Management Discussion | Pre-Season Approaching

[Johnny Canucker]

Trading for OEL was an absolute necessity for this team because this team was in desperate need of a prime Alexander Edler replacement (i.e. a guy that could take on tough match-ups and be an all-situations guy for us). Last season, OEL more than fit that bill. People need to realize that he wasn't brought in here to be an offensive juggernaut/PP QB. That's what we have Hughes for. OEL was brought in here to fill the role of prime Alex Edler and he did that for the most part. Furthermore, whenever Hughes was hurt and OEL needed to step up and fill the Hughes void, he did that.

OEL is overpaid, YES, but he was criminally underrated by many Canucks fans for the simple fact that he was "a Benning guy."

Bad take. Where are you getting this from? Other than trying to feed the narrative of defending an inarguably top 10 worst contract in the league. For his hit / term you better believe he’s expected to put up points as well as play solid defence.

It's extremely unrealistic seeing as how we don't have cap space or assets to get it done. It's a pipe dream.

I wouldn't waste my time arguring with these people about the team needing a rebuild. They will cling on to the hope of playoffs until there's literally nothing left. Same as the owner.

If a certain group of fans haven't figured out after all this suffering that the current core won't get it done, then they never will. A rebuild or something close to it needs to happen.

You’re trying to tell me that a 90 year old president and 104 year old coach can’t get on the same page as a core of 23 year olds?

Show me a better fit. I’ll wait.

 

[MS]

I’ve never understood your comparison to 2008. You were obviously there and know the players. On the basis of defense alone there is no comparison, but the farm system also was yielding well at that time with guys like Hansen, Burrows and Raymond breaking in. Not even getting into Edler and Bieksa breaking out. That was a consistent 100+ point team waiting to happen, there was just a bit of an hiccup in the WCE transition.

I'm going to come back to this post because the whole situation in 2008 blows my mind, both in terms of how fans view it now and how fans viewed it then as opposed to the way the same team would be viewed now.

Like, have a look at this roster :

Vancouver Canucks 2007-08 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.com

The roster, scoring and goaltender statistics for the 2007-08 Vancouver Canucks playing in the NHL.

www.hockeydb.com

- non-playoff team 2 of the prior 3 years
- Sedins a year away from UFA
- only other guy who scored more than 37 points is a UFA
- 3 of the top 4 defenders are over 30 (and the 4th is 27)
- franchise goalie is 29 and 2 years from UFA
- there are only two established quality players under age 27 - the #3C and the #5D.
- poor prospect pool and the team's #1 prospect had just died

Like, if this was 2022 this board would be overwhelmingly pro-tank. Like probably 90%. Sell the Sedins! Sell Luongo! How did we squander the Naslund asset and get nothing back at the deadline? Old team with no chance of ever doing anything!

But it was such a different time. There was no talk of any of that. Like, none. The big discussion was whether to re-sign the Sedins or whether we should let them go and chase Cammalleri/Jokinen. It was just automatic that as fans you looked at your hockey team and tried to make it better and compete. And we ended up doing exactly that.

At that point, the notion of intentionally tanking for 4-5 years didn't really exist. There had been the 1984 Lemieux Devils/Penguins thing where the teams tried to tank inside of that one season when they were already terrible, and teams maybe didn't try to win when they were out of the playoffs at the deadline, but the sort of tanks we're familiar with now did not happen on purpose. The teams that did have a 'full' tank - like the early 90s Nords, mid-90s Oilers, late-90s Canucks, mid-2000s Penguins/Blackhawks - all only did so because of incompetent management/ownership and/or severe financial problems.

Then the Penguins won the Cup in 2009 four years after drafting Crosby (quickly followed by the Blackhawks) and everything changed. FALL FOR HALL! by the 2010 draft. And what an awful change it's been.

It just sucks. It's such a loser mentality. Our 92-point team has a problem with how the defense is built? Oh well, we give up! Burn it to the ground! Better to have another 4-5 years of losing and hope to strike gold with a lottery pick than actually try to make our team better in this one weak area with good management and good transactions. It's a joke. It's pathetic. It's anti-fan. It's embarrassing.

And going back to that 2008 roster, Jesus Christ. People actually think Gillis was handed a good situation when he arrived? If you were ranking the best situations for a GM to walk into in 2008, that team would have been about #25 out of 30.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

Time to tear it down and rebuild properly. Trade Demko, Hughes, Pettersson as well, (well Petey if he wants out). Tear it down completely and build a new roster during the next several years where they'll have to eat though some bad contracts like OEL. I'd assume they'd need to take back a big crappy contract in return for Miller if they want good assets in return, and thankfully Horvat can be sold now at the TDL.

This is my dream but it just isn’t going to happen and I can’t blame them.

 

[mossey3535]

I've posted about this exact thing before a couple weeks back so I'll repost what I wrote then. Basically I disagree completely:

Perception vs. reality on the Duchene trade is so bizarre.

There's this huge Mandela effect where fans seem to universally believe that Colorado decided to re-set their rebuild by trading away superstar Matt Duchene and then suffered another couple years of losing but added Makar out of the deal.

And ... that's not what happened at all.

They had already bottomed out. They had already drafted Makar. They were having their breakout season and made the playoffs in the season Duchene was traded.

And Duchene was not a key cog. He'd been playing terrible hockey for the previous couple years and was viewed as a major off-ice problem (something confirmed on the Phoenix taxi ride after he went to Ottawa). They'd signed Alex Kerfoot and he was outplaying Duchene and they wanted to get Kerfoot more minutes (Duchene's had already plummeted that season before the trade). So they smartly sold high on reputation for a guy who was approaching a huge UFA payday when they felt they had a better internal replacement. And kept on trucking.

It would basically be like managing to get a king's ransom for Brock Boeser right now after Kuzmenko has come in and looked better. It wasn't a tanking transaction. It wasn't a major re-set.

Again, I have zero problems with the notion of making a significant move or two in the framework of moving forward with this core. Trading Boeser? Great. Getting a big haul for Miller including NHL-ready players and then re-investing his salary in the blueline? Great.

But teams don't intentionally do a major re-set from this position and Colorado absolutely did not do a major re-set from this position.

I didn't say he was a superstar. Barrie was also not a superstar. That has been proven with retrospect.

But at the time they were in that middle region where there were questions - those guys had contributed lots of points in the past and were somewhat young. Colorado had a choice - to try to keep them, or to move on and add pieces that would make them an actual contender. Barrie had put up multiple 50/60 point seasons with 12+ goals. Duchene had had one 30 goal season and several 20 goal seasons, with 40-70 points as season. They were their Boeser and Miller.

Nowhere in my post does it say reset. My issue with your argument is that you basically conflate any avenue with a "reset" or worse, a full-blown rebuild. Whereas in this case Colorado did a 1-2 year retool because 1-2 seasons is what it took to get Makar on the team and add pieces on the defence that they needed. They made some difficult decisions. This management group didn't do that. Further, their actions aren't even consistent with moves that would address the glaring deficiencies on this team. I don't agree with bringing up "they only had two choices" all the time as a de facto justification for our current situation.

 

[me2]

The problem is that this is lazy armchair quarterbacking.

Benning left a mess. There is *no* realistic plan that would likely result in a Stanley Cup contender.

The two realistic options were :

1) Push forward.

2) Re-tool for multiple years.

(2) would have meant burning most of the Hughes/Demko/Pettersson window not attempting to compete, and hoping that these players would have wanted to stay in an organization that didn't try to build around them when it had the chance. This is the plan that this certain group loves, and it's even less likely to result in a Stanley Cup contender.

1. Push forward and lose those players by being an uncompetitive team.

2. rebuild and maybe lose those players.

It's just a matter of how many extras years you want to wait to rebuild.

 

[MS]

I didn't say he was a superstar. Barrie was also not a superstar. That has been proven with retrospect.

But at the time they were in that middle region where there were questions - those guys had contributed lots of points in the past and were somewhat young. Colorado had a choice - to try to keep them, or to move on and add pieces that would make them an actual contender. Barrie had put up multiple 50/60 point seasons with 12+ goals. Duchene had had one 30 goal season and several 20 goal seasons, with 40-70 points as season. They were their Boeser and Miller.

Nowhere in my post does it say reset. My issue with your argument is that you basically conflate any avenue with a "reset" or worse, a full-blown rebuild. Whereas in this case Colorado did a 1-2 year retool because 1-2 seasons is what it took to get Makar on the team and add pieces on the defence that they needed. They made some difficult decisions. This management group didn't do that. Further, their actions aren't even consistent with moves that would address the glaring deficiencies on this team. I don't agree with bringing up "they only had two choices" all the time as a de facto justification for our current situation.

Again, they didn't do a '1-2 year retool'.

Duchene was traded in the middle of their breakout year when they made the playoffs, and would be akin to us trading Boeser now - something that I don't think anyone would have problems with.

Barrie was a veterans for veterans trade to address needs at the end of a year when they won a playoff round. Again, nobody would have any problem if they'd traded Garland for Marino or something.

Planning vs. execution. I believe they've made the right decision to try to build around the Hughes/Demko/Pettersson core and the ~4 year window we have with that core. That doesn't mean that, in terms of the execution of that plan, they couldn't have made a Boeser trade or a Miller trade. Or that it isn't fair value to criticize them for being too conservative in the implementation of that plan.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

Ok. Whoever decided to green light the dog initiative needs a promotion. I am head over heels in love with Ryp.

 

[MS]

1. Push forward and lose those players by being an uncompetitive team.

2. rebuild and maybe lose those players.

It's just a matter of how many extras years you want to wait to rebuild.

1. People continue to ignore that this is a business and no ownership group would ever sign off on this plan for a team in our position. As I've said before, it's about as grounded in reality as 'We should trade for McDavid!' as a plan.

2. Keeping those guys, you probably don't bottom out with top-3 picks. You draft 9th or 11th for a couple years, burn through their primes without even trying to compete, and then you're basically doing the full rebuild at the same time anyways.

 

[TruGr1t]

I'm going to come back to this post because the whole situation in 2008 blows my mind, both in terms of how fans view it now and how fans viewed it then as opposed to the way the same team would be viewed now.

Like, have a look at this roster :

Vancouver Canucks 2007-08 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.com

The roster, scoring and goaltender statistics for the 2007-08 Vancouver Canucks playing in the NHL.

www.hockeydb.com

- non-playoff team 2 of the prior 3 years
- Sedins a year away from UFA
- only other guy who scored more than 37 points is a UFA
- 3 of the top 4 defenders are over 30 (and the 4th is 27)
- franchise goalie is 29 and 2 years from UFA
- there are only two established quality players under age 27 - the #3C and the #5D.
- poor prospect pool and the team's #1 prospect had just died

Like, if this was 2022 this board would be overwhelmingly pro-tank. Like probably 90%. Sell the Sedins! Sell Luongo! How did we squander the Naslund asset and get nothing back at the deadline? Old team with no chance of ever doing anything!

But it was such a different time. There was no talk of any of that. Like, none. The big discussion was whether to re-sign the Sedins or whether we should let them go and chase Cammalleri/Jokinen. It was just automatic that as fans you looked at your hockey team and tried to make it better and compete. And we ended up doing exactly that.

At that point, the notion of intentionally tanking for 4-5 years didn't really exist. There had been the 1984 Lemieux Devils/Penguins thing where the teams tried to tank inside of that one season when they were already terrible, and teams maybe didn't try to win when they were out of the playoffs at the deadline, but the sort of tanks we're familiar with now did not happen on purpose. The teams that did have a 'full' tank - like the early 90s Nords, mid-90s Oilers, late-90s Canucks, mid-2000s Penguins/Blackhawks - all only did so because of incompetent management/ownership and/or severe financial problems.

Then the Penguins won the Cup in 2009 four years after drafting Crosby (quickly followed by the Blackhawks) and everything changed. FALL FOR HALL! by the 2010 draft. And what an awful change it's been.

It just sucks. It's such a loser mentality. Our 92-point team has a problem with how the defense is built? Oh well, we give up! Burn it to the ground! Better to have another 4-5 years of losing and hope to strike gold with a lottery pick than actually try to make our team better in this one weak area with good management and good transactions. It's a joke. It's pathetic. It's anti-fan. It's embarrassing.

And going back to that 2008 roster, Jesus Christ. People actually think Gillis was handed a good situation when he arrived? If you were ranking the best situations for a GM to walk into in 2008, that team would have been about #25 out of 30.

Setting aside the vastly different eras and cap scenarios, are you proposing there are effectively an Edler, Kesler, Bieksa and Burrows hidden here somewhere waiting to break out and solve all our problems?

I’m actually trying to figure out what you’re envisioning here. I mean that roster succeeded effectively because a bunch of homegrown talent (a lot more than we have now, plus actual young defensemen) broke out beyond all expectations over a very rapid period.

Not to mention a continuum of solid veteran carry over that effectively mentored a lot of those guys into what they became … especially on the blue line.

I mean, sorry, but claiming there is going to be some kind of 2007-2008 phenomenon here is one of the more ludicrous things I’ve read on here after watching this version of the Canucks over the past few years.

Not to mention the compete level with that group was off the charts, and they all worked their asses off.

 

[mossey3535]

Again, they didn't do a '1-2 year retool'.

Duchene was traded in the middle of their breakout year when they made the playoffs, and would be akin to us trading Boeser now - something that I don't think anyone would have problems with.

Barrie was a veterans for veterans trade to address needs at the end of a year when they won a playoff round. Again, nobody would have any problem if they'd traded Garland for Marino or something.

Planning vs. execution. I believe they've made the right decision to try to build around the Hughes/Demko/Pettersson core and the ~4 year window we have with that core. That doesn't mean that, in terms of the execution of that plan, they couldn't have made a Boeser trade or a Miller trade. Or that it isn't fair value to criticize them for being too conservative in the implementation of that plan.

But they didn't do any of those things. And you showing up all the time saying "oh they didn't have any other choice", intentionally or not, is tacit approval of them basically f***ing up the entire off-season.

Lately you've chosen to bring this up time and again - planning vs execution. How do we know there was a plan? All we can do is judge by their actions, and their actions don't indicate a plan that would make this team a contender. I know you're trying to argue that by not trading everyone, they're indicating that they're building around the core. Sure, but it doesn't matter what your intention was when the result is to put another two albatross contracts around the neck of the franchise and block yourself from effectively addressing the actual root issues with the team. Instead of "oh they are executing poorly", I think it's a valid question as to whether they have an effective plan for turning the team around, or indeed if they have a plan at all.

As for the retool thing in this specific comparison, I think you are deep into semantics at this point.

 

[MS]

Setting aside the vastly different eras and cap scenarios, are you proposing there are effectively an Edler, Kesler, Bieksa and Burrows hidden here somewhere waiting to break out and solve all our problems?

I’m actually trying to figure out what you’re envisioning here. I mean that roster succeeded effectively because a bunch of homegrown talent (a lot more than we have now, plus actual young defensemen) broke out beyond all expectations over a very rapid period.

Not to mention a continuum of solid veteran carry over that effectively mentored a lot of those guys into what they became … especially on the blue line.

I mean, sorry, but claiming there is going to be some kind of 2007-2008 phenomenon here is one of the more ludicrous things I’ve read on here after watching this version of the Canucks over the past few years.

Not to mention the compete level with that group was off the charts, and they all worked their asses off.

I'm not 'claiming this will be some sort of 07-08 phenomenon'. I'm lamenting lazy loser fan culture, and pointing out that most fans here today would have voted to tear down what ended up being the best team in franchise history before it even had a chance to happen.

When you look at the ages and talent on the roster, this team is in a *far* better position right now than that team was.

Good organizations generate player development over and above what is expected. This happened to the 2008-2012 Canucks. It happened to the 1995-2008 Red Wings. It's happening right now to the Florida Panthers, as an example. *That* should be the goal, not 'Oh noes, we have a bad RD situation on a young average team, I guess we just have to blow it up and lose for 5 years'.

 

[MS]

But they didn't do any of those things. And you showing up all the time saying "oh they didn't have any other choice", intentionally or not, is tacit approval of them basically f***ing up the entire off-season.

Lately you've chosen to bring this up time and again - planning vs execution. How do we know there was a plan? All we can do is judge by their actions, and their actions don't indicate a plan that would make this team a contender. I know you're trying to argue that by not trading everyone, they're indicating that they're building around the core. Sure, but it doesn't matter what your intention was when the result is to put another two albatross contracts around the neck of the franchise and block yourself from effectively addressing the actual root issues with the team. Instead of "oh they are executing poorly", I think it's a valid question as to whether they have an effective plan for turning the team around, or indeed if they have a plan at all.

As for the retool thing in this specific comparison, I think you are deep into semantics at this point.

The plan is very clearly to keep building around this core and try to keep momentum and try to compete.

To me, that's the correct plan.

The execution has involved keeping Boeser, over-committing on the wings, and leaving themselves little wiggle-room to improve the D.

To me, that is very mediocre execution so far.

The examples you're giving (Duchene and Barrie) relate to the execution of that plan, and are comparable to trading Boeser and Garland. Colorado did not trade either player as part of a 'reset' or a 're-tool'.

I don't think this is that confusing? I'm not saying - at all, even remotely - that I agree with how static this roster has been from last year.

 

[mossey3535]

Setting aside the vastly different eras and cap scenarios, are you proposing there are effectively an Edler, Kesler, Bieksa and Burrows hidden here somewhere waiting to break out and solve all our problems?

I’m actually trying to figure out what you’re envisioning here. I mean that roster succeeded effectively because a bunch of homegrown talent (a lot more than we have now, plus actual young defensemen) broke out beyond all expectations over a very rapid period.

Not to mention a continuum of solid veteran carry over that effectively mentored a lot of those guys into what they became … especially on the blue line.

I mean, sorry, but claiming there is going to be some kind of 2007-2008 phenomenon here is one of the more ludicrous things I’ve read on here after watching this version of the Canucks over the past few years.

Not to mention the compete level with that group was off the charts, and they all worked their asses off.

I think he's right in terms of the fortunes of the team at that time. I mean, I was in the stands delighted at Brabarian. When we lost to Dallas I was thinking that Lu was amazing but that we had such a popgun offence that we couldn't go far in the playoffs. I was very pleasantly surprised when the team seemed to turn it around so quickly.

The thing is, although they weren't heralded prospects, our farm team at the time was actually graduating players. I remember talk radio at the time discussing how certain players were coming along and whether Kesler deserved more time after the previous decent half season with the club. How Burrows had a great motor down in Manitoba. I agree with you that this was a major difference between the team then and now.

However, those players definitely exceeded expectations. I don't think anyone predicted at the time that anyone but Kesler would become a major contributor. Happily, it really shook out well for us in the end.

Another thing I think was different is that although we couldn't score, even our aging defence was good enough to keep us in games as long as Lu was on his game as well (I think this season 2007-2008 or the next was when more and more "swimming" started creeping into his game to my recollection). We are definitely on the other side of that situation.

 

[mriswith]

It's so bizarre how a few posters constantly push the idea that the only options were to either push forward with Benning's plan and timeline competing around the Horvat/Miller core, or have a 5+ year rebuild where we trade Pettersson, Hughes and Demko.

As if there wasn't a middle ground.

Building back up again around the non-ufa aged core =/= 5+ year full rebuild

 

[MS]

It's so bizarre how a few posters constantly push the idea that the only options were to either push forward with Benning's plan and timeline competing around the Horvat/Miller core, or have a 5+ year rebuild where we trade Pettersson, Hughes and Demko.

As if there wasn't a middle ground.

Building back up again around the non-ufa aged core =/= 5+ year full rebuild

Your proposal was being a bottom-5 team for the next two years which coupled with coming out of that period basically burns through the window of our current core. Unless you think we go magically from bottom-5 to Cup contender in one year?

If you’re talking about getting high lottery picks, you aren’t somehow magically doing that and then magically competing again in less than 4 years.

 

[sting101]

The fact that people are getting restless and advocating knee jerk panic when there is nothing they can do about it but right the ship is ridiculous. All that would happen right now is you get fleeced because no one else is nearly as motivated to undress what they did in the off season

Just gotta keep peeling back the layers and finding ways to get everyone working as hard as Pettersson has, get some defensive structure and hopefully re establish some value with players you want to move away from

Burning more picks for established players is not the answer. Being patient and adding younger better free agents than Myers Boeser Pearson Poolman and building the system is so ideally that salary can be weaponized for an impact player

 

[geebaan]

If we trade Quinn Hughes we will be forever looking to fill a role that he does the best.

@MS @geebaan


Am I wrong here? Despite his weaknesses (he only turned 23 btw) we will forever be trying to replace his production from the backend. Unless we somehow gather three or four adequate top 4 defenders. This is a move that will f*** the Vancouver Canucks even more than now.

Yea of all the people to trade, Petey and Hughes are last for me. We’ve seen when he has a Tanev like partner what he can be. So agreed, wouldn’t move either.

IF you did a full rebuild, I’d move anyone else for the right price. Key being determining what the right price is.

 

[StickShift]

I don't want to trade Pettersson, Hughes, or Demko—but I am very worried that they are going to ask for a way out long before any further retools or rebuilds can be completed. They've changed the management, they've changed the coaching. Aquilini has already had to intervene directly to save their morale before. I'm not sure how many more cards up their sleeves this organization has to keep those key players happy.

And the moment that they ask to leave—you have pretty much no option in your game theory except to trade them.

 

[TruGr1t]

I'm not 'claiming this will be some sort of 07-08 phenomenon'. I'm lamenting lazy loser fan culture, and pointing out that most fans here today would have voted to tear down what ended up being the best team in franchise history before it even had a chance to happen.

When you look at the ages and talent on the roster, this team is in a *far* better position right now than that team was.

Good organizations generate player development over and above what is expected. This happened to the 2008-2012 Canucks. It happened to the 1995-2008 Red Wings. It's happening right now to the Florida Panthers, as an example. *That* should be the goal, not 'Oh noes, we have a bad RD situation on a young average team, I guess we just have to blow it up and lose for 5 years'.

I mean, we agree the execution has been bad here for a decade, and it continued this summer. I find your viewpoint a little binary, for me. There were numerous things that could have been done pre-deadline last year, dovetailing into the unique summer market, that could have materially altered the make-up of the team. Those things did not include selling the core and tanking for Bedard.

The issue many have is that the problems here have been clear for a while, and they include as you said "over-committing on the wings" and not addressing the defense. That doesn't even get into the possible chemistry issues and potential lack of accountability in the dressing room. These problems continue.

The main difference between now and 07/08 as @mossey3535 mentioned is obviously the farm system. There be no Manitoba Moose here. That's just another thing that still has not been addressed.

I still do not expect them to sell it off and tank, as you said that's unrealistic. I do, however, think this organization is rocketing towards a rebuild (whether they like it or not) within a few years following the Miller and Boeser deals. What happens in between? Who knows, it very likely will not be a lot of playoff success, but I suppose weirder things have happened. I just don't see the asset base or cap flexibility to meaningfully improve this roster for at the very least 2-3 years. Unfortunately, due to a moribund farm system it's also unrealistic to expect any type of Burrows or Kesler development cycles either, and we're going to be sorely lacking the cap relief offered by ELCs for the unknown future.

 

[VanJack]

If they just could have sacked Benning just before he traded for Miller, things might look a lot different in Canuck-land.

But Miller left for a first rounder; and Tofoli for a second. Then a first and a second were expended for OEL and Garland. And all the Canucks really accomplished was jettisoning three contracts that only had one year to go anyway.

So two first rounders; two second rounders flushed.....but I guess Benning was desperate and the owner let him do it.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

This thread: “My dad can beat up your dad”

1. Let’s set it up for tomorrow even though they are both bed ridden.

2. Let’s set it up 5 years from now and see if they are better

 

[credulous]

Acquiring two top four defensemen is extremely difficult to do. It seems teams really want to hold on to them or are asking a high price.

cam charron said the other day that you need 4 reliable defenders to compete but there's only 50 reliable defenders in the whole league. anyone who has one isn't giving them up

 

[m9]

The fact that people are getting restless and advocating knee jerk panic when there is nothing they can do about it but right the ship is ridiculous. All that would happen right now is you get fleeced because no one else is nearly as motivated to undress what they did in the off season

Just gotta keep peeling back the layers and finding ways to get everyone working as hard as Pettersson has, get some defensive structure and hopefully re establish some value with players you want to move away from

Burning more picks for established players is not the answer. Being patient and adding younger better free agents than Myers Boeser Pearson Poolman and building the system is so ideally that salary can be weaponized for an impact player

I think most here know (or at least should know) that guys like Miller or Boeser aren't being moved right now after signing them to these contracts. It basically just never happens in the NHL. Most of what is going on here is frustration for the off-season boiling over and now venting.

I do think this awful start has made things pretty murky with Horvat, though. I wonder what the appetite is from both sides to continue this relationship.

 

[andora]

He remains correct on that take. Turns out there was, in fact, no plan.

Nthis is the phrasing i am finding interesting.. simply because if we were 5 and 0 would it still be framed as 'turns out there is no plan"

Lately you've chosen to bring this up time and again - planning vs execution. How do we know there was a plan? All we can do is judge by their actions, and their actions don't indicate a plan that would make this team a contender. I know you're trying to argue that by not trading everyone, they're indicating that they're building around the core. Sure, but it doesn't matter what your intention was when the result is to put another two albatross contracts around the neck of the franchise and block yourself from effectively addressing the actual root issues with the team. Instead of "oh they are executing poorly", I think it's a valid question as to whether they have an effective plan for turning the team around, or indeed if they have a plan at all.

As for the retool thing in this specific comparison, I think you are deep into semantics at this point.

Anything that has happened on the ice right now has no bearing on what they had constructed as a plan for this season or further

If they had made a move in august or make a move in november does that really matter in terms of showing what a plan is?

I think MS is framing it correctly planning versus execution .. two entirely different sub plota - sorry i just get bothered by how they are getting mixed together consistently

 

[TruGr1t]

I think he's right in terms of the fortunes of the team at that time. I mean, I was in the stands delighted at Brabarian. When we lost to Dallas I was thinking that Lu was amazing but that we had such a popgun offence that we couldn't go far in the playoffs. I was very pleasantly surprised when the team seemed to turn it around so quickly.

The thing is, although they weren't heralded prospects, our farm team at the time was actually graduating players. I remember talk radio at the time discussing how certain players were coming along and whether Kesler deserved more time after the previous decent half season with the club. How Burrows had a great motor down in Manitoba. I agree with you that this was a major difference between the team then and now.

However, those players definitely exceeded expectations. I don't think anyone predicted at the time that anyone but Kesler would become a major contributor. Happily, it really shook out well for us in the end.

Another thing I think was different is that although we couldn't score, even our aging defence was good enough to keep us in games as long as Lu was on his game as well (I think this season 2007-2008 or the next was when more and more "swimming" started creeping into his game to my recollection). We are definitely on the other side of that situation.

I think you've hit it on the had pretty well in your last couple posts. Quite hilariously, I was thinking about a comparison between "Bruce there it is" and the Brabarian phenomenon the other night. They look like they may be comparable in terms of staying power.

The bolded is the real crux of the argument for me. I see very real danger that the farm system remains unaddressed during this process where we "go for it" with the Pettersson, Hughes, Demko group and we wake up one day with all those guys gone, nothing to show for it, and the worst farm system in the entire league.

As I've mentioned, there are now very limited avenues to improve the roster over the next 2-3 years due to the contracts handed out this past summer. They are now in the horrible position of having to overpay Horvat and further devastate the cap situation, or trade him and gut the centre position. I don't know how they resolve it, let alone fix the defense and the farm system while trying to be competitive. I don't think it's possible.