CanucksCorner.com Forums

Ronning's Ghost wrote:Again, transferring over from a Game Day thread that got a little bit more generalized:

RoyalDude wrote:It's not all on Benning aight, that's just Blobbee talking out of his ass as he refuses to accept that Gillis left this organization in a worser situation than what George W. Bush left the USA for Obama

So I wondered, "How much is still Gillis' fault, and how would we measure that?"

For purposes of making this estimate, I supposed that the GM's primary -- or at least limiting -- resource was salary cap. From there, I used CapFriendly to determine each player's cap hit, and which GM last signed or acquired him.
(I considered that for this analysis, it no longer mattered, for example, that Burke drafted the Sedins, only who decided how much to pay to keep them.)

By that measure, and with a couple of percentage points worth or rounding errors, the current Canucks roster is

Gillis 41%
Benning 59 %

This includes money for Higgins and Luongo to not play for the Canucks.
(Charged against Gillis' influence.)

In terms of number of players, the roster is

Gillis 26%
Benning 74%

This includes Jason Megna, Alex Chaput, and Anton Rodin.
(Allocated as Benning players.)

Of course this analysis does not account for player performance relative to salary cap, or GM success at the drafting table relative to draft position, but it does suggest that this now mostly Benning's team.

My spreadsheet skills are not amazing, so please feel free to double-check my arithmetic. Also, I admit that salary cap is only an approximation of the resources available to a GM; in a team willing to spend to the cap, total number of draft picks, or proportion of picks that turn into useful players, might be limiting factors. So, the answer to "How would we measure that?" is, so far, "crudely", but I look forward to the more sophisticated analyses other posters might develop.

Don't count on much of a response to this post. You brought up too many good points.

Ronning's Ghost wrote: So I wondered, "How much is still Gillis' fault, and how would we measure that?"

Are you fucking serious RG??? did you not see how shitty this team was after the president trophies??

Did you not see Kesler want TF out of here??

Team was crumbling..

Did you not see the shitty prospects in tow?

SKYO wrote:

Ronning's Ghost wrote: So I wondered, "How much is still Gillis' fault, and how would we measure that?"

Are you fucking serious RG??? did you not see how shitty this team was after the president trophies??

Did you not see Kesler want TF out of here??

Team was crumbling..

Did you not see the shitty prospects in tow?

Well, that's not quite what I meant by "a more sophisticated analysis", but...

The Canucks first season after the President's Trophies they were 25-15-7, with a goal differential of +6. That year, they drafted Bo Horvat, whom I consider to be still their best young forward, so their prospects took a sudden uptick.

Their record continued to trend downward the next season, but I think a case can be made that much of that was attributable to John Tortorella, given what happened under a new coach (whom many posters here, seemingly including you,consider to be sufficiently unqualified as to be a drag on the performance of the current team) the following season.

In any case that was, in the professional sports world, a long time ago. Only 26% of that roster, and 41% of that payroll, remain. So far this season, the Canucks are 5-8-1, with a goal differential of -14.

Now, I am perfectly comfortable with the premise that sometimes a team has to get worse before it can get better, but that is not the stated plan of the ownership/management group, and our best conduit to the inner circle (Hockey Widow) insists that they have been, and remain, sincere in their stated goal to rebuild on the fly in a winning atmosphere.

So, what parts of the team that remains from the 2012-2013 season do you consider to be holding back the current roster ?

SKYO wrote:

Ronning's Ghost wrote: So I wondered, "How much is still Gillis' fault, and how would we measure that?"

Are you fucking serious RG??? did you not see how shitty this team was after the president trophies??

Did you not see Kesler want TF out of here??

Team was crumbling..

Did you not see the shitty prospects in tow?

You didn't answer his fucking question. He asked how MUCH of the shitty team we see on the ice today can be attributed to Gillis. At least there are posters that can see that BOTH FUCKING MANAGERS have something to do with the eyesore on ice show we all enjoy ATM. You , dude, Doc and co. can't even admit that Elmer had made some fucking blunders to contribute to the current team and it's garbage prospect pool.The blame should be shared among both Eye Bags and Elmer, but clearly this is too much for some to comprehend.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:

SKYO wrote:

Ronning's Ghost wrote: So I wondered, "How much is still Gillis' fault, and how would we measure that?"

Are you fucking serious RG??? did you not see how shitty this team was after the president trophies??

Did you not see Kesler want TF out of here??

Team was crumbling..

Did you not see the shitty prospects in tow?

You didn't answer his fucking question. He asked how MUCH of the shitty team we see on the ice today can be attributed to Gillis. At least there are posters that can see that BOTH FUCKING MANAGERS have something to do with the eyesore on ice show we all enjoy ATM. You , dude, Doc and co. can't even admit that Elmer had made some fucking blunders to contribute to the current team and it's garbage prospect pool.The blame should be shared among both Eye Bags and Elmer, but clearly this is too much for some to comprehend.

YES Benning fucked up with expecting some goals from the Sedins & Eriksson.

Lol that's all he has fucked up on in his tenure?

Kinda hard to have any sort of dialogue or debate when one side just shoves there head in the sand repeatedly

Well, that's not quite what I meant by "a more sophisticated analysis", but...

Pretty flawed argument, and I smile when hearing from the likes of Blob who choose to give it any credit...

Life works on a "as compared to" basis, we have just witnessed this with the US elections where on his own very few voters would choose such a flawed character as Trump but when you compare him to Clinton enough voted to elect him President...

Your analysis works on as compared to perfection basis which is naïve...

The Gillis era ended leaving a pretty flawed organization void of a future and filled with problem contracts...

I don't blame Gillis because with few exceptions its the normal rise and fall of a very competitive organization over a number of years...

Benning was brought in to tear down the team and rebuild it much like Keenan was before the Burke era...

Two different approaches on how to do it with Keenan taking a grenade to the problem while Benning is taking a slower approach but the advantage Keenan had was his tear down was prior to the salary cap era so it was easier to move bloated contracts and make deals...

I think a more relevant analysis would be to take similar situations as the one Benning inherited and look at how other managers handled their situations and how long it took to complete the rebuilds...

The leaves as an example were very competitive during the Quinn era and after he left went into a very dark period for over a decade and with the help of the lottery win are looking like a team which can be competitive in a few years...

They hired the most expensive coach and maybe the most expensive front office in league history and it got them 30th place last season and don't look like a playoff team again this year...

So, as compared to Toronto's history how has Benning performed to date?

What about as compared to the Oilers or the Flames, none of which have had the success the Nucks have had in the last 10 years...

Fans complain about Bennings trade record....

As compared to perfection they expect him to win every deal but as compared to other GM's in similar situations how has he fared?...

Where is the teams payroll as compared to its ability to compete? The Canucks payroll was out of whack as compared to its point standings when Benning inherited the team and I think its still too high, but as compared to other non competitive teams like the leaves and the Flames the Nucks look to be doing a good job of controlling costs relative to points...

I don't know the answers to the questions I've asked because I haven't taken the time to find out but if you want to analyse the team for me this would be a more worthwhile way to do it to get a better understanding of the job Linden and Benning have done to date...

My gut tells me that as compared to other teams who have been in similar situations they are doing a good job which is why I'm not getting my pants in a knot over this years team...

Take care...

rikster wrote:

Well, that's not quite what I meant by "a more sophisticated analysis", but...

Pretty flawed argument, and I smile when hearing from the likes of Blob who choose to give it any credit...

Always hard to take anyone serious when they start their argument in a very non threatening manner to say "fuck you" to the poster they disagree with.

You then go on and ask a bunch of good questions but state that you have no time to answer them.

He gave his opinion (in a logical manner) which is more than most do on this site.

rikster wrote: Benning was brought in to tear down the team and rebuild it much like Keenan was before the Burke era...

What?

rikster wrote:

Well, that's not quite what I meant by "a more sophisticated analysis", but...

Pretty flawed argument, and I smile when hearing from the likes of Blob who choose to give it any credit...

Life works on a "as compared to" basis, we have just witnessed this with the US elections where on his own very few voters would choose such a flawed character as Trump but when you compare him to Clinton enough voted to elect him President...

Your analysis works on as compared to perfection basis which is naïve...

I thought I was comparing Gillis-era contracts/players to Benning-era contracts/players. Where is a standard of perfection invoked?

rikster wrote:The Gillis era ended leaving a pretty flawed organization void of a future and filled with problem contracts...

I don't think that is in dispute.

rikster wrote:Benning was brought in to tear down the team and rebuild it much like Keenan was before the Burke era...

Maybe, but that's not what the ownership/management group keeps saying.

rikster wrote:I think a more relevant analysis would be to take similar situations as the one Benning inherited and look at how other managers handled their situations and how long it took to complete the rebuilds...

I think that it would be, if the question I was trying to address was "How good a job is Benning doing?". It wasn't.

rikster wrote:So, as compared to Toronto's history how has Benning performed to date?

What about as compared to the Oilers or the Flames, none of which have had the success the Nucks have had in the last 10 years...

I don't know the answers to the questions I've asked because I haven't taken the time to find out...

Well, I guess instructions on how someone else should perform a more insightful analysis is a step toward what I was seeking.

rikster wrote:Where is the teams payroll as compared to its ability to compete? The Canucks payroll was out of whack as compared to its point standings when Benning inherited the team and I think its still too high, but as compared to other non competitive teams like the leaves and the Flames the Nucks look to be doing a good job of controlling costs relative to points...

That's a good question, too. The problem for your point is that the Canucks are at 99.5% of the cap.

rikster wrote: if you want to analyse the team for me this would be a more worthwhile way to do it to get a better understanding of the job Linden and Benning have done to date...

Again, not the question I was asking, which was, again "How much is the job that Gillis did still impairing Benning's progress today?"

rikster wrote:My gut tells me that as compared to other teams who have been in similar situations they are doing a good job

I was trying to get away from the gut analysis. Not that your gut is wrong, necessarily, but I don't see how your gut feelings are supposed to form the basis of a convincing argument.

It's hard to take anyone serious who thinks Luca Sbisa is a good defenceman

Blob Mckenzie wrote:It's hard to take anyone serious who thinks Luca Sbisa is a good defenceman

He could be if he wasn't "LOST IN SPACE".

Ronning's Ghost wrote: So I wondered, "How much is still Gillis' fault, and how would we measure that?"

So this has brought on some decent discussion and I'll add my $.02.

It is very clearly heading towards a Benning team as you have shown with the number of players currently on the roster that are Benning contracts. However, to get a more accurate representation we really need to wait a few more years!

Yes, the majority of the points are still coming from Gillis players (although even some of these players were on the roster pre-Gillis) but that's to be expected as he attained/signed those players when they were or are in their prime point producing years.

It is well known that we had a talent gap due to the moving of prospects and draft picks for the elusive "final pieces of the puzzle" in order to try and win the cup. I've always said I had no issue with Gillis doing this and saw the method to his madness, I would've sold the whole fucking farm for a cup win myself!!

But we fell just short. And this left us with a drastic hole in a specific age group which is really what is bringing on the struggles lately. Those picks and prospects Gillis moved should be entering their prime now and taking over for the Sedins, but that talent isn't there.

Benning has moved a few picks and prospects to try and fill this gap but this is tough to do when you aren't acquiring top end prospects. And really we didn't have the moveable players to acquire this talent! So we need to wait almost an extra generation of talent for the youth and picks to accrue and enter their NHL prime.

This is still a Gillis team and will be for the next couple years at least. Sure our roster has turned over but the quality of picks and players that Benning has had to work with coming from the Gillis era was laughable at best. Made worse was the NTCs and NMCs given out by Gillis that hindered Benning's ability to move stale players, some who wanted very little to do with the team anymore but held all the cards in their trade demands.

So quantifying a Gillis vs. a Benning team is tougher to analyze IMO that who's on the roster and even who is putting up the majority of the points. Gillis left Benning without talent in a specific age group, Benning felt it necessary to move a few 2nd, and later, round picks to try and bridge this gap. If we didn't do something like this we could have found ourselves in the Oiler rebuild category with a ton of youth who routinely learn how to lose and are simply handed roster spots! Eventually, hoping that one of our #1 picks turns into a generational talent. I didn't want to head down that road, and clearly Benning didn't think it was the best approach either.

Obviously the approach to the rebuild can be argued and it's success can only be determined over time. I do feel that we need to give Benning a little more than 2 years to see the results of his tenure!

So, basically, I feel the lack of age appropriate talent can also be attributed to Gillis' tenure and him trying to win the cup. But how does one quantify that? We wouldn't have been drafting high during those years he moved a bunch of picks, but we weren't given the chance to because of the direction of the team.

Benning shouldn't be judged because yet, we are a good 3-4 years behind due to pushing for the Cup. Gillis came into a team that was successful and had a #2 and 3 picks leading the team and into their prime!

Really until Benning gets to have 3-4 years of draft picks and acquisitions and is allowed to develop these players the team will always have a Gillis taste to it. We're getting there but there's still a ways to go before we have completely transitioned!

Aaronp18 wrote:

Ronning's Ghost wrote: So I wondered, "How much is still Gillis' fault, and how would we measure that?"

Really until Benning get to have 3-4 years of draft picks and acquisitions and is allowed to develop these players the team will always have a Gillis taste to it. We're getting there but there's still a ways to go before we have completely transitioned!

With a reputation as a smart talent evaluator, I expected Benning to come in and acquire draft picks and use his skill to pick the right players. Instead he squandered picks on guys like Vey, in a feeble attempt to hurry up the rebuild. He should have started the rebuild on day one; we would have been further ahead now.

With regards to transitioning, thanks to Gillis we still have the stench of the Luongo contract haunting us. Not only does it still cost us 800k per year on the cap, we're going to be hit with a massive recapture penalty one of these year.

Zedlee wrote: With a reputation as a smart talent evaluator, I expected Benning to come in and acquire draft picks and use his skill to pick the right players. Instead he squandered picks on guys like Vey, in a feeble attempt to hurry up the rebuild. He should have started the rebuild on day one; we would have been further ahead now.

How would you have proposed he did this? All the assets we had to acquire high picks or high end prospects had NTCs or NMCs and got to choose where and when they were moved.

And again, that could have led us down the Oiler rebuild model. Which, up until the McDavid drafting, looked like something to avoid like the plague. And really all it's proved is that a generational talent is something that can finally help your franchise gain some respectability after squandering countless top 5 draft picks.

How long should should we shit the bed until there's another Crosby or McDavid?

And I don't think he was trying to hurry the rebuild, he was simply trying to bridge a talent gap with the assets he had at his disposal.