Management Discussion | Pre-Season Approaching

[MarkMM]

So 9 months into a two year retool. And what is the goal at the end of these next two years? A playoff bubble team? A Stanley Cup contender?

As spelled out clearly in the article, and mentioned several times in multiple interviews...two years to get us to being a contender.

So say if the Canucks are still a bubble playoff team in 13 months time (or worse) than the honeymoon with JR/Allvin will be over? That's about how much rope I would give them.

Yup. That's fair.

Less than one year to call judgement to clean up Benning's mess is not reasonable.

And, to me, that's perfectly fair. They set a timeline and the moves they've made are corresponding with that timeline and should be held accountable if it doesn't work.

Exactly.

100%. They didn't accomplish anything of note. Here were the team's biggest needs as of JR/Allvin's hiring:

1. Improve cap flexibility
2. Improve prospect/futures pool
3. Improve the right side of the defense

They accomplished none of those things. In terms of an organizational direction, they've firmly committed to spinning their tires in the mud and hoping to eventually get out of the dirt.

They get a C- on execution and an F for organizational direction.

Well, grading a student less than halfway through the allotted time to write an exam would be straight silly.

They identified those three things, and they identified two years as the window to get it done. Why are you ignoring half of that equation?

 

[bossram]

Well, grading a student less than halfway through the allotted time to write an exam would be straight silly.

They identified those three things, and they identified two years as the window to get it done. Why are you ignoring half of that equation?

The correct analogy would be that you looked at the student's exam after one-third of the allotted time has elapsed, and they still have a blank page.

Management made zero progress on those goals identified. Why are you ignoring that? If they say they need two years to fix it, you'd think they'd make some progress or pre-emptive work in their first (and critical) offseason.

 

[racerjoe]

Well the only way to get this fixed would be to get a good but affordable and trending upward young RHD to fill out one top four spot and then another young solid prospect RHD to replace Myers in a couple years.

On top of that I'd be looking to move out one of Garland or Boeser as well, and then waiting for the likes of Ferland and Dickinson to come off the books and things start to stabilize. That's why to me it's going to be a 2-3 year process no matter what so that's the window I'd be looking to evaluate management, short of them making clearly stupid moves that show they don't know what they're doing, and so far that hasn't happened.

Personally I think they need to move Myers. Even if he was replaced with nothing this year. You can't move OEL, but lets start somewhere. I would start Poolman in the AHL, use the excuse of getting him back to game shape even if you can't give him an condition stint. Start there, and look to pick up guys like Durzi. I know many would disagree, but I would be looking at Ethan Bear too.

Excellent post.

Which is why I pretty much stopped listening to what this management group has said, and what they've actually done.

They wanted more speed and yet they re-signed Boeser. Re-signing Boeser and Miller is a clear signal that they believe in this current core, and yet they did nothing to address the Defense? If the management believes in this core, than why wait for two years for these crappy contracts to expire? Why keep that 1st rounder if you think your "window" is now? Flip that 1st for a D core upgrade. Package a pick or two to get rid of these anchor contracts and make a move.

It's like they are hedging their bets for either a playoff run or the same permanent mediocrity of the last 8 years.

So much for Trader Jim.

Who was realistically available? Who would you have realistically traded for or signed to improve our d?

The correct analogy would be that you looked at the student's exam after one-third of the allotted time has elapsed, and they still have a blank page.

Management made zero progress on those goals identified. Why are you ignoring that? If they say they need two years to fix it, you'd think they'd make some progress or pre-emptive work in their first (and critical) offseason.

They made zero progress except signing our best player, the top Russian FA and addressing the bottom 6. Sounds like to me they have at least the outline of this essay.

I should preference this by saying this isn't what I would do, but I can at least see the plan, and understand it. It will definitely take time. In no world was this team going to be a contender this year. We are exactly where I thought we would be, we just look a lot different than I would expect.

 

[andora]

Personally I think they need to move Myers. Even if he was replaced with nothing this year. You can't move OEL, but lets start somewhere. I would start Poolman in the AHL, use the excuse of getting him back to game shape even if you can't give him an condition stint. Start there, and look to pick up guys like Durzi. I know many would disagree, but I would be looking at Ethan Bear too.



Who was realistically available? Who would you have realistically traded for or signed to improve our d?



They made zero progress except signing our best player, the top Russian FA and addressing the bottom 6. Sounds like to me they have at least the outline of this essay.

I should preference this by saying this isn't what I would do, but I can at least see the plan, and understand it. It will definitely take time. In no world was this team going to be a contender this year. We are exactly where I thought we would be, we just look a lot different than I would expect.

And added three prospects via signing.. which also isnt mentioned

Alotted time is alotted time. If the student takes the last 20 minutes out of the hpur to write a b+ essay.. well.. its a b+

 

[MarkMM]

The correct analogy would be that you looked at the student's exam after one-third of the allotted time has elapsed, and they still have a blank page.

Management made zero progress on those goals identified. Why are you ignoring that? If they say they need two years to fix it, you'd think they'd make some progress or pre-emptive work in their first (and critical) offseason.

Not ignoring that.

You're just wrong.

You're ignoring that they've rebuilt the front office, deepened the support infrastructure around the team, landed Kuzmenko, even if I don't agree with it they landed Mikheyev, etc.

So what they may not have done the moves you wanted, they have been doing the moves that are the important moves needed for a long-term foundation.

Personally I think they need to move Myers. Even if he was replaced with nothing this year. You can't move OEL, but lets start somewhere. I would start Poolman in the AHL, use the excuse of getting him back to game shape even if you can't give him an condition stint. Start there, and look to pick up guys like Durzi. I know many would disagree, but I would be looking at Ethan Bear too.



Who was realistically available? Who would you have realistically traded for or signed to improve our d?



They made zero progress except signing our best player, the top Russian FA and addressing the bottom 6. Sounds like to me they have at least the outline of this essay.

I should preference this by saying this isn't what I would do, but I can at least see the plan, and understand it. It will definitely take time. In no world was this team going to be a contender this year. We are exactly where I thought we would be, we just look a lot different than I would expect.

100%, rumours that they were trying to move Myers were encouraging, that might be the kind of thing that gave them that "two year" timeline, Myers may be much more movable after this year.

And added three prospects via signing.. which also isnt mentioned

Alotted time is alotted time. If the student takes the last 20 minutes out of the hpur to write a b+ essay.. well.. its a b+

Bingo. Things in real life, especially in hockey management, aren't linear. Ten transactions don't happen over ten months, one per month, that's silly speak, they happen in spurts, so things will be very quiet and then will happen all at once, so as long as it happens within the two year window, then fine. By all accounts this was a tough off-season for all teams to make moves, so pretending we're immune to that and then trying to define the time window in an artificially small frame is disingenuous.

 

[bossram]

They made zero progress except signing our best player, the top Russian FA and addressing the bottom 6. Sounds like to me they have at least the outline of this essay.

I should preference this by saying this isn't what I would do, but I can at least see the plan, and understand it. It will definitely take time. In no world was this team going to be a contender this year. We are exactly where I thought we would be, we just look a lot different than I would expect.

Yeah, okay. Credit to them for signing Kuzmenko. I'm not giving them credit for signing Miller - all it does is lock in a core group (at more expensive prices) that has been mediocre and not even a playoff contender.

If the plan is, keep the same core and magically become a contender (and ostensibly that is the plan), I reject that as being a sound plan.

Not ignoring that.

You're just wrong.

You're ignoring that they've rebuilt the front office, deepened the support infrastructure around the team, landed Kuzmenko, even if I don't agree with it they landed Mikheyev, etc.

So what they may not have done the moves you wanted, they have been doing the moves that are the important moves needed for a long-term foundation.

I don't think I'm wrong. Changes in the front office matter only insofar as the on-ice product improves. Considering the foundation of the club hasn't changed, and the new management hasn't meaningfully improved in any of the areas I hoped they would, I don't see why they should get much credit for making "important moves needed for a long-term foundation".

The foundation is still the same. The prospect pool is still bad. They still don't have any cap flexibility. Nothing's changed other than adding a couple of useful, but not elite, players (Kuzmenko and Mikheyev). If and when they make some meaningful moves, I will change my tune.

As of what I've seen so far, the only way this team takes a step is if all of Petterson, Hughes, and Demko can go supernova. And if they do, that won't really be because of the work of management.

 

[4Twenty]

It’s pretty obvious that after spending all their available money on wingers they got caught with their dick in their hands.

That they did this after criticizing the defence and going on about cap flexibility it’s hard to praise it.

Now if Boeser goes back to calder form and Mikheyev maintains double his career shooting% great. But that remains to be seen.


They’re also lowballing the best matchup player on the team. Sure he’s not Kesler but Miller isn’t either.

They’re trying to squeeze the captain because they put themselves in a situation where they’re still against the upper limit and really have no expiring deals beyond Horvat’s.

And lol at hiring a bloated managerial staff being praised. They still got surprised by the market. So it’s not like they really did anything special.

 

[Josepho]

The increased development/performance of your core can absolutely be attributed to management and organizational structure, and being able to do this is way more important for this regime than being able to add a few more 2nd round picks or whatever.

Whether or not this actually happens remains to be seen, but this is basically just another form of the "Gillis inherited his team" argument.

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

I think it's pretty fair for fans to just be annoyed or frustrated about the fact that we are just running back the same team with some sparkly adds. This is a team that has had years to develop and coalesce into a good squad, and we just haven't seen it happen even to the degree that they make the playoffs fair & square, something that half the teams in the league do every year.

Petey having a star year or a few big jumps elsewhere on the roster could be the catalyst to become a surefire playoff team, but after this time it seems to stretch credulity that we as fans should have faith that it IS going to happen.

I agree that we shouldn't be condemning the Rutherford era based on their work so far, but as a progress report I don't think that we can give them too much glowing praise, ever within the confines of the results of the questionable (dogshit) team building strategies that defined the Benning reign of error. Just hoping they prove me wrong as always, but pessimism has been the most successful mindset for Canucks fans for over 50 years, so pencil me in for another pessimistic outlook this year

 

[Hit the post]

Ok

The correct analogy would be that you looked at the student's exam after one-third of the allotted time has elapsed, and they still have a blank page.

Management made zero progress on those goals identified. Why are you ignoring that? If they say they need two years to fix it, you'd think they'd make some progress or pre-emptive work in their first (and critical) offseason.

Reading this I got a "flashback" back to my days at Langara college (a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away). My old Macro Economics prof was a really old grouchy guy that said at the beginning of the semester "I am sick & tired at reading you people spewing @#%#Q%#5 on midterms when you know @#%#% so I'll make you a deal. If you leave a particular exam question totally blank, I will guarantee you a 25% grade on that question; but if I see any kind of mark in that allocated space to that question, that offer will NOT apply. I'm not sure if anybody took him up on that offer (I'll admit I was tempted at least once).

Then there was my Management Accounting prof at UBC.....I was breezing on thru a midterm until I got the last section which was a series of multiple choice questions (worth only about 10% of the total midterm). *However*, I noticed I only had a few minutes left! So, using logic, I quickly answered them all; selecting the same letter choice on all of them. Then later when the prof was handing out the marked midterms, he exclaimed, there was this one smart-ass that had the right idea for multiple choice section of the exam. Only he chose the wrong letter! Never have I sunk so low at my desk. So much so, everyone in the room noticed & burst out laughing.

(good thing I "ace'd" the other parts of the exam )

they got caught with their dick in their hands.

This happened to me *once*:

 

[andora]

Its funny, just a month ago over in leafland there was bitching and moaning about how boring dubas was this summer, that things werent addressed and question marks in areas

Fast forward to now and it is happy land over there because of all the positives from young forwards, some good stuff from depth defence and the conversation is about who gets to make the team

Over here there is a lot of conversation about not doing anything but in a short while it could turn around just as quickly with a few small moves..

I am NOT comparing teams or where they are in their curves just a funny parallel i have watched. Considering we were told 2 years when they started.. watching the steps unfold should be fun

 

[4Twenty]

So this 2 years thing. Does that mean not this season but next? Considering we’re at 10 months already or is 23/24 building towards that contender status as well? Because if so it looks like a passive approach that is unlikely to yield these results.

Because if the idea is to just bide their time for 2 years….lol

 

[andora]

So this 2 years thing. Does that mean not this season but next? Considering we’re at 10 months already or is 23/24 building towards that contender status as well? Because if so it looks like a passive approach that is unlikely to yield these results.

Because if the idea is to just bide their time for 2 years….lol

Are you thinking that static?

The goal every season here on out is to make the playoffs, you need to do this before getting to contender status.

This two year topic does not mean two years in you flip the toggle and say here we go - 2 years is where several things line up, specifically money and more impactful moves can be made

In two years in theory you have had two playoff appearances, whatever they hold, a team that now has some experience footing and confidence as a challenger and more mature core grouping overall.

If you are suggesting that people using two years as a soft date for things believe in just waiting and biding our time, i dont know what to tell you

 

[racerjoe]

Yeah, okay. Credit to them for signing Kuzmenko. I'm not giving them credit for signing Miller - all it does is lock in a core group (at more expensive prices) that has been mediocre and not even a playoff contender.

If the plan is, keep the same core and magically become a contender (and ostensibly that is the plan), I reject that as being a sound plan.

It doesn't matter if you think it is correct or wrong. To use the same analogy, we are just looking at the essay outline. They haven't given the reasons to say if that is correct or not.

Personally as I have said while it is not the direction I would have gone, I do think it is a really good contract in a vacuum.

The plan 100% isn't to "Magically" become a contender. I don't think management thinks this exact team is going to do it, but I do think they think Miller is part of the answer.

 

[4Twenty]

Did you actually read the discussion?

A poster made a sky-is-falling post implying that this group was trading way picks left/right/centre. I pointed out that this group actually had a pick surplus and that his post was ridiculous. Then a poster couldn't subtract 2 minus 1.

Nobody was saying the pick surplus was 'impressive' or 'pushing it' as an agenda. It was just stated that it exists and that implying that this management group is bleeding picks is factually wrong.

_________

There are literally zero similarities with the previous management group. Jim Benning was a hyper-aggressive moron who was basically a dog chasing squirrels for instant one-year gratification. Terrible hockey decisions, terrible cap management. The new group may have it's faults, but it's in being overly patient and conservative and the moves they've actually made have been very low-risk.

Imagine reading the discussion on picks that just happened here and coming up with a take this bad on it.

Really. He got my point. They’ve got a 4th rounder as surplus. This is the same type of surplus folks like POM were on about after getting 6ths for Nik Jensen.

Yes it’s a surplus in picks. Is it moving the needle? No. 4th round picks are like what 5% at a 100 game nhl player. It’s not value.


You keep wanting it to not be compared to Benning but it doesn’t feel different to those who aren’t here to cheer.


Mikheyev. Good signing maybe. So was Vrbata.

Dermott seems like a Pouliot move.

3 years to Brock….seems like 3 years to Sven.

Acquires proven grinder in Lazar…see Dorsett.


Early lindenning was all about serving two masters. That’s what a lot of folks are seeing now. It’s obviously a retool on the fly. Exactly what the last regime was tasked with.

 

[Peen]

Dermott is a lot better than Pouliot.

Boeser is a lot better than Baertschi.

Dorsett was genuinely not a bad hockey player. I will die on the Dorsett hill.

Again, I can see the argument of this being not that indifferent from the Benning no-plan, but their plan has so far been operated at a C-ish level while Lindenning were so incredibly stupid. Constant Fs year after year. No acknowledgement of risks, etc. Just dumbasses

@4Twenty

 

[VanJack]

It just goes to show what everybody, but the former Canucks GM, already knows. Once you're 'Cap Hell', it's virtually impossible to escape.

I'm sure Rutherford and Allvin would have loved to have done more in the off-season. But the team's contract situation puts them in an impossible vice. And they still have Horvat and Kuzmenko needing contracts this off-season.

Fortunately for them, the salary cap it schedule to rise by a fair bit in 2022-23. But not enough to really make a difference for the Canucks.

 

[andora]

Really. He got my point. They’ve got a 4th rounder as surplus. This is the same type of surplus folks like POM were on about after getting 6ths for Nik Jensen.

Yes it’s a surplus in picks. Is it moving the needle? No. 4th round picks are like what 5% at a 100 game nhl player. It’s not value.

This just sounds like angry rambling now. 1 or 50 extra picks is surplus.. thats all he was saying.. and the more you have the better odds at hitting are. If you have effective scouts why not give them more chances...

You keep wanting it to not be compared to Benning but it doesn’t feel different to those who aren’t here to cheer.

It sounds like it doesnt matter who was in charge, until whomever makes one or two bold gigantic moves regardless of price they all suck

Mikheyev. Good signing maybe. So was Vrbata.

Dermott seems like a Pouliot move.

3 years to Brock….seems like 3 years to Sven.

Acquires proven grinder in Lazar…see Dorsett.

Again.. sounds like angry rambling. Dorsett was good, but go look at lazars defensive numbers last year in his ice time range - first true year he had a role and in my opinion now a career. Played on a good team, played in a system and can bring that experience..

Early lindenning was all about serving two masters. That’s what a lot of folks are seeing now. It’s obviously a retool on the fly. Exactly what the last regime was tasked with.

Okkk.. so last group failed. How long does this group get? If you are owner, do they get half bennings time, a quarter?...

 

[MS]

Really. He got my point. They’ve got a 4th rounder as surplus. This is the same type of surplus folks like POM were on about after getting 6ths for Nik Jensen.

Yes it’s a surplus in picks. Is it moving the needle? No. 4th round picks are like what 5% at a 100 game nhl player. It’s not value.


You keep wanting it to not be compared to Benning but it doesn’t feel different to those who aren’t here to cheer.


Mikheyev. Good signing maybe. So was Vrbata.

Dermott seems like a Pouliot move.

3 years to Brock….seems like 3 years to Sven.

Acquires proven grinder in Lazar…see Dorsett.


Early lindenning was all about serving two masters. That’s what a lot of folks are seeing now. It’s obviously a retool on the fly. Exactly what the last regime was tasked with.

Nobody was ever hyping the surplus or saying it moved the needle.

A poster made an obviously wrong post indicating that this regime didn't care about picks or was bleeding picks.

Not a snowballs chance in hell that sort of thinking was going to fly in this organization
This is Vancouver we're talking about............. what she is suggesting is practically criminal in the eyes of this team

F*&K them picks.

All I did was point out that this sort of take was inaccurate and nonsense hyperbole given that they've acquired more picks than they've moved out.

All you're doing is attacking a strawman that someone said this management group is running a super-significant pick surplus that's really moving the needle, which nobody ever remotely said.

All of your comparisons are massive reaches and mostly ridiculous. You're looking at a nothing signing like Curtis Lazar at $1 million - the sort of signing virtually every NHL team makes every year - as some sort of evidence that this group is 'just like Benning'. It's absolutely absurd. Especially comparing Boeser and Baertschi, and I'm about as big of a critic as you'll see of the Boeser signing.

 

[me2]

It just goes to show what everybody, but the former Canucks GM, already knows. Once you're 'Cap Hell', it's virtually impossible to escape.

I'm sure Rutherford and Allvin would have loved to have done more in the off-season. But the team's contract situation puts them in an impossible vice. And they still have Horvat and Kuzmenko needing contracts this off-season.

Fortunately for them, the salary cap it schedule to rise by a fair bit in 2022-23. But not enough to really make a difference for the Canucks.

It is projected to rise by $1m. $1m isn't not enough to get them out of problems. They are going to need to get bold and make moves, trading for lower cap hit players and dumping futures for cap relief.

The Miller signing started the clock ticking, burning the best 2-3 years this core has waiting for bad contracts to disappear on their own isn't going to get the Canucks over the hump. Management made it's choice now it needs to be brave pay the cost to build the team.

 

[VanillaCoke]

The excuses are just gross and embarrassing.

Everything is always okay bc reasons just wait and see even longer then continue to wait and see.

 

[MS]

It's just lazy nonsense. I can do it too:

Retaining Miller and Boeser is just like Gillis retaining the Sedins when he arrived!

Mikheyev is like adding Samuelsson!

The Kuzmenko steal is like convincing Hamhuis to take way below market to come home!

Lazar is like Lapierre!

Dermott is like Aaron Rome or something!

This is just like Gillis! Cup in 3 years!

See how stupid this is?

 

[Bubbles]

Its funny, just a month ago over in leafland there was bitching and moaning about how boring dubas was this summer, that things werent addressed and question marks in areas

Fast forward to now and it is happy land over there because of all the positives from young forwards, some good stuff from depth defence and the conversation is about who gets to make the team

Over here there is a lot of conversation about not doing anything but in a short while it could turn around just as quickly with a few small moves..

I am NOT comparing teams or where they are in their curves just a funny parallel i have watched. Considering we were told 2 years when they started.. watching the steps unfold should be fun

I really hope you're not one of those anti-tank people on here because you're using an example of a team that clearly tanked for a few years and are built around a core based on those players.

And it's been what, 6 years since they picked Matthews and declared the rebuild over. But they have been considered SC contenders since maybe 2018?

Let's be clear the Canucks have never had a proper rebuild. They've ended up with great players like Petey and Hughes just because we failed at failing.

 

[andora]

I really hope you're not one of those anti-tank people on here because you're using an example of a team that clearly tanked for a few years and are built around a core based on those players.

And it's been what, 6 years since they picked Matthews and declared the rebuild over. But they have been considered SC contenders since maybe 2018?

Let's be clear the Canucks have never had a proper rebuild. They've ended up with great players like Petey and Hughes just because we failed at failing.

Sooo.. i specifically said i wasnt comparing teams. Am i anti tank? Depends.. 3 years ago no not at all, now? Yes i am anti tanking.

I really believe in demko and hughes as cornerstone players and i like the idea of competing with them.

I like bottom end d depth, which we have.
I like our 4th line and 13th forward options, which we have
I like the new approach that backup goalies, bottom d depth and bottom four forwards should cost near minimum - which we have now.
I like ekman larsson as a stable defender veteran even though the contract is big and scary.
I like the mix of skill and emotion now with pettersson kuzmenko miller and podkolzin.
I like the approach at finding castaways that still have talent and hope it branches into the ncaa and ushl.

The battle now is identifying and choosing what middle bloat you want to keep, if any. The battle is trying to offload one by one the negative impact contracts to stsrt preparing for potentially kuzmenko re signing. The battle is identifying targets on middle defence that can skate, effectively move the puck from zone to zone and can defend with quick aggressive sticks and crease protection for demko

The three battles need to be worked on every day this season.. every single day.

 

[Petey O]

It's just lazy nonsense. I can do it too:

Retaining Miller and Boeser is just like Gillis retaining the Sedins when he arrived!

Mikheyev is like adding Samuelsson!

The Kuzmenko steal is like convincing Hamhuis to take way below market to come home!

Lazar is like Lapierre!

Dermott is like Aaron Rome or something!

This is just like Gillis! Cup in 3 years!

See how stupid this is?

Woah... Dude... You're onto something.