Management Discussion | Pre-Season Approaching

Status
Not open for further replies.
getting surprised by the market is something the past regime would’ve done.

Talking about doing something and not being able to get it done…..also similar.

Look I hate Benning. He did major damage but he also did some things that worked out.

The point is in general. It doesn’t feel to different.

The fact people get called stupid for thinking such is annoying.

Like JT Miller is the teams best forward….who acquired him?

Somebody who thought Schmidt was a top 15/20 Dman in the league cant see that trade as positive? There’s a reason why the exaggerations of what Mikheyev is cause me to pause as well.


Look I’m not saying the totality of what they’ve done will have the lasting negative impacts that bennings have but it doesn’t feel different.

But again I’m not hopped up on Bruce there it is, or so downtrodden by Benning that I put the rose view on everything.

I’m also not using Lazar as anything. But while we’re there. How many 3 year deals to sub 10 goal 20 point grinders were made. Shit I missed the real comp all along - Tim Schaller. Overrated Bruin grinder quotient. How’d I miss that?
 
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.
While I understand this sentiment, the issue is the mismatch between management's plan and their actions: their plan that doesn't really give them time, but they haven't shown any urgency in response to their approach. They decided they were better off pressing forward rather than taking a step back to re-tool, which is fine, but then prioritized holding onto futures that are not going to help them in the window they have chosen and in doing so are effectively punting a season as a bubble playoff team while key players on big contracts continue to get older.

The next few years look like a cycle of bad money coming off the books being offset by raises on value contracts and likely age related decline for expensive players. They can make marginal improvements by reallocating money, but that's more likely to be shuffling deck chairs than making substantive improvements to the team.

One way to get around that would have been to trade picks to dump bad contracts this offseason and try to take advantage of the value contracts still on the books over the next 2-3 seasons, but they decided not to.

The other way to get around that is to bring in undervalued talent that can make an impact in the short-term, but that is going to be near impossible with a barren prospect pipeline and no high picks. And nothing on the pro scouting side so far suggests they have a competitive advantage in identifying undervalued talent - they've paid market rates for everything so far and no one looks like they are going to play above their contract value. I can see a realistic path to a handful of years where they win a division or two and are consistently in the 5-10 range in the league, but its harder to see one where they have a legitimate shot at the cup.

The only way this is a different story is if they trade Horvat and/or Kuzmenko for a haul at the deadline, but they are likely going to be in the race and I find it hard to believe they would.
 
@pitseleh Don’t think Kuzmenko will out-produce his contract? Obviously a different situation than a regular UFA but a big part of his appeal is that he’ll be a bargain for one season.

Another issue I have is that trade value to get rid of contracts, this summer, was crazy high. The Canucks have virtual no prospect capital and barely the standard amount of picks. Instead of wasting them clear Poolman* or Dickinson’s relatively small cap hits, I’d rather those be used in acquiring actual talent.

*a good comparable to Nemeth. He cost two 2nds and has one season left on his contract at the same cap hit. Poolman would have cost even more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MS and racerjoe
the likelihood that kuzmenko (and podkolzin and possibly hoglander and rathbone) outperforms his contract value plus the surplus you get from miller and horvat's current contracts is exactly why right now is the time to go for it if you believe in this core

i don't believe in this core but anyone who does should recognize that things only get harder from here when miller's deal kicks in, kuzmenko needs to be paid according to his 'real' value and horvat is potentially extended
 
Last edited:
@pitseleh Don’t think Kuzmenko will out-produce his contract? Obviously a different situation than a regular UFA but a big part of his appeal is that he’ll be a bargain for one season.

Another issue I have is that trade value to get rid of contracts, this summer, was crazy high. The Canucks have virtual no prospect capital and barely the standard amount of picks. Instead of wasting them clear Poolman* or Dickinson’s relatively small cap hits, I’d rather those be used in acquiring actual talent.

*a good comparable to Nemeth. He cost two 2nds and has one season left on his contract at the same cap hit. Poolman would have cost even more.
I do - but as credulous pointed out this is the last season we have a few contracts in that situation (Horvat, Miller, Kuzmenko, Garland, Demko, Podkolzin and maybe Pettersson and Hoglander). All of those guys except Garland and Demko are either going to get paid or lost over the next two seasons, and there is no one to plausibly replace them.

Dumping Poolman would have cost a painful price, but may have been the difference between taking a run at a good defender and not, and actually taking something resembling a run this year or not. The odds that, say, two seconds are going to help the team during its window is basically nil.
 
No faith in this team whatsoever. Very similar to the 5th in our division team last year but it’s just more expensive.
 
I do - but as credulous pointed out this is the last season we have a few contracts in that situation (Horvat, Miller, Kuzmenko, Garland, Demko, Podkolzin and maybe Pettersson and Hoglander). All of those guys except Garland and Demko are either going to get paid or lost over the next two seasons, and there is no one to plausibly replace them.

Dumping Poolman would have cost a painful price, but may have been the difference between taking a run at a good defender and not, and actually taking something resembling a run this year or not. The odds that, say, two seconds are going to help the team during its window is basically nil.

Two seconds, to me, are more valuable as trade pieces in a big swing rather than clearing the tiny amount of space Poolman would clear. If they trade what little they have to clear space, then there’s nothing left to acquire anyone with. I’m all for going all in but I want to maximize the assets on something tangible rather than piddle them away on marginal gains.

Granted, this is where the Boeser contract is a misstep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkMM and racerjoe
i don't think it's efficient to pay assets to move poolman/dickinson unless it unlocks the last piece you think you need

instead they should have tried harder to move boeser/garland or -- failing that -- not signed mikheyev and tried to find someone cheaper who could address the pk issues. i also think it was a no brainer to move either miller or horvat and bring in a cheaper 3rd line c but that was only possible prior to free agency

if they're going to commit serious assets to getting out from under a contract it should be oel's or myer's but they can't do that until they find a replacement top 4 dman (or more realistically, 2 replacements) and they can't really do that until they come up with some cap space. chicken meet egg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lindgren and Vector
I don't understand this criticism. Who's to say the Canucks weren't willing to move salary for a defender?

There hasn't really been anyone available that fits the bill, either via trade or free agency. Or were they just supposed to hoard cap space and not use it?
 
I don't understand this criticism. Who's to say the Canucks weren't willing to move salary for a defender?

There hasn't really been anyone available that fits the bill, either via trade or free agency. Or were they just supposed to hoard cap space and not use it?
Sat said we weren’t even offered a first round pick for Garland at the deadline which to me meant that he was inferring that the kings offered a second. So, the market price would have been basically Garland (2nd) and Rathbone (Smith) for Marino.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geebaan
Rebuild or retool? I would have blown it up. I think this current iteration of the core is disjointed and imbalanced as a team with too many flaws to ever become a contender within 5 years. Gambling that they could get the necessary young pieces, a few bargains and maybe a couple of steals/out of no where developments to quickly rebuild this team within 2-3 years. Problem is we no existing prospect pool to fill in the gaps quickly and the young core might mutiny and leave.

I believe either way another bottoming out is coming in this decade and would rather have just done it now then do it after 5+ years of mediocrity. Maybe they make surprise run like the Stars, but we could just as easily be a team like the Flyers.

But im also excited to cheer for this team to win again. I think all the moves and contracts have made sense given context. Maybe except Boeser, but that that situation is just to complicated and human.

In a normal year some assortment of Myers, Pearson and the bad contracts would have been shipped out and we could have used the cap space and our picks to plug holes to build a dark horse contender. Obviously that didn't happen

now that they have gone for it, I dont know what the "big" move is and it seems like the front office doesn't either. I'm firmly against the unload the minuscule future assets we have for cap space and stars plan. No guarantee of a contender and if one is built, it would be extremely shallow and short lived.

I guess you could complain that they should have traded Garland+ for Carlo or Sanheim. Meh

EDIT: ^^ Garland for Marino might have made sense, but again mehhh
 
No faith in this team whatsoever. Very similar to the 5th in our division team last year but it’s just more expensive.
Tell me I'm wrong - The Canucks, with Chychrun added, are a top 10 team in this league........maybe more.

Kuzmenko-Pettersson-Podkolzin
Pearson-Miller-Boeser
Garland-Horvat-Mikheyev
Dickinson-Lazar-Joshua

Chychrun-Hughes
OEL-Myers
Dermott-Schenn

Demko
Martin

Rathbone + Hoglander + Lekkerimaki + 1st + Ferland + Poolman for Chychrun (something along those lines).

I've mentioned this proposal a few times now, but I think it bears worth mentioning. The signing of Miller pretty much guarantees that management wants this window to be over these next 4-5 years. If this is slated to be this management's version of 2008-2013, then why not fully commit to fielding the best team possible rather than "kinda sorta" being all in?

The above team is up there with the top 1/3rd in the league......maybe more.

Rebuild or retool? I would have blown it up. I think this current iteration of the core is disjointed and imbalanced as a team with too many flaws to ever become a contender within 5 years. Gambling that they could get the necessary young pieces, a few bargains and maybe a couple of steals/out of no where developments to quickly rebuild this team within 2-3 years. Problem is we no existing prospect pool to fill in the gaps quickly and the young core might mutiny and leave.

I believe either way another bottoming out is coming in this decade and would rather have just done it now then do it after 5+ years of mediocrity. Maybe they make surprise run like the Stars, but we could just as easily be a team like the Flyers.

But im also excited to cheer for this team to win again. I think all the moves and contracts have made sense given context. Maybe except Boeser, but that that situation is just to complicated and human.

In a normal year some assortment of Myers, Pearson and the bad contracts would have been shipped out and we could have used the cap space and our picks to plug holes to build a dark horse contender. Obviously that didn't happen

now that they have gone for it, I dont know what the "big" move is and it seems like the front office doesn't either. I'm firmly against the unload the minuscule future assets we have for cap space and stars plan. No guarantee of a contender and if one is built, it would be extremely shallow and short lived.

I guess you could complain that they should have traded Garland+ for Carlo or Sanheim. Meh

EDIT: ^^ Garland for Marino might have made sense, but again mehhh
Marino is overrated imo
 
The incredible thing about these sort of plans being posted is that we literally had this exact thing happen two years ago.

Team had some success in the 19-20 season and in the bubble, and the players were feeling good. Then came the cap-imposed 'shocking rebuild' and things just went totally toxic for the next season and a half until Benning/Green were fired. Multiple core players - Pettersson, Miller, Horvat - were obviously miserable and their play cratered. Multiple quality veterans (Edler, Schmidt) wanted out. Basically everything turned into a massive clusterf***.

And apparently people watched that happen, absorbed none of it, and at the first sign of the teams showing life again and the players looking happy and motivated are like 'Let's blow it up again and make no effort to compete for multiple years and I'm sure that won't affect Hughes/Pettersson/Demko at all!'

Boggles the mind. Total video game stuff with no concept of the fact that you're deaing with human beings here.
What a load of crap. "We literally had the exact thing happen two years ago". Not even remotely similar and context matters. There was no plan whatsoever, no benefit to the lack of moves they made, and a huge side dish of unprofessionalism in how they treated the players they forced out.

What angers and burns out players and fans is spinning your wheels going nowhere, or regressing when you're supposed to be competing, or staring down the barrel of a long rebuild. Benning told everyone a year prior that they're trying to win now and then made the team regress by being an incompetent f*** immediately after they responded with a good season. That's regressing when you're supposed to be competing.

It wasn't an intentional step back and everyone knew it. It wasn't planned and everyone knew it. There was no benefit to the lack of action they took, they just spent all summer chasing OEL and since they only had one brain cell to use at a time they didn't even try to do anything else.

The context of no benefit matters. We didn't gain anything from it. We didn't eject useless vets. We didn't get a boatload of futures coming to help the team. There was no help on the horizon. It was just nothing. If we had converted all those guys into futures, the old overpaid shitty guys were gone, and each year there was a Hoglander or Podkolzin arriving in camp, that is wildly different than walking into camp and seeing Eriksson, Myers and Beagle in front of Tanev and Toffoli's empty lockers. Just look at the optimism that having Podkolzin and Kuzmenko arriving has provided the team, let alone how they felt when Pettersson or Hughes joined.

The context of how guys were treated and the lack of messaging to the team matters. Everyone knew Benning ghosted the guys and everyone felt like Tanev and Toffoli were treated like crap. Guys watched the good players leave and the crap players stay. Horvat watched Toffoli walk and then had Eriksson and Virtanen on his wing. Hughes watched Tanev walk while Myers flailed around all season. The messaging was still compete immediately. It made no sense.

The context of new management also matters. When an entire front office is fired and new management comes in they get to pick the direction of the team. There is an ocean of difference in context between chaotic incompetence, poor treatment, no communication and no messaging of a plan from a 6+ year mgmt group that seemingly flip flopped on team direction vs an entirely new front office that gets to choose their direction.

The context of a new management providing a plan would matter. If they framed the conversation on building around Pettersson/Hughes/Demko so that the team will have a long window of contention, which means they can't overcommit to UFA's right now, that's providing a plan and vision as opposed to chaotic no plan mismanagement.

And when your futures start developing and you pull the trigger on spending the cap space after the 1-2 year dip, that's a huge lift to the room that wipes out a lot of bad feeling. Just look at Buffalo and Detroit's positivity - they know they aren't world beaters but they also know what the plan is and they know that they're on the upswing, and they are enthusiastic and positive about their teams. That's wildly different than Arizona or Chicago where they know they're getting worse and won't be good for a half decade or where the Flyers will be in a few months when they're supposed to be competitive and they're at the bottom of the standings.

And lastly, you still constantly making the assumption that there's an opportunity cost as if we're in a contention window and we're absolutely not. Even if we make the playoffs this year, morale on this team will be worse staying with this course if we miss the playoffs the following two years versus selling the big money UFA guys and building upwards. And missing the playoffs two out of the next three years is very possible with this teams current incarnation barring some home runs.

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?
The irony of you posting this after posting the above is so rich. "Stockpiling futures and selling UFA players is exactly like what Benning did after the bubble!!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bubbles
Two seconds, to me, are more valuable as trade pieces in a big swing rather than clearing the tiny amount of space Poolman would clear. If they trade what little they have to clear space, then there’s nothing left to acquire anyone with. I’m all for going all in but I want to maximize the assets on something tangible rather than piddle them away on marginal gains.

Granted, this is where the Boeser contract is a misstep.

But how would they even make said big swing without clearing some space and/or adding some liquid assets?

Again, there are no meaningful expiring contracts next year except for two guys in Horvat and Kuzmenko that will either be walked to UFA or given a meaningful raise.

Sure, they could do something like Boeser/Garland + 2 2nds for an equivalent cap hit defenseman... but that sort of structured trade feels like it inherently couldn't be a home run in the way that the Toews trade or Ehrhoff trade were, where the win came from being in a position to take advantage of a team in a crunch. And in those situations, it kinda seems like the losing team always prefers liquid assets and a quick transaction.

Player for player trades are just harder to make. Maybe the team that values Boeser the highest might have nothing to offer, while the one willing to trade a good defenseman may have no interest.
 
This is still a reputation based league and Boeser has name brand equity, ideally he goes on a heater and we can trade him somewhere in the first half of the season while he's riding a hot streak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andora
Two seconds, to me, are more valuable as trade pieces in a big swing rather than clearing the tiny amount of space Poolman would clear. If they trade what little they have to clear space, then there’s nothing left to acquire anyone with. I’m all for going all in but I want to maximize the assets on something tangible rather than piddle them away on marginal gains.

Granted, this is where the Boeser contract is a misstep.
Agreed on the latter, though the team needs to take a few risks because they aren't in a position to add sure bets - Boeser is not the risky bet I would take but I can see the reasoning behind it.

Disagree on the former, for a few reasons. First, the value of additional cap space now is multiplied given the team is likely to have more in surplus value contracts this year and next than they are for four or five years after that. Second, this isn't either/or - they could trade picks to dump Poolman, then trade other picks to add players. This is not the time to hoard. Third, I don't think two seconds is going to make much of a difference in taking a big swing. A big swing is going to cost premium assets, not second round picks, and they didn't do that either. It's the combination of making signings that push the window forward without any corresponding moves to maximize that window by giving up futures that is concerning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vanuck
While I understand this sentiment, the issue is the mismatch between management's plan and their actions: their plan that doesn't really give them time, but they haven't shown any urgency in response to their approach. They decided they were better off pressing forward rather than taking a step back to re-tool, which is fine, but then prioritized holding onto futures that are not going to help them in the window they have chosen and in doing so are effectively punting a season as a bubble playoff team while key players on big contracts continue to get older.

The next few years look like a cycle of bad money coming off the books being offset by raises on value contracts and likely age related decline for expensive players. They can make marginal improvements by reallocating money, but that's more likely to be shuffling deck chairs than making substantive improvements to the team.

One way to get around that would have been to trade picks to dump bad contracts this offseason and try to take advantage of the value contracts still on the books over the next 2-3 seasons, but they decided not to.

The other way to get around that is to bring in undervalued talent that can make an impact in the short-term, but that is going to be near impossible with a barren prospect pipeline and no high picks. And nothing on the pro scouting side so far suggests they have a competitive advantage in identifying undervalued talent - they've paid market rates for everything so far and no one looks like they are going to play above their contract value. I can see a realistic path to a handful of years where they win a division or two and are consistently in the 5-10 range in the league, but its harder to see one where they have a legitimate shot at the cup.

The only way this is a different story is if they trade Horvat and/or Kuzmenko for a haul at the deadline, but they are likely going to be in the race and I find it hard to believe they would.

@Vector added a lot of what I was going to say. Especially about the under valued part.

We absolutely did fill holes though and I think that is the biggest disconnect. No we didn't fix the defense which is absolutely the biggest hole on the team. But I am also glad we aren't forcing something which isn't there. Be patient. This is the Gillis type of approach I like. Be aggressive (sign both russians to fill now holes) but don't force bad moves, be patient and take advantage.

Benning didn't leave us with assets to pay to get rid of contracts. That puts us in a worse hole. We will need our picks to use as ammo when we are closer to a contending team.

In terms of trading a player, a big name. I am not against trading anyone as long as it is a good move. Its tough to see what that looks like, but I would want to try and stay deep at centre. While I don't think we have a centre as good as say a Mackinnon, I think we can compete by being deeper at Centre. So it would have to be a Dobson or something coming back and that really isn't realistic.

My biggest thing is people have been saying things that just isn't realistic. Like again what dman should we have picked up to fix our defense? It just hasn't been there.

Sat said we weren’t even offered a first round pick for Garland at the deadline which to me meant that he was inferring that the kings offered a second. So, the market price would have been basically Garland (2nd) and Rathbone (Smith) for Marino.

The pens say no. First as much as we like Rathbone he is not the same value as Ty Smith. Ty Smith has shown he can stick on an NHL roster, Rathbone hasn't. We just don't have an asset like Ty Smith. That is actually a big hole for us.
 
Disagree on the former, for a few reasons. First, the value of additional cap space now is multiplied given the team is likely to have more in surplus value contracts this year and next than they are for four or five years after that. Second, this isn't either/or - they could trade picks to dump Poolman, then trade other picks to add players. This is not the time to hoard. Third, I don't think two seconds is going to make much of a difference in taking a big swing. A big swing is going to cost premium assets, not second round picks, and they didn't do that either. It's the combination of making signings that push the window forward without any corresponding moves to maximize that window by giving up futures that is concerning.

What premium assets does this team even have? Some future first and 2nd rounds picks, Lekkerimaki, Podkolzin, and Rathbone?

That's what gets me. They are just so limited in what they have. If a deal comes along where they need to clear space to accommodate a trade, I have no doubt that they can do it at the same time. There's no reason to spend any assets now if a different maker wasn't available.
 
People worry about asset value but can’t see the value of cap space as easily.

Garland for mid picks like Bjorkstrand with a zero cap return creates flexibility from an area the team is deepest at (and the least important position overall).

Worrying about trade value when you can’t actually add anybody without space is misplaced.


It’s not about Marino or Ty Smith or anything like that. It’s about having the flexibility to be in discussions like that.

Every team knows the Canucks are capped out so they’re probably not even in the know on a lot of discussions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tomatoes11
Imagine arguing this mgmt is impressive and very different so far because of a "pick surplus" of one 4th in 10 months.
:laugh:
You're deliberately misstating what @MS said. He neither argued nor implied that having a pick surplus makes the management team impressive, just pointed out that there is a pick surplus rather than a deficiency..
 
People worry about asset value but can’t see the value of cap space as easily.

Garland for mid picks like Bjorkstrand with a zero cap return creates flexibility from an area the team is deepest at (and the least important position overall).

Worrying about trade value when you can’t actually add anybody without space is misplaced.


It’s not about Marino or Ty Smith or anything like that. It’s about having the flexibility to be in discussions like that.

Every team knows the Canucks are capped out so they’re probably not even in the know on a lot of discussions.


Read the post directly above you. Its about the timing of when that will help you. No one thinks Cap isn't important. It is one of the two things killing this team, that and assets. The issue is what will you get currently for either? Until something comes up that WILL help the team, hoard your assets.
 
To me....we are in that weird state we were in between 2005-2008 except the strength is on offense than defense. It was pretty grim until the off-season we signed Demitra and saw Kesler's explosive development into a top 6 C in 2008. @MS keeps suggesting we need to hit a homerun trade for a D. I am personally hoping one of Dermott or Rathbone really rapidly develops into a top 4 guy this season while a guy like Burroughs can sustain his play. Still need to address the D via trade though.

Adding two top 4 dmen and allowing a guy like Myers to slide down into a bottom pairing role (with sheltered minutes) would really change this franchise fortunes in a hurry. Really sucks we don't have a Mitchell or Hamhuis BC boy willing to sign here for cheap. D Toews would have been perfect.
 
To me....we are in that weird state we were in between 2005-2008 except the strength is on offense than defense. It was pretty grim until the off-season we signed Demitra and saw Kesler's explosive development into a top 6 C in 2008. @MS keeps suggesting we need to hit a homerun trade for a D. I am personally hoping one of Dermott or Rathbone really rapidly develops into a top 4 guy this season while a guy like Burroughs can sustain his play. Still need to address the D via trade though.

Adding two top 4 dmen and allowing a guy like Myers to slide down into a bottom pairing role (with sheltered minutes) would really change this franchise fortunes in a hurry. Really sucks we don't have a Mitchell or Hamhuis BC boy willing to sign here for cheap. D Toews would have been perfect.
I do not see it with Dermott or Rathbone.

Dermott seems like a useful bottom pairing type who can slot up with injuries while Rathbone isn’t great defensively and won’t get PP1/prime offensive minutes because of Hughes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geebaan
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad