Management Discussion | Pre-Season Approaching

[racerjoe]

You’re completely missing the point if you’re looking for me to name a specific player.

But fine, before the draft - Mackenzie Weeger

I was simply asking for a realistic proposal, clearly Weager isn't this. At least Marino was realistic at one point.

 

[4Twenty]

I was simply asking for a realistic proposal, clearly Weager isn't this. At least Marino was realistic at one point.

Why both guys moved.

It’s the exact same as mentioning Marino.

It’s exactly why naming someone misses the point.

 

[racerjoe]

Why both guys moved.

It’s the exact same as mentioning Marino.

It’s exactly why naming someone misses the point.

What you say misses the point is the actual point. There was no realistic option, so why not improve the team in other places?

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Yeah I disagree. For exactly the response pitseleh is stating.

Waiting around until something comes up is not a good plan and something likely doesn’t come up because the Canucks have none of the asset that actually matters - cap flexibility. Other teams know how inflexible the Canucks situation is. Why would they be sought out for a move?

I don’t think a lack of assets is killing them. Just as it wasn’t for Gillis.

What’s killing them is inefficient cap allocation to the wing, and no defensman.


There were ways to create space but people are way too worried about the asset return and the asset outlay when they should be focused on going for it.

I don’t think they’ve been aggressive either.

“Going for it” and spending like a drunken sailor is how we got hobbled with Loui’s poison pill contract, “foundational piece” Sutter and his amazing insta-contract extension and, most recently, “perpetual Norris trophy winner” OEL (if only he played out east.)

I’m not a fan of largely sticking with the same team as what we had before and re-upping players, but jumping in headfirst and making moves just because isn’t workable.

 

[VanillaCoke]

You’re completely missing the point if you’re looking for me to name a specific player.

But fine, before the draft - Mackenzie Weeger

The excuse list is so stupid and growing daily it seems.

Yah but what specific player could we have added?!?!
When did mgmt give an specific time?!?!
How could they have forseen the market change?!?!


Who gives a shit about specifics, thats not the point, the point is they could've done something creative, or innovative, or surprising.

Joe fan isnt a part of the 7 person mgmt team thinking up specifics, that what they get paid big bucks to do and not much progressive has happened.

Now nearing halfway through the 2 year retool the said themselves with the same bad cap, bad D, not good enough team or prospect pool.

Nobody is saying that new mgmt is better or even the same, but similarities exist so far, and thats underwhelming and disappointing.

 

[racerjoe]

The excuse list is so stupid and growing daily it seems.

Yah but what specific player could we have added?!?!
When did mgmt give an specific time?!?!
How could they have forseen the market change?!?!


Who gives a shit about specifics, thats not the point, the point is they could've done something creative, or innovative, or surprising.

Joe fan isnt a part of the 7 person mgmt team thinking up specifics, that what they get paid big bucks to do and not much progressive has happened.

Now nearing halfway through the 2 year retool the said themselves with the same bad cap, bad D, not good enough team or prospect pool.

Nobody is saying that new mgmt is better or even the same, but similarities exist so far, and thats underwhelming and disappointing.

All we are asking for is realism instead of trade burn it to the ground non sense...

 

[VanillaCoke]

All we are asking for is realism instead of trade burn it to the ground non sense...

I dont subscribe to that narrative personally, just that the amount of progress so far is very underwhelming for being 10 months post dim jim nightmare and very much nearly the same team/issues.

Its not unreasonable to expect more by now, especially with the excitement of new mgmt team taking over and the statements they made themselves.

Even indications this mgmt is capable of being ahead of the curve, creative, prepared and ready for anything would be nice.

Reality rn is same team, same issues, same bad cap, bad preseason, two bad negative stories in the media.

Not very impressive or inspiring.

 

[racerjoe]

I dont subscribe to that narrative personally, just that the amount of progress so far is very underwhelming for being 10 months post dim jim nightmare and very much nearly the same team/issues.

Its not unreasonable to expect more by now, especially with the excitement of new mgmt team taking over and the statements they made themselves.

Even indications this mgmt is capable of being ahead of the curve, creative, prepared and ready for anything would be nice.

Reality rn is same team, same issues, same bad cap, bad preseason, two bad negative stories in the media.

Not very impressive or inspiring.

I think they have addressed a fair bit. The two negative stories, one for sure is not anything Management could do, the second (doerie) we will see.

The prospects, is better. Besides the fact it is something nearly impossible to fix in a hand wave, they really have improved the best I think anyone could reasonably expect. Signed some solid UFA guys, made good draft day picks.

The Cap again improved but a LONG way to go, but it does look better. Personally I am against giving away assets to get rid of most of the contracts we have as it is way to expensive, but it is improved.

Being ahead of the curve like signing Kuze? I also push back here as I do look at some moves as waiting for markets to open up. It is being ahead of the curve and knowing our surplus will help us later if not now.

We address our poor PK, our bottom 6, and improved the top 6. Revamped the management team.

Is this enough to make us a top team? Hell no, but it is still a lot. There has been huge progress. We still need to get lucky, but so does any team hoping to get to that next level.

 

[4Twenty]

What you say misses the point is the actual point. There was no realistic option, so why not improve the team in other places?

I’m not sure how you’ve concluded there are no realistic trades out there but I’ll speculate there were some but the Canucks didn’t want to pay the price and also weren’t willing to take a low asset return.

“Going for it” and spending like a drunken sailor is how we got hobbled with Loui’s poison pill contract, “foundational piece” Sutter and his amazing insta-contract extension and, most recently, “perpetual Norris trophy winner” OEL (if only he played out east.)

I’m not a fan of largely sticking with the same team as what we had before and re-upping players, but jumping in headfirst and making moves just because isn’t workable.

Well they signed Miller. What’s that signify. He’s 29.

They signed a 28 year old winger?


Nobody is advocating to do things “just because”.

I’m advocating doing something that addresses the weakness and kicks open a window. Not passively waiting for contracts and non existent kids in the system.

 

[Svencouver]

I think some people are so used to misanthropy during the Benning years that they're going through the motions with this new regime out of habit

 

[4Twenty]

I think some folks are so downtrodden by the previous regime they just want to cheer.

It’s not Benning so the benefit of the doubt is given.

 

[MS]

I’m not sure how you’ve concluded there are no realistic trades out there but I’ll speculate there were some but the Canucks didn’t want to pay the price and also weren’t willing to take a low asset return.

Well they signed Miller. What’s that signify. He’s 29.

They signed a 28 year old winger?


Nobody is advocating to do things “just because”.

I’m advocating doing something that addresses the weakness and kicks open a window. Not passively waiting for contracts and non existent kids in the system.

And here I generally agree.

I think most of what they've done this summer has made sense, except for not leaving themselves the flexibility to make a trade for a defender if that presents itself. And of course the fact that they couldn't execute on any sort of a deal is a reason for criticism.

The Boeser signing was the problem. If they fired him into the sun - for assets, or even for nothing - the team would have nearly $7 million in flexibility to chase a Chychrun or a Provorov or whatever and if they could execute on a trade like that this roster would suddenly look very promising. But instead they bowed down to sentimentality and walled themselves off for the time being by bringing him back.

 

[MS]

I think some folks are so downtrodden by the previous regime they just want to cheer.

It’s not Benning so the benefit of the doubt is given.

I give every new regime the benefit of the doubt until we get a good read on what they're doing and where they're taking us. Did the same thing with Nonis, Gillis, and even Benning. I think premature hot takes tend to make people look dumb.

So far, what they've done looks extremely average. I want to see more, especially in terms of aggressiveness. But it sure as shit isn't anything resembling what we saw before and I'll treat it for what it is. Some things have been good and I'll praise them. Some things have been poor and I'll criticize them. Overall my impression is slightly positive.

I find the absolute rage coming from some posters here right now totally bizarre.

 

[racerjoe]

I’m not sure how you’ve concluded there are no realistic trades out there but I’ll speculate there were some but the Canucks didn’t want to pay the price and also weren’t willing to take a low asset return.

Well they signed Miller. What’s that signify. He’s 29.

They signed a 28 year old winger?


Nobody is advocating to do things “just because”.

I’m advocating doing something that addresses the weakness and kicks open a window. Not passively waiting for contracts and non existent kids in the system.

By looking at the trades that were made from other teams, combined with the assets we have.

 

[4Twenty]

And here I generally agree.

I think most of what they've done this summer has made sense, except for not leaving themselves the flexibility to make a trade for a defender if that presents itself. And of course the fact that they couldn't execute on any sort of a deal is a reason for criticism.

The Boeser signing was the problem. If they fired him into the sun - for assets, or even for nothing - the team would have nearly $7 million in flexibility to chase a Chychrun or a Provorov or whatever and if they could execute on a trade like that this roster would suddenly look very promising. But instead they bowed down to sentimentality and walled themselves off for the time being by bringing him back.

It’s why I keep pointing to Garland.

I said it earlier. Say you got the same Paltry return Bjorkstrand did.


There’s nearly $5m.


Now couple a 1st, 2nd, Hoglander and a winger salary for that Dman and it looks legit. As of now it looks half assed. It looks like it’s serving two masters. That’s all I’ll say about the approach.

I like and have more attachment to Boeser than Garland. I mostly don’t like the 3 years. I think rookie BB is gone and never coming back. I think it’s a big risk.

 

[4Twenty]

By looking at the trades that were made from other teams, combined with the assets we have.

You’re drawing conclusions on like 1% of the information.

You don’t think two 1sts and two 2nds and Hog could bring in a quality defensman?

There’s assets. Just ones you’re loathed to move.

 

[andora]

I agree with most of your post. It was very good and well thought out. I do disagree with this bit though. I don't think it is fact we chose Miller over Horvat. Only that at this point we decided Miller on his new contract was better than whatever we would receive for him. We can still sign Horvat. If we don't we can than have this conversation. Mikheyev is a player we need, or that style, the price we paid was steep, but he wasn't another scoring winger we have a ton off. He helps what was our biggest problem last year our PK, and defending. If this stops us from being able to get a player I think should help us I may change my mind, I just don't think it has... or will.

thinking about Mikheyev, and a couple other wingers i could see an outlook tossed around potentially looking like this at the end of the two years / 24/25 season. i've left blank spots that would be filled with likely trades.. plugged in potential? numbers for a couple guys. Basically looking at 16.75 space with the potential bump to increase it. (used with 84.5 million as cap for this season)

so 4 open spots in starting 12, 3 open spots on defence and then extras if needed. oh plus cheap backup (silovs?)

LW		C		RW
Mikheyev	4.95	JT Miller	8	Boeser	6.65
Kuzmenko ?	5	Pettersson	10	Podkolzin	5
Hoglander	2
1 million player	1	Curtis Lazar	1	1 million player	1
EXTRA		?		?
DEFENSIVE PAIRINGS				G
Hughes	7.85	?		Thatcher Demko	5
Ekman-Larsson	7.26	?		1 million backup	1
Rathbone	2	1 million player
EXTRA		?
Forwards $	44.6
Defence $	17.11
Goalie $	6
Total	67.71

so with this number and holes - could look like this:

	2024/25
open slots	11
cap space	16,750,000.00
$/player w xtra	1,522,727.27
$/player w/o xtra	2,093,750.00
full roster	11
min roster	8
		12.75​	3.1875​

if they keep the fourth line at a million less, D6 million or less, BUG at million or less it leaves 2.093 per each player on the third line. number could increased based on how under a million those other spots are.

 

[VanillaCoke]

I think they have addressed a fair bit. The two negative stories, one for sure is not anything Management could do, the second (doerie) we will see.

The prospects, is better. Besides the fact it is something nearly impossible to fix in a hand wave, they really have improved the best I think anyone could reasonably expect. Signed some solid UFA guys, made good draft day picks.

The Cap again improved but a LONG way to go, but it does look better. Personally I am against giving away assets to get rid of most of the contracts we have as it is way to expensive, but it is improved.

Being ahead of the curve like signing Kuze? I also push back here as I do look at some moves as waiting for markets to open up. It is being ahead of the curve and knowing our surplus will help us later if not now.

We address our poor PK, our bottom 6, and improved the top 6. Revamped the management team.

Is this enough to make us a top team? Hell no, but it is still a lot. There has been huge progress. We still need to get lucky, but so does any team hoping to get to that next level.

I think any assessment thus far that says they improved a fair bit, addressed multiple areas, improved the cap, improved the prospect pool, and made huge progress is wildly optimistic at best and embarrassing at worst.

You also count things as positive progress that are low bar bare minimums like making draft picks and improving the bottom 6, like thats not impressive at all every team does these basic things.

Also equating Kuzmenko signing here as ahead of the curve is kinda a joke, good signing for sure, credit for finishing, well done impressing a FA with dinner in the middle of Vancouver summer.
But not the ahead of the curve I was referring to or even much above basics again, any team that kuz showed interest in would try to sign him, basic.

Again, not much to be impressed by so far and parallels to old mgmt can be made easily.
The 2 legal issues not being mgmt fault is irrelevant, the point is its similar to the last regime, still. Its not a mgmt fault, but a similar feeling to the old dysfunction still present is not a positive for the objective.

Anyone could play devils advocate and make a list of comparisons so far, that are perfectly reasonable.... which doesn't exactly meet my standards, clearly higher than other ppls ground level playground bar.

 

[4Twenty]

I give every new regime the benefit of the doubt until we get a good read on what they're doing and where they're taking us. Did the same thing with Nonis, Gillis, and even Benning. I think premature hot takes tend to make people look dumb.

So far, what they've done looks extremely average. I want to see more, especially in terms of aggressiveness. But it sure as shit isn't anything resembling what we saw before and I'll treat it for what it is. Some things have been good and I'll praise them. Some things have been poor and I'll criticize them. Overall my impression is slightly positive.

I find the absolute rage coming from some posters here right now totally bizarre.

Who’s raging?

I take issue with folks misrepresenting my posts and calling it nonsense.

I also think the amount of credit for committing $11m+ to the wing in a dead winger market is misplaced. Hopefully Mikheyev proves his worth but he looks overpaid. I get it you like him but to me it seems quite rich and the shooting % spike is terrifying.

The only really good thing they’ve done is extend Miller given their choice in direction. Everything else average at best.

I’m not going to twerk for average at best. I didn’t like a low bar before, why would I now?

You can say premature hot takes look dumb but we’re commenting on what’s happened.

Of course if they do something that looks like what I’m asking for, I’ll credit that.


Forgot Kuzmenko. He’s a good move and more evidence to support why they needed to move wingers out but he’s literally a one year signing.

Theye going to have to sign him at full market rate moving forward. Pitseleh already explained this pretty well.

 

[MS]

It’s why I keep pointing to Garland.

I said it earlier. Say you got the same Paltry return Bjorkstrand did.


There’s nearly $5m.


Now couple a 1st, 2nd, Hoglander and a winger salary for that Dman and it looks legit. As of now it looks half assed. It looks like it’s serving two masters. That’s all I’ll say about the approach.

I like and have more attachment to Boeser than Garland. I mostly don’t like the 3 years. I think rookie BB is gone and never coming back. I think it’s a big risk.

Garland is a more productive player than Boeser for a cap hit $2 million smaller. I would have taken nothing back for Boeser before I took a Bjorkstrand return on Garland. That said, if we did Garland for Marino or something that wouldn't have been unreasonable.

If I had an overriding criticism of this regime so far, it's that they seem intelligent and reasonable but they're just too f***ing nice.

Could have buried Halak and saved his bonus and didn't.
Got sentimental and kept the guy who should have been moved because he cried about his dad dying.
Hummed and hawed about Boudreau and then took the path of least resistance.

I expect they'll keep Poolman around as well rather than embarrass a veteran by sending him to the minors with 3 years left on his deal.

They're a huge improvement over what preceded them but the difference between 'pretty decent management' and 'really good management' is the willingness to get your hands dirty, be assholes, and make tough unpopular decisions. So far I haven't seen that.

 

[andora]

Garland is a more productive player than Boeser for a cap hit $2 million smaller. I would have taken nothing back for Boeser before I took a Bjorkstrand return on Garland. That said, if we did Garland for Marino or something that wouldn't have been unreasonable.

If I had an overriding criticism of this regime so far, it's that they seem intelligent and reasonable but they're just too f***ing nice.

Could have buried Halak and saved his bonus and didn't.
Got sentimental and kept the guy who should have been moved because he cried about his dad dying.
Hummed and hawed about Boudreau and then took the path of least resistance.

I expect they'll keep Poolman around as well rather than embarrass a veteran by sending him to the minors with 3 years left on his deal.

They're a huge improvement over what preceded them but the difference between 'pretty decent management' and 'really good management' is the willingness to get your hands dirty, be assholes, and make tough unpopular decisions. So far I haven't seen that.

Agree on moving boeser
Agree on waiving poolman
Add dickinson to the list

 

[Balls Mahoney]

Are they an improvement? The movie seems to play out the same way every year since the Gillis years.

 

[Ruthervin]

Garland is a more productive player than Boeser for a cap hit $2 million smaller. I would have taken nothing back for Boeser before I took a Bjorkstrand return on Garland. That said, if we did Garland for Marino or something that wouldn't have been unreasonable.

If I had an overriding criticism of this regime so far, it's that they seem intelligent and reasonable but they're just too f***ing nice.

Could have buried Halak and saved his bonus and didn't.
Got sentimental and kept the guy who should have been moved because he cried about his dad dying.
Hummed and hawed about Boudreau and then took the path of least resistance.

I expect they'll keep Poolman around as well rather than embarrass a veteran by sending him to the minors with 3 years left on his deal.

They're a huge improvement over what preceded them but the difference between 'pretty decent management' and 'really good management' is the willingness to get your hands dirty, be assholes, and make tough unpopular decisions. So far I haven't seen that.

I would have been upset with Garland for Marino. I think Marino is a bit overrated to be honest. Not sure if he'd be the guy that we would have needed in terms of playing with Hughes and forming a tandem to supplant OEL-Myers as the top pairing.

Agreed with you about Halak but on the flip side, I think making a move like that would have deterred future UFA's from wanting to sign here. I know that sounds p***y-ish but the reality is that players talk. If a perception is created that management completely screwed a player from getting a bonus, it could create a bad reputation amongst players league-wide.

I also wish we could have moved Brock, but again, him and Petey are very good friends..........and Petey's an RFA in two years. You move Brock without showing empathy and you risk alienating Petey. I'm also willing to give Brock a chance to redeem himself. We saw how Brock performed in 2020-2021 (one of the few highlights of that season), and his earlier seasons obviously. Brock was clearly affected by his dad's ailing health.

As far as Poolman goes, I think coaching and management will absolutely demote Poolman if he doesn't pick his game up after a reasonable amount of time has passed (right now, TP can get away with the fact that he's rusty after having been out so long).

p.s.__________________We need Chychrun.

 

[Hit the post]

I would have been upset with Garland for Marino. I think Marino is a bit overrated to be honest. Not sure if he'd be the guy that we would have needed in terms of playing with Hughes and forming a tandem to supplant OEL-Myers as the top pairing.

Agreed with you about Halak but on the flip side, I think making a move like that would have deterred future UFA's from wanting to sign here. I know that sounds p***y-ish but the reality is that players talk. If a perception is created that management completely screwed a player from getting a bonus, it could create a bad reputation amongst players league-wide.

I also wish we could have moved Brock, but again, him and Petey are very good friends..........and Petey's an RFA in two years. You move Brock without showing empathy and you risk alienating Petey. I'm also willing to give Brock a chance to redeem himself. We saw how Brock performed in 2020-2021 (one of the few highlights of that season), and his earlier seasons obviously. Brock was clearly affected by his dad's ailing health.

As far as Poolman goes, I think coaching and management will absolutely demote Poolman if he doesn't pick his game up after a reasonable amount of time has passed (right now, TP can get away with the fact that he's rusty after having been out so long).

p.s.__________________We need Chychrun.

He's rusty because he stinks.

 

[Ruthervin]

He's rusty because he stinks.

Lol maybe. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt though. Maybe I'm wrong but I still think that he can be a good 3rd pairing d-man for us (albeit, a pricey one). Where Poolman will get into trouble is if he's being used in a top 4 capacity.