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

[conquestofbaguettes]

25 minutes ago, DSVII said:

 

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.

 

 

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

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

I believe the former AGM on the direction, I also believe the former President and his take on how dysfunctional an org is. But hey it's fine, hold the opinion. It's your right.

 

That ends this very neatly. 

 

 

 

 

Absolute absurdity.

 

"They just dumb" is what your argument amounts to.

 

Because they didn't have any data at all to inform their decisions? No advertising data, no community partners to worry about, projections to meet, sales departments, food and beverage,  no financial planners or accountants. Nothing. They just said we're gonna stay competitive cuz we just dumb.

 

Absolute horseshit.

 

They chose they path they did because they knew exactly what would happen. And they avoided even greater losses by choosing the path they did and they know it. Even if you and others don't.

Edited November 17, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

50 minutes ago, DSVII said:

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
 

 

The organization felt indebted to them for all they did. The Sedins weren't going anywhere. And they couldn't "rebuild" with that happening.

 

Not to mention Gillis didn't leave them with much in the pipeline or assets which would demand 1sts to rebuild with anyway.

 

Wasn't a realistic option. Plain and simple.

Edited November 17, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[DSVII]

2 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Absolute absurdity.

 

"They just dumb" is what your argument amounts to.

 

Because they didn't have any data at all to inform their decisions? No advertising data, no community partners to worry about, projections to meet, sales departments, food and beverage,  no financial planners or accountants. Nothing. They just said we're gonna stay competitive cuz we just dumb.

 

Absolute horseshit.

 

.

That's not the argument and you know it. I'm disputing your interpretation of the economic realities of the "competitive vs rebuild model" using hard numbers.

 

And your response is to ignore the data. There really isn't much more to go on here. People reading this thread can make their own conclusions. 

 

Chris Gear saying they're trying their best to be competitive doesn't change the fact this team bottomed out and fans stayed loyal and kept spending. To a result equivalent of tanking teams. 

 

And the team was losing 6-1 games under Benning. The goal Differential during the "competitive" phase points to it.

 

But like you said at the beginning of the chain. This isn't about a defense or attack of Benning (which your "omg your argument is they're dumb" tangent steers this towards) this is about the state of the market and how it reacted to tank-like results in the standings in both losses and the manner of losing (blowout Arizona like)  with consistent revenues and attendance metrics.

 

From the 2011 highs, a drop of 40% in winning % resulted in a drop of 20% in revenues. A drop in 40% in winning% isn't competing and a drop in 20% in revenues sucks but survivable. Call it whatever you want, the market bought into a team that replicated a tanking result.

 

In fact, they may well have lost less money had they not tried to compete, because by competing you're adding another ~10-15 million to your annual expenses in player contracts that you otherwise would not have. That eats into your margin a lot more directly than reduction in ticket sales. 

 

And going by your very own Houston astros example. By failing to properly rebuild. It may very well have cost this team years of exponential growth by not committing to a rebuild in a market that would not have punished the team for it.

 

What I do find absurd what you think a rebuild entails. How billion dollar corps are infallible. How spending more on cap in a failing product saves money. And how longevity in a position of power equates to doing a good job. 

 

Alot of fallacies there that we won't go into. I think we've squeezed as much out of this as we could.

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by DSVII

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

hat's not the argument and you know it. I'm disputing your interpretation of the economic realities of the "competitive vs rebuild model" using hard numbers.

 

And your response is to ignore the data. There really isn't much more to go on here.

Actually it is what you're saying.

 

You're telling me this billion dollar company chose the path they did because "they are dumb." 

 

They chose the path they did because it made the most sense for a) the business and the financial demands of said business and b) the assets they had to work with.

 

I already explained why this so-called attendance data cannot be applied in the manner being attempted. Ie. They didn't do an intentional tank rebuild 'getting shelled 6-1 every night' so it's not  cannot be applied that way. If they did, you could. But they didn't.

 

Secondly, saying I'M ignoring data is rich.  What more data do you need.  This billion dollar corporation chose the path they did for a reason. They did the math. They knew.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

Chris Gear saying they're trying their best to be competitive doesn't change the fact this team bottomed out and fans stayed loyal and kept spending.

 

Actually, they didn't. As I stated in the original post

 

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

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

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

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

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

this is about the state of the market and how it reacted to tank-like results in the standings in both losses and the manner of losing (blowout Arizona like)  with consistent revenues and attendance metrics.

There's a big big difference between buying tickets to see a team where you KNOW they are going to get shit kicked every single game, and thinking you might actually see a win now and again with a semi-decent product winning as many games as they would lose.

 

And again, they chose the path they did for areason. Obviously I don't have access to the plethora of documents and conversations they had to come tonthe conclusions they did, but once again this is a billion dollar corporation here. They don't make these decisions lightly. A lot of money on the line. A lot of data to sift though before making such a decision.

 

And "tank-like results" is wholly after the fact. SELLING a product and what you actually RECIEVE are two different things.

 

 

And had they intentionally tanked and declared it as such, they know exactly what would have happened.  Once again, that's why they didn't do it in the first place. There is literally no other rational explanation.

 

As I stated at the beginning, even I recognize there were better more ideal ways to do it. Glaringly obvious ones. And I wholly agree when you state "It may very well have cost this team years of exponential growth by not committing to a rebuild."  And that's the rub!  Weighing the needs of the business in the NOW vs. the needs of the FUTURE both in terms of assets and in terms of a window to compete for a Stanley Cup. This was never in contention.

 

But I understand capitalism. I understand how the root of all evil forces us to do things we'd rather not do. And business is business.

 

"Economic reality," indeed.

 

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

How billion dollar corps are infallible. How spending more on cap in a failing product saves money. And how longevity in a position of power equates to doing a good job. 

I never said they were infallible. Only that there is in fact an extensive process before making decisions like that. Because there is. I know for a fact there is.

 

And yes, capping out to keep a competitive product on the ice helps keeps more money rolling in. As they say, "gotta spend money to make money"

 

https://theathletic.com/1672688/2020/03/13/nhl-financial-impact-how-much-money-does-a-team-bring-in-each-home-game/

 

People don't come out when you are a guaranteed loser. And it was a hard sell even while keeping a semi-decent product as the above links stated.

 

The belief that people would still come out the same way, that tickets would be worth the same amount in an intentional tank, a publicly declared intentional tank at that, is just that: a belief. And not rooted in actually fact.

 

And whether it's true or not, is a moot point anyway. It was obviously a financial risk they were not willing to take otherwise they would have done it. Their data obviously told them otherwise. As does mine.

 

Longevity here is equivalent to the bosses being happy with the body of  work. Why do you think he lasted 8 years?  Must have doing something the owners were happy with, no? Hitting their projections whatever those were... until they weren't... then they got shitcanned.

Edited November 17, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[IBatch]

On 11/15/2023 at 6:59 PM, SV. said:

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.

The moment we traded for Luongo I could see this team winning a cup.   Nonis did that.   Wasn't the only one either.  

[DSVII]

9 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Actually it is what you're saying.

 

You're telling me this billion dollar company chose the path they did because "they are dumb." 

 

They chose the path they did because it made the most sense for a) the business and the financial demands of said business and b) the assets they had to work with.

 

I already explained why this so-called attendance data cannot be applied in the manner being attempted. Ie. They didn't do an intentional tank rebuild 'getting shelled 6-1 every night' so it's not  cannot be applied that way. If they did, you could. But they didn't.

 

There's a big big difference between buying tickets to see a team where you KNOW they are going to get shit kicked every single game, and thinking you might actually see a win now and again with a semi-decent product winning as many games as they would lose.

 

Alright. Last time. That is not what I'm saying. Take the management choice out of it. This is about the market, not management.

 

I'm talking about the market reacted to the results of what management put forth. Which was a tanking finish.

 

Your entire argument is that if the Canucks had declared a rebuild, and we had the same results, then the market would have reacted more adversely than they did with the current route of selling futures and capping out. I disagree with that. The product put out was comparable to the Coyotes during that stretch of time, the market still supported the team.

 

Your argument boils down to "the market is dumb" .

 

You're essentially saying Canucks fans spent money in three consecutive years because management told them the product on the ice, which was underperforming at the rate of the Arizona Coyotes, had a 'chance' of not being blown out every night because it was marketed as such. Whatever the management stated, the team was still getting shelled 6-1 night after night. And the fans didn't abandon the team until year 7 of the plan. That's a lot more patience than some rebuilding markets.

 

I think you're really underestimating the effect of the lingering goodwill the Franchise had with the market after the cup run to sustain that hope and revenues, regardless of whatever direction management chose. 

 

Quote

The belief that people would still come out the same way, that tickets would be worth the same amount in an intentional tank, a publicly declared intentional tank at that, is just that: a belief. And not rooted in actually fact.

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

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

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

 

never said ticket prices would be worth the same amount. I'm just saying that in a rebuild route, the market would have reacted a similar fashion to the competitive route.

 

Ticket prices weren't even the same amount in your own article that is supposed to support your argument. 

 

Stated ticket prices fell to $20. During the time you're claiming the team is marketed as competitive. So going back to my original point, this was a rebuild result in all aspects BUT the rewards of walking away with a prospect pipeline, and the revenues while taking a  hit, didn't plummet the way you think a rebuild would. The market was reacting to this as if it were a rebuild. Regardless of how it was marketed or what management decided.

 

This is from your own article.
 

You can say the fans may be fooled if the management group tells them the team isn't going to be shelled 6-1 each game. The market can see through that.

 

 

 

Not a 100% comparable, but remember the Rangers and their letter to the fanbase in 2018 signaling a rebuild? Their revenues actually went up the following year ($270M vs $253M) and attendance dropped only an avg of 500 (3%) per game the following year. I think there's something to be said for the power of being transparent with your fanbase about where your team is at and providing the concrete plan going forward, as you pointed out yourself.  Whether the plan was a rebuild or compete. 

 

https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=7089

 

I mean this is basically just a post arguing against rebuilding? If this same management group and billion dollar corp applied the same marketing, care and due diligence towards selling a rebuild, you're saying the results would have been substantially worse?

 

Your bias of what a rebuild actually entails is very evident throughout the post. Even your first one when you tell the reader "if you accept a rebuild, you must also like burning money away."

 

Quote

And "tank-like results" is wholly after the fact. SELLING a product and what you actually RECIEVE are two different things.

 

The market received the equivalent of the Arizona Coyotes on the ice in 2016. The attendance numbers still held for those years after. therefore, the market was supporting a tank-like result.

 

Quote

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

 

The Sedins would still be here during a rebuild. And if the rebuild had gone, you'd have some promising rookies to go alongside them. People can be invested in watching the journey of a future star being mentored by the Sedins.

 

Quote

Only that there is in fact an extensive process before making decisions like that. Because there is. I know for a fact there is.

 

I mean take from it what you will, but FA hiring the coach before the GM, not informing Rutherford of the extent of Bruce's contract. The hiring process of John Tortorella. The Canucks did not do their transactions with complete due diligence during that time period, a lot of it felt more reactive than purposeful.

 

Quote

Secondly, saying I'M ignoring data is rich.  What more data do you need.  This billion dollar corporation chose the path they did for a reason. They did the math. They knew.

 

And had they intentionally tanked and declared it as such, they know exactly what would have happened.  Once again, that's why they didn't do it in the first place. There is literally no other rational explanation.

 

 

You're definitely not looking at the cold data. Because everything is coated in 'management decisions' and how the product was marketed. You're ignoring the level this product performed at, in consecutive years. And also indirectly answers the reason for the resentment in the market you posited at the first post.

 

There is also the irrational explanation at the very top as well. Like Francesco trying to win the cup for his dad before he dies. Which he is on the record for saying.

 

Quote

 

And yes, capping out to keep a competitive product on the ice helps keeps more money rolling in. As they say, "gotta spend money to make money"

 

You're stating this as a fact, but it isn't proven. I highly doubt the money rolled in because the team spent that extra $10-15 mil on dead weight contracts like Roussel, Beagle, Loui.

 

Because as shown by the hockey metrics, the team simply wasn't competitive during that time. No matter how you label the product.

 

Quote

But I understand capitalism. I understand how the root of all evil forces us to do things we'd rather not do. And business is business.

 

"Economic reality," indeed.

 

I think you also need to understand the role that ego and irrationality can play in capitalism as well. 

 

Anyways, I'm done with this. Agree to Disagree is the bottom line here.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by DSVII

[SV.]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

The moment we traded for Luongo I could see this team winning a cup.   Nonis did that.   Wasn't the only one either.  

I believe you.  My question now is: how much of that was based on subjective feelings you had about the team as a fan vs objective metrics and statistics to actually suggest Canucks were a legitimate favourite to win?  That's what I mean when I say that Gillis opened up a window. 

Prior to the 2009 off-season, the Canucks winning a cup was only ever going to come off Luongo putting up consistent Hasek-like performances and the team catching fire at the right time.  And that's assuming they could actually do enough to get into the playoffs in the first place. 

By contrast, the Gillis teams were much more complete, seeing as they could score tons (always among league leaders), defend very well (at a point, among league leaders), and still provide the same quality of goaltending.

If people - and I'm not necessarily including you among these people, just speaking generally - still want to view the work of Gillis as "putting the finishing touches", then it's best to agree to disagree.  No doubt, in isolation, Burke and Nonis did good things for the team, but they never came close to getting it right.  And even if we entertain the thought that the Canucks were already a powerhouse before Gillis, as it has been suggested, then it follows that Burke and Nonis severely underperformed in their tenure. 

[AnthonyG]

15 hours ago, DSVII said:

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.

 

 

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. 

So I ask you….. do you truly, like ACTUALLY believe Benning was brought in to win a cup? Like honestly, is that your view and understanding of firing Gillis who threw the future away, to then replace him with a very well respected scouting background in Jim Benning. You claim he was incompetent, yet lasted nearly 8 years whispering “what move away from a cup they were” lol. That is so far from the truth. Why else bring in a GM with a scouting background? Honestly can you answer that? Can anyone riddle me that? 
 

 

As for your little bake sale

we had these Sedin slices that are purely for display, look great behind the glass but the price and how long they had been sitting there.. not something any customer is willing to pay a premium for and even if they did its a buy one get the other full price! But they have to say yes!

 

Okay so lets check out what else is in the bakery… oooooh loook we have this Edler and Hamhuis cookies that are stuck to the shelf from all the sweet toppings that melted and hardened… they refuse to move even if you tried!

 

okay heres one that is for sale… but its only allowed to go to one specific customer and we can only take what they can afford. Guess who?! KESLER!!! Yaaaay hes heading to shitcago! Oh wait no he changed his mind last second!! Yaaay.

 

Heres this lump of crap Garisson, any takers? You? Okay sure half price, take it and go.

 

now for the bake sale goodies that have been sitting out for weeks that were never put up for sale and now we have decided to take them off display.. Burrows, Hansen, Bieksa… got us what?

 

Didnt sell the left overs you say? He moved plenty out in a very short time. Gotta have guys to replace them if you wanna move them out. Cant just get picks and toss them in because Gillis was far too incompetent to draft/develop anything.

Benning held onto his first round picks the first 6 drafts. He gambled on trades with picks outside the 1st for guys who showed some potential. He was building the entire time through free agency up until JT Miller, which was a helluva trade. So many hated the OEL trade, go look at his utilization and impact his 1st season. You’ll see elite shut down numbers. Last year he played through injury and then finally was sidelined… this year hes back to himself and doing great in FLA.. bit of a premature knee-jerk reaction to buy a guy out who was unhealthy and to be penalized for a lengthy amount of time. 

 

Concerning the Sedins, they were on the verge of being busts. Take the WCE out and its alllll on the twins to perform. They would have certainly struggled much longer and their value would have dropped significantly and the owners and management would look at them and make a decision to either keep or sell them together or sell them individually. It is well known they struggled immensely and that was while playing behind Nazzy, Big Bert and BMo, which is what ultimately gave them enough time to flourish.
 

 

So you can guarantee that ALL top 10 picks are a 100% guarantee? JBs job was easy at the draft table? Of course he would find that talent without a top 3 pick? A Nolan Patrick? A Lafrieniere? A Patrik Stefan?Erik Johnson? Bogosian? Schenn? Galchenyuk, Yakypov, Murray lol the entire top 3 of the 2012 draft lmfao oh and number 4 too, Reinhart. Drouin…. The list goes on and on and on and on. Thats just a handful of drafts in the top 5. There is no guarantee in a draft at all. Zero. To have as many hits as he did outside the top 3 and for them to be impact players is truly incredible. 
 

You want an example of a GM/organization who has had such great “draft capital” and fucked it up? Ummmm EDMONTON helloOo??Taylor hall meh, Yakawho? RNH? NURSE lol took them how many top 3 picks to get a Draisaitl and McDavid? How many times did they blow it? We’re comparing a GM who picked 5th twice, 6th once, 7th and 10th. Those draft spots are nothing to brag about.

Yet even so his 23rd and 24th selections were 10x better than Gillis’s 10th overall. How does that happen, I thought top 10s were a guarantee?  Just head on over to hockeydb.com and go see the history of the 5th overall, see how many Jagrs there have been.

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, SV. said:

I believe you.  My question now is: how much of that was based on subjective feelings you had about the team as a fan vs objective metrics and statistics to actually suggest Canucks were a legitimate favourite to win?  That's what I mean when I say that Gillis opened up a window. 

Prior to the 2009 off-season, the Canucks winning a cup was only ever going to come off Luongo putting up consistent Hasek-like performances and the team catching fire at the right time.  And that's assuming they could actually do enough to get into the playoffs in the first place. 

By contrast, the Gillis teams were much more complete, seeing as they could score tons (always among league leaders), defend very well (at a point, among league leaders), and still provide the same quality of goaltending.

If people - and I'm not necessarily including you among these people, just speaking generally - still want to view the work of Gillis as "putting the finishing touches", then it's best to agree to disagree.  No doubt, in isolation, Burke and Nonis did good things for the team, but they never came close to getting it right.  And even if we entertain the thought that the Canucks were already a powerhouse before Gillis, as it has been suggested, then it follows that Burke and Nonis severely underperformed in their tenure. 

Back then we needed a real goaltender for awhile.  You could tell the Sedins were getting better, and we still had Naslund, plus a decent D corp, and the kids were doing alright too well.   Yes you could see it coming together.   Anyone paying any attention at all at the time, knew that Luongo was toiling on some very mediocre at best teams in Florida, for a few years he was a regular hi-light reel.   The only other time I got as excited, was when we traded for Mogilny.     That's it.    Luongo was the best young goalie in the game, and playing on a much worse team than ours.  Regularly facing 40 plus shots night in night out, and a total stud could play as many games as you asked him too.    That's also why Nonis gave him the biggest pay-day cap percentage wise aside from what MG offered/gave his former client in Sundin all-time.     Luongo was more legit than pretty much any goalie since.   Vasilevsky didn't do it.   Nobody has done it since at the same age.   I've seen that before in Roy.   That's about it.   MAF was the closest.   I've seen better too, but at his age, not really.   Just Roy.   Maybe Broduer and Belfour, but Luongo on those teams instead?   

 

Didn't think we were a powerhouse.  But could see that Luongo was enough with what we already had, and wasn't on my own with that either.     
 

Edit:  Also was tough to see Big Bert go,  but if we had a trade right now that would be a comp, it would be like Brock getting traded to COL for Makar as far as team needs go and star status.   Best young RHD in the league.    With the exception cap would work in our favour going forward,  all of Burke's and Nonis's cap was about to shed.     Back then Luongo was a superstar already.   
 

Edit: At 24 Luongo was a Vezina finalist, 6th in Hart voting and a second team all-star (voted as the second best goalie in the league).   So.   Do you remember that?   I sure do.  After the goalies ruining our chances with the WCE era, and what we'd drafted and how that was going, could only see great things coming.   I also see that happening right now.   Was actually shocked all it cost us was Bertuzzi.   Thank you Keenan! 

Edited November 17, 2023 by IBatch

[AnthonyG]

18 hours ago, DSVII said:

1) And you're giving exaggerated weight to a guy who had the most top ten picks to choose from in the Franchise's history.
 

2) Name one other GM whose had the opportunity to pick as much as he did in such high positions.

1) Gillis is grossly exaggerated. 
And this “fan base” grossly under appreciates what Benning was able to accomplish with such limited trade chips, less favourable draft positions, multiple expansion drafts, a pandemic, COVID writing off our season and being the only team affected so detrimentally and of course a flat cap with no notion of when it may rise all while having to navigate every RFA.

2) Columbus from 2000-2008 9 consecutive top 10 picks

NYR drafted 1st 2nd 6th and 7th and walked away with….. Lafrieniere? I guess? 4 consecutive drafts and basically nothing. Benning was better outside the top 10 than they were inside the top 3.

 

Edmonton as previously mentioned

 

 NYI 2008-2014

Bailey at 9th

Tavares 1st

MDC 5th

Reinhart 4th

Strome 5th

Theres few organizations with better draft capital.

[Jaimito]

Bottom line, I'm glad AQ hired JR, an experienced HOF builder.  AQ flew to his house and convinced JR to take the job.  

 

JR wouldn't have accepted the job if AQ didn't let him do what he wanted.  He already has 3 cups and HOF.  He didn't need to go to a struggling team.  He didn't choose Vancouver for the Chinese food. 

 

As much as I like Linden and feel he needs to be in the Canucks management, hiring him as president was a mistake.  He went on to hire a rookie GM, who then hired a rookie coach. Rest is history.  

 

JR and PA have did a huge makeover over the last season and a half, and kept what they wanted, and let go of what they didn't (Bo, OEL, Bruce, King etc).  The results have been excellent, but they know they have weaknesses and are not content. It's a fun season to watch.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

2 minutes ago, Jaimito said:

JR and PA have did a huge makeover over the last season and a half, and kept what they wanted, and let go of what they didn't (Bo, OEL, Bruce, King etc).  The results have been excellent, but they know they have weaknesses and are not content. It's a fun season to watch.

 

Having current management (and I will admit, I had my apprehensions when they started), it's helped me to appreciate just how incompetent a manager Benning was - a guy who perhaps inadvertently stealth tanked, but even if he intended it, he couldn't even get that right since he traded away the most important parts of a stealth tank: high draft picks and cap space to create the room necessary to quickly flip the switch into compete mode.  All that malarkey about keeping the team competitive is just complete bullshit, given the fact that there were no results to substantiate the "compete" that Benning was trying to hoodwink us with.

 

I'm still not entirely sold on the way current management seems to be favouring "good ol' boys" that they used to work with, but at least the results on the ice have somewhat justified their approach.

[Jaimito]

8 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Having current management (and I will admit, I had my apprehensions when they started), it's helped me to appreciate just how incompetent a manager Benning was - a guy who perhaps inadvertently stealth tanked, but even if he intended it, he couldn't even get that right since he traded away the most important parts of a stealth tank: high draft picks and cap space to create the room necessary to quickly flip the switch into compete mode.  All that malarkey about keeping the team competitive is just complete bullshit, given the fact that there were no results to substantiate the "compete" that Benning was trying to hoodwink us with.

 

I'm still not entirely sold on the way current management seems to be favouring "good ol' boys" that they used to work with, but at least the results on the ice have somewhat justified their approach.

They hired people they've known to be good, but that's not a surprise.  It's a small community.  But they did hire outside the box like Cammi and Emily.  I don't think it's window dressing or trying to be woke etc.  Almost every pickup has been pretty good or served their role (Suter, Ilya, Kuz, Bleuger, Soucy, Cole, Joshua, Friedman, DeSmith, Hronek) Cammi has been leading the pro and amateur scouting.  They made tight maneuvers to fit everything under the cap, at one point to the dollar.  

Coaching has been great.  Tocchet (has Pens connection), Gonchar (pens), Foote, getting Sedins more involved etc.  Even AHL team is developing well and doing well this season (8-4-1 3rd in Pacific div). 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Jaimito

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

3 minutes ago, Jaimito said:

But they did hire outside the box like Cammi and Emily.

 

Yes, I'd forgotten about them.  And also the lady (subsequently relieved of her duties) who commented on Benning's artistic chess playing skills, if I recall correctly.  

Edited November 17, 2023 by 6of1_halfdozenofother

[Jaimito]

3 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Yes, I'd forgotten about them.  And also the lady (subsequently relieved of her duties) who commented on Benning's artistic chess playing skills, if I recall correctly.  

They've made mistakes for sure. That hire was one.

 

JR was talking too frank and torpedoed Bruce before the new season.  They didn't handle that well, and pivoted after the fiasco.  Now they let PA do the talking more and JR sits back more.  All good.  

Edited November 17, 2023 by Jaimito

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

Anyways, I better shut up here before that Chris Gear interview makes another appearance in-thread.  

[iceman1964]

On 11/15/2023 at 1:41 PM, 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.

And even worse, the team with Gillis in 2011/12 there was next to no picks or developed depth at all, Benning inherited the shit show team of the NHL, broken beyond belief, and locked in NTC's and no one WANTED to come to Vancouver unless they were overpaid, with or without Benning, it wouldn't have mattered if it was Scotty Bowman, you cant turn a Chevy into a Ferrari no matter how hard you try. 

 This is so not new, even before 2012, sell the farm! Get a great seasonal team and it fall flat in the playoffs usually first round because of injuries with no depth.. 

 I'm sitting here wondering why people refuse to get their heads around this, it's not f'n rocket science! This is the history of our team since day one...

Like f'n DUH!! Selling the farm DUHS not work EVER! Lmao! How many cups do we have? 

I shudder to think of the next regime past JR and AL retire or move on, will the next one sell it out again? And back to square one? I think after all this time watching, if that happened, I'd probably just not bother, yeah I've been a die hard fun BUT there comes a time when it ends, watching a seasonal wicked team is fun but knowing there's not depth, why bother? We all know how that works out, just teased (again) 

Edited November 18, 2023 by iceman1964

[Petey the Puck Whisperer]

we have lost so many higher pics/lottery picks winning useless games in the last month of the season. Its actually insane how many assets we've wasted on this bullshit rebuild.

[kilgore]

20 hours ago, DSVII said:

 

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. 

 

Thanks for doing a lot of the heavy lifting this thread.  I get worn out reacting to these deluded Benning fluffers.

 

The disrespect of what Gillis accomplished is ridiculous. 

Much like JR/PA he added the pieces needed to support the core players.  HIggins, LaPierre, and solid D, Hamhuis, Erhoff.  Signed Tanev. He also convinced core players to sign for home discounts in order to be able to build a Stanley Cup contending team. Landing Sundin was a bold move that may not have worked out on the ice, but helped to turn the twins into real competitors.

He should also get credit for trying to convince ownership that the team needed a rebuild which in hindsight would have been the prudent move at the time.

And the argument that he left nothing for Benning?  He had a team full of SCF veterans to wheel and deal. Sure some had NTCs but a creative GM can find ways to convince them to break them. Especially if they see their fellow veteran teammates who don't have a NTC being traded away and the team obviously headed for a strip down rebuild.

Oh....not to mention he left Benning with TWO first round picks to start his tenure. (which of course Benning frittered away)

 

 

The whole defense of Benning seems to boil down to be...he built the great core we have now.  He didn't "build" anything. He picked the top core players. And he only batted .500 on top ten picks at that. I don't know what the percent is for top ten picks making it in the NHL , in even a lower line role at the very least, but I'm sure its above .500.  Virtanen, Joulevi... neither of them are even playing in the NHL at all now.  Pettersson...obviously great pick, but if the stories reported are true, he had to be arm-twisted into taking Petey over Glass.   Hughes, was not a difficult brilliant pick in the least. Any GM would make that call. And Podkolzin is still a big if. He may turn into a solid third line player. 

 

As well hardly any of the draft picks from lower rounds he picked amounted to much. A player like Tryamkin, although Nikita was partly responsible himself with his attitude, was never given a fair shot after he recommitted to the team, for instance.  He was low-balled a number, lower than his KHL contract, when he asked to come back.

 

And in every other aspect of building a team he utterly failed at. The list is too long to repeat. Watching Tanev in a red and white jersey still sticks in my craw every time I see it.  

 

There is so much more to a GMs job than picking a good player from the top ten (50% of the time).

Gillis proved that and JR/PA are also proving that today.

[iceman1964]

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

 

Thanks for doing a lot of the heavy lifting this thread.  I get worn out reacting to these deluded Benning fluffers.

 

The disrespect of what Gillis accomplished is ridiculous. 

Much like JR/PA he added the pieces needed to support the core players.  HIggins, LaPierre, and solid D, Hamhuis, Erhoff.  Signed Tanev. He also convinced core players to sign for home discounts in order to be able to build a Stanley Cup contending team. Landing Sundin was a bold move that may not have worked out on the ice, but helped to turn the twins into real competitors.

He should also get credit for trying to convince ownership that the team needed a rebuild which in hindsight would have been the prudent move at the time.

And the argument that he left nothing for Benning?  He had a team full of SCF veterans to wheel and deal. Sure some had NTCs but a creative GM can find ways to convince them to break them. Especially if they see their fellow veteran teammates who don't have a NTC being traded away and the team obviously headed for a strip down rebuild.

Oh....not to mention he left Benning with TWO first round picks to start his tenure. (which of course Benning frittered away)

 

 

The whole defense of Benning seems to boil down to be...he built the great core we have now.  He didn't "build" anything. He picked the top core players. And he only batted .500 on top ten picks at that. I don't know what the percent is for top ten picks making it in the NHL , in even a lower line role at the very least, but I'm sure its above .500.  Virtanen, Joulevi... neither of them are even playing in the NHL at all now.  Pettersson...obviously great pick, but if the stories reported are true, he had to be arm-twisted into taking Petey over Glass.   Hughes, was not a difficult brilliant pick in the least. Any GM would make that call. And Podkolzin is still a big if. He may turn into a solid third line player. 

 

As well hardly any of the draft picks from lower rounds he picked amounted to much. A player like Tryamkin, although Nikita was partly responsible himself with his attitude, was never given a fair shot after he recommitted to the team, for instance.  He was low-balled a number, lower than his KHL contract, when he asked to come back.

 

And in every other aspect of building a team he utterly failed at. The list is too long to repeat. Watching Tanev in a red and white jersey still sticks in my craw every time I see it.  

 

There is so much more to a GMs job than picking a good player from the top ten (50% of the time).

Gillis proved that and JR/PA are also proving that today.

Gillis didn't do shit in the end because he never covered ONE base! I "was" a Gillis fan but he overlooked the consequences of not having depth, we got close, what happened? Injuries... To defense, I remember it well, Hamhuis was first to go down, had we had at least had someone to help, everyone moved up to cover then Tanev Edler were playing injured and were being feasted on ever harder..

Even if you get a great team, exactly the way you want it, the odds are heavily stacked against you, for the simple rule of a long brutal playoff causes injuries and everyone knows it.. 

 I wish it was different, but that's the way it is...

[conquestofbaguettes]

10 hours ago, DSVII said:

 

Alright. Last time. That is not what I'm saying. Take the management choice out of it. This is about the market, not management.

 

I'm talking about the market reacted to the results of what management put forth. Which was a tanking finish.

 

Your entire argument is that if the Canucks had declared a rebuild, and we had the same results, then the market would have reacted more adversely than they did with the current route of selling futures and capping out. I disagree with that. The product put out was comparable to the Coyotes during that stretch of time, the market still supported the team.

 

Your argument boils down to "the market is dumb" .

 

You're essentially saying Canucks fans spent money in three consecutive years because management told them the product on the ice, which was underperforming at the rate of the Arizona Coyotes, had a 'chance' of not being blown out every night because it was marketed as such. Whatever the management stated, the team was still getting shelled 6-1 night after night. And the fans didn't abandon the team until year 7 of the plan. That's a lot more patience than some rebuilding markets.

 

I think you're really underestimating the effect of the lingering goodwill the Franchise had with the market after the cup run to sustain that hope and revenues, regardless of whatever direction management chose. 

 

 

never said ticket prices would be worth the same amount. I'm just saying that in a rebuild route, the market would have reacted a similar fashion to the competitive route.

 

Ticket prices weren't even the same amount in your own article that is supposed to support your argument. 

 

Stated ticket prices fell to $20. During the time you're claiming the team is marketed as competitive. So going back to my original point, this was a rebuild result in all aspects BUT the rewards of walking away with a prospect pipeline, and the revenues while taking a  hit, didn't plummet the way you think a rebuild would. The market was reacting to this as if it were a rebuild. Regardless of how it was marketed or what management decided.

 

This is from your own article.
 

You can say the fans may be fooled if the management group tells them the team isn't going to be shelled 6-1 each game. The market can see through that.

 

 

 

Not a 100% comparable, but remember the Rangers and their letter to the fanbase in 2018 signaling a rebuild? Their revenues actually went up the following year ($270M vs $253M) and attendance dropped only an avg of 500 (3%) per game the following year. I think there's something to be said for the power of being transparent with your fanbase about where your team is at and providing the concrete plan going forward, as you pointed out yourself.  Whether the plan was a rebuild or compete. 

 

https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=7089

 

I mean this is basically just a post arguing against rebuilding? If this same management group and billion dollar corp applied the same marketing, care and due diligence towards selling a rebuild, you're saying the results would have been substantially worse?

 

Your bias of what a rebuild actually entails is very evident throughout the post. Even your first one when you tell the reader "if you accept a rebuild, you must also like burning money away."

 

 

The market received the equivalent of the Arizona Coyotes on the ice in 2016. The attendance numbers still held for those years after. therefore, the market was supporting a tank-like result.

 

 

The Sedins would still be here during a rebuild. And if the rebuild had gone, you'd have some promising rookies to go alongside them. People can be invested in watching the journey of a future star being mentored by the Sedins.

 

 

I mean take from it what you will, but FA hiring the coach before the GM, not informing Rutherford of the extent of Bruce's contract. The hiring process of John Tortorella. The Canucks did not do their transactions with complete due diligence during that time period, a lot of it felt more reactive than purposeful.

 

 

You're definitely not looking at the cold data. Because everything is coated in 'management decisions' and how the product was marketed. You're ignoring the level this product performed at, in consecutive years. And also indirectly answers the reason for the resentment in the market you posited at the first post.

 

There is also the irrational explanation at the very top as well. Like Francesco trying to win the cup for his dad before he dies. Which he is on the record for saying.

 

 

You're stating this as a fact, but it isn't proven. I highly doubt the money rolled in because the team spent that extra $10-15 mil on dead weight contracts like Roussel, Beagle, Loui.

 

Because as shown by the hockey metrics, the team simply wasn't competitive during that time. No matter how you label the product.

 

 

I think you also need to understand the role that ego and irrationality can play in capitalism as well. 

 

Anyways, I'm done with this. Agree to Disagree is the bottom line here.

 

 

 

Why do you think they actually hired Trevor Linden.  Zero experience as a President or GM, or scout or anything else. Why him.

 

Answer: It was to pander to season ticket holders to stick around and keep spending money. Essentially stating "we know we won't be winning cups but we'll still give you a good show for your buck." That's reality.

 

Secondly, you don't have "cold data."  You have some public links and misapplied data leading to you believe you know more than you do. I can read too, bud. And I also happen to have an extensive background in social research and statistics so I can you tell you straight up why don't have what you think you do and why we cannot draw certain conclusions to said data.

 

Bottomline is we don't have access to what the organization used to come to the conclusions they did to choose the path they did. But I do know for a fact there's is an extensive process involved in financial planning and projections to said conclusions. And obviously their mountains of publicly unavailable data pointed to a different outcome than those few links and subsequent theory you provided. Otherwise they would have done it.

 

"Stated ticket prices fell to $20. During the time you're claiming the team is marketed as competitive."

 

Yes.

 

"So going back to my original point, this was a rebuild result in all aspects BUT the rewards of walking away with a prospect pipeline, and the revenues while taking a hit, didn't plummet the way you think a rebuild would."

 

Yes.

 

"The market was reacting to this as if it were a rebuild."

 

No.

 

Thats the exact reason they stayed competitive to begin with. The team was still winning enough games to keep fan interest higher than it otherwise would have in  purposely tanking like you're supposed to do in a "rebulld" which they didn't do. ie. losing damn near every game. As Chris Gear stated,

 

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

 

And why would anyone want to do that. You tell me. Why would Canucks Sports and Entertainment, a billion dollar corporation choose such a half assed rebuild plan to stay competitive if revenue wasn't a driving factor.

 

So far you've listed ego, irrationality, lack of research?? (based on the tiny so-called data set you've provided) and the unfounded belief this market would support a different path...  which again essentially boils down to claiming "they just dumb." You say that's not what you're doing, but you really are. Because apparently you know more, have better, more accurate data than they have.

 

Sure, bud.

Edited November 18, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[kilgore]

6 hours ago, iceman1964 said:

Gillis didn't do shit in the end because he never covered ONE base! I "was" a Gillis fan but he overlooked the consequences of not having depth, we got close, what happened? Injuries... To defense, I remember it well, Hamhuis was first to go down, had we had at least had someone to help, everyone moved up to cover then Tanev Edler were playing injured and were being feasted on ever harder..

Even if you get a great team, exactly the way you want it, the odds are heavily stacked against you, for the simple rule of a long brutal playoff causes injuries and everyone knows it.. 

 I wish it was different, but that's the way it is...

 

Depth by drafting was an area that Gillis faltered at.  But I give him a little rope.  He was coming from the player agent world. He relied on the amateur scouts that he inherited. He has admitted it was a mistake not to revamp that department, but I'd give him a little bit of a pass in that department. 

Compared to Benning, who came in strutting that he was some kind of master drafting king. To which he began his illustrious tenure by picking Virtanen at sixth overall. And thanks to Gillis, he had another first round pick, which he spent on McCann...who he dealt away a year later before he had time to develop. 

 

As well, Gillis only traded away one first round pick, and it was to shore up defence going into a contending year. Understandable. Even if the choice of Ballard didn't work out.  Benning, the draft guru, traded away 3 first round picks, and multiple 2nd round picks, and we got nowhere close to a SCF.

 

If you are simply talking about injuries, that is what every team has to go through. It has killed the run of many contending teams. Bad luck. Rome stepped in admirably, but Bettman and his Boston homeboys made sure to remove him from the equation.  If Boston had the same depth of injuries, especially on defense, and we didn't...that final would've been a slam dunk once we were ahead 2-0

[conquestofbaguettes]

11 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

  All that malarkey about keeping the team competitive is just complete bullshit, given the fact that there were no results to substantiate the "compete" that Benning was trying to hoodwink us with.

 

 

And that's why you fail to understand that NHL hockey is a business. Also, you're wrong. This wasn't Bennings idea. It came from the Canucks Sports and Entertainment Group.

 

As former Canucks AGM Chris Gear stated in plain english which i linked in the original post,

 

"...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."

 

Staying competitive was to keep asses in the seats; to keep the money rolling in.

 

And until you understand that underlying reality of business you'll go on scapegoating until the end of time.

 

You need to ask yourself why ANY team would rebuild in such a stupid way, trying to rebuild while ALSO trying to stay competitive. It defies all logic... unless you look at the bigger picture. Thats the bottomline here.

 

The kicker is you can't even really blame ownership for it either! Economic reality forces us into all sorts of situations we'd personally rather not do.  From our own lives all the way to running a billion dollar company. And that's just the reality of living under capitalism.

 

Benning didn't try to "hookwink" anyone with anything.   He was simply following the plan laid out by the executives above him and trying to meet the demands, and subsequent financial markers. Which apparently he did for 8 years. That's why he lasted as long as he did.  Its interesting.  For people to claim he was so completely shit at his job he was somehow there for 8 years.  8 YEARS.

 

So reason would dictate there is much more to the story than simply what he did with the team, whether he maximized or squandered assets, this trade was good or bad or anything else.

 

And whether it was a low bar or not, doesn't matter. Benning obviously met the corporations demands.... until he didn't. And then they fired his ass.

 

Just business, dude.

Edited November 18, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

8 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

And that's why you fail to understand that NHL hockey is a business. Also, you're wrong. This wasn't Bennings idea. It came from the Canucks Sports and Entertainment Group.

 

As former Canucks AGM Chris Gear stated in plain english which i linked in the original post,

 

"...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."

 

Staying competitive was to keep asses in the seats; to keep the money rolling in.

 

And until you understand that underlying reality of business you'll go on scapegoating until the end of time.

 

You need to ask yourself why ANY team would rebuild in such a stupid way, trying to rebuild while ALSO trying to stay competitive. It defies all logic... unless you look at the bigger picture. Thats the bottomline here.

 

The kicker is you can't even really blame ownership for it either! Economic reality forces us into all sorts of situations we'd personally rather not do.  From our own lives all the way to running a billion dollar company. And that's just the reality of living under capitalism.

 

Benning didn't try to "hookwink" anyone with anything.   He was simply following the plan laid out by the executives above him and trying to meet the demands, and subsequent financial markers. Which apparently he did for 8 years. That's why he lasted as long as he did.  Its interesting.  For people to claim he was so completely shit at his job he was somehow there for 8 years.  8 YEARS.

 

So reason would dictate there is much more to the story than simply what he did with the team, whether he maximized or squandered assets, this trade was good or bad or anything else.

 

And whether it was a low bar or not, doesn't matter. Benning obviously met the corporations demands.... until he didn't. And then they fired his ass.

 

Just business, dude.

 

Sure, whatever you say, bruh.  Hey, how's the macaroni artwork chess playing coming along, Mr. Bizman? 

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

Compared to Benning, who came in strutting that he was some kind of master drafting king. To which he began his illustrious tenure by picking Virtanen at sixth overall.

Which is funny you say that. You give Gillis a pass there, but when did they fully revamp Gillis' scouting staff? Lol.

 

But of course dumb ass Gillis who still can't get a job in the NHL all these years later always gets a pass but Benning doesn't even though it was the same scouting staff in 2014 that failed under Gillis for how many years before Benning even got there.

 

And fyi, new hires can't bring inside info from other organizations when they join. Ie. the Bruins were big on Pastrak and others.

 

But sure. All the bad is always Benning. All the good is always someone else.

 

I love Canucks fanfic.

Edited November 18, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes