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

[conquestofbaguettes]

31 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

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

That's... it? That's all you got?

 

I know extrapolating beyond "he dumb" is hard for some folks but try a little harder.  Think about what's actually being said there.

 

NHL hockey is a business. Maximizing values and selling a product is the literal bottomline.

 

So how do you do that if you have no stars to draw and looking at dogshit product.  Your arena ends up looking like San Jose. Zero interest. Zero drawing capabilities to protect your investment in the Canucks Sports and Entertainment Group.

 

Staying competitive is how you limit losses and keep fan interest higher than the alternative. End of story.

 

And yeah. Someone is making macroni artwork, alright. And be careful. I know it says non toxic on the glue, but you still shouldn't eat it, bud.

Edited November 18, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

7 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

That's... it? That's all you got?

 

Says the guy whose only source consistently relied upon is a Chris Gear interview.  

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 minute ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Says the guy whose only source consistently relied upon is a Chris Gear interview.  

Wrong again, chum.

Plenty of sources to back up the argument. A former executive in the org merely confirmed what was being said.  You just don't like it because it challenges the mythology you and others hold as sacred.

 

It's all horseshit.

 

As I stated,

 

NHL Hockey is a business.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Blame Game-- the long, slow, gradual process

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Gear continues...

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

But... business is business.

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

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

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

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

Well wouldn't ya know, it's that video again! 

[iinatcc]

On 11/15/2023 at 9:46 AM, conquestofbaguettes said:

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

NHL Hockey is a business.

 

Blame Game-- the long, slow, gradual process

 

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

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

 

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

 

But... business is business.

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

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

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

 

 

 

I would probably like to highlights on these points since it's the points where my general thought is.

 

First I was neither pushing for one direction only. Rebuild or retool it didn't really bother me because I have seen both approaches work and even if a retool doesn't work getting better draft positions will trigger some sort of rebuild.

 

My problem was never the direction, it was the execution. 

 

As you said business is business, but isn't part of running or managing a business is managing your spending and assets properly?

 

This is my opinion here but the problem with Benning is that he was a GM at the wrong era of hockey. An era where cap space is king, Analytics is an integral tool in evaluating a hockey team or player, whose players are getting younger and faster, and a value of a player is relative to their contract. 

 

If Benning took those concepts into consideration he didn't do a good job in it. 

 

And that is the root of the problem hockey is a business and Benning was ill equipped to run a hockey organization in today's NHL landscape. 

[conquestofbaguettes]

21 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Well wouldn't ya know, it's that video again! 

And wouldn't you know another comment from you offering nothing of value.  LMAO.

 

Keep eating the glue. Doing wonders for ya.

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

34 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

s you said business is business, but isn't part of running or managing a business is managing your spending and assets properly?

Absolutely.  That's why I stated "Of course we can discuss all the "bad" moves. But how we judge a particular move during that time for the most part doesn't even matter. We must first ask, was that move means to an ends in terms of stop gap fillers to be competitive in the now? Or was it a perceived future piece to build around moving forward. Each decision is largely context dependant on the demands/needs being filled in a particular way. Even though the common criticisms tend to be strictly focused on future results and nothing but."

 

Of course they squandered some assets for "the now." It's a natural byproduct of the grander plan being executed. Balancing the needs of the now AND the needs of the future. Try as we may we simply can't decouple that financial reality laid at their feet.

 

 I stated at the beginning, even I would personally have preferred a different more ideal path ie. Maximizing every asset for the future and nothing but. Obviously it's the smartest, most efficient play to get to a Stanley Cup... on paper.  But that doesn't mean we can just ignore reality to say "they just dumb" because they didn't do it. There's just so much more to look it.

34 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

And that is the root of the problem hockey is a business and Benning was ill equipped to run a hockey organization in today's NHL landscape

Even if we discuss his usage or lack of analytics that doesn't change the underlying goal at that time. Stay competitive. As Gear stated, it was never a "make playoffs or else" but keeping a competitive product on the ice. The question is why. Why would any business want to have a product worthy of consumption. Kinda speaks for itself.

 

I don't know why but it seems so many people have an issue putting a hockey club on the same level as any other product meant for entertainment. Albeit some TV show, film, a live musical group or anything else.  NHL hockey is no different..

 

Sure, we might get some blind consumer  hardcores that will consume whatever garbage is being peddled regardless of how good it actually is...say like a Star Wars Celebration event, but convincing people to spend how much money on season tickets is not the same thing.  This is big big money here.  And you better do your damnedest to keep the gravy train rolling for the business owners.

 

Building a club from the ground up AND keeping the dollars up was never an easy ask.

 

Sometimes that means trading a pick or a player that you otherwise wouldn't do in more ideal scenarios.  But that's the rub. Balancing needs of the now and  needs of the future.  Rutherford even made mention of this in one of his media availabilities... I think it was a year ago now.

 

Could they have executed better? Maybe yes. Maybe no. But that's all outside judgment after the fact. The point is those kinds of moves were going to happen regardless because those underlying demands dictate everything.  It's simply inescapable.

 

Having said that, does this absolve the management group from any or all wrong doing? Of course not.  Its only to say it's extremely important to keep all these things in mind before we try and judge or jump to conclusions as people consistently try to do.  That's the stuff that erks me.

Edited November 18, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[filthy animal]

1 hour ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Wrong again, chum.

Plenty of sources to back up the argument. A former executive in the org merely confirmed what was being said.  You just don't like it because it challenges the mythology you and others hold as sacred.

 

It's all horseshit.

 

As I stated,

 

NHL Hockey is a business.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Blame Game-- the long, slow, gradual process

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Gear continues...

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

But... business is business.

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

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

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

 

You keep reitirating this business is business crap, and yet you make excuses against Gillis. Again, you keep flapping your gums on the bottomline and his era certainly delivered on that front. So this team being terrible was part of the plan all along? Geez thats a new one. Funny enough you're calling bullshit on everything else but the Chris Gear interview, and I don't even know how you got the idea that being competitve means signing garbage players to be right up to the cap. You know as much information as we do and yet you somehow outlined the Canucks business plan LOL Seriously though, were you there? So you can read Francesco's mind now?

 

You absolutely know nothing about running a business, and hell, by the amount of posts you've had and Anthony on this thread writing up a novels worth of answers and consipracies all hours of the day, wouldn't be surprised if your guys are also unemployed

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by filthy animal

[iinatcc]

48 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

I don't know why but it seems so many people have an issue putting a hockey club on the same level as any other product meant for entertainment. Albeit some TV show, film, a live musical group or anything else.  NHL hockey is no different..

 

 

I would argue that it's not too different.

 

You could make parallels in Disney's current Situation on this. For the longest time the strategy for Disney is to create as much content as possible and throw a near unlimited budget on it and hope to turn a profit. 

 

As we know recently that has not been a winning formula. Some may argue that too much content diluted the MCU brand which lead to poor box-office in 2 out of their 3 Marvel films this year. Add to and the recent flop with the new Indiana Jones movie. 

 

And now Bob Iger is trying to restructure and change the way their movies and shows are being produced. Reduce the quantity and focus more on quality. 

 

Ant-Man an the Wasp Quantummania made around $470 Million world wide on a budget of $200 Million. It's no chump change and it resulted to not only to have likely lost money but also diluted the MCU brand. 

 

It's probably no different from running a hockey team. If you think of these movies as overspending with poor results and diluting their brand and the change in direction basically a rebuild of sorts. 

 

 

[LillStrimma]

6 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Absolutely.  That's why I stated "Of course we can discuss all the "bad" moves. But how we judge a particular move during that time for the most part doesn't even matter. We must first ask, was that move means to an ends in terms of stop gap fillers to be competitive in the now? Or was it a perceived future piece to build around moving forward. Each decision is largely context dependant on the demands/needs being filled in a particular way. Even though the common criticisms tend to be strictly focused on future results and nothing but."

 

Of course they squandered some assets for "the now." It's a natural byproduct of the grander plan being executed. Balancing the needs of the now AND the needs of the future. Try as we may we simply can't decouple that financial reality laid at their feet.

 

 I stated at the beginning, even I would personally have preferred a different more ideal path ie. Maximizing every asset for the future and nothing but. Obviously it's the smartest, most efficient play to get to a Stanley Cup... on paper.  But that doesn't mean we can just ignore reality to say "they just dumb" because they didn't do it. There's just so much more to look it.

Even if we discuss his usage or lack of analytics that doesn't change the underlying goal at that time. Stay competitive. As Gear stated, it was never a "make playoffs or else" but keeping a competitive product on the ice. The question is why. Why would any business want to have a product worthy of consumption. Kinda speaks for itself.

 

I don't know why but it seems so many people have an issue putting a hockey club on the same level as any other product meant for entertainment. Albeit some TV show, film, a live musical group or anything else.  NHL hockey is no different..

 

Sure, we might get some blind consumer  hardcores that will consume whatever garbage is being peddled regardless of how good it actually is...say like a Star Wars Celebration event, but convincing people to spend how much money on season tickets is not the same thing.  This is big big money here.  And you better do your damnedest to keep the gravy train rolling for the business owners.

 

Building a club from the ground up AND keeping the dollars up was never an easy ask.

 

Sometimes that means trading a pick or a player that you otherwise wouldn't do in more ideal scenarios.  But that's the rub. Balancing needs of the now and  needs of the future.  Rutherford even made mention of this in one of his media availabilities... I think it was a year ago now.

 

Could they have executed better? Maybe yes. Maybe no. But that's all outside judgment after the fact. The point is those kinds of moves were going to happen regardless because those underlying demands dictate everything.  It's simply inescapable.

 

Having said that, does this absolve the management group from any or all wrong doing? Of course not.  Its only to say it's extremely important to keep all these things in mind before we try and judge or jump to conclusions as people consistently try to do.  That's the stuff that erks me.

 Now you have created a lot of rhetoric garbage posts talking about business.

Benning was the worst GM regarding business because he didn't manage the players, the organisation etc in any positive way. That means the team performed worse. You might say that he was tanking while talking a lot of shit. 
The only problem with his way of tanking was that he crippled the Canucks doing that so the Canucks couldn't act to get players suitable for the organisation when needed.

He was so bad for the Canucks so I thought sometimes he was paid by someone else to keep the Canucks at the bottom.. 
Ferland, OEL/Garland,,,

I talked about business a couple of years back. Benning being inept as a GM was really bad for business.

If he had utlised his assets as he should the Canucks business had been much better after the golden years with the twins.

Edited November 18, 2023 by LillStrimma

[Silent Man]

I think this would be a very good project for someone who is doing MBA.

Look at different “what If” scenarios, analyse every signing from business perspective, estimate cash flow under different paths that organization could have taken, etc.

I think I just found what I will do in my retirement in 5 years

[DSVII]

Quote

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'm using the same stats as you by the way. Your news articles quote statistica (36% of revenue is gate revenue) which I'm using to show the results of the Astros rebuild and where i got the Canucks Gate revenue data from.

 

Your articles which you trust, are quoting the Athletic, and Statistica. I'm using Statistica, Forbes and Statmuse. Where do you think Athletic gets their numbers?

 

And your links are public links too. Quoting the same sources i'm using. So yeah. You must also have misapplied information.

 

Quote

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.

 

That is literally the funniest thing I've read (and you've got Anthony contending with you for that crown) and I call bullshit on this one. You're not arguing like a person with an extensive background in statistics or social research. 

 

Surely as a statistician, you can give me some reason why it's misapplied aside from "you're wrong, I know how the books work.". Statisticans use stats to argue, they don't say "your data (which is sourced from the same data point as my articles) is falsely applied" you show them how.

 

And what "data" you are using, you're completely ignoring statistics or any application of statistics. You're taking one outlier data point of the Houston Astros (0.00 tv ratings in one game out of 160+ in a baseball season) and extrapolating it to what the entire population could be to paint your point about low attendance.

 

I engaged with you hoping to see some numbers to back up the claim or at least how the numbers worked in your head to arrive at your conclusions. 

 

I've also never had a good stats guy reply "Pass", when I ask them for their math to back up their hypothesis or to debunk mine.  

 

And even to your point "owners fear low ratings/attendance" the Astros in your example clearly bit the bullet and they're reaping the rewards now.

 

If the reality of a rebuild is what you're painting, we'd have seen multiple teams fold or actively avoid a rebuild. The fact that big market teams like the Blackhawks do it means the economic benefits of it out weigh the short term pain. And if you want to appeal to authority here, the billion dollar corporation that's won three cups in the last decade may be onto something more than the Canucks here.

 

Quote

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.

 

Multiple data sets actually. More than you're showing. And again, your articles are quoting my data sources.

 

All your argument boils down to is the unfounded belief of "This is how I think a business runs. They have better numbers  hidden in their black books, but believe me I know how billion dollar corporations work better than you and it backs up my point." That's not good enough. 

 

I can tell you though, if the numbers are skewed in any direction, it'll be in the direction that does not support your argument. Corps are always incentivized to beef up their numbers during hard times to show their vision is working. Like that "sellout streak" that eventually ended when the whole mirage collapsed on itself.

 

Quote

 

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

 

I love Canucks fanfic.

 

It pales in comparison to the Benning 1984-style historical revisionism. You literally have to fabricate a fictional paradigm of how businesses and teams work to make him look tolerable.

 

By the way, I thought this wasn't a defend Benning post?

 

-------------

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by DSVII

[DSVII]

On 11/17/2023 at 8:24 AM, AnthonyG said:

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.

 

Oh Anthony, sometimes I wake up and wonder when I'm actually going to read a post that is actually coherent and has a good argument. Like i said in our past forum, your posts are ironically the best argument against your own position, more than anything I can conjure. So i'll just quote this again to double the effect. Thank you very much.

 

 

Benning was brought in to build a sustainable playoff team. He failed. 2014-15 was mostly a Gillis roster. And 2020 was a once in a lifetime event (and gave Benning 2 years of undeserved tenure)

 

Benning's respectable scouting background goes back to Buffalo. But basically ends in Boston. He didn't build that core according to your very own standards of judgement. And his scouting skillset never left the 2000s.

 

I also note you gave the credit for the Abbotsford Canucks to Benning in a previous post which is incorrect. He moved the team over to Abby yes, but Gillis created the farm system and laid the groundwork from JB, which he neglected to fill with is draft picks. Again he rushes his picks to the NHL, look what he did to McCann and Virtanen. Why do you think draft busts like Yakupov happen?

 

And yes, you've rehashed this enough, top 3 picks are useless because Brock Boeser was drafted 23rd overall blah blah blah. Doesn't change how the league works. Doesn't change how cup winners are built. And again you don't know how draft capital works.  Otherwise you'd be taking that into consideration with Gillis (here's a challenge,  pick another Mid GM to compare Benning to, like Chevy, Dubas or Brad Treliving, the Gillis rehash is getting tiring) 

 

You say Edmonton, I say Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Tampa Bay, Colorado, New York.  Heck even Toronto made the playoff bar.

 

Also at the draft table, Benning was operating with a drafting handicap despite all the value in the 2nd round he traded away for nothing, several times more easier than what Gillis left himself to work with. (his own fault that rightly cost him his job of course)

 

And while Benning gets credit, I'm not building shrines for the guy because he hit 50% of picks in the range where NHL players selected have a 75-100% probabilty of being NHL regulars. But hey feather in his cap. He met the expectation. 

 

Besides, I don't see anyone running up to Benning's door to hire him for his 'stellar' work in Vancouver. I'm morbidly curious which organization takes that poison pill first, but I'm suspecting his time as a GM is done.

 

Quote

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?

You answered it yourself, Benning sat on it for weeks and the value was gone. Gillis wanted them sold months ago. 

 

Quote

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.

 

Let's not forget the changes Gillis brought to the team as well. He had to sell them the team vision to convince them to re-sign as UFAs . He also created the environment wherein which they could break out to the art ross and hart winners. I take the Twins word for it that Sundin played an important part in their transition to leaders too. 

 

-----------

 

Anyways, it's been a blast, I don't think there's anything more constructive to get from engaging with you, I really just look at your posts for a good laugh at this point. I think it's time to put you on that ignore list. Let this thread run its course.

 

Keep yelling at those clouds my dude. Fight the good fight. 

Edited November 18, 2023 by DSVII

[Dr. Crossbar]

This should be the official, one-and-only, thread for this topic.

 

Seriously. 

[LillStrimma]

1 hour ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

This should be the official, one-and-only, thread for this topic.

 

Seriously. 

Ok, so you want this pinned down below Canucks Records Datasheet?

[Dr. Crossbar]

5 minutes ago, LillStrimma said:

Ok, so you want this pinned down below Canucks Records Datasheet?

 

Good idea! Try it ... see how it plays out.

[IBatch]

21 hours 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.

Bust line's are a lot different on the CDC and probably the CFF with what they think we should be getting and what is just meh average (JV) and what they think they should be getting.  

[LillStrimma]

24 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

 

Good idea! Try it ... see how it plays out.

If I would do it I do a new pinned thread where we can discuss our GMs, past and present.

Easy to moderate if so and we don’t have a specifik title showing the way.

[conquestofbaguettes]

9 hours ago, iinatcc said:

 

I would argue that it's not too different.

 

You could make parallels in Disney's current Situation on this. For the longest time the strategy for Disney is to create as much content as possible and throw a near unlimited budget on it and hope to turn a profit. 

 

As we know recently that has not been a winning formula. Some may argue that too much content diluted the MCU brand which lead to poor box-office in 2 out of their 3 Marvel films this year. Add to and the recent flop with the new Indiana Jones movie. 

 

And now Bob Iger is trying to restructure and change the way their movies and shows are being produced. Reduce the quantity and focus more on quality. 

 

Ant-Man an the Wasp Quantummania made around $470 Million world wide on a budget of $200 Million. It's no chump change and it resulted to not only to have likely lost money but also diluted the MCU brand. 

 

It's probably no different from running a hockey team. If you think of these movies as overspending with poor results and diluting their brand and the change in direction basically a rebuild of sorts. 

 

 

And that's kinda the point. I may not agree with the particular direct to consumer Disney platform in an ever changing digital landscape, but that's the general idea.

 

A studio will spend money on marketing, VFX, reshoots, replace directors, etc. Etc. a long list of whatever they think it takes to draw consumers. Whatever it takes to not only make their money back on their investments, but to draw a profit. 

 

Of course we can argue whether they should or whether they need to do XYZ to draw consumers to some demanded degree, but that's all outside judgment. And frankly don't often have enough information to  accurately judge those things. But of course we do anyway.

 

Either way it's about the reality of entertainment industry. Businesses exist to make money. And sport is like any other entertainment medium. The organisation does their research, crunches financial projections, has TV ratings beholden to their distributors who are beholden to advertisers... the and on and on we go. And the path you choose needs to meet all those demands.  A dogshit product night in and night out, and people tune out.   Whether its watching the characters in their favorite TV show get butched and people lose interest. Marketing tries to instill some excitement and interaction around the product and if you have no stars to draw to begin with... what do you do? Exactly what we saw them do.

[conquestofbaguettes]

4 hours ago, LillStrimma said:

 Now you have created a lot of rhetoric garbage posts talking about business.

Benning was the worst GM regarding business because he didn't manage the players, the organisation etc in any positive way. That means the team performed worse. You might say that he was tanking while talking a lot of shit. 
The only problem with his way of tanking was that he crippled the Canucks doing that so the Canucks couldn't act to get players suitable for the organisation when needed.

He was so bad for the Canucks so I thought sometimes he was paid by someone else to keep the Canucks at the bottom.. 
Ferland, OEL/Garland,,,

I talked about business a couple of years back. Benning being inept as a GM was really bad for business.

If he had utlised his assets as he should the Canucks business had been much better after the golden years with the twins.

 

No. Business was always the underlying driver in "staying competitive" in the first place.

Apparently it's just one of those unspoken unexamined things with some the more vocal "haters."

 

Shoulda coulda woulda. Easy for us to say. Easy for the talking heads to say. Judgements with zero insight as to why or how those decisions were made to begin with.

 

"He just dumb." "He just bad" will always an incredibly weak conclusion to draw... especially considering the rejection of opening a wider conversation to different perspectives and different variables involved in a decision making process with a BUSINESS.

[LillStrimma]

35 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

No. Business was always the underlying driver in "staying competitive" in the first place.

Apparently it's just one of those unspoken unexamined things with some the more vocal "haters."

 

Shoulda coulda woulda. Easy for us to say. Easy for the talking heads to say. Judgements with zero insight as to why or how those decisions were made to begin with.

 

"He just dumb." "He just bad" will always an incredibly weak conclusion to draw... especially considering the rejection of opening a wider conversation to different perspectives and different variables involved in a decision making process with a BUSINESS.

The thing here is that Benning was just dumb or egocentric and bad for business.

 

I did describe in or around 2019/2020 why it was bad business what Benning did.

I also had statistic back then that showed how bad the Canucks went after Gillis.

 

Talking now, a couple of years after he left isn’t right. Especially since you are quite biased.

It always are memory losses that one has to work hard to get back.

So everything he has done and what he could have done better we have to compare when he does it.

I don’t remember every foolish decision by Benning I saw back then and still I’m one of those that says most about him. 

 

Now you can talk of what Allvin does and how that affects the business because now we all see what is happening and remembers.

So, are you a celler dweller or are you prepared to dump Benning for Allvin? 

[conquestofbaguettes]

5 hours ago, DSVII said:

 

I'm using the same stats as you by the way. Your news articles quote statistica (36% of revenue is gate revenue) which I'm using to show the results of the Astros rebuild and where i got the Canucks Gate revenue data from.

 

Your articles which you trust, are quoting the Athletic, and Statistica. I'm using Statistica, Forbes and Statmuse. Where do you think Athletic gets their numbers?

 

And your links are public links too. Quoting the same sources i'm using. So yeah. You must also have misapplied information.

 

You're attempting to argue that they tanked, when they didn't. You're saying attendance stayed high while tanking ergo they could have done an intentional tank rather than staying competitive and inadvertently tanking because these graphs show the money was the same.

 

This is wrong. 

 

The reason the attendance stayed higher, the reason the dollars stayed higher (than they otherwise would have) is because they didn't do an intentional tank to begin with.

 

The end results of said build are AFTER THE FACT.

 

There is big big difference between icing a 2023 San Jose calibre team and a 2016- Canucks calibre team in terms of excitement, and ability to win games. Games weren't blowouts every night. The team constructed gave fans a reason to tune in and not change the channel.

 

Yes, you are misapplying data and drawing subsequent conclusions you  cannot rationally draw. I'm still trying to figure out whether this is an intentional play or merely by error on your part.

 

And the Jury still is still out on that one.

 

Secondly, the data I'm using is to set the stage for the argument.

 

Community members in the hockey business, bar sales, jersey sales, ticket prices, etc. etc. were all down in record numbers. Interest was down. But somehow this little attendance graph from hockeydb proves all these things to be false? No.

 

Yes, on average, gates account for 36% of all profits in the league. But that does not mean those tickets are selling for top dollar in a given market at a given time.  We know for a fact they weren't selling at max value during that time. Demand was low.  Product interest was low.

 

As I stated earlier, you're simply drawing conclusions on an incomplete picture.  And I can guarantee if you had the  internal information the organization had to fuel their decisions to stay competitive you'd change your tune real quick. But we don't have access to those things.

 

There's a big difference between the incomplete and misapplied quantitative data youre using to argue, and the much broader qualitative approach I'm taking with different types data-- a much wider marcostructure look of a phenomenon within the capitalist marketplace. And yes, I have an extensive background in social research and stats.  Frankly I wouldn't be able to call your argument into question if I didn't! I wouldn't know where to start.... like so many that seem to subscribe to that this surface level "they just dumb" narrative. Unfortunately for you, I'm trained in the discipline and I do.

 

5 hours ago, DSVII said:

All your argument boils down to is the unfounded belief of "This is how I think a business runs. They have better numbers  hidden in their black books, but believe me I know how billion dollar corporations work better than you and it backs up my point." That's not good enough.

 

There is no "belief" they have access to data we don't have. That is a fact of life in ANY business that exists.

 

You actually deny this?

 

And yes, this data is used to inform decision making like it is in any other business that exists.

 

But because we don't have access to it we can't prove without a shadow of a doubt they have it or used it inform their decisions? Absolute absurdity.

 

The difference here is I'm talking about a much wider scope to decision making. I don't pretend to know how they came to the specific conclusions they did to stay competitive rather than a tank rebuild. But you definitely need more than a few graphs of attendance records from hockeydb to claim what you're claiming as fact. That much I know for certain.

 

5 hours ago, DSVII said:

I can tell you though, if the numbers are skewed in any direction, it'll be in the direction that does not support your argument. Corps are always incentivized to beef up their numbers during hard times to show their vision is working. Like that "sellout streak" that eventually ended when the whole mirage collapsed on itself.

 

You... just helped debunk your own attendance argument.

 

5 hours ago, DSVII said:

Benning 1984-style historical revisionism. You literally have to fabricate a fictional paradigm of how businesses and teams work to make him look tolerable.

 

By the way, I thought this wasn't a defend Benning post?

 

The 1984 revisionism was always the original narrative in the first place and almost always lacked any kind of rigor  dissecting the larger structures at play and the why behind the why.

 

But I'm not here to convince you or any of the other true believers of anything. Benning hate seems to be more like a religion rather than anything else at this point.

 

And this isn't a defense of anyone. I do think Benning et al. are mostly scapegoats, but the post itself is meant to be more of an exploration of the constraints and barriers to doing what we want to do in actually existing reality. How things may force us to do things we'd otherwise not want to do whatever the reason.

 

Whether its you or I going to work to pay the bills so you don't die on the street to meeting financial or even social obligations in other realms.

 

We like to act like we have complete free will to do whatever we want the way we want. But we know that isn't true. But somehow that reality doesn't apply to an ownership group rebuilding a hockey club and all much larger institutions with their own needs and demands to which they are beholden? That's a joke in itself.

 

There's no revisionism here. The problem is people never had it right in the first place.

Edited November 18, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 hour ago, LillStrimma said:

The thing here is that Benning was just dumb or egocentric and bad for business

So insanely bad he lasted 8 years.

What's more likely. He was actually that bad, or that he was delivering on the plan and the demands ownership had on the table?  Not sure about you but if I was as incompetent at a particular job as people claim Benning was there's no way I'd last 8 years. You either. Especially so with all those demands on the table directly managing how many aspects of hockey operations like that and all eyes on all the time.

 

Ownership was obviously happy with a lot of things he was doing. What those actually were is certainly up for debate and we can hypothesize and spit conjecture until the cows come home on that. Either way the fact is he lasted 8 years and that says more than people apparently care to admit.

 

1 hour ago, LillStrimma said:

Especially since you are quite biased

 

On the contrary I don't give two shits about any of these people which have little direct affect on my life and people of which I will probably never meet.  I mean aside from the work players do in community, donations they give,  or even the ideology they promote which actually does something tangjble, I have absolutely ZERO bias.

 

My post is not meant to defend or attack anyone involved. It's merely an exploration of reality-- the structures that guide us which we inherently beholden to whether we're aware of them or not. If I'm biased to anything here, it's to the truth.

 

NHL hockey is form entertainment, dude. I understand the emotional attachment we have to "our team" and that tribalism makes it hard to stand back and look at things objectively sometimes.  Nevertheless, we need to keep these things in mind when trying to analyze and understand the why of things. This is no different.

 

1 hour ago, LillStrimma said:

don’t remember every foolish decision by Benning I saw back then and still I’m one of those that says most about him. 

 

That's the thing. I'm not even talking about particular moves trades, picks, etc. resources they may or may not have actually squandered during that time.

 

But rather looking at the guiding force and drivers behind such an approach to "staying competitive" in the first place. More of a meta-level analysis than anything else, calling into question the larger structures that dictate such a "bad" approach to begin with. ie. economics.

Edited November 18, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[LillStrimma]

3 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

So insanely bad he lasted 8 years.

What's more likely. He was actually that bad, or that he was delivering on the plan and the demands ownership had on the table?  Not sure about you but if I was as incompetent at a particular job as people claim Benning was there's no way I'd last 8 years. You either. Especially so with all those demands on the table directly managing how many aspects of hockey operations like that and all eyes on all the time.

 

Ownership was obviously happy with a lot of things he was doing. What those actually were is certainly up for debate and we can hypothesize and spit conjecture until the cows come home on that. Either way the fact is he lasted 8 years and that says more than people apparently care to admit.

 

 

On the contrary I don't give two shits about any of these people which have little direct affect on my life and people of which I will probably never meet.  I mean aside from the work players do in community or donations they give which actually do something tangjble, I have absolutely ZERO bias.

 

My post is not meant to defend or attack anyone involved. It's merely an exploration of reality and the structures that guide us and inherently beholden to, whether we're aware of them or not. If I'm biased to anything, it's to the truth.

 

NHL hockey is form entertainment, dude. I understand the emotional attachment we have to "our team" and that tribalism makes it hard to stand back and look at things objectively sometimes.  Nevertheless, we need to keep these things in mind when trying to analyze and understand the why of things.

 

 

That's the thing. I'm not even talking about particular moves trades, picks, etc. resources they may or may not have actually squandered during that time.

 

But rather looking at the guiding force and drivers behind such an approach to staying competitive in the first place. More of a meta-level analysis than anything else and calling into question the larger structures that dictate such a "bad" approach to begin with. ie. economics

 

First, how do a team stay competative when a GM pays1-2 mill per vet contract too much? 
That means the depth of the team is erased and can't handle injuries or the GM can't get that RHD that was necessary.

 

Benning lasted 8 years but remember Linden went first.

If Benning blamed Linden for what happened before he gets a few years more. Then he got a lucky playoff and with both Marky and Demko playing lights out he got a few more wins getting him more time.

After that he shat in his own bed so he couldn't hide from the stench anymore and no one else to blame.

 

What did you say about the Ferland contract again? 

[conquestofbaguettes]

41 minutes ago, LillStrimma said:

First, how do a team stay competative when a GM pays1-2 mill per vet contract too much? 

Comes with territory. You're trying to convince a vet to come to a loser rebuilding team.

They know they don't have a shot at a cup so what's the incentive? If you want to help train new kids to play the right way and instill a good work ethic, that's the place for you.  Not everyone wants that. Some are still chasing cups. Maybe others got their time in the sun and are looking to boost their retirement and trust funds for their kids. Who the fuck knows.

 

But "competitive" here never meant make the playoffs of else. But rather winning enough games that would keep asses in seats and eyeballs on the TV ie. Keep fan interest higher than it otherwise would have.   Of course the product still stinks... just not as much.

 

And acquiring players that can at least play at an NHL level, ice a half assed roster  regardless of price (price i might add didn't really matter that much at that time because of where they were actually at in terms of team development) helps to do that.

 

Over and over I see people make the mistake of thinking that every single move had to be or was supposed to be made with that future goal of a team in mind. When the reality is most of them were made for the needs of "the now." (Now meaning that previous time period.)   Of course some decisions were made with future in mind, trial and error on reclamation projects and the like, nevertheless trying to balance the needs of the now and the future product slowly being designed. It's a fine line. And of course we can argue what was too far over the line, what was too much sacrifice of a future product, and know I might even agree with a great deal of it. Nevertheless... is what it is.

41 minutes ago, LillStrimma said:

That means the depth of the team is erased and can't handle injuries or the GM can't get that RHD that was necessary.

 

100%!

 

And that's the rub!   How do you meet the demands of the business in the now and also not sacrifice too much of the future.  Because you're 100% correct.  And of course some ideas worked out. Others not so much.  The particular moves don't interest me so much as that initial decision to take the 'stay competitive' approach they did in the first place.

 

For example, if that management group was given the green light, if Gillis or Linden was given the green light to tank would we have seen the vast majority of moves we did? Signing X vet, trading for X vet, etc. etc. Absolutely not.

 

They aren't stupid people. They know what needed to happen. What the ideal would be. We all know it! But that's not the reality they had to deal with. There are just so many other things which dictate what they can or cannot do. Especially if we want to get into the rumors about an overly meddling ownership group like the Aquillini's.

41 minutes ago, LillStrimma said:

What did you say about the Ferland contract again? 

I didn't like it.  Roussel either. Hell, I didn't like the vast majority of things they did all those years.  I'm not sure that was ever made explicitly clear here. I mentioned in the original post even I know there are better, more ideal ways to "rebuild" a club than the path they ultimately chose.

 

But that doesn't negate the financial reality laid at a billion dollar companies feet and the decisions they have to make. Like I said, easy for us to say "just lose on purpose and lose a fuck ton of money while doing so."  But we have no financial stake in that investment.  And if we did we might feel differently about it, too.

 

This was never about blame of anyone. If anything it's a blame on the system,  forcing a team/a product we are emotionally invested in doing "stupid" things to itself when another path is so clearly obvious a better, more efficient choice. But the fuck can you do.

Edited November 18, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes