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

[conquestofbaguettes]

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.)

We must remember...

 

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 aka "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 intentionally 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 a 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.

Edited November 18, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes
I posted this on canucks reddit 4 months ago. And with the Linden v. Benning debate back again, I felt posting here was pertinent.

[filthy animal]

Ok Business is business you are absolutely right.

 

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

 

You just burned yourself many times over Benning bro LOL

[SV.]

The issues with this team have always centered on transparency and consistency.

Ownership says they hire management and give them full autonomy and full resources to do as they need, and then a story comes out later that they mandated this and nixed that.

Management says they want to build a team based on A, B, and C, and then they make moves and decisions that are closer to X, Y, and Z.

Now, ownership has a right to exert as much control as they please, and plans can always change for a management team, but if you're a paying customer, there's only so many times where actions can betray words before the wallet closes up.  Not to mention the constant gaslighting that's been ongoing, whether it's about how Vancouver can't handle a rebuild, or that players will only come if they get premium term and money, and so forth.  Full stop, the fans of this team haven't been treated well.

I was one of Benning's biggest critics during his time here, and with the power of time and hindsight, I can remove some of the blame I placed on him and move it to ownership since they never really gave him a chance to start fresh.  But make no mistake, his execution and decision-making of the "rebuild" plan is certainly why the Canucks are/were? what they have been.  The reckless gambles with draft capital, irresponsible contracts handed out, trades without sensibility or direction, and even the disconnect with members of his staff.  That's still on him, not really the ownership.

I'm not sure the Canucks are necessarily in a better place now with Benning being gone, but at the very least, the new management seems to be more aware and calculated with their decision-making.

[LillStrimma]

Talk about long post that is almost completely unnecessary.

 

You can't defend Bennings bad decisions with your post.

I give two important examples.

 

1. To be competative you have to leave cap space available so you can act when players are available. This mean you can get the good RHD when he gets available and cost 8 mill without crashing the team with desperate trades etc.

 

2. Benning could have built a team that was competative if he avoided all the expensive vets he choosed.

we can take Ferland as a stunning example.

He cost four mill instead of taking three or four crash and burn players that give their all and the let the stars life easier.

Now he was injured but he still affected the cap through the bonusmoney that had to be paid and there his four mill counted against cap.

I could probably write an equally lengthy post and say the opposite 

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

6 hours ago, filthy animal said:

Ok Business is business you are absolutely right.

 

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

 

You just burned yourself many times over Benning bro LOL

 

People give Mike Gillis way too much credit. Most of the great work was done by Nonis and Burke.

 

Trevor Lindens tank plan was idealism. Always was, always will be.

 

Benning hater fanfic will never not be funny.

[Ballisticsports]

Sounds like poster should be defending Aquaman and calling Benning  a puppet 

TL had integrity then and stepped down when undersold by the guy he hired  to be GM  Aqua they would be elite in 2018  over TL 4-5 yr vision

You state fans have no investment in the Canucks?

Then contradict and say fans are 1/3 of revenue ?

 

Like other's stated was this long post necessary?

You are not going to change your stance and doubtful others will as well

It is not like it happened yesterday and we all have opinions on what we witnessed, heard and read 

 

Can't we be glad that the worst years of complete futility in Canucks history is over and looking like we finally have a plan

[King Heffy]

6 hours ago, filthy animal said:

Ok Business is business you are absolutely right.

 

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

 

You just burned yourself many times over Benning bro LOL

Gillis caused a ton of damage to the franchise with his drafting and trades.  The destruction that idiot did took a damage to recover from thanks to his historic incompetence.

[DSVII]

I can admire this level of conviction in defending what is arguably the worst GM job in the modern cap era. Just some assumptions i'll disagree with hidden in this.

 

The resentment at the end of the day is that Benning achieved a tanking result, with the draft capital and cap flexibility of a contender. 

 

Quote

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

 

Cap flexibility isn't a limitation. Yes you can take on bad contracts, but you can also sign pending UFAs to mentor your prospects or flip for assets.

 

The team always tries to win games, it's the coaches job to win games. It's important to maintain that culture, it's just that without super stars you're more likely than not to lose and go to the bottom. but you always want to compete. Everyone is fighting for a job in the NHL, reason why the Sharks GM gave the team a talking to after consecutive 10 goal losses

 

You trade picks and prospects when you are ready to compete with your core group.

 

Quote

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.)

 

Not necessarily. It's ownership and management's job to sell hope for the future. Yes ticket sales will dip, but you are making an investment into the future that some of your following examples will highlight. Overhead of course will be reduced during the tough times. Business is Business and it is also cyclical.

 

Quote

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

"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?

 

I'd argue that the market held up pretty well considering we got the results of a tank and still had consistent gate revenue. You had a lot of goodwill left over from the Sedin years to pivot to whatever direction you wanted.

 

The market was bought in enough to go with whatever vision (rebuild/retool) despite the results. After the cup run, it was easy to sell hope to this fanbase.

 

Also you are inferring the team would have traded the Sedins during a rebuild. That wouldn't be true. There would still be stars leftover to mentor the kids. I think the Sedins were a special case.

 

I just don't buy the premise that in this Canadian market a rebuild will drive tickets away to the point of insolvency when we essentially saw flat gate revenue during a time when we finished 28th, 29th, 26th overall from 2016-2018.

 

And it wasn't because Jim marketed the team as 'competing'. The results were that of a tank. Just without the draft capital or blue chip prospects until Petey/Hughes. 

 

data from statmuse

gate revenue from statistica and attendance

 

 

a reminder that 2016-18 we finished 28th, 29th, 26th. Regardless of what you call what we did during that time, that is a tanking result

 

 

Even the rebuild crowd can't take solace because Benning sold off most of the draft capital he had to make those failed runs. So we had no winning, and no draft capital to sustain any success. Worst of both worlds

(The line represents the playoff points pct% line, and the average draft capital of a 15th place NHL team based on the valuation table here)

 

 

 

Quote

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.

 

Not a good example to support your case. 

 

Take a look at what happened after 2011-2013 in team revenue. This is what a successful rebuild can do for your business. And the league is set up to reward teams that rebuild with the draft capital and chance to hit.

 

 

 

Quote

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?

 

How about unintentionally losing? Getting no picks, no cap space, and toxic contracts that need to be paid to trade away? Benning signed hundreds of millions of dollars of UFA contracts during his tenure here, and outside of the initial ones from 2014-15. most of them became dead weight in the end.

 

Quote

nd 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.

 

And ultimately Aqualini wears this lost decade. Doesn't change the fact that Benning executed the vision in the worst possible ways.

 

Quote

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.

 

Again we can have our difference of opinion. I just don't buy it.

 

a.) Benning was very popular with the ownership group. 

b.) The market still had residual goodwill left over from the cup contending years. They just wanted hope. Benning gave Bottom ten league finishes. 

c.) their 'work' produced consecutive bottom 10 years with a barren prospect pipeline. 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by DSVII

[conquestofbaguettes]

28 minutes ago, Ballisticsports said:

Sounds like poster should be defending Aquaman and calling Benning  a puppet 

TL had integrity then and stepped down when undersold by the guy he hired  to be GM  Aqua they would be elite in 2018  over TL 4-5 yr vision

You state fans have no investment in the Canucks?

Then contradict and say fans are 1/3 of revenue ?

 

Like other's stated was this long post necessary?

You are not going to change your stance and doubtful others will as well

It is not like it happened yesterday and we all have opinions on what we witnessed, heard and read 

 

Can't we be glad that the worst years of complete futility in Canucks history is over and looking like we finally have a plan

Trevor Lindens "plan" was idealistic. As the post outlines, not many ownership groups are willing to "tank" in any sport, watching hundreds of millions of dollars burn in front of their eyes. Secondly, they didn't have the assets that would fetch 1sts to do said idealistic rebuild. see: Chris Gear interview above. It was simply never a realistic option.   Nothing to do with "integrity."
 

Truth is it didnt matter who the GM really was at that time. Ownerships plan to stay competitive wasn't going to change. Fire one. The next would come in with the same ownership demands on the table. And no, not because "yes man" but rather a product of top down business structure. For example you tell your boss no to something they tell you to do. See how long you have a job.

 

Yes, we fans have no investment in the business. We don't get a financial return. We are consumers, not producers.

[coquitlamdave]

I blame the bruins.   It was a tragedy when NHL didn't see the same GOOD vs BAD that i saw as a home town fan here in Vancouver.  The whole city was hit with this phycological warfare.  Don Cherry, The globe and Mail, Ron McLean are only some of the "just doing my job" type of beaurocrats that carried out this Phycological attack on us.  Everyone who joined us after, was also subjected to this negative mindset.  

[conquestofbaguettes]

28 minutes ago, DSVII said:

I can admire this level of conviction in defending what is arguably the worst GM job in the modern cap era. Just some assumptions i'll disagree with hidden in this.

 

The resentment at the end of the day is that Benning achieved a tanking result, with the draft capital and cap flexibility of a contender. 

 

 

Cap flexibility isn't a limitation. Yes you can take on bad contracts, but you can also sign pending UFAs to mentor your prospects or flip for assets.

 

The team always tries to win games, it's the coaches job to win games. It's important to maintain that culture, it's just that without super stars you're more likely than not to lose and go to the bottom. but you always want to compete. Everyone is fighting for a job in the NHL, reason why the Sharks GM gave the team a talking to after consecutive 10 goal losses

 

You trade picks and prospects when you are ready to compete with your core group.

 

 

Not necessarily. It's ownership and management's job to sell hope for the future. Yes ticket sales will dip, but you are making an investment into the future that some of your following examples will highlight. Overhead of course will be reduced during the tough times. Business is Business and it is also cyclical.

 

 

I'd argue that the market held up pretty well considering we got the results of a tank and still had consistent gate revenue. You had a lot of goodwill left over from the Sedin years to pivot to whatever direction you wanted.

 

The market was bought in enough to go with whatever vision (rebuild/retool) despite the results. After the cup run, it was easy to sell hope to this fanbase.

 

Also you are inferring the team would have traded the Sedins during a rebuild. That wouldn't be true. There would still be stars leftover to mentor the kids. I think the Sedins were a special case.

 

I just don't buy the premise that in this Canadian market a rebuild will drive tickets away to the point of insolvency when we essentially saw flat gate revenue during a time when we finished 28th, 29th, 26th overall from 2016-2018.

 

And it wasn't because Jim marketed the team as 'competing'. The results were that of a tank. Just without the draft capital or blue chip prospects until Petey/Hughes. 

 

data from statmuse

gate revenue from statistica and attendance

 

 

 

 

Not a good example to support your case. 

 

Take a look at what happened after 2011-2013 in team revenue. This is what a successful rebuild can do for your business. And the league is set up to reward teams that rebuild with the draft capital and chance to hit.

 

 

 

 

How about unintentionally losing? Getting no picks, no cap space, and toxic contracts that need to be paid to trade away? Benning signed hundreds of millions of dollars of UFA contracts during his tenure here, and outside of the initial ones from 2014-15. most of them became dead weight in the end.

 

 

And ultimately Aqualini wears this lost decade. Doesn't change the fact that Benning executed the vision in the worst possible ways.

 

 

Again we can have our difference of opinion. I just don't buy it.

 

a.) Benning was very popular with the ownership group. 

b.) The market still had residual goodwill left over from the cup contending years. They just wanted hope. Benning gave Bottom ten league finishes. 

c.) their 'work' produced consecutive bottom 10  years with a barren prospect pipeline. 

 

 

They were spending to the cap to stay competitive. That was the entire purpose. They expecting to be competing during Peteys last contract but alas, pandemic changed everything.

 

Secondly, this post is not a "defense" of anything. It is merely an acknowledgement of the constraints and barriers to doing what we may have wanted them to do. If you read the start of my post you'd see even I advocated a tank. It's the ideal path. But business is business.

 

Thirdly, the attendance graphs you posted don't tell the whole story.  It's about maximizing value of those tickets. Not all are equal. And a tank style tank "being shelled 6-1 every game" would have plummeted them even further. Think not in terms of making money but rather limiting losses, or limiting what they otherwise would have been. Winning as many games as you would lose will still give people reason to tune in and come to games and consume the product.

 

Speaking of which, we can't even use those graphs as evidence considering they never did do an intentional tank rebuild in the first place.

 

A) Yes Benning was popular with the ownership group. Lasted 8 years. He was obviously meeting their projections (until he wasn't and then he was out the door.)

 

B) And yes, they lost a lot. Rebuilds be like that. But it was still fewer losses than it otherwise would've been.  Icing a San Jose quality team was never a realistic idea in Vancouver.

Edited November 15, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[RawkDrummer]

Thank goodness all these crap years of hockey are hopefully behind us.

I's nice to our team winning once again. and Sign Petey!

[Ballisticsports]

14 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Trevor Lindens "plan" was idealistic. As the post outlines, not many ownership groups are willing to "tank" in any sport, watching hundreds of millions of dollars burn in front of their eyes. Secondly, they didn't have the assets that would fetch 1sts to do said idealistic rebuild. see: Chris Gear interview above. It was simply never a realistic option.   Nothing to do with "integrity."
 

Truth is it didnt matter who the GM really was at that time. Ownerships plan to stay competitive wasn't going to change. Fire one. The next would come in with the same ownership demands on the table. And no, not because "yes man" but rather a product of top down business structure. For example you tell your boss no to something they tell you to do. See how long you have a job.

 

Yes, we fans have no investment in the business. We don't get a financial return. We are consumers, not producers.

TL wanted to tank?

“We do have to be careful with what we do this summer,” said Linden. “We're okay with being young next year. We're going to be extremely young, we know that.”

“We’ve gotten to a place now where we’ve got a very good group of exciting young players, and that continues to build,” Canuck president of hockey operations Trevor Linden told Sportsnet. “It’s just a matter of being patient and sticking with it now. July 1 is not a day to build. You can add some pieces. But if you look at good teams, the core is usually drafted.

“We need to think about getting better from within. We need to get our young players to take a step and be better. Our wins next year will be from the growth of young players. That’s where we are. July 1 isn’t a day where we’re going to build our team. It’s a patient day for us.”

 

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 minute ago, Ballisticsports said:

TL wanted to tank?

“We do have to be careful with what we do this summer,” said Linden. “We're okay with being young next year. We're going to be extremely young, we know that.”

“We’ve gotten to a place now where we’ve got a very good group of exciting young players, and that continues to build,” Canuck president of hockey operations Trevor Linden told Sportsnet. “It’s just a matter of being patient and sticking with it now. July 1 is not a day to build. You can add some pieces. But if you look at good teams, the core is usually drafted.

“We need to think about getting better from within. We need to get our young players to take a step and be better. Our wins next year will be from the growth of young players. That’s where we are. July 1 isn’t a day where we’re going to build our team. It’s a patient day for us.”

 

 

 

Exactly. He stated it above.  Think about the cause and effect of not building around the young guys at the time. What happens. And apparently  wanted to tank for 4 or 5 years. Check out his recent interview on Donnie and Dhali and 650 with Sat and Dan.

 

Also, can you post the link to the TL quotes?  I'm curious on the date. Ie. Pre or post Sedin retirement.  They first retooled with Sedins and they started "rebuilding" (while still staying competitive as fucked as that is) afterwards.

[conquestofbaguettes]

1 hour ago, LillStrimma said:

Talk about long post that is almost completely unnecessary.

 

You can't defend Bennings bad decisions with your post.

I give two important examples.

 

1. To be competative you have to leave cap space available so you can act when players are available. This mean you can get the good RHD when he gets available and cost 8 mill without crashing the team with desperate trades etc.

 

2. Benning could have built a team that was competative if he avoided all the expensive vets he choosed.

we can take Ferland as a stunning example.

He cost four mill instead of taking three or four crash and burn players that give their all and the let the stars life easier.

Now he was injured but he still affected the cap through the bonusmoney that had to be paid and there his four mill counted against cap.

I could probably write an equally lengthy post and say the opposite 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

[kilgore]

The level of delusion is monumental in this OP.

 

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.

 

So.....

You admit here that DESPITE not biting the bullet, restocking the farm, adding picks instead of reducing them. Which included keeping and developing them. Not signing over priced, over-valued longer termed veterans, the result was still a  loss in revenue for the owner, at the height of Bennings term "plan"?  Still such a shitty team that a lot of fans gave it a pass? 

 

You assume that Vancouver fans have no patience?  lol  Were you around for the first 2 decades?  All we have is hockey here.  Sure we have the CFL, and the MLS. But as far as the best pro league of a sport in the world, the Canucks are it.  Fans are not going anywhere.

 

Any good businessman who owns an NHL team in Vancouver should know this.  A rebuild is like an investment into a payout later. The Aquilinis also invest in real estate. They invested in what was GM Place along with the Canucks. The value has increased astronomically. They invest in other real estate, as do many home owners who go out on a limb to buy their first house. Knowing eventually it will more than make up for the struggles today.  Its not anti-business to think this way.  Quite the opposite.

 

Treading water is what Benning was doing, barely, while other teams like the NY Rangers wrote an honest letter to fans about a rebuild.  Did what they promised. And now have a contending team five years later. 

 

Sure a retool on the fly CAN work. But its way more difficult than a simple rebuild. It takes not one, but a group of highly accomplished and talented managers, like we have now, to pull it off. You can't screw up anywhere because you have such a short rope to work with. Every signing has to be positive. Every top pick has to work out. This management group has managed to pull it off so far. First time GM Benning was terrible at it.  He was in way over his head, and was too arrogant, or greedy, to admit it. Yes it was also Francesco's hubris and delusions. But it was Benning that took the 30 pieces of silver and hung himself.

[Ballisticsports]

Tank?

He was against signing Retirement contracts to  older players and preferred how JR is now offering shorter term to good vets

Your curious? Like it would even matter?

On April  2 2018  Sedins retired

On July 25, 2018 Linden left

 

 

I didn't want to really get caught up in such a dark part of the Canucks history bringing me down (would have been like 8 yrs of Bill Laforge years)

Those years were so horrible

It's been close to a decade of him being hired and opinions formed and neither will erase what happened

 

When you have a new happy marriage, you don't carry on talking of a bad one (and why i wonder why after so much past discussions of this I got into again)

Time to move forward

We finally have something good to move forward with

 

 

[Warhippy]

The bottom line is an intentional tank would have cost this team.  Sure.  Business is business.

 

But an unintentional tank because they actually TRIED to be better or compete for a bloody decade and did literally nothing within that time frame shows that while business may be business, the management group was so gd inept that trying to win resulted in what was tantamount to a tank anyways which is to say going for it would have made the most sense as they would have still been abysmal and still bled ticket sales/revenue

 

Losing value on Edler, Markstrom, Tanev, Tofolli by allowing them to walk for nothing as opposed to trading them (Tofolli not withstanding) when every single expert and analyst could see that it would be a miracle for this team to even make the playoffs let alone win a round shows a lack of understanding of basic assets that is painful.  Trading picks/futures away for the right now and in positions of redundancy like LHD also indicates and shows that management didn't even know wtf was wrong with their own team let alone the value of futures and cap space in a world in which ltir contracts were absolute money.

 

From the get go after the Kesler Trade this team managed to only draft in the first 3 rounds completely with their own picks 3 times.  When you peel out Hughes and Pettersson the most successful picks they made under Benning were Hoglander, Boeser, Demko and Virtanen over 8 total drafts.  McCann and Forsling taken in Bennings first actual draft in 2014 don't really count as they were afterthoughts within 2 seasons or less and traded.  That is 4 total players out of 54 total picks with an average draft position of #8 or a 7.4% success rate.  That is again, abysmal.  We haven't and won't discuess the pro level scouting or trades made because wow

 

This is again without mentioning that the team made the playoffs twice, once in the covid bubble through a round robin style tournament in which had the team played out the last 13 games based on the schedule they had would have missed the playoffs without the covid tourny.  All while spending to the absolute cap ceiling every single year.

 

So; while business is business and Benning can be said to have managed to put the core of Boeser, Miller, Hughes, Demko and pettersson together.  To say that his tenure was anything other than absolute failure is a bridge too far and is not in keeping with reality as he did literally nothing in his time here.

 

I was very anti benning in his first 18 months; or two seasons here, luke warm his next 3 years and then sliding towards utter apathy his last few seasons.  But when you look at his lack of understanding of how the cap world works, his utter failure to capitalize on assets or build towards a future while refusing to rebuild yet still drafting an average of 8th overall while missing the playoffs in all but 2* (asterisk for covid bubble) of his seasons here that lack of success points towards nothing but failure on every possible metric.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Warhippy

[kilgore]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

But when you look at his lack of understanding of how the cap world works, his utter failure to capitalize on assets or build towards a future while refusing to rebuild yet still drafting an average of 8th overall while missing the playoffs in all but 2* (asterisk for covid bubble) of his seasons here that lack of success points towards nothing but failure on every possible metric.

 

That's it in a nutshell

 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by kilgore

[conquestofbaguettes]

53 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

business may be business, the management group was so gd inept that trying to win resulted in what was tantamount to a tank anyways which is to say going for it would have made the most sense as they would have still been abysmal and still bled ticket sales/revenue

But they still bled less than they otherwise would have getting shelled 6-1 night in and night out. Did you listen to the Chris Gear interview? They wanted "competitive" hockey for good reason.

 

57 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Losing value on Edler, Markstrom, Tanev, Tofolli by allowing them to walk for nothing as opposed to trading them (Tofolli not withstanding)

 

The pandemic happened remember. Guys looking for raises at a time there's no money to do so. And yeah, Toffi wasn't supposed to be a rental but shit happens.

And I've always found this narrative about older players being let go kinda funny. Not saying you are doing this, but its funny to see people say "you have to tank and rebuild! Build with young guys" and then in the same breath get angry when older assets are moved along or let go. Can't have it both ways.

 

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Benning can be said to have managed to put the core of Boeser, Miller, Hughes, Demko and pettersson together.  To say that his tenure was anything other than absolute failure is a bridge too far and is not in keeping with reality as he did literally nothing in his time here.

Maybe it's a grammatical issue, but this sounds like you're contradicting yourself.  Petey, Miller, Hughes, Demko etc. are not nothing.

 

Benning et al. did most the heavy lifting for PA and JR.  (Much like Nonis, and Burke before Gillis.)

 

Finding a new young star core to move forward with is the entire goal of a rebuild. And they did that. All the rest is mostly inconsequential bs. Finding guys to fill holes in the meantime and keep asses in the seats.  Some worked. Some didn't. Doesnt matter. Kept the dollars up high enough ownership kept them around 8 years. And that's the bottomline.

 

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

lack of understanding of how the cap world works, his utter failure to capitalize on assets or build towards a future while refusing to rebuild yet still drafting an average of 8th overall while missing the playoffs in all but 2* (asterisk for covid bubble) of his seasons here that lack of success points towards nothing but failure on every possible metric.

 

Every metric except money apparently.  8 years for a reason. If he was so very inept in all these things in all these way (which is frankly unfounded conjecture) he would have been fired long long before.

 

They built towards a future just fine. Just took awhile to see the benefits is all... especially considering an impossiblity of predicting a pandemic and a flat cap.

 

 

[Warhippy]

3 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

That's it in a nutshell

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

34 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

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

 

Better watch what you're saying, lest some poster decide to share their Chris Gear interview yet again... 

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

But they still bled less than they otherwise would have getting shelled 6-1 night in and night out. Did you listen to the Chris Gear interview? They wanted "competitive" hockey for good reason.

 

 

 

I also think we can hone our disagreement to this exact phrase. "Bled less than they otherwise"

 

You're saying that the team  'competing', spending to the cap, selling futures to get those vets in, and resulting in a 29th place finish resulted in a higher attendance and revenue than a hypothetical team that is rebuildling, selling aged vets, having cap flexibility, getting futures and prospects in the pipeline, and finishing in 29th place?

 

Can agree to disagree here, I think the Vancouver market would have been loyal to a rebuilding product. That's evidenced by the consistent attendance numbers even during the 28th and 29th place finishes when the team tried to compete, and losing like a tanking team with blowouts.

 

Just slapping the label 'competitive' on a team that placed 29th isn't the difference maker.  I think this market was just loyal and still hoping for a return to the cup years (Whether via retool or rebuild, you're selling that same hope). What was missed was really a good window to rebuild with built up goodwill on the table. That goodwill was burnt chasing mediocrity.

 

Again I see the fundamental disagreement, i can agree to disagree there. Could a rebuild have failed? Absolutely, but I think you'd still get a similar level of engagement from the market during those years because of the 2011 goodwill.

 

 

Quote

Thirdly, the attendance graphs you posted don't tell the whole story.  It's about maximizing value of those tickets. Not all are equal. And a tank style tank "being shelled 6-1 every game" would have plummeted them even further. Think not in terms of making money but rather limiting losses, or limiting what they otherwise would have been. Winning as many games as you would lose will still give people reason to tune in and come to games and consume the product.

 

 

Here's the revenue graph from Forbes then, total revenues didn't really dip during the dark days. Leftmost being 2022 and then right 2021 etc..

 

But i get what you're saying, it mitigated the revenue loss because the team didn't get shelled 6-1. I'd argue the team didn't just finish in the standings like a rebuilding team, they were also losing in blowouts like a rebuildilng team.

 

 I don't think the competitive focus was even executed properly, the signings and trades did not keep the product afloat. The competitive team was still getting blown out the same way as a rebuilding team in those 6-1 games, fans still came and spent money.

 

 

Goal Differential of a competitive team vs rebuilding team (Canucks vs Coyotes)

 

Goal Differential of a perpetual rebuilding team

Edited November 15, 2023 by DSVII

[Mike Vanderhoek]

OP is all just conjecture and hindsight.

 

I am just a fan, I have always cheered for my Canucks win or lose.

 

Do I pretend to know more than NHL players, coaches, managers, executives, and owners. Nope. Do I think the Canucks could have made a thousand different decisions from the ones they did make IN HINDSIGHT ? sure, we are all that smart. 

 

Do I put much stock in keyboard warriors who think they knew and others knew the right course of action for this team to take. Very few on here as much as we are fans and love the game and our team, very few actually know what its like in the coaches room, the managers office, the owner's office and so on. We don't have a damn clue to be frank.

 

Do I care if the owner was having final say in decisions about HIS team ? nope, not my millions of dollars at stake.

 

What I do know is having watched this team for 40+ years, there have been many ups and downs, a diehard rides the waves and sticks with the team on the ice, that's the category I put myself in. Seeing the players that have been assembled on this current Canucks squad, well that is the product of a couple GMs and several managements, scouting and executives along the way.

 

I think this iteration of the club has the potential to hold the best this franchise has seen in a goaltender in Demko, a forward in Pettersson, and a defenseman in Hughes. I like the almost money ball approach to building a deep management group with endless skill sets brought to the table and the coaching group has got to be one of the top collections of individuals in the league. The owner is investing heavily on top of always being a team paying to the cap.

 

No rage, resentment, no contempt, just a fan. I am not going to dwell on the lows and I am going to enjoy the highs, not going to take for granted what we have had in the past or what we see in front of our eyes right now.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Mike Vanderhoek

[Artemus]

24 minutes ago, DSVII said:

 

 

I also think we can hone our disagreement to this exact phrase. "Bled less than they otherwise"

 

You're saying that the team  'competing', spending to the cap, selling futures to get those vets in, and resulting in a 29th place finish resulted in a higher attendance and revenue than a hypothetical team that is rebuildling, selling aged vets, having cap flexibility, getting futures and prospects in the pipeline, and finishing in 29th place?

 

Can agree to disagree here, the Vancouver market would have been loyal to a rebuilding product. That's evidenced by the consistent attendance numbers even during the 28th and 29th place finishes when the team tried to compete, despite losing like a tanking team.

 

Just slapping the label 'competitive' on a team that placed 29th isn't the difference maker.  I think this market was just loyal and still hoping for a return to the cup years (Whether via retool or rebuild, you're selling that same hope). What was missed was really a good window to rebuild with built up goodwill on the table. That goodwill was burnt chasing mediocrity.

 

 

 

 

Here's the revenue graph from Forbes then, total revenues didn't really dip during the dark days. Leftmost being 2022 and then right 2021 etc..

 

But i get what you're saying, it mitigated the revenue loss because the team didn't get shelled 6-1? I think they still did. 

 

 I don't think banking on those signings (Beagle, Roussel, Loui) etc... as keeping the product afloat is accurate. The competitive team was still getting blown out the same way as a rebuilding team in those 6-1 games, fans still came. 

 

 

Goal Differential of a competitive team vs rebuilding team (Canucks vs Coyotes)

 

Goal Differential of a 'rebuilding' team

 

Another good post.

Some "real good" research. Kind of debunked the "But the Revenue would have dried up" argument.

 

Your graphs of a "Staying Competitive" team results  vs  a "Tanking" team results are interesting. If you just include the Benning years in those graphs there is not a lot of difference. The 2014-2015 year being the most visible exception and this can be explained by the fact that this was the Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel draft. Arizona, Buffalo and Edmonton were in a "Tank" battle to see who could finish at the bottom.