They are not a contender.
Even if they making the playoffs this year, it doesn't make them one. A contender is a team that separates itself from the pack on true talent. They have not achieved this mark during Allvin's tenure. Last year they had a run. Played above their level with everything breaking right (1980s Oiler level conversion early). And then in the playoffs they couldn't keep up with the Oilers. That's not contention. They were a level below.
This will end up in a semantics debate, I know it. If you thought they were a top5~ team on true talent last year, you're welcome to that assessment.
You are right that it's semantics as to what one defines as "contender". But a team that finished 6th overall in the NHL with a plus 56 goal differential, that was within one game of the Western Conference finals, without their franchise goaltender, and who lost to a team that got within one game of the Stanley Cup, is almost certainly a Stanley Cup contender in my books. And in fact, I don't think anyone would have taken you seriously if you suggested the Canucks were not a contender in say, March or April of last year.
I think the Canucks did indeed have some unsustainable play, and certainly peaked too early in the year, but I think they were rightfully seen as a contender last year. And the results are there to back it up.
The way to assess management is to see what they tried to do (quick re-tool) and judge it against their goal (1-2 years contention). Based upon that alone, they have failed.
I don't really think so. Last year they had a good kick at the can, and had Demko not been injured, who knows where they end up? It certainly isn't a stretch to expect that they would have made the Western Conference finals. The story is still ongoing though, and I think we'd both agree that things can change. For example, if the Canucks don't make the playoffs again during Allvin's tenure, then things will look quite a bit different than them making the playoffs 2-3 more times over the next four years or so. And that's even just accepting that they are not going to be a "contender" during those years.
It's a high standard, yes, but it's one they chose to set. Externally, they will be judged against it. If they thought it was unlikely, then don't do it.
I don't think they ever really had a "choice" to do anything but a compete now! type approach. I think your "longer retool" was never an option. Obviously we will never know, but you must acknowledge that there is a possibility (however likely or not) that ownership was never willing to entertain the type of longer retool you are suggesting. And if that's the case, then the lens through which you are judging them is not reasonable.
JR/Allvin get full credit for avoiding a full rebuild (trading Pettersson and Hughes). We laud them for their execution amidst a quick re-tool (I have done so many times). Yet when we question the decision to choose a quick re-tool over a slower re-tool, it's too harsh? No, it's fair. They are not irreproachable.
Again, I don't think there was a choice.
To use your analogy: If an out of shape slob gets up off the coach and decides to compete in a 100k marathon within a week, we would call that unwise. Maybe try to get in shape first and do the 5k in 6 months time.
You are assuming that Allvin had a choice. I think that's inconsistent with what we know of ownership.
Haha reminds me of this guy Jesse whom I played with in youth. Insanely talented offensively but would have you pulling out your hair in all other aspects. On a turnover as a forward you would grab the nearest opponent and defend them man on man only to see Jesse's check bury it in the back of your net on an uncontested rush. When you looked over to give him shit he would actually be standing next to you marking your player instead as it required less effort to defend.
