Canucks News, Rumours, & Fantasy GM | Part 2

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Man I did not know Tochett was 59 - that dude looks amazing for 59.

The only NHL coach that actively participates in team bag skates.

 

[MS]

Funny coincidence that you mention 1994. Two coaches from that season are currently head coaches: Sutter and Bowness. They would have been 36 and 39.

OK, now my curiosity is piqued.

Here are the 26 NHL head coaches in 1993-94

Al Arbour (61)
Scotty Bowman (60)
John Muckler (59)
Roger Nielson (59)
Ed Johnston (58)
Pat Quinn (51)
Terry Simpson (50)
Terry Crisp (50)
Bob Berry (50)
Glen Sather (50)
Jacques Demers (49)
Jacques Lemaire (48)
Pierre Page (45)
Dave King (45)
Mike Keenan (44)
Pat Burns (41)
Jim Schoenfeld (41)
Bob Gainey (40)
Rick Bowness (39)
John Paddock (39)
Ron Wilson (38)
Barry Melrose (37)
Brian Sutter (37)
Kevin Constantine (35)
Darryl Sutter (35)
Pierre McGuire (32) LOL

What a huge change that I'd never really noticed. Median age has gone up a decade from 45 to 55. 11 coaches younger than the current youngest coach. Pat Quinn would go from 6th-oldest to 8th-youngest. Mike Keenan (who by then was a grizzled coaching vet on his 3rd team) would be the 2nd youngest coach in the league.

Crazy. Especially considering that was the 'dinosaur era' and this is the 'analytics era' and you'd think the switch would have gone the other way round.

 

[m9]

What spurred this on is Allvin's praise for Colliton and their prior connection. Given Tocchet's age and how he has two years left on his deal, I wonder if that's the succession plan. In two years Colliton will still be younger than any head coach currently employed. Two seasons is a lot of time and so much could happen so this is purely reading tea leaves.

Yup, I've said it previously but I think the plan is to move Tocchet into management at some point assuming the whole crew stays intact here. He sees the game well and this whole group is obviously pretty close. There's definitely some succession-planning going on here.

 

[ratbid]

Agree on Roy.. perfect fit
Sissons is good to..

Yup I’m right with you there in Roy, I think an OS would have been worth it.

Yakov Trenin was another guy I wish they would have gone after last summer as apparently there was some friction with the team. Not sure how accurate that is, but if there was an opening to get him, I imagine it has closed now.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Yup I’m right with you there in Roy, I think an OS would have been worth it.

Yakov Trenin was another guy I wish they would have gone after last summer as apparently there was some friction with the team. Not sure how accurate that is, but if there was an opening to get him, I imagine it has closed now.

With Parssinen in the mix now, I think there would still be a chance.

As usual, depends on the cost.

 

[andora]

Yup I’m right with you there in Roy, I think an OS would have been worth it.

Yakov Trenin was another guy I wish they would have gone after last summer as apparently there was some friction with the team. Not sure how accurate that is, but if there was an opening to get him, I imagine it has closed now.

Yeah he is another guy that would be a solid addition. The key to all these players and why they would work or that they are low maintenance. If we generally look at who we have acquired low maintenance effective players that play the game simply. We already have some top and skill and now with what seems to be an effective system coming into play rounding out the roster with low maintenance effective simple hockey players can have a positive effect.

 

[ratbid]

Yeah he is another guy that would be a solid addition. The key to all these players and why they would work or that they are low maintenance. If we generally look at who we have acquired low maintenance effective players that play the game simply. We already have some top and skill and now with what seems to be an effective system coming into play rounding out the roster with low maintenance effective simple hockey players can have a positive effect.

100%. I really like Trenin's physicality and ability to pitch in offensively. Great 3rd line type player that can help keep opponents honest and occasionally fill in higher up the lineup during injuries. Also the type of player that could catch fire randomly playing beside a skilled guy, but is very effective lower in the lineup regardless.

 

[sting101]

Yes, to me Garland's performance is substantially superior to Boeser's when you factor in that one guy is consistently getting huge minutes with elite players + PP1 time and the other guy is consistently getting middle-6 minutes with much worse players and PP2 time.

The thing with Garland is thats where he fits best (3rd liner) as he tends to be a puck hog, miss opportunities to return passes to superior players , gets bumped off pucks a little too easy and against tougher competition he struggles. He's not great on a pp because he's too weak and ineffective down low in set situations and his shot off the half wall is a muffin. He's similar to Mason Raymond was although i think Raymonds range and defensive play were better while Garland is more skilled and can stay on his feet better but their overall effectiveness and value to a team are close

In the same role sure Garland is a better player but that's not the case. We still need line mates for Miller and Pettersson next year (we've tried it and it doesn't work which is why he ends up in his role time and time again) and Garland is essentially a 5 million dollar smurf that drives 3rd line play. It's nice to have but it's not good cap allocation vs a 3C or a top4 D when Hoglander or Podkolzin could take his spot and you have the aforementioned position strengthened?

Some of being a top6 player is being able to compliment a guy like Pettersson or Miller and quite frankly Boeser has done a better job of it especially so if you look beyond the wrist and situation with his father. I know you hate his lack of foot speed and his compete when he's off is really hard to watch and off putting especially now that he eats the kind of salary he does without the potential upside but in the short term Brock is more valuable to the team IMO than either of Beauvillier and Garland and he represents a better contract.

Garland has 3 yrs at 5 million for an elite 3rd line producer but one that does not do very well against good teams, lacks size and north south play that Tocchet is going to prefer in that role. Replaced with Hoglander your gonna lose very little (maybe some defensive play) and shave that contract for other positions. On ice loss minimal, salary gained substantial (probably 4 million next year with more depending on Hoglanders pay structure)

Beauvillier is a UFA after next season. The thought of Beauvillier holding the team ransom due to the shit UFAs the next 2 off seasons has to be considered. How much of a raise is a 2/3 line guy like AB worth and how much term are you willing to give him? Personally the 4 million looks like a stretch currently and any term over 2-3 yrs would be gross. I am not against retaining him yet but after the hot start we certainly see plenty of reasons to be cautious about another potential vanilla 2/3rd line guy getting too much money. Risk is very high to lose value, on ice loss would be minimal again like Garland in role and production

Boeser sure 5 million would be optimal and he's slow and doesn't exactly represent the fast hard team we want going forward but he can play with Pettersson and Miller and produce at a 60-65pt pace. That locks in two scoring duos if you pair Kuzmenko Pettersson and Miller Boeser and leaves 2 wing spots open for the right players that can get them pucks, go hard to the net and back check. The UFA market is crap for scorers. Shortest term contract when you factor Beauvilliers UFA status, on ice loss replaced by no one within the team and yes it's the most salary gained but you're creating a hole to fix holes

 

[m9]

Beauvillier is a UFA after next season. The thought of Beauvillier holding the team ransom due to the shit UFAs the next 2 off seasons has to be considered.

Really?

He's a completely replaceable, middle six winger. These guys are everywhere, as you can see by our roster.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The thing with Garland is thats where he fits best (3rd liner) as he tends to be a puck hog, miss opportunities to return passes to superior players , gets bumped off pucks a little too easy and against tougher competition he struggles. He's not great on a pp because he's too weak and ineffective down low in set situations and his shot off the half wall is a muffin. He's similar to Mason Raymond was although i think Raymonds range and defensive play were better while Garland is more skilled and can stay on his feet better but their overall effectiveness and value to a team are close

In the same role sure Garland is a better player but that's not the case. We still need line mates for Miller and Pettersson next year (we've tried it and it doesn't work which is why he ends up in his role time and time again) and Garland is essentially a 5 million dollar smurf that drives 3rd line play. It's nice to have but it's not good cap allocation vs a 3C or a top4 D when Hoglander or Podkolzin could take his spot and you have the aforementioned position strengthened?

Some of being a top6 player is being able to compliment a guy like Pettersson or Miller and quite frankly Boeser has done a better job of it especially so if you look beyond the wrist and situation with his father. I know you hate his lack of foot speed and his compete when he's off is really hard to watch and off putting especially now that he eats the kind of salary he does without the potential upside but in the short term Brock is more valuable to the team IMO than either of Beauvillier and Garland and he represents a better contract.

Garland has 3 yrs at 5 million for an elite 3rd line producer but one that does not do very well against good teams, lacks size and north south play that Tocchet is going to prefer in that role. Replaced with Hoglander your gonna lose very little (maybe some defensive play) and shave that contract for other positions. On ice loss minimal, salary gained substantial (probably 4 million next year with more depending on Hoglanders pay structure)

Beauvillier is a UFA after next season. The thought of Beauvillier holding the team ransom due to the shit UFAs the next 2 off seasons has to be considered. How much of a raise is a 2/3 line guy like AB worth and how much term are you willing to give him? Personally the 4 million looks like a stretch currently and any term over 2-3 yrs would be gross. I am not against retaining him yet but after the hot start we certainly see plenty of reasons to be cautious about another potential vanilla 2/3rd line guy getting too much money. Risk is very high to lose value, on ice loss would be minimal again like Garland in role and production

Boeser sure 5 million would be optimal and he's slow and doesn't exactly represent the fast hard team we want going forward but he can play with Pettersson and Miller and produce at a 60-65pt pace. That locks in two scoring duos if you pair Kuzmenko Pettersson and Miller Boeser and leaves 2 wing spots open for the right players that can get them pucks, go hard to the net and back check. The UFA market is crap for scorers. Shortest term contract when you factor Beauvilliers UFA status, on ice loss replaced by no one within the team and yes it's the most salary gained but you're creating a hole to fix holes

You pay for scoring. Boeser has been terrible to watch at ES this year. He's slow, his defensive reads can't compensate, and his forcheck ability is limited at best. Still, he produces. That's the issue. I don't think Garland would produce nearly as well on the PP, but is better than Boeser at ES.

It's a tricky situation. Does Boeser take his offseason training seriously this summer? I think his agent hunting around and not finding a trade partner may spur him on, but no guarantee. Besides that though, the Canucks have to be reasonably sure they can maintain the PP without him (losing Horvat earlier as well). That's the conundrum. If they think Garland can get close, then deal Boeser. If they don't....?

What can the Canucks realistically expect by dealing him? If it's not much, I'd rather keep him for the offense. They are top heavy and don't have a plethora of PP talent.

Beauvillier I'd move asap. Mikheyev taking his spot leaves him in no man's land.

 

[sting101]

Really?

He's a completely replaceable, middle six winger. These guys are everywhere, as you can see by our roster.

UFAs hold a substantial hammer in negotiations which is my point. Boeser and even Garland might be overpaid but they do represent fixed costs vs someone who has worse career production who will want term and likely more than 4.1 million by the end of next season.

That has to be accounted for when you decide who to keep and who goes. Hopefully your not just letting assets walk to overpay in free agency whether you feel he's easily replaceable or not UFAs get term and high AAVs that are seldom positive value.

 

[sting101]

You pay for scoring. Boeser has been terrible to watch at ES this year. He's slow, his defensive reads can't compensate, and his forcheck ability is limited at best. Still, he produces. That's the issue. I don't think Garland would produce nearly as well on the PP, but is better than Boeser at ES.

It's a tricky situation. Does Boeser take his offseason training seriously this summer? I think his agent hunting around and not finding a trade partner may spur him on, but no guarantee. Besides that though, the Canucks have to be reasonably sure they can maintain the PP without him (losing Horvat earlier as well). That's the conundrum. If they think Garland can get close, then deal Boeser. If they don't....?

What can the Canucks realistically expect by dealing him? If it's not much, I'd rather keep him for the offense. They are top heavy and don't have a plethora of PP talent.

Beauvillier I'd move asap. Mikheyev taking his spot leaves him in no man's land.

Agree it sucks that we have so many heavy contracted wingers who dont have enough impact on results for this team.

It's still important to have competent top6 scorers and depth at the position though and the minute you dont have them you have to start going shopping vs a having a 26-27yr old that should have a burr in his saddle.

60-65 replacement points with 2 way acumen and speed is gonna cost a plethora of assets to obtain and there is nothing good on the "free " market that we all know usually comes with pain and the one's teams move (Meier) are gonna cost a fortune to acquire and retain.

We just watched PDG Miller Boeser be our best line against other top lines most nights and as much as i love PDG's work ethic and ability to be hard along the walls and on pucks he's not a competent top6 player and scorer over a long duration. Michayev is even a question mark there. In Toronto the fans there were not thrilled with his ability to play a top6 role. Brock meanwhile has held his own and produced well since the new year and especially since Tocchet got the systems in place. He even last year with miller and Pearson when united were a pretty good line at sawing off results while he had his worst year of his life.

It's a no brainer for me. You dont get rid of your 2nd best scoring winger with a 2yr contract through prime ages after he's had his cage rattled and will be coming in fired up vs Garland and Beauvillier who probably are 4th and 5th best and would be easier to replace by Hoglander and Podkolzin without suffering a substantial scoring drain and a worse top pp unit

 

[Diversification]

Yes, to me Garland's performance is substantially superior to Boeser's when you factor in that one guy is consistently getting huge minutes with elite players + PP1 time and the other guy is consistently getting middle-6 minutes with much worse players and PP2 time.

To be fair, Garland would not produce like Boeser if moved up the lineup because of his style of play.

IMO, the compelling reason to move Boeser is that we Kuzmenko. Unlike Garland, Kuz and Boes fill approximately the same niche but one is far more efficient and productive in the same role.

 

[orcatown]

Well written Orcatown. I agree that Brock has been nothing short of a disappointment for the last couple years. To be talked about as someone who needs to change his off season work habits and improve his consistency by the GM in an end of season presser tells us all we need to know in how they think about the situation as well. Furthermore they gave the green light for his agent to find Brock a new place to play when he was unhappy. Not exactly an asset with value i get all that.

I'm not a leader of the BB6 fan club as nobody has sweat less for this team the last 2yrs and i was sick of his dreadful act many a nights from Oct to Jan. I'm not excited to be forming an argument for keeping Brock either but i think there is an argument to be made and if i had to choose between Garland and Boeser i would take Boeser.

Here is a 2yr breakdown of Garland vs Boeser against playoff teams as it's my belief that Garland preys on shit teams and the evidence supports it.

The fact remains who will be playing in our top6 that can score and what is Garlands excuse vs what Brock has gone through? What horse is worth betting on given the circumstances?

Garland
22/23- 40-5-15-20......ES = 40-5-8-13
21/22 -37-7-13-20 .....ES = 37-7-12-19

Boeser
22/23 37-12-18-30.....ES = 37-8-12-20
21/22 40-13-14-27.....ES = 40-6-9-15 .(.45ppg over the last 2 yrs)
in the 116 games prior to the injuries and death of his father his *ES production = 113-25-40-65 (.57ppg) * not adjusted to playoff teams

In an ideal world it would be beneficial to have them both gone but having middle sixers who cant hold down top6 scoring roles in Garland and Beauvillier making 9 million is worse than BB6 who at least has a reason for optimism going into next year and has a better contract situation in term and a proven track record.

Furthermore Garland and Beauvillier are easier to replace in our lineup from within at the moment by Hoglander and Podkolzin as they dont play PP1 dont play top6 consistently and are smurfs that get pushed out against better teams. Expecting Hog and Pod to play top6 and PP1 is asking too much going into next season and the market for top6 scorers is dreadful.

Re: buyout ...that's a dumb move. You only save 4 million dollars over 4yrs? If you HAVE to get rid of him just retain salary?

Not sure I understand this. From what I see they save 4.4 on the cap this year and next year by buying Boeser out. That's part payment to the defenseman they absolutely need to have and is light years more important to the team than Boeser is.

True they have to payout 2.2 in 2026 - 2027 season but with the cap going up that becomes less significant.

Brock Boeser Buyout - NHL Contract Buyout, Salary cap impact | Puckpedia

Brock Boeser buyout calculations. Find out the total cap impact of buying out a player any year of their current contract, including a detailed explanation of the buyout cap hit math involved.

puckpedia.com

 

[sting101]

Not sure I understand this. From what I see they save 4.4 on the cap this year and next year by buying Boeser out. That's part payment to the defenseman they absolutely need to have and is light years more important to the team than Boeser is.

True they have to payout 2.2 in 2026 - 2027 season but with the cap going up that becomes less significant.

Brock Boeser Buyout - NHL Contract Buyout, Salary cap impact | Puckpedia

Brock Boeser buyout calculations. Find out the total cap impact of buying out a player any year of their current contract, including a detailed explanation of the buyout cap hit math involved.

puckpedia.com

Just have to ask yourself if you would eat 2.2 to get him to 4.45 on a cap hit for a trade then because if you did he should not only be a positive asset but you get rid of the 2.2 you pay starting 25/26 for 2yrs which is another 4.4 million. It's a no brainer rather than a buy out

 

[orcatown]

I never excluded a trade. Said if you can't unload him and buy out remains your only option, then do it. If we can retain and still get the cap savings, go for it.

Thing is we gave Boeser's agent every chance to find a deal and he couldn't find one. I don't see Boeser tradeable at his present salary. Rest of the League is fully aware of how he is playing.

Probably have to add some higher end draft choice and frankly we should be done losing draft choices.

Thing I am dead against is drifting into another season hoping Boeser suddenly finds some sort of game. Means another year of trying to carry this player with Kuzmenko/Garland losing valuable PP time, our attempts to play good team defense compromised, and our overall team speed and toughness lessened. I don't see how Boeser, in any way, suits what Tocchet is trying to implement.

In the end, I don't care how they get rid of Boeser, and if you can come up with some more cost effective way, great. Point is that Boeser, and his salary, are IMO standing in the way of team improvement. Rummaging around with stats when it so obvious his skating and his general two way play are so obviously poor is the kind of forlorn activity that Canuck fans too often indulge in.

 

[m9]

Buying out Boeser or Garland is one of the dumbest premises that's ever been discussed here. Zero reason to suggest you would need to do that instead of retaining in a trade.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Buying out Boeser or Garland is one of the dumbest premises that's ever been discussed here. Zero reason to suggest you would need to do that instead of retaining in a trade.

No doubt. Boeser at $2.2M retained no doubt has decent value around the league. The reason he wasn’t traded is because management either wasn’t willing to retain or weren’t willing to retain much.

 

[m9]

No doubt. Boeser at $2.2M retained no doubt has decent value around the league. The reason he wasn’t traded is because management either wasn’t willing to retain or weren’t willing to retain much.

The fascination with buyouts is just so strange. Even on 650 the other day, they spent a half hour talking about buyouts and again brought up Conor Garland's name. Buying out players who are capable middle-six NHLers but overpaid by 15% or whatever is just bad business.

I blame so much of this on our dumb media (especially Dhaliwal) who always brings them up but then doesn't have the brain cells to investigate any further as to whether or not it makes sense.

Guys who are untradeable because of how overpaid they are like Holtby are buyout candidates. Guys who the organization just wants to move on from like Virtanen are buyout candidates. Conor Garland being worth 4 million a season instead of 4.95 is not a buyout candidate.

 

[Nucker42]

I sort of agree with no buyouts this year… OEL would have been my pick but if he was playing with a broken foot then he should be much better this year.

 

[Peter Griffin]

The fascination with buyouts is just so strange. Even on 650 the other day, they spent a half hour talking about buyouts and again brought up Conor Garland's name. Buying out players who are capable middle-six NHLers but overpaid by 15% or whatever is just bad business.

I blame so much of this on our dumb media (especially Dhaliwal) who always brings them up but then doesn't have the brain cells to investigate any further as to whether or not it makes sense.

Guys who are untradeable because of how overpaid they are like Holtby are buyout candidates. Guys who the organization just wants to move on from like Virtanen are buyout candidates. Conor Garland being worth 4 million a season instead of 4.95 is not a buyout candidate.

The absolute worst is when people suggest buying out Tyler Myers.

 

[MS]

The fascination with buyouts is just so strange. Even on 650 the other day, they spent a half hour talking about buyouts and again brought up Conor Garland's name. Buying out players who are capable middle-six NHLers but overpaid by 15% or whatever is just bad business.

I blame so much of this on our dumb media (especially Dhaliwal) who always brings them up but then doesn't have the brain cells to investigate any further as to whether or not it makes sense.

Guys who are untradeable because of how overpaid they are like Holtby are buyout candidates. Guys who the organization just wants to move on from like Virtanen are buyout candidates. Conor Garland being worth 4 million a season instead of 4.95 is not a buyout candidate.

Absolutely this.

The only players who are buyout candidates are ones who deliver less than 65% of their contract value, and even then it's dubious until you get below 50%.

No serviceable $4 million NHLer who is getting paid $5 million is ever getting bought out because you can retain less money than the cost of the buyout to get the player down to a tradeable level where you actually get an asset back.

The guys who get bought out are replacement-level players taking up 3x or 4x or 5x (or 7.25x in OEL's case) that amount against the cap.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Looking at the Canucks' roster the only player worth buying out is OEL and I wouldn't be surprised if Fredo has already told Allvin it's not happening. Pearson and Poolman would also be potential buyouts if they were healthy.

 

[m9]

Looking at the Canucks' roster the only player worth buying out is OEL and I wouldn't be surprised if Fredo has already told Allvin it's not happening. Pearson and Poolman would also be potential buyouts if they were healthy.

OEL is a legitimate discussion.

Poolman if deemed healthy is the other obvious one, though if they gave him a chance to make the team and just buried him if he couldn't cut it then that would probably be fine as well.

 

[Peter Griffin]

OEL is a legitimate discussion.

Poolman if deemed healthy is the other obvious one, though if they gave him a chance to make the team and just buried him if he couldn't cut it then that would probably be fine as well.

I think of they can maneauver out of the bulk of Myers' salary then OEL probably stays another year. I don't see how they realistically improve this team with both back in the mix for next season though. Ideally though they move on from OEL this off-season, and effectively use that $7M in open capspace. IMO, not buying out OEL would entirely be an ownership decision. A $2M cap penalty for 4 years, 4 years from now, is nothing when you consider how much capspace it would create the next 2 years when they absolutely need it. Current management would be foolish to not be pushing ownership to go this route.