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

[AnthonyG]

11 hours ago, filthy animal said:

Ok Business is business you are absolutely right.

 

So why are you bitching about Gillis taking over a team  and lead them to record highs in revenue, team networth  any Canucks era. The Canucks brand and valuation was at their absolute highest during Gillis time  and yet defending the dolt that made stupid moves to try to achieve the same thing? Who drafted who, who signed who, nobody cares, business is business after all right? That is the bottom line

 

You just burned yourself many times over Benning bro LOL

Hey bud, idk if you are aware, but Gillis took a team in its prime and ran it straight into the ground. 3 years after a cup appearance we were in desperate need of a rebuild. If you wanna talk business, its better when business is open, not closed. He closed the window on the twins. He did nothing to extend it.

[Goose]

I was patient to a fault w Benning. I like to see people succeed.  It was really only until the last couple of years where (esp. the OEL deal) I thought he’s had his chance-the team needs a new vision. 

 

FF to Allvin and co and I couldnt be happier. Never been a fan of just firing people when things are rough but you need people w a clear vision and are competent enough to execute it.  

[LillStrimma]

5 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Defend? No defense neccessary.  If that's your takeaway you aren't really listening.

 

"Staying competitive" was an important focus during the rebuild...  as fucked up to think about.  But welcome to the business that is NHL hockey in Vancouver.

 

Most the contracts signed at that time don't even matter. They had open roster roles and didn't want to "get shelled 6-1 every night" as Chris Gear stated above.  

 

The majority of the players traded for weren't meant to be some future core piece. Yes, the paid more for guys to come to a losing team.  Yes, all these moves and being capped out runs counter to what a rebuild is supposed to be. And that's where the problem stems from to begin with.

 

Rebulld is like X. If you don't do X exactly like X it means bad. Or even more curious, it means "it's not a rebuild."

 

Of course we can dissect this or that shit trade, or players that didn't work out. It happens to tons of GMs across the league.  Tons of teams also have dead cap. Nevertheless, given the reality of the rebuild and the why behind the decisions, they barely register as a relevant criticism to focus on for that team at that time.

 

The question is why would they rebuild in such a "stupid" way to begin with.

Do we just go with sTuPiD wAy CuZ sTuPiD pEoPle or do we dig a little deeper to understand the process to those decisions and the financial reality that is NHL hockey in Vancouver.

Hey there, a long unnecessary post again. 
Bennings stupid deals has nothing to do with decisions revolving around the financial reality that is NHL hockey in Vancouver.

He was just not intelligent enough(or corrupt) to act as a GM for a team in different phases irrelevant if it was a rebuild, retool or whatever…

[SV.]

2 hours ago, AnthonyG said:

Hey bud, idk if you are aware, but Gillis took a team in its prime and ran it straight into the ground. 3 years after a cup appearance we were in desperate need of a rebuild. If you wanna talk business, its better when business is open, not closed. He closed the window on the twins. He did nothing to extend it.

Why engage in cognitive dissonance and petty revisionism?

Arguably, without the tenure of Gillis, that core wouldn't have even had a window to begin with.

There's a lot to be said about how Gillis drafted and what sorts of moves he made to keep the team competitive after 2011 (not taking into consideration that his plans to retool were nixed, so his hand was forced), but it's simply nonsense to act like the 2007/08 Canucks were a sleeping giant.

[filthy animal]

2 hours ago, AnthonyG said:

Hey bud, idk if you are aware, but Gillis took a team in its prime and ran it straight into the ground. 3 years after a cup appearance we were in desperate need of a rebuild. If you wanna talk business, its better when business is open, not closed. He closed the window on the twins. He did nothing to extend it.

 

Took a team in its prime? The cup contending team that you claim Gillis inherited from Nonis, the one that missed the playoffs 2 out of 3 years? Do you honestly realize how stupid that sounds? Im not sure if you even watched that team just before Gillis took over but that team was in dissarray, probably either plateauing or on its way down because sure as hell didnt look like they were trending up

 

You know what closes business though, missing the playoffs 6 out 8 times, shouldve been 7 if it wasnt for the pandemic

 

A team missing the playoffs 2 out of 3 years, cup contending lol you benning bros are too funny

[AnthonyG]

39 minutes ago, filthy animal said:

 

Took a team in its prime? The cup contending team that you claim Gillis inherited from Nonis, the one that missed the playoffs 2 out of 3 years? Do you honestly realize how stupid that sounds? Im not sure if you even watched that team just before Gillis took over but that team was in dissarray, probably either plateauing or on its way down because sure as hell didnt look like they were trending up

 

You know what closes business though, missing the playoffs 6 out 8 times, shouldve been 7 if it wasnt for the pandemic

 

A team missing the playoffs 2 out of 3 years, cup contending lol you benning bros are too funny

lmao back under the bridge bud.
Daniel

Henrik

Burrows

Salo

Bieksa

Edler

Raymond

Hansen

Schneider

Luongo

Kesler

 

Only the biggest pieces minus Hamhuis and Erhoff lol. The rest, not a god damn thing to do with Gillis

 

The 2008 season was an anomaly that they missed playoffs. Its odd that he inherited a team that made playoffs 2008-09 with what changes? What did Gillis do to extend the window?? Hmm??? What did he do for the future? Oh ya absolutely nothing good.

 

 

Vancouver would have been a playoff team if Pettersson didnt take 40 games to get going in 2021-22. Held pointless in 24 of the first 40 games.

 

2022-23 Allllll goaltending, otherwise this would have been a playoff team. Virtually the same team as last year, only our goaltenders are performing to their level.

 

 

Lmao you Gillass nut huggers are comical. Guys been unemployed for ages, went from GM to a teacher hahahahhahaahhahhahahhah

 

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

10 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I mean just imagine if a person were being graded on a score of 1 to 31 and they consistently ranked in the bottom 10 while spending like the top 5 but continued to refuse to accept it and still spent all of their available future resources above and beyond the cap to maintain that losing streak.  All while refusing to accept that assets that were expiring should be moved out to in fact recoup some of that lost value.

 

The only thing crazier than that is the suggestion that somehow, that is/was the right thing to do and was somehow smart business management

 

Bennings core is first in the conference.

4 hours ago, AnthonyG said:

lmao back under the bridge bud.
Daniel

Henrik

Burrows

Salo

Bieksa

Edler

Raymond

Hansen

Schneider

Luongo

Kesler

 

Only the biggest pieces minus Hamhuis and Erhoff lol. The rest, not a god damn thing to do with Gillis

 

The 2008 season was an anomaly that they missed playoffs. Its odd that he inherited a team that made playoffs 2008-09 with what changes? What did Gillis do to extend the window?? Hmm??? What did he do for the future? Oh ya absolutely nothing good.

 

 

Vancouver would have been a playoff team if Pettersson didnt take 40 games to get going in 2021-22. Held pointless in 24 of the first 40 games.

 

2022-23 Allllll goaltending, otherwise this would have been a playoff team. Virtually the same team as last year, only our goaltenders are performing to their level.

 

 

Lmao you Gillass nut huggers are comical. Guys been unemployed for ages, went from GM to a teacher hahahahhahaahhahhahahhah

Nailed it.

[conquestofbaguettes]

6 hours ago, SV. said:

Arguably, without the tenure of Gillis, that core wouldn't have even had a window to begin with.

 

Extremely arguable. "The window" was due to the work of Nonis and Burke the many years prior. They built that team. They built that core. THAT is why they had a window to begin with. Gillis helped get them across the finish line but his involvement and credit for building that team is vastly overstated.

[conquestofbaguettes]

7 hours ago, LillStrimma said:

Hey there, a long unnecessary post again. 
Bennings stupid deals has nothing to do with decisions revolving around the financial reality that is NHL hockey in Vancouver.

He was just not intelligent enough(or corrupt) to act as a GM for a team in different phases irrelevant if it was a rebuild, retool or whatever…

 

Vast majority of deals you refer to as "stupid" were directly related to FINANCIALS ie. Staying competitive to keep asses in the seats and eyes on the TV for the duration.

 

Benning was intelligent enough to last 8 years in the role. Ownership was clearly happy with the work.  For a guy you claim so completely shit at the job that doesn't make any sense.

 

But that only happened because everybody is just dumb? No. You're just missing a few big pieces to the puzzle is all.

 

And as it turns out this core is pretty darn good aren't they. 1st in the conference. Top of league in points too.

 

Benning's core.

 

Good stuff.

 

[Metal Face Doom]

Crap on ownership all you want but they also get the credit for where the team is at today.  

[Provost]

I gave up reading the OP when they couldn’t figure out that not spending to the cap also saves money for a business.

 

Some just bad assumptions there.. along with a random word salad.

 

Drop $25 million from the payroll and that more than makes up for a hypothetical drop at the gate…. That is worth thousands of people a game for the entire season.  You are still ahead of you drop 3,500-5,000 fans per game.

 

That gate drop is hypothetical as well, it ignores the fact most fans were ready for a rebuild and would have likely been MORE excited at seeing a team of young blue chip prospects than a cap strapped bottom feeder of overpaid veterans on retirement contracts.

 

How do you think Bedard is doing selling tickets for his team?  That is literally the opposite point the OP is trying to make.  Chicago did do the deep rebuild thing and they are reaping the rewards in ticket sales because of draft picks… but random overpaid UFAs they signed.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Provost

[SV.]

6 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Extremely arguable. "The window" was due to the work of Nonis and Burke the many years prior. They built that team. They built that core. THAT is why they had a window to begin with. Gillis helped get them across the finish line but his involvement and credit for building that team is vastly overstated.

Building a team does not inherently mean that a window to win comes with it.

Not the best example in this moment, but had the Edmonton Oilers won last year or the year before, Holland would rightfully get credit for steering that ship, despite Tambellini drafting RNH, MacTavish drafting Nurse and Draisaitl, and Chiarelli drafting McDavid.  Benning himself often gets credit for helping the Bruins win in 2011, but by the logic you and others are using here, he shouldn't as much of that Bruins team was built by Mike O'Connell and three months of Jeff Gorton.

Somebody else might have bought the eggs, flour, milk, etc., but the person who can bake something successful out of that is the person who gets credit, which is why Gillis rightfully gets credit for taking the Canucks from a bang average side and turning them into a legitimate favourite at that time.

[conquestofbaguettes]

13 hours ago, Provost said:

I gave up reading the OP when they couldn’t figure out that not spending to the cap also saves money for a business.

 

Some just bad assumptions there.. along with a random word salad.

Spending to cap to ice a competitive team is still cheaper/limits losses than the alternative otherwise word.

 

Just bad logic on your part unfortunately. And if it's all "word salad" to you that's your problem.

 

13 hours ago, Provost said:

That gate drop is hypothetical as well, it ignores the fact most fans were ready for a rebuild and would have likely been MORE excited at seeing a team of young blue chip prospects than a cap strapped bottom feeder of overpaid veterans on retirement contracts.

Getting shelled 6-1 every night would drive away even MORE consumers than it already did at time. That's what you're advocating and that was never going to happen.

The links found in the original post above showed there were already major drops and that was with the half assed team they iced.  and it would have been even worse. 

Doesn't matter if was that was a guarentee or not. It was not a financial risk they were willing to take. Obviously.

There's a reason they chose the path they did.

 

 

And you talking about "hypotheticals" is pretty funny.  "Of course people would still come out to watch the team get shit stomped every night. The internet told me they would still buy tickets." 

13 hours ago, Provost said:

How do you think Bedard is doing selling tickets for his team?  That is literally the opposite point the OP is trying to make.

Did you even read the damn post? I made SPECIFIC mention of Bedard.  And this club having no generational talent that would draw such a player. Secondly, even a tank approach does not guarantee such a player to land either. Buffalo missed McDavid. Anaheim missed Bedard.  Expecting a club to risk hundreds of millions of dollars all on a lottery is ridiculous. Thirdly, the club didn't have the assets to fetch the firsts they needed to even advocate such an approach anyway. Former AGM Chris Gear explained it all in the interview I linked in the original post. You should watch it.

 

Tanking for this club at that time is and always will be idealistic fan fiction and nothing but.

 

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

8 hours ago, SV. said:

Building a team does not inherently mean that a window to win comes with it.

Not the best example in this moment, but had the Edmonton Oilers won last year or the year before, Holland would rightfully get credit for steering that ship, despite Tambellini drafting RNH, MacTavish drafting Nurse and Draisaitl, and Chiarelli drafting McDavid.  Benning himself often gets credit for helping the Bruins win in 2011, but by the logic you and others are using here, he shouldn't as much of that Bruins team was built by Mike O'Connell and three months of Jeff Gorton.

Somebody else might have bought the eggs, flour, milk, etc., but the person who can bake something successful out of that is the person who gets credit, which is why Gillis rightfully gets credit for taking the Canucks from a bang average side and turning them into a legitimate favourite at that time.

I like your analogy.

 

Others made the cake. Gillis added the icing and sprinkles. Of course he had a hand in the final product. It's just vastly overstated is all.

[conquestofbaguettes]

15 hours ago, Metal Face Doom said:

Crap on ownership all you want but they also get the credit for where the team is at today.  

I was never really crapping on anyone tbh. You didn't read the whole thing did you. Lol. Look near the bottom section.

 

The essay was meant to be merely an  acknowledgement of reality: Business dictates decision-making. As I stated "if you asked Aqua I bet even he would've personally preferred a different approach."

[AnthonyG]

8 hours ago, SV. said:

Building a team does not inherently mean that a window to win comes with it.

Not the best example in this moment, but had the Edmonton Oilers won last year or the year before, Holland would rightfully get credit for steering that ship, despite Tambellini drafting RNH, MacTavish drafting Nurse and Draisaitl, and Chiarelli drafting McDavid.  Benning himself often gets credit for helping the Bruins win in 2011, but by the logic you and others are using here, he shouldn't as much of that Bruins team was built by Mike O'Connell and three months of Jeff Gorton.

Somebody else might have bought the eggs, flour, milk, etc., but the person who can bake something successful out of that is the person who gets credit, which is why Gillis rightfully gets credit for taking the Canucks from a bang average side and turning them into a legitimate favourite at that time.

 

Burke made the cake batter

Nonis baked it and added the icing

Gillis tossed on the sprinkles

 

Gillis inheritted a team that had already been drafted (made the batter) assembled and had gone through the growing pains (baked it) of youth turning into true professional athletes playing at the top of their level (icing) Gillis added a few final touches (sprinkles)

 

your window is the time it takes to bake. Once your done making that cake, it gets eaten up fast (the decline) and you sure as hell better have some ingredients left over that by the time that cake is already eaten up, the next one is just getting its icing and waiting for its sprinkles. We hadn’t developed anyone under the twins through our drafting/prospect pool. That is what greatly helped us transition from every other era. Bure/Linden etc to WCE to the Sedins. It was almost seamless transition from one era to the next.. up til that very point we hadnt developed/no one was ready from 2005-2013

 

That is the hardest part of all, getting the main pieces. Some organizations never find every piece needed and never contend. Its hard to find a selke, an art, hart and vezina quality goalie along with potential norris quality D.

 

Gillis failed to improve the team at the 2011-12 deadline. Got smoked by LAK, made worse changes to the team in 2012-13, we regressed. 2013-14 we were shit and that was the start of the twins decline. We got 1 more good season out of them, 4 years after Gillis was let go, the twins retired and the future looked very bleak until Petey showed us not to fear. Then Miller, Hughes and Demko doubled down on that.

 

[Metal Face Doom]

1 hour ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

I was never really crapping on anyone tbh. You didn't read the whole thing did you. Lol. Look near the bottom section.

 

The essay was meant to be merely an  acknowledgement of reality: Business dictates decision-making. As I stated "if you asked Aqua I bet even he would've personally preferred a different approach."

Sorry, I wasn't calling you out specifically.   I just wanted to point that out.

[DSVII]

3 hours ago, AnthonyG said:

 

Burke made the cake batter

Nonis baked it and added the icing

Gillis tossed on the sprinkles

 

Gillis inheritted a team that had already been drafted (made the batter) assembled and had gone through the growing pains (baked it) of youth turning into true professional athletes playing at the top of their level (icing) Gillis added a few final touches (sprinkles)

 

your window is the time it takes to bake. Once your done making that cake, it gets eaten up fast (the decline) and you sure as hell better have some ingredients left over that by the time that cake is already eaten up, the next one is just getting its icing and waiting for its sprinkles. We hadn’t developed anyone under the twins through our drafting/prospect pool. That is what greatly helped us transition from every other era. Bure/Linden etc to WCE to the Sedins. It was almost seamless transition from one era to the next.. up til that very point we hadnt developed/no one was ready from 2005-2013

 

That is the hardest part of all, getting the main pieces. Some organizations never find every piece needed and never contend. Its hard to find a selke, an art, hart and vezina quality goalie along with potential norris quality D.

 

Gillis failed to improve the team at the 2011-12 deadline. Got smoked by LAK, made worse changes to the team in 2012-13, we regressed. 2013-14 we were shit and that was the start of the twins decline. We got 1 more good season out of them, 4 years after Gillis was let go, the twins retired and the future looked very bleak until Petey showed us not to fear. Then Miller, Hughes and Demko doubled down on that.

 

 

1. Burke went to the store, laid the foundation 

2. Nonis mixed the batter, got some more ingredients that didn't quite work together the way he wanted but there was something there

3. Gillis added his own touches to the recipe, put it in the oven and laid the sprinkles to make it all come together, ultimately the cake was delicious, but it didn't come out the way he wanted. He wanted to start over since the cake was already half eaten.

 

Owner fires him.

 

4. Rather than sell the leftovers, Benning tried to leave it on display as long as he could to pass it off as a cake, piling on frosting and cream to fill in the rotting gaps before it finally collapsed onto itself. Although he wisely went to the store a few times to get a few good core ingredients, he didn't go enough, he insisted unfortunately on mixing the new ingredients with the old expired stuff on the shelf that was being sold to him a full price on ebay.

 

Concerning the Sedins: its an iterative process, everyone built them up on their path to greatness, but I firmly believe the Sedins wouldn't have developed the way they would have without Gillis' finishing touches either. Remember they were considering leaving the NA game, we never could find a right winger to play with them and Crawford only gave them limited minutes. Gillis had to convince them to sign as UFAs on team friendly deals and also brought in Sundin to mentor them (whom they credit with their growth to this day). 

 

I think you're vastly underestimating how hard it is to get a team working together despite having one elite piece in all positions within a salary cap world. And you're giving exaggerated weight to a guy who had the most top ten picks to choose from in the Franchise's history. Of course he's going to find these players over a long enough time line. Name one other GM whose had the opportunity to pick as much as he did in such high positions.

 

The hardest part of the job is putting together the team and making sure all these inter-related parts of a business/team work in tandem to produce a consistently winning product, and not working cross purposes with each other. That is the GM's role.

 

and @conquestofbaguettes you're ignoring the business math overlaid with the math the product produced. You're gonna need a deeper dive to prove that the team would be out of more money had they rebuilt vs 'compete' in 2014-2020, because the competing product produced the same results as a tanking team and people still came and spent money. It was just that it took till 2021 for the market to lose that goodwill from 2011.  I agree right now though in 2023, it doesn't make sense to rebuild.

 

I also disagree that longevity = merit as well. Your inference of why Benning survived 8 years has less to do with his competence than having the right people like him regardless of what the metrics told them, in this case, the owners. Because he told the owners what they wanted to hear, that they were what move away from a cup.

 

And owners make mistakes and they can also learn. So Benning had to go. 

Edited November 17, 2023 by DSVII

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 minute ago, DSVII said:

why Benning survived 8 years has less to do with his competence

 

I think this management group has thoroughly demonstrated that Benning's 8 years is the poster child of "incompetent".  Especially after he chose to centralize all decisions through himself after Linden left.

 

Who was it that said other GMs or execs were playing 3-D chess while Benning was pasting macaroni on cardboard?  Although I don't agree with much of what she spouted, this seems to hit the mark quite accurately.

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

The hardest part of the job is putting together the team and making sure all these inter-related parts of a business/team work in tandem to produce a consistently winning product, and not working cross purposes with each other. That is the GM's role.

The hardest part is acquiring an All-star core and the supplemental pieces along with it. Benning did the bulk the heavy lifting for Allvin and Rutherfordin that respect. That bulk is currently top of league in every category i might add. Nonis and Burke did the same for Gillis before that.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

ou're gonna need a deeper dive to prove that the team would be out of more money had they rebuilt vs 'compete' in 2014-2020, because the competing product produced the same results as a tanking team and people still came and spent money

 

I don't think I do.  The proof is in the pudding as they say.

 

You tell me why they rebuilt the way they did then. Why were Benning and Gear et al. instructed to keeping playing "competitive hockey."

Listen what what Gear says in this interview:

 

 

 

And no they didn't outright tank.  They may have missed playoffs and all the rest but was not an outright 13 win type blow-out season as would be expected with such an approach. And yes that would have been far far worse for the bottomline. It's okay to use deductive logic, dude. For if keeping asses in the seats wasn't the goal they wouldn't've been directed to "stay competitive" in the first place.

 

But hey don't listen to me. Listen to what Gear says.  Interview came out 9 months ago and puts to rest a vast majority of the bs still floating around out there.

Edited November 17, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

The hardest part is acquiring an All-star core and the supplemental pieces along with it. Benning did the bulk the heavy lifting for Allvin and Rutherfordin that respect. That bulk is currently top of league in every category i might add. Nonis and Burke did the same for Gillis before that.

und out there.

 

Allvin and Rutherford had to rebuild 3 of the top 4 D, resolve the cap crunch that Benning left them with and move out a bunch of deadweight contracts and bring in Kuzmenko and Hronek. New coaches in the farm team and NHL team, new standards and culture.

 

The core was there, but that was it. Allvin and Rutherford also did their share of heavy lifting and that should be acknowledged. Drafting a core is important, but if you weigh that more than the rest of the job, then GMs may as well just be guys with a hockey magazine that steps up to the podium to make picks.

 

Quote

I don't think I do. 

 

You tell me why they rebuilt the way they did then. Why were Benning and Gear et al. instructed to keeping playing "competitive hockey."

Listen what what Gear says in this interview:

 

And no they didn't outright tank.  They may have missed playoffs and all the rest but was not an outright 13 win type blow-out season as would be expected with such an approach. And yes that would have been far far worse for the bottomline. It's okay to use deductive logic, dude. For if keeping asses in the seats wasn't the goal they wouldn't've been directed to "stay competitive" in the first place.

 

But hey don't listen to me. Listen to what Gear says.  Interview came out 9 months ago and puts to rest a vast majority of the bs still floating aro

 

 

You kinda do. Because we're not talking about the business strategy decided, or why they went that way. You can say the team is competing, but the execution was botched and it resulted in a bottoming out kind of finish. 

 

Remember, the crux of the disagreement here is that you're saying the path the team followed had saved millions in potential lost revenue. The proof is in the pudding that attendance numbers and revenue numbers didn't drastically drop despite the team losing like the Arizona Coyotes.

 

As someone else pointed out, you're also don't factor in the savings from not spending to the cap. By spending more to the cap and not getting return on those contracts, you are effectively putting the equivalent of losing thousands of ticket seats to your bottom line.

 

It's your assertion that the direction taken by the team resulted in saving millions for the business. You need to back that up with some numbers.

 

Because deductive logic says, fans still came back to watch and attendance numbers and revenues remained stagnant when the team bottomed out in consecutive years (28th-29th-26th), there is a case that you could have sold the market a rebuild. Then if they had rebuilt, achieved a similar result in the bottom 3, but spent less salary on the team instead of being capped out. Then the business would have been more profitable anyway saving let's say $10 mil per year had they chosen to. One less Loui Eriksson mistake let's say. The business would have been better off rebuilding.

 

You opened the thread talking about the realities of business. Well business comes down to the numbers. And despite what Chris Gear says they tried to do, the numbers and metrics say otherwise. 

 

Quote

And no they didn't outright tank.  They may have missed playoffs and all the rest but was not an outright 13 win type blow-out season as would be expected with such an approach. And yes that would have been far far worse for the bottomline. It's okay to use deductive logic, dude. For if keeping asses in the seats wasn't the goal they wouldn't've been directed to "stay competitive" in the first place.

 

The Canucks while "competing", were getting blown out at the same goal differential as the Arizona Coyotes, yet people still came and spent money. I fail to see how Benning's product was any better than outright tanking from an on ice results standpoint.

 

13 win type seasons is also a bit of a hyperbole, those are 70s/80s numbers. in today's NHL, it's tough to even try to reach that.  Even the shameless 2015 Buffalo Sabres (that tanked so hard they traded away anyone that performed, not something i prescribe) had 23 wins. The Canucks when they finished 3rd last under Benning while 'competing', had 31. The bottom team had 29 wins.

 

I'm just not buying that those 8 extra wins translates to tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. 

 

A rebuild that started after Gillis would not be a 13 win type team. There would still be a competitive expectation from the roster/coaching level.

Edited November 17, 2023 by DSVII

[conquestofbaguettes]

23 minutes ago, DSVII said:

, but the execution was botched and it resulted in a bottoming out kind of finish. 

On the contrary, they were gonna lose anyway. Just not as much. And that at least draws more fans than it otherwise would getting shelled 6-1 everynight.

 You say botched and I say exactly what they wanted.

23 minutes ago, DSVII said:

 

Because deductive logic says, fans still came back to watch and attendance numbers and revenues remained stagnant when the team bottomed out in consecutive years (28th-29th-16th), there is a case that you could have sold the market a rebuild. Th

No.  Those numbers do mean what you think they do. They didn't do an intentional tank.  Ergo data cannot be applied acting as if they did.

 

Eg. Losing 6-1 every night is not the same as going 40 wins and 40 losses and missing playoffs.

 

Secondly,  not sure why you're telling me what you think fans would or wouldn't support.

 

You act like this billion dollar corporation didn't do their homework and look at the different options and potential paths to take. Is whole proposition is absolutely laughable.

 

They did the math.

 

They knew exactly what they were doing.

 

That's why they did what they did in the first place. Lol.

 

And once again easy for us to say on the outside what they should do. Not our investment on the line now is it.

 

And I love that. Rather than listening to what a former Canucks AGM is saying, explaining how and why things played out the way they did, the demands that were on the table... a person that  was there and directly involved in executing ownerships plan... you choose to ignore it and go on believing the same old internet myths.

 

Pass.

Edited November 17, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

27 minutes ago, DSVII said:

A rebuild that started after Gillis would not be a 13 win type team. There would still be a competitive expectation from the roster/coaching level.

 

Rebuilding while Sedins were still here was not an option. Not even worth floating as a realistic idea. Gear explained that as well.

Edited November 17, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[DSVII]

27 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

On the contrary, they were gonna lose anyway. Just not as much. And that at least draws more fans than it otherwise would getting shelled 6-1 everynight.

 You say botched and I say exactly what they wanted.

 

 

 

You act like this billion dollar corporation didn't do their homework and look at the different options and potential paths to take.

Is whole proposition is absolutely laughable.

 

They did the math.

 

They knew exactly what they were doing.

 

That's why they did what they did in the first place. Lol.

 

And once again easy for us to say on the outside what they should do. Not our investment on the line now is it.

 

You're the one ignoring the $$ that's coming in. But it's fine.

 

You're not correct by the way. It only became a billion dollar corporation when Jim was given the boot. And I can assure you it had more to do with what it signaled to the market than whatever Benning brought to the table. 

 

But yes. Billion Dollar Corporations don't always do their homework. They can become bloated and complacent. They are not immune to being hijacked by personalities and dominating owners. In fact some sports teams are just personal toys for the owners at the end of the day, ala Dallas Cowboys.

 

Quote

They knew exactly what they were doing.

 

This is more of an indictment to me than helping their case.

 

Quote

No.  Those number mean what you think they do. They didn't do an intentional tank.  Ergo data cannot be applied the same way.

A tanking result usually ends in the bottom of the league, the Canucks finished in the bottom. Ergo, despite what management says, it is a result comparable to tanking teams.

 

 

Quote

Secondly,  not sure why you're telling me what you think fans would or wouldn't support.

You're the one telling me what you think fans wouldn't support a bottom out tank. I provided numbers to show that even though the team ended statistically the same way as a bottom out tank, the revenues and attendance numbers didn't drop significantly.

 

Quote

And that at least draws more fans than it otherwise would getting shelled 6-1 everynight.

 

The Canucks had a similar goal differential of a rebuilding bottom feeder team in the Coyotes during that stretch.

 

Quote

And I love that. Rather than listening to what a former Canucks AGM is saying, explaining how and why things played out the way they did, the demands that were on the table... a person that  was there and directly involved in executing ownerships plan... you choose to ignore it and go on believing the same old internet myths.

 

Pass.

 

I believe the former AGM on the direction, I also believe the former President and his take on how dysfunctional an org is. And you're ignoring the on ice result and the dollars coming in.  But hey it's fine, hold the opinion. It's your right.

 

That ends this very neatly. 

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by DSVII

[DSVII]

4 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Rebuilding while Sedins were still here was not an option. Not even worth floating as a realistic idea. Gear explained that as well.

Eh the Sedins were good soldiers. I trust them to do what's best for the org if the time came to make that switch. I'll take their word for it
 

Quote

“We’ve always been,” said Henrik Sedin. “We understand that it’s going to be a rebuild, a retooling or whatever you want to call it. It was going to take a couple years.

 

“That’s where we are.”