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

[conquestofbaguettes]

21 hours ago, LillStrimma said:

Two seasons with a good GM, not even a great. Just an intelligent GM that could form a unity between Utica/Canucks. 
Find the gems that need another playground while giving the Sedins a few years more.

 

He gets off the hook because he was fired instead of the Canucks going his route.

So we don’t know how it would be if he was in charge.

We know how Benning handled it all with Ferland as the most moronic figurehead of Bennings tenure here.

Not Loui and OEL because those deals could have been great if the coaches and other players were more aligned, lack of analysis made that bed.

Ferland was just utter stupidity.

 

I’m not sure if Gillis would have done that since he got fired. Floating ideas isn’t the same as implement them.

The Sedins could have played sheltered minutes a few years more than they did.

But what did the Sedins say? Did they want to stay or did they want to get a shot at the cup? 
When you talk about taking your stars out you already made your mind up.

So what did the Sedins really think? 

 

In what way? Why won’t we talk about that since it’s one of Bennings most flagrant analysing mistakes where he with his pro scouts and Green couldn’t understand what player Loui was in NHL contra WC.

You know about rhetoric huh… You actually don’t understand why Benning had such a bad judgement when he went for Loui with Green as the voach? 

Green wasn’t that good. He is probably ok but in NHL you need to step up. You have to understand every player, what makes them tick. Which areas are they good at and then try to amplifie that goodness.

when did Green do that? 

As it seems Gillis was a bit of an ass.

And in the old school club of inbreedibg the quality if leadership gets worse for every year.

So Bennings dad was probably quite good at what he did. Benning less and if this continues the sheltered minutes Benning son received maybe leave him in a worse place than his dad.

It’s definately better to have to fight for the place you have than to get it because som kind of favour.

 

Maybe, I only know that other people say he was ahead of other teams in NHL when he was GM.

If that is genius to make some of those adjustments or just normal GM work day in and day out(as I would think) I don’t know.

But Benning might have been so low standard that Gillis is a genius compared with him.

 

Why do you think I spoke so often about how much money the owner lose because of Bennings actions? 
Some owners don’t know how and when a GM tells them thei version of how the owner is satisfied because they don’t know better.

 

Yes, and Linden could have stayed as a figure head for the organisation.

I thought Allvin had showed you what could be done if your name isn’t Benning.

 

You can always show me how wrong I am by give som proof of your analysing skills.

If not, go to the mirror and take a second look.

 

1) It didn't really matter who the GM was at that time.

 

Clearly it didn't even matter who the President was either. Ownership made up their mind to retool around Hank and Danny. And after they retired they chose to "rebuild" (while staying competitive) to keep the dollars up and slowly add young talent along the way (rather than do it all at once as fast as possible ie. How a rebuild is "supposed" to be.)

 

The belief that this underlying plan and the process therein would be any different under another GM is pure fantasy. That plan was never changing, regardless of who was in charge of icing the team.

 

And even if that GM disagreed they'd get shitcanned and replaced to enact the plan set out before them anyway. See: Trevor Linden.

 

2) Green is a great coach.

 

Do you know why Luke Schenn came to Van? He stated he came here because he wanted play for Greener.

 

Green is held is extremely high respect all around the league, especially with players. He conducts coaching clinics and seminars with his peers and is big part of the NHL coaches association.

 

All due respect, but you are dead wrong.

 

https://www.nhlcoaches.com/tag/travis-green/

 

3) I like the list of ideas you have there.

 

That's what you would have done if you were GM is it? Hell, they could be the best ideas in the world and frankly I might even agree some of them!

 

BUT. THEY. DON'T MATTER.

 

Bottomline is the Sedins weren't going anywhere, the assets they had weren't going to fetch firsts, the cupboards were barren, and the demands from the organization was to stay competitive for the duration are fundamental truths and cannot be changed. Ownership plan was ownerships plan and nothing and no one was changing that. Not Linden and certainly not Gillis.

 

4) My "analyzing skills?"

 

You want me to analyze... your fantasies? What for. I mean if there's anything I'm analyzing at this point, it's probably you. Lol And since we're on the subject, seems to me you'd rather fantasize about what could have been under unrealistic circumstances rather than try understand the reality of why they HAD to take the path they took. Yes. HAD to. This is the most important take away here.

 

Yes, of course maybe trade here or a signing there may have been a little different (but maybe, maybe not based on who was actually available at the time??) but that stuff was never in contention. By and large those things aren't even significant enough to discuss when compared to a) the state of the club as whole, and b) the demands on the table from the business owners. That's the truth of the matter.

 

In otherwords, they were gonna throw money at SOMEBODY to help ice a "competitive product" and spend to the cap regardless. They had roster holes to fill and not a lot of players in the system to fill them. The particular players at that time even didn't matter all that much.  Albeit a Jay Beagle, Roussel or Ferland. Trying to ice a decent team to keep the money rolling in and help bring the next crop of kids along. Those guys weren't part of the future core being sought. NOR WERE THEY MEANT TO BE! That was not their purpose. Who cares who the filler was. They were fuller

 

Either way I will leave you with this:

 

There are many different ways to rebuild a hockey team. And they don't all follow the same path for exactly the same reasons.

 

Some paths theoretically better than others? Sure. But even that idea still depends on the lense from which you view it.

[LillStrimma]

2 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

1) It didn't really matter who the GM was at that time.

 

Clearly it didn't even matter who the President was either. Ownership made up their mind to retool around Hank and Danny. And after they retired they chose to "rebuild" (while staying competitive) to keep the dollars up and slowly add young talent along the way (rather than do it all at once as fast as possible ie. How a rebuild is "supposed" to be.)

 

The belief that this underlying plan and the process therein would be any different under another GM is pure fantasy. That plan was never changing, regardless of who was in charge of icing the team.

 

And even if that GM disagreed they'd get shitcanned and replaced to enact the plan set out before them anyway. See: Trevor Linden.

 

2) Green is a great coach.

 

Do you know why Luke Schenn came to Van? He stated he came here because he wanted play for Greener.

 

Green is held is extremely high respect all around the league, especially with players. He conducts coaching clinics and seminars with his peers and is big part of the NHL coaches association.

 

All due respect, but you are dead wrong.

 

https://www.nhlcoaches.com/tag/travis-green/

 

3) I like the list of ideas you have there.

 

That's what you would have done if you were GM is it? Hell, they could be the best ideas in the world and frankly I might even agree some of them!

 

BUT. THEY. DON'T MATTER.

 

Bottomline is the Sedins weren't going anywhere, the assets they had weren't going to fetch firsts, the cupboards were barren, and the demands from the organization was to stay competitive for the duration are fundamental truths and cannot be changed. Ownership plan was ownerships plan and nothing and no one was changing that. Not Linden and certainly not Gillis.

 

4) My "analyzing skills?"

 

You want me to analyze... your fantasies? What for. I mean if there's anything I'm analyzing at this point, it's probably you. Lol And since we're on the subject, seems to me you'd rather fantasize about what could have been under unrealistic circumstances rather than try understand the reality of why they HAD to take the path they took. Yes. HAD to. This is the most important take away here.

 

Yes, of course maybe trade here or a signing there may have been a little different (but maybe, maybe not based on who was actually available at the time??) but that stuff was never in contention. By and large those things aren't even significant enough to discuss when compared to a) the state of the club as whole, and b) the demands on the table from the business owners. That's the truth of the matter.

 

In otherwords, they were gonna throw money at SOMEBODY to help ice a "competitive product" and spend to the cap regardless. They had roster holes to fill and not a lot of players in the system to fill them. The particular players at that time even didn't matter all that much.  Albeit a Jay Beagle, Roussel or Ferland. Trying to ice a decent team to keep the money rolling in and help bring the next crop of kids along. Those guys weren't part of the future core being sought. NOR WERE THEY MEANT TO BE! That was not their purpose. Who cares who the filler was. They were fuller

 

Either way I will leave you with this:

 

There are many different ways to rebuild a hockey team. And they don't all follow the same path for exactly the same reasons.

 

Some paths theoretically better than others? Sure. But even that idea still depends on the lense from which you view it.

If GMs and owners i NHL believe what you have said in multiple posts they are at stoneage level. 
Off course a rebuild/retool can be done in a lot of different ways. 
One example, it’s just plain silly to believe that the UFA players Benning brought in was the best value. 
Regarding moral end ethics, Benning was a bad example of that and it doesn’t bode well for an organisation when moral and ethics isn’t installed from top down.

To let the GM be a prick just takes out any good thing a vet can bring.

But I believe we should take a break regarding this because you have your mind set with only one way to go and I see multiple versions that could be better financially.

[kilgore]

6 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

They had roster holes to fill and not a lot of players in the system to fill them. The particular players at that time even didn't matter all that much.

my gawd I’m glad you are not the Canucks GM. 

[DSVII]

17 hours ago, Blue said:

Bullshit. He provides much needed counter balance on Benning. I always take the time to read his posts even if i disagree 

 

I see it less as a counter balance and more them taking the opportunity to just be an awful troll to other posters and getting a high from talking down to people. With a ton of gaslighting.

 

I don't mind a counter balance, but it has to be based in some sort of agreed upon reality to start off with. and there has to be a consistent standard. Things that he's given Benning a pass on in a similar situation he's ripping his predecessor on. It's literally the Gordon Ramsay meme with the kid and adult and how they treat them differently.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by DSVII

[DSVII]

On 11/18/2023 at 2:22 PM, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

 

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.

 

 

Prove your reasoning behind this then. Because if this were true, no teams would ever choose the tanking route, especially big Market teams like Toronto and New York. 

 

Again, this is your opinion, not fact.

 

Quote

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.

 

I mean if you have to pick the single worst team in the century to make your point. That pretty much says how much of a hyperbole your stance is right? 

 

You're using zero data. I repeat. Zero. Data. And speaking as if you hold some sort of authority over this here, which you absolutely do not. Please show the numbers behind your reasoning. As a stats guy, this should be a lay up for you.

 

The attendance graph, combined with the forbes revenue data shows the point. 

 

And if you're accepting that 36% of profits in the league are gate revenue, you are also accepting Statistica and their data collection methods.

 

Quote

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.

 

 

We don't have access to those things true, that's why we're discussing this on a forum using public data to back up our opinions. And I reiterate, your guarantee is merely an opinion, same weight as mine. 

 

And if you're saying qualitative, you definitely should be looking at the other reasons why the team didn't want to rebuild. Like Aquilini wanting to win the cup before his dad passes away (which he is on the record for) and Benning always convincing them they were one move away, regardless of the economic reality on the ground and the quality of the product. 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

They do have access to data we don't have. What I deny is your interpretation that the data they have backs up your claim. That's what is absurd here.

 

"You're actually looking very narrow here. You're saying : There is only one reason they did this, and it's because they looked at the numbers and they are know that ANY other decision they chose would have resulted in less money. They definitely did their due diligence and chose the best outcome."

 

You definitely need more than just the Chris Gear youtube interview to prove that.

 

Your argument is as narrow as it gets. You're even telling people that this is based on what your definition and myopic viewpoint of a rebuild is in post #1. That's not true at all. Just look at LA as a prime example. They didn't sell any of their stars, and you are insisting that the Canucks would trade the Sedins in our own rebuild with no star power in a rebuilding product.

 

 

Quote

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

 

Nah, I still stand by the Forbes and Statistica numbers as the best we have. But I'm just saying, even if the data wasn't reliable. It would be skewed into a direction that doesn't help your central argument. That the competitiveness they marketed to prevent values from cratering had failed to prop up the revenues and attendance as you are claiming (mitigating the potential damage of a bottom team)

 

Quote

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.

 

Nah, I have nothing against the guy personally, and hope he enjoys his retirement. It's undeniable though that his tenure here will be a case study for years to come. Similar to how Enron is. Some people may hate him personally (Dim Jim and the such) but if there is any hate, it's at a professional level. His asset management, his scouting evaluations, the way he set up the front office to run. It was a disaster. 

 

I have no doubt the competitive plan would have worked and we'd have seen better revenue numbers, but the execution was botched. And the metrics of how a hockey team performs show that he inefficiently spent more dollars per win than the average GM to produce a below average, tanking-level product.

 

Quote

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.

Oh for sure, 100%.

 

I do agree that there are constraints and barriers in reality. It wasn't a cake walk for Jim to go on the path he chose. I prescribe to the opinion that it was FA pushing for the playoffs at all costs. And it's very tough to say no to your boss when you are a rookie GM (seems to be a pattern with our owner, but I think he's learned his lesson) and he was definitely forced to do things Benning may have originally not wanted.

 

There is also an outcome where the plan you pursue under those constraints produces a different outcome than intended. Like a bottom 10 team that was not competitive. 

 

Quote

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

 

And again, none of us have the complete picture. I think that if your background is as you say. You would be more open to testing a hypothesis to a different interpretation of the market and the Canucks this last decade. Part of statistics is testing a hypothesis right? Rather than say that is absurd, you should be able to disprove that with stats and data, or at least show a study or article on why it isn't a good example.

Edited November 20, 2023 by DSVII

[SV.]

I always chuckle at the notion that Gillis "sold the farm" when you can pretty much count on one hand or so the amount of times he actually traded picks away in his tenure.  It's lazy, foolish, and laughable revisionism.

1st for Ballard at the 2010 draft
2nd and 3rd for Bernier, 2nd for Roy
Some 3rds and 4ths for Higgins, Lapierre, Pahlsson, keeping in mind that Higgins and Lapierre were very useful and re-signed with the team.  Investments, if you would.

He actually brought in picks, as well, with the Booth trade, Ehrhoff rights trade, etc.

Then, you look at Benning and he was already moving picks at his first draft.  2nd for Vey, 3rd for Dorsett.  Then, a 2nd for Baertschi, 3rd for Pedan, 6th for Etem, and so on during the next 18 months.  Picks were used to gamble, sweeten, or straight up be tossed aside without protecting the value.

I have a lot of time to debate the terrible drafting from 2008 - 2013.  Seeing Saad/Jenner slip to 29 and passing on them for Jensen: brutal.   Not taking Severson for an overager: awful.  But let's be honest with our criticisms.  Never once did this team go reckless with the asset spending with Gillis at the helm.  Arguably, the team probably should have moved a 1st at some point during the years to get an impact player for a cup run.

[conquestofbaguettes]

11 hours ago, DSVII said:

no teams would ever choose the tanking route, especially big Market teams like Toronto and New York. 

Not all markets are equal and not all teams start at the same starting position.

 

And I don't know why you're asking me that Former Canucks AGM Chris Gear already explained why they did it.  Go listen on repeat if you have to. Its all there. Secondly, discussing the financial aspect to business isn't some giant leap here.  You're saying the bottomline played ZERO role in their decision to ice a competitive product? Billion dollar corporation.  Yes, the bottomline matters.

 

But because I don't have a copy of their books, their overhead costs, the contractual obligations they have to their distributors, etc. that means it wasn't a concern?

 

If it weren't a concern, THEY WOULD HAVE TANKED.

 

They knew what they had. And in the words of Chris Gear "The organization wanted to be competitive."

 

So... if money wasn't the reason, what was it?

 

You tell me.

 

Who in their right minds would choose such a stupid path if MONEY wasn't the underlying driver?

 

There is no other rational explanation except your theory of "they just dumb."

 

But what's more likely here

 

"They just dumb"  or  that this billion dollar company, the ownership group, the Canucks Sports and Entertainment Group department heads crunched the numbers from their financial advisors, accounting, etc. in the many many different aspects, everything from food and beverage to advertising and chose that path because it was the safest play to staying in the black, keeping product interest higher than it otherwise would, etc etc.

 

I know what I'm going with.

Edited November 21, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

4 hours ago, SV. said:

I always chuckle at the notion that Gillis "sold the farm" when you can pretty much count on one hand or so the amount of times he actually traded picks away in his tenure.  It's lazy, foolish, and laughable revisionism.

 

I suppose you're right as Gillis didn't even have a farm to sell to begin with due to absolute dog shit drafting. And you can split hairs about what that phrase means here if you like. Either way Gillis left nothing in the pipeline to build around moving.   But that's what it looks like when you take your shot and miss. C'est la vie.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

14 hours ago, kilgore said:

my gawd I’m glad you are not the Canucks GM. 

You missed what was being said there and the context as to why those trades even happened in the first place.

 

Jesus. You guys act like I was all for the shitshow they chose to go with. I would've loved a proper tank too dude.

 

The question is why they didn't.

Why did ownership choose to "stay competitive" the entire time when that's about the dumbest thing you can do.... from a team 'rebuilding' perspective

 

So why?

 

Why would any business want to build a product that consumers might want to consume? Anything come to mind there?

 

I just don't understand how pointing out the profit margin of a  business as a driver for decision making could be viewed as some controversial idea.

 

Yet here we are.

Edited November 21, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

13 hours ago, DSVII said:

agreed upon reality to start off with

 

Yes. So let's start here.

 

Money is the core driver in any corporation.

 

Canucks Sports and Entertainment is a corporation.

 

Selling a product or service is what corporations do.

 

They sell these products and services to make profit.

 

A shit product can hinder consumers from consuming their product.

 

A better product can help to keep consumers consuming their product.

 

Any guesses why a corporation would choose to build a better product rather than a guaranteed shitty one?

 

13 hours ago, DSVII said:

Opportunity to just be an awful troll to other posters and getting a high from talking down to people. With a ton of gaslighting.

 

Who said I was giving ANYONE a pass here? 

 

Merely pointing out there's more going on than "they just dumb" isn't giving anyone a pass. Christ you act like I was all aboard with every decision the previous regime made. Or the one before that.

 

This isn't some black and white, pro and anti ANYTHING.  If anything, bringing this whole "business" aspect is showing my hatred for capitalism itself. The profit margin.  That is and will be that ugly truth beneath the surface nobody seems to want to talk about.

 

If this NHL team was free from any kind of underlying business financial demands, i would agree with every damn thing you're saying. Then these things you're saying would be realistic expectations. But they aren't because that's not the reality of the situation! Never was!

 

I don't like that they didn't intentionally tank either, dude. It hurt them long term! Wasted assets, didn't maximize returns.... a long long list of shit. This stuff was never in contention.

 

But...  were talking about the nature of business itself, man.  Nothing more. Nothing less.

Edited November 21, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

17 hours ago, LillStrimma said:

19 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

GMs and owners... are at stoneage

 

So, yet another "they just dumb" answer.

 

Life would be so much easier if it we're that simple. Sigh

Edited November 21, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[kilgore]

6 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

You missed what was being said there and the context as to why those trades even happened in the first place.

 

Jesus. You guys act like I was all for the shitshow they chose to go with. I would've loved a proper tank too dude.

 

The question is why they didn't.

Why did ownership choose to "stay competitive" the entire time when that's about the dumbest thing you can do.... from a team 'rebuilding' perspective

 

So why?

 

Why would any business want to build a product that consumers might want to consume? Anything come to mind there?

 

I just don't understand how pointing out the profit margin of a  business as a driver for decision making could be viewed as some controversial idea.

 

Yet here we are.

 

You do seem to be defending Benning. You basically said there that Benning should get a pass on his veteran acquisitions during his time because those bodies could have been any bodies... it didn't matter. Because the dastardly owner had set the agenda and we had to fill those spaces with someone? That doesn't make sense because it very much does matter what other players you welcome in to build your team around.  JB knew better. but cashed his cheques anyways. He made a lot more in his 8 year contract as GM here than he did as a player.  JR/PA are proving that it actually does matter if a player is smartly scouted before signing, and can fill a role for the team, and then signed to manageable numbers and term.

 

Yes, in our Almighty Dollar Capitalist System any business shoots for profits..profits...profits!

But in business, like the stock market there is trading and there is investment. Aquilini wanted to be the King of Howe Street with a get rich quick move every off-season and going all in with Bennings choices. But money can also be made in the stock market using investments. Aquilini should also know this. It was both of their faults. Francesco wanted to give his father a Stanley Cup here before he dies, noble reason, but he overstepped in his over optimistic edicts and ignored the difficulty in building a winner, and the kind of people needed.

Edited November 21, 2023 by kilgore

[LillStrimma]

5 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

So, yet another "they just dumb" answer.

 

Life would be so much easier if it we're that simple. Sigh

I’ve said it all along and you haven’t showed their brilliance.

So if you can’t show their intelligent moves and explain what was intelligent it is a dumb move.

Very simple…

[conquestofbaguettes]

5 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

You do seem to be defending Benning. You basically said there that Benning should get a pass on his veteran acquisitions during his time because those bodies could have been any bodies... it didn't matter. Because the dastardly owner had set the agenda and we had to fill those spaces with someone? That doesn't make sense because it very much does matter what other players you welcome in to build your team around.  JB knew better. but cashed his cheques anyways. He made a lot more in his 8 year contract as GM here than he did as a player.  JR/PA are proving that it actually does matter if a player is smartly scouted before signing, and can fill a role for the team, and then signed to manageable numbers and term.

 

Yes, in our Almighty Dollar Capitalist System any business shoots for profits..profits...profits!

But in business, like the stock market there is trading and there is investment. Aquilini wanted to be the King of Howe Street with a get rich quick move every off-season and going all in with Bennings choices. But money can also be made in the stock market using investments. Aquilini should also know this. It was both of their faults. Francesco wanted to give his father a Stanley Cup here before he dies, noble reason, but he overstepped in his over optimistic edicts and ignored the difficulty in building a winner, and the kind of people needed.

 

1) Do I think Benning is mostly a scapegoat? You bet. Do I think many overlook why that regime made the vast majority of the moves they did during that time period? You bet. Do I reject the idea "it would've been different under a different GM"? You bet.

 

Nothing was changing ownerships mind here. Hank and Danny weren't going anywhere, and the organization had nothing in the pipeline to build thanks to the previous regime. So, what can you even do.

 

I'm not "defending" Benning so much as trying to discuss the organizations underlying plan, which was NOT HIS CHOICE to begin with. As we know it wasn't even Trevor Linden's. Even the most revered captain in franchise history was powerless to change that part.

 

This or that free agent vet signing paid too much, this or that trade, this or that particular pick.. all this stuff is mostly an aside at this point. Hell, I'd even agree with many of things people disliked from a purely "this is how you're supposed to do rebuild" ideal. I've stated over and over even I would have preferred that fantastical "tank."

 

But we're talking beyond the mere hockey team here.

 

Multiple interests to think about. Different departments, stakeholders, partnerships, contractual obligations to meet (remember the bubble season with teams playing in empty arenas to meet their TV contract and advertising obligations?)

 

I'm talking about all the shit that has largely nothing to do with the "team" or "managing" a hockey team itself.

 

Put a pylon in the GM chair at this point. That pylon had the same amount power to change any of the above. That's what I mean when I say "it didn't matter who the GM was." Because it really didn't.

 

And by extension, if the goal was to stay competitive for the duration of the rebuild, to help meet all these different obligations financial or otherwise, I ask... what the hell difference does it make who you get to be your placeholders and stop gaps for that roster during that time period? As long as they can play above replacement level and keep consumers interest higher than it otherwise would, what difference does it make. The things listed above were the larger focus. And those are things that become easier to maintain with a better product.

 

They organization knew that "sea of granlunds" wasn't the future core being sought. The core was yet to even really be drafted or to be built around.

 

But in the meantime, jobs were open. Guys who may or may not see play in other organizations can come and get icetime and compete. (Look at Kyle Burroughs moving to San Jose to play for that tire fire on a longer term deal.) Granted, a particular players incentive to go to a losing rebuilder is their own, nevertheless the org knew they weren't winning anything. They knew they likely weren't making playoffs.

 

Doesn't mean they weren't going to ice the best product they could with what was available to keep the proverbial wolf from the door as an institution.

 

And even if we want to go down that shoulda coulda woulda path sifting through every move it's basically akin to mental masterbation. It holds very little value in the grander scheme of the discussion. But I'm repeating myself here.

 

2) Of course money can be made in all sorts of ways.  But who are you or I or anyone else to tell these billionaire that's what they should do with their investments. "Just risk losing money, bro! Tank your product! It's the best theoretical plan for future success... maybe."

 

BUT there are no guarantees here. And try as some may, we simply cannot pretend like there are.  So, I'm not sure how anyone could be surprised by the resounding "no" that follows from such a proposition for an ownership group in most ANY business, not just Frankie.

 

The most fascinating part, to me at least, have always been the underlying mechanisms driving decision making, how much free to choose actually exists when we really think about it. Understanding what the barriers and constraints to doing things we would otherwise want to do. This that or the other.

 

Hell, a thing could be the easiest, smartest thing in the world to do with 100% certainty for success. But that does neccesarily make it a realistic path to tread. There are many many other variables to account for before we can draw those kinds of conclusions. Yet, we see people draw those conclusions on this particular topic all the time when we really actually can't. At least not to the degree many try... not if we want an accurate account of the truth anyway.

 

3) "Aquilini wanted to be the King of Howe Street..."

 

is he not already?

Edited November 21, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[conquestofbaguettes]

4 hours ago, LillStrimma said:

I’ve said it all along and you haven’t showed their brilliance.

So if you can’t show their intelligent moves and explain what was intelligent it is a dumb move.

Very simple…

 

Nothing else going on there at all, eh. Nothing plays any affect on anything else.

 

I envy you, friend.

 

I really don't, but I also really do.

[SV.]

10 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

I suppose you're right as Gillis didn't even have a farm to sell to begin with due to absolute dog shit drafting. And you can split hairs about what that phrase means here if you like. Either way Gillis left nothing in the pipeline to build around moving.   But that's what it looks like when you take your shot and miss. C'est la vie.

 

 

In a thread that's been full of excuses and cop-outs since the original post, somebody has to fact-check and provide the truth.

So, here's another instance of that.

It's a myth that Gillis left nothing behind.  We can say with the power of hindsight that the quality of prospects was poor and underwhelming, but the quantity of assets in the system was very healthy at the time, and almost uncharacteristic of a team that was contending.  Unless you yourself were calling out Shinkaruk, Cassels, Jensen, Schroeder, Subban, etc. as busts in 2013, nobody who supported the Canucks thought the prospect pool was poor.  We came to know this after the fact.  Vastly different from Benning's tenure where people could see disaster happening real-time, unfortunately.

Factually speaking, he actually had more prospects and picks in his system than from what he inherited from Nonis.  For as much "good work" that Nonis did with the team, people forget, or choose to gloss over, the fact that he spent a lot of assets at the 2006 and 2007 trade deadlines.

Now, I've been speaking purely in terms of quantity, but even quality can be argued.

Nonis left behind Schenider, Grabner, Raymond, Hansen, and Edler as young prospects/players that would become NHL players (although, Edler and Raymond had already graduated by 2007/08).  Is it really much different to Gillis leaving Horvat, Markstrom, Lack, and Hutton behind, not counting that Tanev and Kassian were already on the roster?  If I was really shameless, I'd even stretch it to B. Gaunce, who played over 100 games for the Canucks.  Whichever series of prospects you'd choose is a subjective decision, but the quality of prospects is about even.

The main thing is that it comes down to asset management.  Where Gillis could turn undesirable asset like Patrick White into Christian Ehrhoff that could improve the team, Benning could only manage (or chose to) turn players like Hunter Shinkaruk into Markus Granlund.

As myself and others have been saying, the execution of Benning's moves were his downfall.  No amount of ownership meddling or previous management constraints get to excuse him or provide "retrospective analysis" like you've been attempting to do.  Benning was a terrible GM.  Worse than Nonis, worse than Burke, and a hell of a lot worse than Gillis.  Fan accounts will you tell you this, history books will corroborate this.  It's simply the truth.

[conquestofbaguettes]

20 minutes ago, SV. said:

In a thread that's been full of excuses and cop-outs since the original post, somebody has to fact-check and provide the truth.

So, here's another instance of that.

It's a myth that Gillis left nothing behind.  We can say with the power of hindsight that the quality of prospects was poor and underwhelming, but the quantity of assets in the system was very healthy at the time, and almost uncharacteristic of a team that was contending.  Unless you yourself were calling out Shinkaruk, Cassels, Jensen, Schroeder, Subban, etc. as busts in 2013, nobody who supported the Canucks thought the prospect pool was poor.  We came to know this after the fact.  Vastly different from Benning's tenure where people could see disaster happening real-time, unfortunately.

Factually speaking, he actually had more prospects and picks in his system than from what he inherited from Nonis.  For as much "good work" that Nonis did with the team, people forget, or choose to gloss over, the fact that he spent a lot of assets at the 2006 and 2007 trade deadlines.

Now, I've been speaking purely in terms of quantity, but even quality can be argued.

Nonis left behind Schenider, Grabner, Raymond, Hansen, and Edler as young prospects/players that would become NHL players (although, Edler and Raymond had already graduated by 2007/08).  Is it really much different to Gillis leaving Horvat, Markstrom, Lack, and Hutton behind, not counting that Tanev and Kassian were already on the roster?  If I was really shameless, I'd even stretch it to B. Gaunce, who played over 100 games for the Canucks.  Whichever series of prospects you'd choose is a subjective decision, but the quality of prospects is about even.

The main thing is that it comes down to asset management.  Where Gillis could turn undesirable asset like Patrick White into Christian Ehrhoff that could improve the team, Benning could only manage (or chose to) turn players like Hunter Shinkaruk into Markus Granlund.

As myself and others have been saying, the execution of Benning's moves were his downfall.  No amount of ownership meddling or previous management constraints get to excuse him or provide "retrospective analysis" like you've been attempting to do.  Benning was a terrible GM.  Worse than Nonis, worse than Burke, and a hell of a lot worse than Gillis.  Fan accounts will you tell you this, history books will corroborate this.  It's simply the truth.

Burke and Nonis built the vast majority of that beloved 2010 team. Yes, let's talk facts.

 

Gillis sold the farm and left nothing of real value to build around.  Very few assets that would demand top dollar and zero power to change the fact they were not going to rebuild right away as that was never an option.

 

Cory Schneider for Bo Horvat was basically Gillis' coup de grâce.

 

Secondly, comparing two GMs at different stages of team and organizational development is like apples and oranges. It doesn't tell us as much as we might like to think. Especially when we consider the plan laid at a GMs feet which is outside their control.

 

Scagegoating gets us no where here.

Edited November 21, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[SV.]

1 minute ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Burke and Nonis built the vast majority of that beloved 2010 team. Yes, let's talk facts.

 

Gillis sold the farm and left nothing of real value to build around.  Very few assets that would demand top dollar and zero power to change the fact they were not going to rebuild right away as that was never an option.

 

Cory Schneider for Bo Horvat was basically Gillis' coup de grâce.

 

Secondly, comparing two GMs at different stages of team and organizational development is like apples and oranges. It doesn't tell us as much as we might like to think. Especially when we consider the plan laid at a GMs feet which is outside their control.

 

Scagegoating gets us no where here.

You keep peddling this notion about who built the team.  Not myself, or anybody, has claimed that Gillis built the Canucks, so I'm not sure why this keeps getting brought up.  Again, there's a massive difference between building a team and building a window.  Gillis did the latter, which is the much harder thing to do and why he gets credit, which is all I've been saying.

The Canucks were an ageing team when Gillis left, but again, incorrect that there was nothing of value to move.  Kesler, Garrison, Burrows, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Hansen, Higgins, Edler, Tanev, and so on.  It's not on Gillis that Benning chose not to maximize his returns or simply sit on his hands and let players leave for free.  Gillis also inherited older players, like Naslund, Morrison, Ohlund, and Mitchell.  He moved them on quickly and used the cap-space to make his team better.  His execution, as history and fan accounts have suggested, is much better than Benning's.  Just facts.

[LillStrimma]

40 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Nothing else going on there at all, eh. Nothing plays any affect on anything else.

 

I envy you, friend.

 

I really don't, but I also really do.

You remind me in style of the old trickster Brock Boeser on CDC. A few years back and you’re less comic. 

Regarding the other bit, I think you got a lot of quality answers from others disagreeing with you so… Dumb moves are dumb. 

[conquestofbaguettes]

11 minutes ago, LillStrimma said:

You remind me in style of the old trickster Brock Boeser on CDC. A few years back and you’re less comic. 

Regarding the other bit, I think you got a lot of quality answers from others disagreeing with you so… Dumb moves are dumb. 

 

We aren't even having the same conversation. That's the problem.

[conquestofbaguettes]

22 minutes ago, SV. said:

incorrect that there was nothing of value to move.  Kesler, Garrison, Burrows, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Hansen, Higgins, Edler, Tanev, and so on. 

And in the end what did those aging assets fetch? How many firsts? (This is also an aside, btw.)

 

The truth is Hank and Danny weren't going anywhere. And "rebuilding" when those assets may have held more value (in theory) was simply not an option.

 

You want blame Benning for not maximizing those assets sooner, which would be theoretically correct (because that's what GMs are supposed to be able to do with the  assets under their purview) but you're not talking about the reality of the situation as a whole. That's the only problem here.

 

There's simply much much more to think about and look at than a spreadsheet of names exchanged and the subsequent values attached here.

 

As I stated, scapegoating will get us nowhere.

[Ballisticsports]

On 11/18/2023 at 7:06 PM, conquestofbaguettes said:

He thought he had the right man for the right job at the time. Good bad or otherwise. Frankly I don't think it even mattered that much who the GM was for that time period. If it wasn't Benning et al. enacting that "stay competitive" mandate it would have been someone else dealing with same shitty situation and same demands on the table.

 

Whether a different GM would have done exactly the same moves in exactly the same way with what was available in the marketplace we'll never really know. But it's not a stretch to think it wouldn't be all that different  either.

 

Having said that, ownership obviously thought he was the right guy after the fact. They kept him around for 8 years and all.  And you don't keep a guy around that long if you he's not meeting whatever expectations you have on your investments, whatever that looks like.

So it didn't matter who was the GM (pylon) or anyone  ?

JB was just a yes man to Aqua as you say, as to why he kept his job for 8 yrs, and not because he was good as a Gm

 

You always state you are not defending JB , but look at what you have been doing and the even the title of this thread (He wasn't the only GM under Aqua)

 

So JB really wasn't a GM then and why he was so bad at it- because it was actually Aqua ?

Just because he stayed  8 yrs with a fake title and no scruples with his name attached to his duties, does not defend him

That must be why TL left, because he wasn't agreeing with Aqua and his puppets JB and Weisbrod ?

At least he had scruples to get out when he saw his title meant very little if that is the case

Edited November 21, 2023 by Ballisticsports

[SV.]

1 minute ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

And in the end what did those aging assets fetch? How many firsts? (This is also an aside, btw.)

 

The truth is Hank and Danny weren't going anywhere. And "rebuilding" when those assets may have held more value (in theory) was simply not an option.

 

You want blame Benning for not maximizing those assets sooner, which would be theoretically correct (because that's what GMs are supposed to be able to do with the  assets under their purview) but you're not talking about the reality of the situation as a whole. That's the only problem here.

 

There's simply much much more to think about and look at than a spreadsheet of names exchanged and the subsequent values attached here.

 

As I stated, scapegoating will get us nowhere.

I didn't name the Sedins for a reason.  Even so, it's not as though the Sedins demanded the team to compete, or were too good to prevent a rebuild.  Evidently, the team was finishing bottom-five with them on the team.

I "scapegoat" Benning because he was in charge and was responsible for his decisions and execution.  He and only he.  The same way that I blame Gillis for drafting poorly (with the power of hindsight, of course ), or that I'd blame Rutherford/Allvin for any bad decisions that may be made in the present.  All operating under the same owner with the same demands and the same meddling.

Feel free to fact-check for accuracy, but it's pretty much known that DAL offered a 2nd/3rd for Hamhuis at the 2016 TDL, Benning chose not to take it.  Believe STL also offered a 4th for Vrbata, but team again chose not to take that deal.  Under Benning, the team turned aside assets for players they weren't planning to bring back.  That isn't on ownership or Gillis, just him and his team.

ANA offered up Theodore in a deal for Kesler, Benning wanted Sbisa instead.  The power of his conviction let him down, not ownership.

Got a pick for Bieksa, used it to marginally upgrade on Bonino.  And even that is debatable as Bonino did far more for the Penguins than Sutter did for the Canucks.

I'll give him leeway on Higgins (he didn't sign that deal) and give him credit for Hansen/Burrows return (even if he did give up on Dahlen/Goldobin within two or so years), but he absolutely missed the boat on moving Tanev and Edler.  Edler had tons of suitors over the years, Tanev as well, but he chose not to deal them.  And even if he did have the mandate to compete in the present from ownership, evidence from the Garrison/Bieksa/Kesler trades demonstrate that he was not afraid to immediately parlay assets to into players he wanted.  He could have absolutely made deals for Edler and Tanev and brought in new players to continue remaining competitive.  But he didn't, so he gets blamed.  Simple as.

Once more, nobody is disputing that he had terrible ownership to work under, but he gets very little leeway, if any, to excuse his tenure or the decisions he made.  There are no scenarios where we can look back and say that ownership caused him to minimize returns, offer too much term/money to players, or betray the direction he set for himself.

[LillStrimma]

45 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

We aren't even having the same conversation. That's the problem.

Exactly, you’re just have a circle discussion with yourself because me, SV and others seems to know what we talk about. 

[BPA]

So in a nutshell…ownership is the problem.