Management Discussion | Pre-Season Approaching

[mriswith]

Bedard is just fantasy, but otherwise it's amazing how identifying our problems and having a coherent vision and strategy to get out of it is memed as video games, while doing exactly what Benning and almost every other GM in the NHL does in trying to compete immediately and think no further than next year is somehow forward thinking and smart.

On Philadelphia, Hextall got fired for not being willing to rush the rebuild. Fletcher got hired to speed things along and take shortcuts but he sucks and made everything worse.

That ownership will not allow a rebuild for the same reasons ours won't. Too impatient to let a rebuild happen when it undeniably should, let alone when there's a couple decent mid 20 year old players whose "window" would be "wasted"

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

Bedard is just fantasy, but otherwise it's amazing how identifying our problems and having a coherent vision and strategy to get out of it is memed as video games, while doing exactly what Benning and almost every other GM in the NHL does in trying to compete immediately and think no further than next year is somehow forward thinking and smart.

On Philadelphia, Hextall got fired for not being willing to rush the rebuild. Fletcher got hired to speed things along and take shortcuts but he sucks and made everything worse.

That ownership will not allow a rebuild for the same reasons ours won't. Too impatient to let a rebuild happen when it undeniably should, let alone when there's a couple decent mid 20 year old players whose "window" would be "wasted"

This window is burned. Nobody on this team save maybe Podkolzin may still be around when the Canucks win a Cup.

But hey, we will always have getting ass pounded in seven in round two to cherish.

 

[mriswith]

This window is burned. Nobody on this team save maybe Podkolzin may still be around when the Canucks win a Cup.

But hey, we will always have getting ass pounded in seven in round two to cherish.

I'm not there yet, if I thought we couldn't win with this group I'd quit watching. It's possible for this group to win.

But we definitely chose the path with the lowest percentile chance of success - needing multiple home runs in a relatively short window of time is the hardest thing to do in this league, versus the much easier to execute and higher chance of success, but not immediately gratifying, option of giving themselves time to build up.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

I'm not there yet, if I thought we couldn't win with this group I'd quit watching. It's possible for this group to win.

But we definitely chose the path with the lowest percentile chance of success - needing multiple home runs in a relatively short window of time is the hardest thing to do in this league, versus the much easier to execute and higher chance of success, but not immediately gratifying, option of giving themselves time to build up.

I agree with this, so I guess I am just doubting our ability to hit those homers. This is being a Canucks fan. Whatever, right?

 

[Bubbles]

Bedard is just fantasy, but otherwise it's amazing how identifying our problems and having a coherent vision and strategy to get out of it is memed as video games, while doing exactly what Benning and almost every other GM in the NHL does in trying to compete immediately and think no further than next year is somehow forward thinking and smart.

On Philadelphia, Hextall got fired for not being willing to rush the rebuild. Fletcher got hired to speed things along and take shortcuts but he sucks and made everything worse.

Thanks for the nuanced post man, fully agreed.

I actually laugh at the "video game" insults, seeing as I've been watching this team since the early 90s. Just sounds like a boomer's reaction to basic logic. Rebuilds/tanks work. I get that Blueberries will never let that happen because he's an impatient manchild with toys.

Chicago is embarking on their second rebuild after riding the Toews/Kane rebuild for what, 15 years? They know the strategy works and they're doing it again. And once they flip Kane for a huge package, they'll be back as contenders after 2-3 more years of tanking. It's a long term strategy that has proven to work.

Benning's reign of error has netted us some very good talent, but not that top top echelon stars like McDavid/Drai/Power...those really mega stars. It was also 8 years of the worst team building in the history of the Canucks which has led to a mishmash of ages which makes the team capped out, and unable to address it's issues.

That ownership will not allow a rebuild for the same reasons ours won't. Too impatient to let a rebuild happen when it undeniably should, let alone when there's a couple decent mid 20 year old players whose "window" would be "wasted"

Falling in love with players that haven't done anything in the playoffs is a classic Canucks trope. Other teams in the NHL don't have problems with trading their age-gap (triggered word here) players if they don't fit in their plans.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Thanks for the nuanced post man, fully agreed.

I actually laugh at the "video game" insults, seeing as I've been watching this team since the early 90s. Just sounds like a boomer's reaction to basic logic. Rebuilds/tanks work. I get that Blueberries will never let that happen because he's an impatient manchild with toys.

Chicago is embarking on their second rebuild after riding the Toews/Kane rebuild for what, 15 years? They know the strategy works and they're doing it again. And once they flip Kane for a huge package, they'll be back as contenders after 2-3 more years of tanking. It's a long term strategy that has proven to work.

Benning's reign of error has netted us some very good talent, but not that top top echelon stars like McDavid/Drai/Power...those really mega stars. It was also 8 years of the worst team building in the history of the Canucks which has led to a mishmash of ages which makes the team capped out, and unable to address it's issues.



Falling in love with players that haven't done anything in the playoffs is a classic Canucks trope. Other teams in the NHL don't have problems with trading their age-gap (triggered word here) players if they don't fit in their plans.

The bolded part? Nah. That trope would be chasing out our star players. Only the Sedins stuck around but that wasn't for lack of trying.

Agree with the rest of your post.

 

[rypper]

A lot of our players haven't had a chance to do anything in the playoffs yet. 8 years of futility and piss poor management will do that. Horvat, Hughes, Pettersson etc have all stepped up though.

The video game comments and laughs are at the posts that suggest the team will trade Horvat, Miller, and Boeser in one off season, be bad for a year, then magically become a contender. There's zero realistic about that.

 

[Bubbles]

A lot of our players haven't had a chance to do anything in the playoffs yet. 8 years of futility and piss poor management will do that. Horvat, Hughes, Pettersson etc have all stepped up though.

The video game comments and laughs are at the posts that suggest the team will trade Horvat, Miller, and Boeser in one off season, be bad for a year, then magically become a contender. There's zero realistic about that.

Which kind of leads to my point. JR wants to be competitive in 2 years, but there's no plan after that? A full rebuild? That's 10 years than. There's also a big difference between a Stanley Cup contender and a playoff contender, which I'm sure JR is referring to.

I don't think anyone is advocating the one-and-done tank. I'm certainly not of that plan. My plan is a 3-5 year tank/rebuild, but with 10 years of actually Stanley Cup contending after that.

 

[theguardianII]

Which kind of leads to my point. JR wants to be competitive in 2 years, but there's no plan after that? A full rebuild? That's 10 years than. There's also a big difference between a Stanley Cup contender and a playoff contender, which I'm sure JR is referring to.

I don't think anyone is advocating the one-and-done tank. I'm certainly not of that plan. My plan is a 3-5 year tank/rebuild, but with 10 years of actually Stanley Cup contending after that.

IMHO a 2 year bottoming out would garner enough to make a marked improvement for a number years, this coming draft is a perfect example.

Forget the first overall this is a very deep draft, picking at 10 and 42 could very easily get two starters with the first, #10 pick, being as good as the last few years #2 to #4 and the 42nd like the #25 to #30, so 2 very good players.

Of course there would extra picks from trading away players the calibre of Horvat or Boeser.

Should players like Hughes be dealt then there would be quite a few extra picks and prospects or young 20 somethings to make the team immediately competitive at least to the level we have watched the last 8 years only with lots and lots of upside.

A quick retool could be trading for a couple under 24 yr old top 4 NHL dmen and younger prospects possible from this years draft alone.

Getting defence depth, once there is a goalie, is the foundation for winning.

Look at Edmonton, two of the best forwards in the world but questionable defence, although Bouchard is coming on fast. Good defence also makes goalies better.

I like the plan posted and await this rookie management's next bold move. Right now they would still get a pass if they re-tooled, rebuilt or re-whatever as long as the moves are good for the future, at least thinking 5 or more years ahead.

Montreal stayed on top by trading away still quality players for younger or picks, ditto Detroit and now Tampa, Pittsburgh will be soon. Chicago is now, many of the top teams tank for a year or two and get a few studs each time and then winning for years even the Canuck with the Sedins

 

[MS]

Bedard is just fantasy, but otherwise it's amazing how identifying our problems and having a coherent vision and strategy to get out of it is memed as video games, while doing exactly what Benning and almost every other GM in the NHL does in trying to compete immediately and think no further than next year is somehow forward thinking and smart.

On Philadelphia, Hextall got fired for not being willing to rush the rebuild. Fletcher got hired to speed things along and take shortcuts but he sucks and made everything worse.

That ownership will not allow a rebuild for the same reasons ours won't. Too impatient to let a rebuild happen when it undeniably should, let alone when there's a couple decent mid 20 year old players whose "window" would be "wasted"

Having a coherent vision and strategy isn't video games. Having a fantasy vision that doesn't take into account that a) this is a business and b) we're dealing with people here, is video games. Thinking you can trade 3-4 core players in one offseason, do a 1-2 year tank for Bedard, and then magically fly out of it 2 years later is video games.

92 point teams (who performed at a 106-point pace over 60 games after a regime change) with young cores don't tank. Ever. It's ludicrous. Tanks happen for two reasons. 1) a core has fully aged out and is no longer competitive, and when that becomes obvious you enhance the cycle, and 2) management incompetence. We did something that was a combination of both from 2015-2019. Our tank is done. It happened, and it finished 3 years ago. It wasn't done as well as it could have been, but we have to live with that.

No team ever in our situation would tank or shoot for Bedard or even think about it. Again, it's a business. Tanks lose money, huge. You don't do them unless you have to. And we saw what happened to the players when we accidentally reset in 2020 - it was an absolute f***ing disaster, and it's taken a regime change and a lot of time to come out of that and get those players re-invested. To think that wouldn't happen again is naive beyond belief.

In magical video game fantasy land there are 5 Cup contenders and 27 teams that should be tanking for Bedard. In real life, there are 5 teams at the top of their cycle who are legit contenders, 5 teams who are bottoming out, and 22 teams who are trying to improve and do better. And it isn't some sort of disgrace to be one of those 22 teams, as long as 16th place isn't your ultimate goal.

 

[4Twenty]

Bruce there it is

 

[Bubbles]

I like the plan posted and await this rookie management's next bold move. Right now they would still get a pass if they re-tooled, rebuilt or re-whatever as long as the moves are good for the future, at least thinking 5 or more years ahead.

The plan was what, a two year window to be a contender? The signings of Boeser, Miller and Mikheyev signaled they intend to compete for a playoff spot. Most of the prognosticators predict either just the wildcard spot or out of the playoffs again.

Honestly the management have a two-year plan, and that's about it. If they don't do as well as they believe, I don't think they've thought much about anything beyond two years.

 

[Bubbles]

Forget the first overall this is a very deep draft, picking at 10 and 42 could very easily get two starters with the first, #10 pick, being as good as the last few years #2 to #4 and the 42nd like the #25 to #30, so 2 very good players.

That I agree with. An early 2nd rounder in 2023 is worth a 2022 late 1st. This draft class is deep.

Anyone that can somehow get two picks in the top 10 are looking at starting a franchise with two top echelon stars. Montreal already has a leg up with that unprotected Florida pick.

 

[timw33]

Sorry for the Taj post but I would assume it would have cost more to make that happen, although general incompetence is the most logical answer.

 

[Vector]

Sorry for the Taj post but I would assume it would have cost more to make that happen, although general incompetence is the most logical answer.

If you want to avoid Taj, and I’ve been trying to as he’s been even more of a idiot than usual, you can sometimes find the source.

 

[mriswith]

Having a coherent vision and strategy isn't video games. Having a fantasy vision that doesn't take into account that a) this is a business and b) we're dealing with people here, is video games. Thinking you can trade 3-4 core players in one offseason, do a 1-2 year tank for Bedard, and then magically fly out of it 2 years later is video games.

I've said several times that the sell off would have had to have started before the trade deadline to have a shot, unlike what we did where JR was rejecting calls well into the new year and we didn't try to negotiate or create a market. Bedard is fantasy and also unnecessary for this kind of plan to work.

92 point teams (who performed at a 106-point pace over 60 games after a regime change) with young cores don't tank. Ever. It's ludicrous. Tanks happen for two reasons. 1) a core has fully aged out and is no longer competitive, and when that becomes obvious you enhance the cycle, and 2) management incompetence.

1. The reason this kind of reload is unusual is because teams that are run by management teams that are incompetent enough to get stuck needing this type of reload don't usually instantly change to smart, competent management overnight.

What typically happens to teams in our situation is that incompetent management continues to try to compete and take shortcuts, and ends up getting forced into a second rebuild when that blows up in their face. We've seen this many times before and it is 100% what would have happened to us if Benning stuck around another 2 or 3 seasons.

Smart teams weaponize patience to their advantage and don't have to suddenly change direction midway through a plan because raw stupidity and incompetence backed them into a corner midway. It's a unique situation that forces strategy that's anachronistic to the age of the core.

Even our own team wouldn't have had to do this if Benning had been fired just one season earlier before he completely crippled the franchise in his last year here.

2. Carolina.

I was looking at this last week and noticed something interesting.

Despite having an 86 point 2015-2016 season and a young core of Lindholm, Hanifin, Slavin, Pesce, Faulk, Skinner etc, they ran near the cap floor for three more years and stockpiled assets until entropy led the team to make the playoffs as a wild card despite the gigantic cap disadvantage, at which point they instantly became a cap team and contenders.

I didn't follow the league closely in between the Sbisa extension and Pettersson's rookie season, I was demoralized by Benning and just followed casually for that stretch, so I don't know the specifics of what was going on in Carolina back then. But what they did from 2016 to 2019 looks remarkably similar to what I laid out, despite having been an 86 point team with a young core, and it's paid off handsomely for them.

And we saw what happened to the players when we accidentally reset in 2020 - it was an absolute f***ing disaster, and it's taken a regime change and a lot of time to come out of that and get those players re-invested. To think that wouldn't happen again is naive beyond belief.

This is a bad comparison that completely ignores nuance and has more differences than similiarities, but if you want to engage on it I'll gladly copy and paste my post from the last time you tried to make this comparison and never responded.

In magical video game fantasy land there are 5 Cup contenders and 27 teams that should be tanking for Bedard. In real life, there are 5 teams at the top of their cycle who are legit contenders, 5 teams who are bottoming out, and 22 teams who are trying to improve and do better. And it isn't some sort of disgrace to be one of those 22 teams, as long as 16th place isn't your ultimate goal

Wrong.

In an efficient market of purely logical actors where every team's #1 goal is winning the cup, no team would attempt to accelerate their rebuild or spend significantly above the cap floor until:

Their team naturally hit a finish within a few spots of 16th - which is inevitable given the built in entropy of the league​

or​

They had a home run trade/ufa fall into their lap​

or​

They had 2+ stars on ELC's for 2 or more years at the same time.​

There's an ocean of difference between that and perennially competing with 27 teams for 1st overall.

I recognize that winning the cup isn't the #1 goal and I've said before I think the business of hockey pushed the current direction of the team. I don't confuse that with optimal strategy for winning a cup nor do I call having a strategy and using patience playing video games.

 

[theguardianII]

If you want to avoid Taj, and I’ve been trying to as he’s been even more of a idiot than usual, you can sometimes find the source.

The value is for the LTIR status, the reason it never happened is the contract is uninsurable so the team has to pay the full 3.5 mil salary per year, Benning was told this by insurance doctors before he signed him

 

[Hit the post]

The value is for the LTIR status, the reason it never happened is the contract is uninsurable so the team has to pay the full 3.5 mil salary per year, Benning was told this by insurance doctors before he signed him

Doubt the Vegas owner would have green light on acquiring a contract where the guy can't play & he has to pay the full dollar amount of his contract.



skip to 11:14 mark of the video. If the owner of the Vegas hockey team is gauging "fans" here, I'd imagine money goes thru his fingers like flypaper...

 

[Vector]

The value is for the LTIR status, the reason it never happened is the contract is uninsurable so the team has to pay the full 3.5 mil salary per year, Benning was told this by insurance doctors before he signed him

By the proposed timeline by Dhaliwal, it wasn’t a mystery if the contract was insured. The most likely reason it fell apart was what the assumed value was. There’s a few different scenarios that could lead to a trade of Ferland never materializing.

-LV wanted the Canucks to give up an asset
-Canucks assumed he had value and asked for an asset in return and LV backed away
-both teams agreed there was value but couldn’t agree on the return (bad contract swap, etc.)
-deal was contingent on finding a third team
-LV was poking around with this idea with many teams and decided to not to go through with it

 

[MS]

I've said several times that the sell off would have had to have started before the trade deadline to have a shot, unlike what we did where JR was rejecting calls well into the new year and we didn't try to negotiate or create a market. Bedard is fantasy and also unnecessary for this kind of plan to work.



1. The reason this kind of reload is unusual is because teams that are run by management teams that are incompetent enough to get stuck needing this type of reload don't usually instantly change to smart, competent management overnight.

What typically happens to teams in our situation is that incompetent management continues to try to compete and take shortcuts, and ends up getting forced into a second rebuild when that blows up in their face. We've seen this many times before and it is 100% what would have happened to us if Benning stuck around another 2 or 3 seasons.

Smart teams weaponize patience to their advantage and don't have to suddenly change direction midway through a plan because raw stupidity and incompetence backed them into a corner midway. It's a unique situation that forces strategy that's anachronistic to the age of the core.

Even our own team wouldn't have had to do this if Benning had been fired just one season earlier before he completely crippled the franchise in his last year here.

2. Carolina.

I was looking at this last week and noticed something interesting.

Despite having an 86 point 2015-2016 season and a young core of Lindholm, Hanifin, Slavin, Pesce, Faulk, Skinner etc, they ran near the cap floor for three more years and stockpiled assets until entropy led the team to make the playoffs as a wild card despite the gigantic cap disadvantage, at which point they instantly became a cap team and contenders.

I didn't follow the league closely in between the Sbisa extension and Pettersson's rookie season, I was demoralized by Benning and just followed casually for that stretch, so I don't know the specifics of what was going on in Carolina back then. But what they did from 2016 to 2019 looks remarkably similar to what I laid out, despite having been an 86 point team with a young core, and it's paid off handsomely for them.


This is a bad comparison that completely ignores nuance and has more differences than similiarities, but if you want to engage on it I'll gladly copy and paste my post from the last time you tried to make this comparison and never responded.

Wrong.

In an efficient market of purely logical actors where every team's #1 goal is winning the cup, no team would attempt to accelerate their rebuild or spend significantly above the cap floor until:

Their team naturally hit a finish within a few spots of 16th - which is inevitable given the built in entropy of the league​

or​

They had a home run trade/ufa fall into their lap​

or​

They had 2+ stars on ELC's for 2 or more years at the same time.​

There's an ocean of difference between that and perennially competing with 27 teams for 1st overall.

I recognize that winning the cup isn't the #1 goal and I've said before I think the business of hockey pushed the current direction of the team. I don't confuse that with optimal strategy for winning a cup nor do I call having a strategy and using patience playing video games.

Your plan was to take a 92 point team with a young core, trade away 3-4 core players, and then tank for a bottom-5 pick for two years while running way below the salary cap.

Until you acknowledge that no ownership group in history would ever sign off on that plan, you're playing video games.

Until you acknowledge the effect this plan would have on the core players you want to keep, you're playing video games.

Carolina in the mid-2010s were hemorrhaging money with terrible attendance and Karmanos was trying to sell the team. Them running way below the cap wasn't part of some master plan - it was a cheap team trying to save money. Dundon purchased in 2018 and they took off from there.

 

[theguardianII]

Your plan was to take a 92 point team with a young core, trade away 3-4 core players, and then tank for a bottom-5 pick for two years while running way below the salary cap.

Until you acknowledge that no ownership group in history would ever sign off on that plan, you're playing video games.

Until you acknowledge the effect this plan would have on the core players you want to keep, you're playing video games.

Carolina in the mid-2010s were hemorrhaging money with terrible attendance and Karmanos was trying to sell the team. Them running way below the cap wasn't part of some master plan - it was a cheap team trying to save money. Dundon purchased in 2018 and they took off from there.

What does it look like Benning was doing here for 7+ years?

Capped out and more the last three for a team that never made the playoffs except by Covid and the NHL expanding qualifying teams and at that by one single point.

Core players can be on this team but not be as valuable on good teams. When you have a group that has lost just about their entire careers on the same team a losing mentality creeps in and is hard to erase. Edmonton had many of their core pieces kept for sentimental reasons, Smythe as an example, but they could not make the show.

Trading Boeser, Horvat and whomever will be necessary for cap reasons and to get the team all closer in that under 23 age group, the team can't be counting on declining skills to make the playoffs. Players reach a peak and then start to become less effective with time, some players much faster than others. And the regular season is much easier than the playoffs. Even Bruce has stated that, playoffs are 20% harder than regular season games.

The league is littered with core players but some are just plain better than others hence the difference between winning and losing teams. I am sure that Buffalo, Arizona even Chicago right now all have core players that fans would want to keep but would they be worth trading the farm for? Even Kane at his age? How much longer can he help a team 2 maybe 3 years at top money, ice time and role?

Even if this team was a true contender it has no caps pace to take on a high value player like say, Messier (ya that worked really good) Kane

To get quality back you need to trade quality or tank to draft it.

 

[mriswith]

Your plan was to take a 92 point team with a young core, trade away 3-4 core players, and then tank for a bottom-5 pick for two years while running way below the salary cap.

Until you acknowledge that no ownership group in history would ever sign off on that plan, you're playing video games.

Until you acknowledge the effect this plan would have on the core players you want to keep, you're playing video games.

Carolina in the mid-2010s were hemorrhaging money with terrible attendance and Karmanos was trying to sell the team. Them running way below the cap wasn't part of some master plan - it was a cheap team trying to save money. Dundon purchased in 2018 and they took off from there.

I posted about the differences this plan would have on core vs your comparison to 2020. You chose to ignore it. Trying to make it some gotcha when I addressed it and you ignored it is weird.

You wanted to let Boeser walk and trade Miller. You're at 2 core players. I wanted to trade 1 more than you, plus get rid of OEL's contract so we don't have that ticking time bomb staring us in the face.

The biggest difference is that I wouldn't replace them right away, I'd let the team run near the cap floor for two years and then make the leap, exactly like Carolina did - because that's a window of time where we're very unlikely to be contenders anyways so there's no opportunity loss if the #1 goal is to win a cup.

You firmly believe that Benning's plan and timeline is the only viable option. I think his plan and timeline is the hardest to execute and least likely to succeed.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Your plan was to take a 92 point team with a young core, trade away 3-4 core players, and then tank for a bottom-5 pick for two years while running way below the salary cap.

Until you acknowledge that no ownership group in history would ever sign off on that plan, you're playing video games.

Until you acknowledge the effect this plan would have on the core players you want to keep, you're playing video games.

Carolina in the mid-2010s were hemorrhaging money with terrible attendance and Karmanos was trying to sell the team. Them running way below the cap wasn't part of some master plan - it was a cheap team trying to save money. Dundon purchased in 2018 and they took off from there.

Yeah. Toronto at the start of the Shanaplan had very little in young NHL talent even though they had a very long run of missing the playoffs. All they really had was Nazem Kadri and Morgan Reilly. Doing a full rebuild here made sense and was 100% the right move. We just aren't going to be bad enough to tank for Bedard without serious injuries or are players become deflated again.

Right now I think we are in a position where we really shouldn't be using labels, but it has to make sense and be executed well. For example if we don't think a player will be value at the next contract, or a player may have more perceived value around the league for what ever reason then they should be flipped for assets. Playoff teams do this too. I would also sell everything in the farm for a top pairing D.

Also I would love to be a team that takes advantage of cap space like Carolina has. It was a great strategy for them as they aren't a big UFA market. If Pacioretty was healthy they would of gotten half of their top 6 and a young D man from taking advantage of other teams cap situation. Even if they got a bit of luck in moving up for the Jarvis pick because the Leafs lost in the bubble round which wouldn't normally happen. We just have never had the cap space to do this though. Might of been able to do it if we traded Boeser though.

 

[RandV]

1. The reason this kind of reload is unusual is because teams that are run by management teams that are incompetent enough to get stuck needing this type of reload don't usually instantly change to smart, competent management overnight.

Just wanted to comment on this. What typically happens with the 'rebuild Cup winners' like Chicago and LA isn't that they took a mediocre to decent team and tanked it for a rebuild, but rather they were in the basement due to years of inept management, then coincided drafting a Cup winning core with lotto picks with hiring good competent management. The latter is really what makes the difference between being a contender or not: good management and consistency. With the two current top teams Steve Yzerman started with the Lightning in 2010, first made the finals in 2015, and finally won two Cups under BriseBois who took over in 2018. Sakic with the Avs started in 2014 and needed 8 years to bring them to the top.

Vancouver's problem on the other hand starts with ownership. When we had highly competent management, Aquilini never gave Gillis time or consistency. Then he hired the franchises biggest chump Jim Benning and held onto him for way to long. For that Chicago sweet spot everyone wants right now the time to have done that is at numerous points over the last several years. Acquiring high picks through incompetent management then maximizing potential by flipping to competent management. Like most recently how well off would the Canucks be right now if we didn't have OEL & Garland but instead had Guenther/Sillinger and an extra $12M or so cap space from Eriksson/Beagle/Roussel being off the books?

Aqulini basically waited for the perfect time to slam shut any window of opportunity for new management to turn Benning's incompetence into advantage.

 

[RandV]

Also just a random tidbit, but if you look at capfriendly's project cap hit and average it against the league you get an average cap space of $462,383. This is just a terrible time to be trying to sell off high $$$ players. And the turnaround time people want to start spending again is probably when the Covid imposed cap freeze ends, the caps going to shoot way up, and the league will do a complete 180 turn from a buyers market to a sellers market.