Confirmed with Link: Adam Foote Named Head Coach of the Vancouver Canucks

[Bleach Clean]

I am referring to time in how long it takes from 0 to 2 not how quickly you can just dump all your stuff

One informs the other. Selling assets aggressively to win now conveys a shortened timeline.

 

[andora]

One informs the other. Selling assets aggressively to win now conveys a shortened timeline.

Yep as deep as my 1 is between 0 and 2

 

[Wisp]

This isn't a single season sample, yet they progressed the prior season, also a one season sample?

Sometimes a step back is just regression. If you look at their 5-7 year sample, this year better represents what they are than last year did.

The 5-7 year sample includes entirely different management team. Patrik's first year as GM was 2022. Progression isn't linear.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The 5-7 year sample includes entirely different management team. Patrik's first year as GM was 2022. Progression isn't linear.

Edit: Despite the best efforts of two regimes, the team has reverted to what it is now. Last year and the bubble were the outliers.

Rutherford has been here for 3.5 years.

Yep as deep as my 1 is between 0 and 2

Edit: I guess they're not trying to turn the team around quickly then. Hmmm, things you learn.

 

[andora]

Edit: Despite the best efforts of two regimes, the team has reverted to what it is now. Last year and the bubble were the outliers.

Rutherford has been here for 3.5 years.



Edit: I guess they're not trying to turn the team around quickly then. Hmmm, things you learn.

Could you answer my questions from earlier?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Could you answer my questions from earlier?

I suspect you're not arguing in good faith, but sure, which question would you like answered?

 

[andora]

I suspect you're not arguing in good faith, but sure, which question would you like answered?

It's one of the post you quoted without answering

The good faith thing is ironic considering your comment about not improving quickly

 

[Bleach Clean]

It's one of the post you quoted without answering

The good faith thing is ironic considering your comment about not improving quickly

Improving quickly was their aim to anyone watching. Using futures to clear cap, OEL buyout, buying like a contender, refusing to sell etc... It was all about the now.

Edit: Your question: "What team are we modelling with the 10 years like ours prior to last season that did a re tool and legit contended in 2nd year?"

I can't think of an analogue, which is why their intent to re-tool quickly was bonkers.

 

[Wisp]

Edit: Despite the best efforts of two regimes, the team has reverted to what it is now. Last year and the bubble were the outliers.

Rutherford has been here for 3.5 years.
.

This is quickly becoming you being tiresome and dithering on semantics. You know what I meant. If you want to consider the half season of transition where Rutherford was rebuilding the front office as a timeline start, knock yourself out. Personally I don't consider it fair for evaluation.

Progression isn't linear.

 

[andora]

Improving quickly was their aim to anyone watching. Using futures to clear cap, OEL buyout, buying like a contender, refusing to sell etc... It was all about the now.

Edit: Your question: "What team are we modelling with the 10 years like ours prior to last season that did a re tool and legit contended in 2nd year?"

I can't think of an analogue, which is why their intent to re-tool quickly was bonkers.

And my re tool question

 

[F A N]

Yes, that Sat Shah tweet about management's future being tied to Foote is alarming. Their quick re-tool failure and Tocchet's departure, it's all just tightened the noose... So to speak.

Question is, how good is the group really if the plan is "extremely flawed"? I think they thought they could pull it off, they just didn't, and so there are consequences.

Initially, I wanted a tenured voice like Rutherford to hold Aquilini at bay, but now I'm not so sure that it's a requirement. Any GM would re-tool with Hughes+Pettersson. The only question is how they go about it.

Good points. Initially, it sounded like the "retool" is what one would expect. The lineup was being revamped and the team would try to add players who are around the age of of our core group (i.e. mid 20s). That summer the team added Kuzmenko, Lazar, Mik, and also guys like Aman that seems to fit the MO. Mik was the oldest and he was just turning 28 (which as UFAs go is "young"). Similarly, trading Horvat and using the return to acquire Hronek resulted in acquiring a younger player (turning 26) and redistributing the cap space allotment. Then last season happened and since acquiring Zadorov, we have been trading for guys and attempted to re-sign guys who were 29/30. We even re-signed a 34 year old Myers to a 3 year contract. We did sign DeBrusk who Allvin mentions is one of the youngest UFA out there yet he isn't willing to commit to Boeser one year later.

Those 3-4 years actually matter. If things doesn't work and you need to retool, that 26 year old is now 29/30 while that 29/30 year old would be 33/34. Look at the difference in trading 1st round picks for a then 26 year old Miller and then 25 year old Garland. If after a few years things don't work out they still have some prime years left and could potentially be kept for a 2-3 year retool if not traded for younger assets/picks.

Meanwhile, Allvin keeps thinking that the Canucks are one of the youngest teams in the league without realizing that most of the youth in the lineup aren't impact players and the impact players are getting older. Demko is turning 30, Boeser is 28 and the team isn't willing to give him a 7 year term, with Hughes being the youngest and he's turning 26 and a 6 year vet.

 

[ManVanFan]

Adam going to do it by himself or are they going to allow him to have assistants.

 

[Attack Vector]

Adam going to do it by himself or are they going to allow him to have assistants.

Seems like it's tough for Canucks to even recruit assistant coaches now

 

[Bleach Clean]

And my re tool question

Question 2: "I dont know what quick means.. rebuilds can be 5 to 15 years.. what is the range on re tool"

In this case, 1-2 years. They uprooted nearly everything to win now. If they hadn't, then I would say the timeline could have been 2-4 years.

Only a few select GMs get past the 10 year mark, so I wouldn't say a rebuilder would get between 5-15 years on average either. Currently, 4 of 32 GMs are 10+ year vets. 8 starting before 2020. Which means the bulk of GMs are at 5 years or lower.

This is quickly becoming you being tiresome and dithering on semantics. You know what I meant. If you want to consider the half season of transition where Rutherford was rebuilding the front office as a timeline start, knock yourself out. Personally I don't consider it fair for evaluation.

Progression isn't linear.

You're right, it is effectively a debate about semantics. "Progression" implies an advancement toward a goal. That hasn't happened here. And so, I question the use of the word.

 

[arttk]

Question 2: "I dont know what quick means.. rebuilds can be 5 to 15 years.. what is the range on re tool"

In this case, 1-2 years. They uprooted nearly everything to win now. If they hadn't, then I would say the timeline could have been 2-4 years.

Only a few select GMs get past the 10 year mark, so I wouldn't say a rebuilder would get between 5-15 years on average either. Currently, 4 of 32 GMs are 10+ year vets. 8 starting before 2020. Which means the bulk of GMs are at 5 years or lower.



You're right, it is effectively a debate about semantics. "Progression" implies an advancement toward a goal. That hasn't happened here. And so, I question the use of the word.

Pretty sure no team has gone through a retool and then tada contender in 2 years. That timeline seems like a fantasy.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Pretty sure no team has gone through a retool and then tada contender in 2 years. That timeline seems like a fantasy.

We both agree that it's fantasy.

Where we disagree is whether management deluded themselves in thinking they could execute that fantasy. I think they did. The evidence is clear (list of actions in an earlier post). You think they didn't. But have cloaked failure in the guise of iteration to explain it.

 

[arttk]

We both agree that it's fantasy.

Where we disagree is whether management deluded themselves in thinking they could execute that fantasy. I think they did. The evidence is clear (list of actions in an earlier post). You think they didn't. But have cloaked failure in the guise of iteration to explain it.

Well I think that timeline is something you guys have made up. Also before Miller nuked it, we were on the way to having a successful retool.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Well I think that timeline is something you guys have made up. Also before Miller nuked it, we were on the way to having a successful retool.

Teams coming up from a retool spend futures to compete. That's what they did. Unless you want to say they held back from competing now?

 

[arttk]

Teams coming up from a retool spend futures to compete. That's what they did. Unless you want to say they held back from competing now?

The word competing is doing a lot of work here.

I actually have no idea what you are actually arguing here. They were successful with their retool until Miller blew it all up. If they were successful once, they should be able to do it again.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The word competing is doing a lot of work here.

I actually have no idea what you are actually arguing here. They were successful with their retool until Miller blew it all up. If they were successful once, they should be able to do it again.

The argument is simple: They tried to retool within 1-2 years and failed. The evidence of this is how they burned through future capital to do it.

Miller is also a great example of the shortened timeline: He would have aged out of his best years if the retool was to culminate next year or later. He would be 33 then. Which is just another piece of evidence as to what they tried to do.

 

[4th line culture]

Well I think that timeline is something you guys have made up. Also before Miller nuked it, we were on the way to having a successful retool.

Jim Rutherford foresees a two-year ‘retool’ for the Canucks

Rutherford said 2 years to cup contender in 22

 

[arttk]

The argument is simple: They tried to retool within 1-2 years and failed. The evidence of this is how they burned through future capital to do it.

Miller is also a great example of the shortened timeline: He would have aged out of his best years if the retool was to culminate next year or later. He would be 33 then. Which is just another piece of evidence as to what they tried to do.

Uhhh they were successful and then things fell apart. The reason why it fell apart is really important. They were successful in constructing a roster in a retool, so if we are talking about ability to build, they have shown they are capable.

miller would actually be a bargain even if he ages out considering Bennet is going to reset the center market with a 10M contract. All 2Cs between 50-70pt range are going to be making at least 8 moving forward.

 

[rypper]

Adam going to do it by himself or are they going to allow him to have assistants.

Seems like it's tough for Canucks to even recruit assistant coaches now

There's been no reporting on it either way, for all we know they're interviewing people already, or waiting for teams to have their playoff exits, but by all means default to the doomsday scenario.

 

[andora]

Question 2: "I dont know what quick means.. rebuilds can be 5 to 15 years.. what is the range on re tool"

In this case, 1-2 years. They uprooted nearly everything to win now. If they hadn't, then I would say the timeline could have been 2-4 years.

Only a few select GMs get past the 10 year mark, so I wouldn't say a rebuilder would get between 5-15 years on average either. Currently, 4 of 32 GMs are 10+ year vets. 8 starting before 2020. Which means the bulk of GMs are at 5 years or lower.



You're right, it is effectively a debate about semantics. "Progression" implies an advancement toward a goal. That hasn't happened here. And so, I question the use of the word.

Not in this case - in general case what is a retool timeline (whatever the hell retool means anyway)

The argument is simple: They tried to retool within 1-2 years and failed. The evidence of this is how they burned through future capital to do it.

Miller is also a great example of the shortened timeline: He would have aged out of his best years if the retool was to culminate next year or later. He would be 33 then. Which is just another piece of evidence as to what they tried to do.

Tried and now setback.. absolutely

You dont know that so a guess is not evidence

Jim Rutherford foresees a two-year ‘retool’ for the Canucks

Rutherford said 2 years to cup contender in 22

Yep and major baby argument setback now its back to getting to playoffs

 

[4th line culture]

Yep and major baby argument setback now its back to getting to playoffs

So.. retooling the retool?