Management Discussion | You can’t handle the Rebuild!

[F A N]

I’ve been following this discussion. It appears you missed the point.


White over Perron, Sedins taking 12 years to make the finals, and even Kyrou/Thomas don’t really have anything to do with expected pick value being discussed.

Even if the previous regime had hits like Pearson over Gaunce and Saad over Jensen, the future outlook would’ve barely changed. It’s rare the difference makers are available 22-32 overall.

Where they tend to be available - the top 10.

Gillis era Canucks fair quite well with Horvat and Hodgson. Benning era found 2 elite talents in Hughes and Pettersson but have a couple whiff in Juolevi and two other disappointments (time is hopefully on Podkolzin’s side).

Missing there is much worse than missing in the 20’s imo.

I think you're missing part of the discussion. The discussion started with MS basically saying we can't evaluate the team's drafting under a GM when the team didn't have high picks. To be clear he said "Drafting ‘success’ is mostly just draft position and high picks and if you don’t have those casuals will basically always think your drafting sucks."

My response is that there has to be a way to evaluate a team's drafting under a GM and I provided examples of how much of a difference the Canucks picking different players would have made taking into consideration what the "consensus" was at the time of the picks. Like I said to MS, it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. If the Canucks came away with Palmieri, Tatar, Rakall/Sadd, and Skeji/Pearson, I think most of us would agree that Gillis' drafting was good. That's not including knowledge/assumptions of where the team actually ranked certain players.

The same applies to Benning's drafts. Had we picked Pastrnak, Point, Robertson, and Romanov, the franchise would likely be in a much different place and the "cupboard" being bare really isn't an issue.

Detroit's last Cup victories weren't on the backs of nailing high picks. Tampa post Stamkos and Hedman whiffed on Connolly, Koekkoek, and (to a much lesser extent) Drouin.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I think you're missing part of the discussion. The discussion started with MS basically saying we can't evaluate the team's drafting under a GM when the team didn't have high picks. To be clear he said "Drafting ‘success’ is mostly just draft position and high picks and if you don’t have those casuals will basically always think your drafting sucks."

My response is that there has to be a way to evaluate a team's drafting under a GM and I provided examples of how much of a difference the Canucks picking different players would have made taking into consideration what the "consensus" was at the time of the picks. Like I said to MS, it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. If the Canucks came away with Palmieri, Tatar, Rakall/Sadd, and Skeji/Pearson, I think most of us would agree that Gillis' drafting was good. That's not including knowledge/assumptions of where the team actually ranked certain players.

The same applies to Benning's drafts. Had we picked Pastrnak, Point, Robertson, and Romanov, the franchise would likely be in a much different place and the "cupboard" being bare really isn't an issue.

Detroit's last Cup victories weren't on the backs of nailing high picks. Tampa post Stamkos and Hedman whiffed on Connolly, Koekkoek, and (to a much lesser extent) Drouin.

NHL GMs don't (or at least shouldn't) amateur scout.

They have a billion dollar sports franchise to Generally Manage.

Sorry. Slightly off topic. But this grinds my gears every time I see it being discussed.


GMs build a scouting staff. Or assign an assistant that builds a scouting staff. Sets general direction to what he wants them to emphasize.

 

[F A N]

NHL GMs don't (or at least shouldn't) amateur scout.

They have a billion dollar sports franchise to Generally Manage.

Sorry. Slightly off topic. But this grinds my gears every time I see it being discussed.


GMs build a scouting staff. Or assign an assistant that builds a scouting staff. Sets general direction to what he wants them to emphasize.

Thats the tough part. A POHO/GM's job INCLUDES managing the scouting staff (which they often delegate) and by extension the draft. And GMs DO go on amateur-related scouting trips. If the GM (or through his delegate(s)) isn't actively involved in the scouting and drafting process how does he evaluate the team's scouts? Based on results that don't become apparent until years later? At the end of the day it's the GM's job on the line and I'm fine with the GM hiring and trusting one person to run it but that's the GM's choice.

I actually think a GM should "amateur scout" to a certain extent. How much would a GM miss NOT watching the team play live a few games here and there? I think that ideally a GM should act like a top cross-checker and view his scouting staff's top targets. That's not to say that a GM should impose his views but I actually want him to be actively involved in the process.

To me, I always thought it was stupid to let the scouting staff pick without any input and questioning from the GM. In the real world, an owner or CEO would at least hear the proposal and have the opportunity to ask questions.

Directions and attributes to emphasize does matter. Benning and Brackett's relationship might have broken down in the end but they both seemingly cared about compete level more than skatign and that matters. Burke didn't believe in drafting goalies in the first round and that matters. Allvin favouring skill over compete level and that matters.

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

I came to a very sad realization today. I’m not sure if everyone here will get this, but I think it makes sense anyway. The Vancouver Canucks, my favourite team, are a non-playable character, or NPC, in the NHL world. Nothing we do while Francesco Aquilini is in charge matters. We aren’t one of the teams that are actually competing for anything. We are a background franchise. We are the mindless background characters in video games that the player behind the controller doesn’t even interact with. Or NPC. Every year we have the same shortsighted plan executed to(barely) varying levels of success. And that’s what we will do next year. And the next. Cause that’s what the NPC is programmed to do. And that’s how our management is programmed from the top on down.

Feels bad

It's pretty funny to think about it now, but we actually might be the most irrelevant franchise in the league at the moment and for the foreseeable future. The league can be broken down into contenders, teams on the rise, bottom feeders, and teams on the downslope. These teams can all sell their fanbases on various reasons to tune into the team ie:

1. Contenders: We're good and we have a shot, get on the bandwagon early.
2. Rising teams: We're fun and our stars haven't yet been tainted by missed expectations, come join the party
3. Teams on the downslope: We recently had some reasonable success, come watch those players you loved seeing in the playoffs
4. Bottomfeeders: It's all about the future! Come check out the future stars of the league!

If I was trying to fit the Canucks into these buckets, I'd be pretty hard-pressed to do so.

1. Contenders: Laughable
2. Rising teams: From a timing standpoint fans seem to think we're in here, but we've likely already reached the ceiling of this team and it will be hugely constrained in its ability to improve by long shitty contracts. Team does not have a ton of room for improvement and is already no fun to watch
3. Teams on the downslope: We are likely here, but we have not had any of the recent success to endear the players to the fanbase, so not really a fit
4. Bottomfeeders: We fit here pretty well, but there is zero appetite from the franchise to plan for the future, so we can't even hang our hat on that level of hope.

We have some fun stars who are being weighed down by a bad team, and we cause lots of drama in the market which might be fun for other fans to check in on every once in a while. We're just irrelevant losers who will continue to have zero bearing on the outcome of any given NHL season for the foreseeable future

 

[gringo]

I think you're missing part of the discussion. The discussion started with MS basically saying we can't evaluate the team's drafting under a GM when the team didn't have high picks. To be clear he said "Drafting ‘success’ is mostly just draft position and high picks and if you don’t have those casuals will basically always think your drafting sucks."

My response is that there has to be a way to evaluate a team's drafting under a GM and I provided examples of how much of a difference the Canucks picking different players would have made taking into consideration what the "consensus" was at the time of the picks. Like I said to MS, it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. If the Canucks came away with Palmieri, Tatar, Rakall/Sadd, and Skeji/Pearson, I think most of us would agree that Gillis' drafting was good. That's not including knowledge/assumptions of where the team actually ranked certain players.

The same applies to Benning's drafts. Had we picked Pastrnak, Point, Robertson, and Romanov, the franchise would likely be in a much different place and the "cupboard" being bare really isn't an issue.

Detroit's last Cup victories weren't on the backs of nailing high picks. Tampa post Stamkos and Hedman whiffed on Connolly, Koekkoek, and (to a much lesser extent) Drouin.

The best way to evaluate Gillis drafting is to judge it against his peers who were picking in the 20-30 range at the time. Comparing Gillis’ drafting to those teams is quite telling.

Caps
Penguins
Bruins
Sharks
Red Wings
Blackhawks


Were dominant in the 2009-12 era. How did Gillis drafting stack against these GMs who were likely drafting in the same if not worse position?

 

[Nucker101]

Can we just hire the potato GM already?

 

[arttk]

Somehow decide that:

Stillman was worth acquiring.

Studnika is worth one of our only RHD prospects.

Lazar is worth a 4yr deal (even if AAV isn’t high).

Stillman wasn’t the target, he’s part of the cap dump package, the only reason he is playing is because BB.

Studnika is actually not bad, I don’t get the complaints about him.

Lazar is on a 3 year deal and can be waived and not have any cap implications at all.

Boeser is also a gamble they lost but at least they recognize it and are working to get out of it.

Bear is a great deal, 5th rounder and have retention, there is like nothing to complain about.

You can’t hit on every single move, are you assuming they should hit 100%?

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

S

Stillman wasn’t the target, he’s part of the cap dump package, the only reason he is playing is because BB.

Studnika is actually not bad, I don’t get the complaints about him.

Lazar is on a 3 year deal and can be waived and not have any cap implications at all.

Boeser is also a gamble they lost but at least they recognize it and are working to get out of it.

Bear is a great deal, 5th rounder and have retention, there is like nothing to complain about.

You can’t hit on every single move, are you assuming they should hit 100%?

Stillman is also a cap dump.

Studnika is waiver fodder that can be had for free.

Lazar is waiver fodder signed LT.

Boeser is a negative asset that no one wants unless the Nucks attach assets.

Bear is fine but still a #5 having to playing Top 4 because our defense sucks.

 

[mriswith]

We paid a 2nd for the cap space for Bear. That has to be included in his acquisition price.

 

[VanillaCoke]

How is it not true... from the beginning of the season we heard management wanted Rathbone to play and our coach played Stillman.

I think taking him back had more to do with making the cap ceiling perfectly than anything else.

Thats copium and where you're wrong, its very much like the sbisa situation all over again.

Stillman is a mgmt/pro scouting acquisition and its pretty clear by his play time, age, 2 yr contract, and rfa status..

 

[thenextone]

I can’t believe that any team strategy outside of acquiring the Vancouver-born generational talent in the 2023 draft should have been deployed. This core has failed. They should have went full Blackhawk’s after last year and just traded for as many picks in this draft as possible. Even a real full of prospects would be in the same position in the standings as this team full of veterans…

 

[arttk]

S

Stillman is also a cap dump.

Studnika is waiver fodder that can be had for free.

Lazar is waiver fodder signed LT.

Boeser is a negative asset that no one wants unless the Nucks attach assets.

Bear is fine but still a #5 having to playing Top 4 because our defense sucks.

Stillman f***ing sucks and I think he’s going to be waived eventually, it’s just part of getting rid of Dickinson.

Studnika is fine, they like him enough to not want to miss out on him since we are not as high in the waiver pickup list. He shows flashes here and there and I think with a better coach we might get him to be a 3rd liner.

Boeser is a mistake and it looks like they recognize it. I’ll make judgement when he is traded to see what we get/paid. It’s pointless arguing what we think his value is considering we have no f***ing clue. Just look at the trades that happened last off season league wide you tell me any of us could’ve predicted it.

Bear looking fine despite our no system defensive system is a good thing.

 

[arttk]

We paid a 2nd for the cap space for Bear. That has to be included in his acquisition price.

Or Dickinson is somebody they have to pay to get rid of regardless. I imagine even with cap, they still want to and see the need to get rid of him.

If we have like a couple mil in cap, do you guys honestly think the management team would want to keep Dickinson on the team?

I think a cost will need to be paid to get rid of him and it’s just a matter of how much. Maybe if we can wait we could’ve spent less.

 

[racerjoe]

Thats copium and where you're wrong, its very much like the sbisa situation all over again.

Stillman is a mgmt/pro scouting acquisition and its pretty clear by his play time, age, 2 yr contract, and rfa status..

Totally... it is absolutely clear management and coaching are on the same page. There is no evidence anywhere that they don't agree, or that coaching is not managements people.

 

[Nucker101]

Or Dickinson is somebody they have to pay to get rid of regardless. I imagine even with cap, they still want to and see the need to get rid of him.

If we have like a couple mil in cap, do you guys honestly think the management team would want to keep Dickinson on the team?

I think a cost will need to be paid to get rid of him and it’s just a matter of how much. Maybe if we can wait we could’ve spent less.

I believe JR himself said that the Dickinson deal was made with the Bear trade in mind. Why else would they be so motivated to move Dickinson at that time? It’s not like the Hawks offered up some good value cap dump deal. He’d be cheaper to dump next summer.

 

[arttk]

I believe JR himself said that the Dickinson deal was made with the Bear trade in mind. Why else would they be so motivated to move Dickinson at that time? It’s not like the Hawks offered up some good value cap dump deal. He’d be cheaper to dump next summer.

my point is that Dickinson is going to require a cost to get rid of eventually. Guy is f***ing useless, clogs up a roster spot and is paid more than his overpaid cap hit.

 

[Nucker101]

my point is that Dickinson is going to require a cost to get rid of eventually. Guy is f***ing useless, clogs up a roster spot and is paid more than his overpaid cap hit.

I get that.

My point is that if they weren’t going to acquire Bear there was no rush to pay Chicago’s asking price and dump him just before the season so the trades are undoubtedly tied together.

 

[mriswith]

Or Dickinson is somebody they have to pay to get rid of regardless. I imagine even with cap, they still want to and see the need to get rid of him.

If we have like a couple mil in cap, do you guys honestly think the management team would want to keep Dickinson on the team?

I think a cost will need to be paid to get rid of him and it’s just a matter of how much. Maybe if we can wait we could’ve spent less.

The only reason to get rid of Dickinson is to dump his cap hit. The only thing they used his cap space for is Bear. It is very straightforward that the 2nd must be included in the cost for Bear.

 

[me2]

I get that.

My point is that if they weren’t going to acquire Bear there was no rush to pay Chicago’s asking price and dump him just before the season so the trades are undoubtedly tied together.

The Bear argument feels like an after the fact excuse for the Dickenson trade.

1. At the time the argument was all about getting the perfect cap for the season start.

2. Poolman was health enough to play games to start the season. Why would they be looking to make room for Bear when they expected to be playing: Schenn-Myers-Poolman-Burroughs

3. Bear came in as a replacement for Poolman. Poolman's ltir covers all of Bear's contract and more.

So the Canucks might have been looking a bear for a while but the Dickenson trade doesn't seem to be related.

 

[arttk]

The only reason to get rid of Dickinson is to dump his cap hit. The only thing they used his cap space for is Bear. It is very straightforward that the 2nd must be included in the cost for Bear.

Yeah they did it to accommodate Bear but the thing with Dickinson was that he wasn’t somebody they wanted and they would’ve need to paid a price to get rid of him eventually. Do you think they are fine with keeping him for the duration of his contract otherwise?

 

[m9]

The Bear argument feels like an after the fact excuse for the Dickenson trade.

1. At the time the argument was all about getting the perfect cap for the season start.

2. Poolman was health enough to play games to start the season. Why would they be looking to make room for Bear when they expected to be playing: Schenn-Myers-Poolman-Burroughs

3. Bear came in as a replacement for Poolman. Poolman's ltir covers all of Bear's contract and more.

So the Canucks might have been looking a bear for a while but the Dickenson trade doesn't seem to be related.

Myers was hurt at the beginning of the year as well.

I think the facts regarding Stillman are pretty simple and management/coach was on the same page. Allvin said he was a 3rd-pairing guy when acquired. Bruce played him as a 3rd pairing guy, until recently.

 

[mriswith]

Yeah they did it to accommodate Bear but the thing with Dickinson was that he wasn’t somebody they wanted and they would’ve need to paid a price to get rid of him eventually. Do you think they are fine with keeping him for the duration of his contract otherwise?

The only reason to get rid of Dickinson is to acquire someone else using his cap space.

 

[me2]

The only reason to get rid of Dickinson is to acquire someone else using his cap space.

I think it was a general move to create space, the contract had multiple years to go. It also help with the cap to start the season

 

[Nucker101]

The Bear argument feels like an after the fact excuse for the Dickenson trade.

1. At the time the argument was all about getting the perfect cap for the season start.

2. Poolman was health enough to play games to start the season. Why would they be looking to make room for Bear when they expected to be playing: Schenn-Myers-Poolman-Burroughs

3. Bear came in as a replacement for Poolman. Poolman's ltir covers all of Bear's contract and more.

So the Canucks might have been looking a bear for a while but the Dickenson trade doesn't seem to be related.

I'll try to dig up the quote when I have the time, but I definitely remember Rutherford himself confirming that the trades are connected during one of his interviews, not sure if it was HNIC or 650.

 

[me2]

I'll try to dig up the quote when I have the time, but I definitely remember Rutherford himself confirming that the trades are connected during one of his interviews, not sure if it was HNIC or 650.

I don't doubt he said it, but I am doubtful of it's truth.