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.
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.
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.
Again, I don't think there was a choice.
You are assuming that Allvin had a choice. I think that's inconsistent with what we know of ownership.