguing with an AI bot.

After you or I or any sane fan that has watched this team for a long time, including the painful Benning years, refutes his subjective assertions, answers his points intelligently, offers reasoning as to why sports franchises shouldn't and don't always manage business the same as other businesses. A unique business that is a sports franchise, with an arbitrary cap on his and all of his competitors franchises, emotions of fans and egos of owners. and how a "day to day" short term thinking doesn't apply to all corporate businesses. And like a bot, it simply does not compute how human emotion or ego can derail healthy, longer term, sports franchise decisions.

What is the point in trying to rewrite and whitewash history? Mistakes were made. in fact mistakes upon mistakes were made.

To the point that it hurt the business way more than if they would have invested in a rebuild earlier. If JB, under Franks direction, had initiated a successful rebuild in 2014, the Aquilini's may have had sell out crowds by 2018/19. That is GOOD business practice, not bad. No one knows, but the odds are great that that would have been the case. Why not just accept the team was mismanaged by owners and management then and move on? I can forgive in the sense that hindsight is 2020, and I'm sure Frank really really believed he was the smartest man in Vancouver. That's history now. We have a winning team. Why start yet another OP on it? (But if you do, I, and others, are not going to let it stand)

Its exhausting. Its like Conquest just asks Chat GPT to rewrite his own unsubstantiated, subjective, tunnelvision essay once again. And posts that in every response. He's just saying the same things over an over in different sentence structures.

He has a lot of stamina Ill give him that. But we will never win against him because he thinks arguments are won with a "I know you are but what am I?" type of arguing. And if he gets that last word it means he is right. It wouldnt even matter the topic I gather.

He could argue that the Earth is flat, and even if you take the time to actually build the ship, and send it off to the horizon with him on the shoreline to watch the mast sink down as it disappears he will still argue all kinds of suppositions. That from his own research its all an illusion, or has something to do with the angle of the sun, or the tides, and besides, he knows one of the crew, Chris Gear, and he told him that from his point of view he didn't see any kind of curve ahead.

On 12/9/2023 at 9:22 AM, Silent Man said:

Wow, what an outstanding effort!

I bet some media guys are using your writing for sure

This is better then most of the stuff professional writers create.

Thanks, appreciate it.

It isn't a matter of stamina, I could go on forever as I've had with Anthony over the years (until it's really just devolved into him finding an excuse to be awful to other posters), it's just trying to get to the core of what the other side's argument is. Which has eventually become: "This is how the world works, sorry". There really isn't much more to contribute to the forum when the other side is willfully ignoring arguments, moving the goal posts, and is hellbent on trying to frame the other side as a 'hate religion'.

Like one of the metrics for the risk of a rebuild was not being blown out 6-1 every game. When I showed that rebuilding teams do lose more of their games by 1 goal and that only ~2% of losses are 6-1 blowouts, he just ignores it and continues repeating that 4-3 OT games are better than 6-1 losses. What's more to say?

I mean, I humored the argument that a rebuild would result in tons of 6-1 goal losses, but just counting the games showed otherwise. So I've updated my stance on what a rebuild really means with that.

Or the observation that bigger and smaller teams than the Canucks are choosing to rebuild means I think I know more than the Canucks? Or overhead costs in a rebuild can't be reduced? A lot of gaslighting and regurgitation going on in the counter arguments.

I think at this point, it's really up to the neutral posters to just see the argument both sides laid out and come to their own conclusions.

And I'm more than happy to let this thread just shuffle into the weeds. Anything more wouldn't be constructive. We've all said what we needed to say.

Quote

He has a lot of stamina Ill give him that. But we will never win against him because he thinks arguments are won with a "I know you are but what am I?" type of arguing. And if he gets that last word it means he is right. It wouldnt even matter the topic I gather.

At the end of the day, it isn't really about winning or convincing anyone who is dead set in their opinion, it's just offering the neutral posters that other viewpoint and they can decide for themselves. Beauty of an online forum.

Edited December 12, 2023 by DSVII

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation