Management Discussion | You can’t handle the Rebuild!

[Vector]

I'm just so f***ing bored of this team. There are 24 games between now and the deadline. Around 60 hours of hockey. I'm expected to waste all that time? f*** that.

I'm not demanding trades now but holy hell is it a lot to ask for people to wait around for the trade deadline when it's still two months away.

 

[Peen]

I'm just so f***ing bored of this team. There are 24 games between now and the deadline. Around 60 hours of hockey. I'm expected to waste all that time? f*** that.

I'm not demanding trades now but holy hell is it a lot to ask for people to wait around for the trade deadline when it's still two months away.

The added problem is that the odds of them making significant enough moves for shit to actually be like "ok wow, maybe they're a serious franchise" are 1/1000

Like trading horvat & schenn isn't enough

And it's not like it even matters that much given that they caved and made a 60MM offer to horvat which is more bad process. Oh this player won't take your ridiculous offer because he's that desperate to leave? Congrats. Oh you traded Luke Schenn because you expect to re-sign him in 3 months? Wow. These are groundbreaking moves!!!

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

The added problem is that the odds of them making significant enough moves for shit to actually be like "ok wow, maybe they're a serious franchise" are 1/1000

Like trading horvat & schenn isn't enough

And it's not like it even matters that much given that they caved and made a 60MM offer to horvat which is more bad process. Oh this player won't take your ridiculous offer because he's that desperate to leave? Congrats. Oh you traded Luke Schenn because you expect to re-sign him in 3 months? Wow. These are groundbreaking moves!!!

I’ve lost faith that they will rebuild at all. I am fully expecting the next few moves (likely Horvat and Schenn) to be similar to the Kesler trade where they focus more on receiving roster players rather than futures to “remain competitive” (despite the team not having been competitive in years).

 

[bossram]

Hmm, Chytil, Lundkvist, and a 1st doesn't look so bad now?

Maybe if Allvin just waits longer the offers will improve!

 

[Vector]

The added problem is that the odds of them making significant enough moves for shit to actually be like "ok wow, maybe they're a serious franchise" are 1/1000

Like trading horvat & schenn isn't enough

And it's not like it even matters that much given that they caved and made a 60MM offer to horvat which is more bad process

I gave up on any of that like 8 years ago. I just want to watch some actual good hockey. Anyone that hasn't accepted that this franchise will always be aggressively mediocre at best, while the Aqulinis own this team, is deluding themselves. I'm not a fan of wasting what little free time I have. At least a few new players will interest me to see how the play.

Like, seriously. Does anyone here arguing actually think that anything would ever happen to set the franchise on the right course? The very top of the franchise has set the direction and it's rot all the way down. Always will be. The only hope, while they are own by these slumlords, is that eventually someone sells them on a vision that leads to success for a few years before they start meddling again. Tank for Bedard? Even if the Canucks get him they'll just screw it up worse than Edmonton has with McDavid. Rebuild? Lasts 5 years and nothing to show for it because at the slightest hint of progress ownership will demand immediate results. Retool? Chase average assets for minimal gain. We have a clear pattern of this. All the arguing and anger is silly. Any success will be taken away at a moment's notice because of ownership stupid whims.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Hmm, Chytil, Lundkvist, and a 1st doesn't look so bad now?

Maybe if Allvin just waits longer the offers will improve!

I can't even name a team that would want him now, with his age, production, upcoming contract/cap hit and trade protection. That's not even getting into the attitude issue and potential locker room problem.
If he only has a year left, a contender with strong leadership might take a chance on him if we retain 50%. But with 7 years left AFTER this one? Even rebuilding teams won't take that on even if Allvin throws in a couple 1st round picks.
We are stuck with him until 2029 now, unless we buy him out. GG.

 

[Peen]

Here's my list of shit I said would (majority) have to go away to achieve the optimists belief of us being in the top 13 or so in the league. I projected us to finish 14-19 (lol, i am an idiot)

I prefaced this by saying that people can't reasonably make predictions about their own team because they expect an insane ratio of positive outcomes relative to stagnation/things worsening.

1. OEL-Myers having their best individual/pairing output seasons in years will sustain
2. Schenn will sustain his play
(these are all 30+ D with a lot of miles)
3. Hughes makes another leap
4. Depth is better
5. Demko will be vezina tier or top five at worst.
6. Boeser will bounce back
7. Petey is getting ~100 points
8. Miller continues to be above PPG
9. PP operates around a top five level
10. Hog/Podz make leaps.
11. Kuzmenko surprises (although expectations are now high)
12. Garland adds more consistency to his game
13. Pearson plays like he did last year instead of continuing his previous 3-5 year trend where he plays well for a long stretch and then looks awful for other long stretches.
14. Mikheyev continues to offer offensive production close to his outputs from last year and that his lines don’t tank offensively with him (as has historically been the case).
15. PK isn’t historically bad.
16. Health
17. BB continues to be one of the best regular season coaches in the NHL
18. Team culture on/off the ice improves

Bolded are the ones you can say hit.

 

[credulous]

Actually your point was that the Dermott and Bear trade was just like the Pedan trade.

i never said this. i said the dermott trade was as bad or worse than the pedan trade. i've explained that to you like four separate times now

 

[bossram]

I gave up on any of that like 8 years ago. I just want to watch some actual good hockey. Anyone that hasn't accepted that this franchise will always be aggressively mediocre at best, while the Aqulinis own this team, is deluding themselves. I'm not a fan of wasting what little free time I have. At least a few new players will interest me to see how the play.

Like, seriously. Does anyone here arguing actually think that anything would ever happen to set the franchise on the right course? The very top of the franchise has set the direction and it's rot all the way down. Always will be. The only hope, while they are own by these slumlords, is that eventually someone sells them on a vision that leads to success for a few years before they start meddling again. Tank for Bedard? Even if the Canucks get him they'll just screw it up worse than Edmonton has with McDavid. Rebuild? Lasts 5 years and nothing to show for it because at the slightest hint of progress ownership will demand immediate results. Retool? Chase average assets for minimal gain. We have a clear pattern of this. All the arguing and anger is silly. Any success will be taken away at a moment's notice because of ownership stupid whims.

I follow this organization for the drama. Who can look away? It's a trainwreck! Tragedy, comedy, it's got everything!

I long ago gave up on this team being relevant on the ice. I actually "cheer" for serious teams now.

 

[Peen]

I can't even name a team that would want him now, with his age, production, upcoming contract/cap hit and trade protection. That's not even getting into the attitude issue and potential locker room problem.
If he only has a year left, a contender with strong leadership might take a chance on him if we retain 50%. But with 7 years left AFTER this one? Even rebuilding teams won't take that on even if Allvin throws in a couple 1st round picks.
We are stuck with him until 2029 now, unless we buy him out. GG.

There is no question to me that teams would take players like Miller if you were willing to take their short term bad salary.

And not in some stupid Jim Benning trade where we also get a top ten pick and a high 2nd.

If you're a team trying to take your last few kicks at the can and want to not give up major futures, it's definitely out there. Think something like Boston moving Craig Smith, Mike Reilly, Derek Forbort and their combined cap hits for a longer term better player. Maybe it's not a f***ing seven year commitment, but some sort of deal like that probably exists.

I guarantee you the Canucks could have pulled off a Jason Zucker and a high pick for Brock Boeser (expiring) trade a year ago. Or at least, something like that.

 

[TruGr1t]

Hmm, Chytil, Lundkvist, and a 1st doesn't look so bad now?

Maybe if Allvin just waits longer the offers will improve!

I have said before, that the Miller contract is a fireable offense, if we hadn't literally just hired these guys.

People continue to quibble over the virtue of minor moves like Bear and Mikheyev, but those don't really matter in the context of the 30,000ft view where management is making blunt dumb decisions like the Miller contract. The issue here is not the tinkering around the edges, it's the overall strategy and direction of the team. It's wrong. This core is not salvageable post-Horvat, as soon as everyone admits that we can move on.

 

[arttk]

Don't disagree with the gist of your take here but as usual you're exaggerating and throwing a blanket over everything here. Doesn't Leivo and Dickinson (Benning acquisitions) fit into the "has played NHL games and some stretches of very good play as a regular NHLer?" Meanwhile, Shinkaruk (while you overrated him as an asset) fit into the category of never having shown that he could play at the NHL level? While Gaunce (who you thought would be a 20 goal scorer if given Sutter's minutes) seem to fit more into the category of "not a NHL player and never was a NHL player" category. I'm also not sure why you lumped Pedan with the others. Pedan was 21 at the time of acquisition, had previously showed growth since he was drafted, and had two years of waiver exempt status left.

The truth is that trading for a soon to be waiver eligible "prospect" is a different type of trade. You are getting a younger player. So a guy like Nils Lundkvist at age 21 is going to have more value than a 25 year old Ethan Bear. Of course there's more risk than acquiring guys who have shown an ability to at least stick in the NHL. Bear/Dermott. Let's not forget that while we bought low on Bear, Bear could have easily cost us a 3rd like Dermott did.

Pedan was not showing well and wasn’t improving, other prospects in the isles system was climbing past him.

Leivo, Dickinson are also different cases. Leivo was good for us and then he had that catastrophic injury that nuked his mobility. Dickinson is a NHL player who is horribly overplayed because Benning misidentified him as a defensive center when he’s just a winger.

 

[credulous]

I have said before, that the Miller contract is a fireable offense, if we hadn't literally just hired these guys.

People continue to quibble over the virtue of minor moves like Bear and Mikheyev, but those don't really matter in the context of the 30,000ft view where management is making blunt dumb decisions like the Miller contract. The issue here is not the tinkering around the edges, it's the overall strategy and direction of the team. It's wrong. This core is not salvageable post-Horvat, as soon as everyone admits that we can move on.

i still think there's a huge disconnect between the people who think the canucks have an elite core that just needs a good supporting cast and those that think the canucks best players aren't actually good enough and that no amount of tinkering around the edges will accomplish anything

if you're in the former camp then seeing competent but unspectacular moves like adding mikheyev and bear is evidence the team is on the right track while if you're in the latter camp they're irrelevant because they don't address the elephant in the room: this team lacks star players you can't get by trading 5th round picks

it doesn't matter how good you are at finding depth defenders and 4th liners if you make big mistakes like the boeser contract, the miller contract and hitting the point of no return with bo horvat

 

[arttk]

i never said this. i said the dermott trade was as bad or worse than the pedan trade. i've explained that to you like four separate times now

Which is absolutely not true. Like I said, one 3rd round pick lead to absolutely nothing. The other trades lead to players that are actually NHL play. It seems like you don’t understand that.
It’s like you paying 1 dollar and you get a rotten sandwich back and you can’t do anything with it but to throw it away vs you paying a dollar and you get something that tastes blend but at least fills you up. The former is objectively wasteful and you would be an idiot to pay for a rotten sandwich that somebody else didn’t want. And you are arguing, nah they are both bad because “I really don’t like JR and management and need to make up shit to justify my stance and I am too far down the rabbit hole and can’t admit it so here we go on”.

 

[TruGr1t]

i still think there's a huge disconnect between the people who think the canucks have an elite core that just needs a good supporting cast and those that think the canucks best players aren't actually good enough and that no amount of tinkering around the edges will accomplish anything

if you're in the former camp then seeing competent but unspectacular moves like adding mikheyev and bear is evidence the team is on the right track while if you're in the latter camp they're irrelevant because they don't address the elephant in the room: this team lacks star players you can't get by trading 5th round picks

it doesn't matter how good you are at finding depth defenders and 4th liners if you make big mistakes like the boeser contract, the miller contract and hitting the point of no return with bo horvat

I don't even think this is the argument. The salary cap is the argument. Even if you believe Pettersson, Demko and Hughes are the "core" you can win a Cup with (I don't really believe it, but could possibly be sold on it with effectively an "elite" supporting cast), the time to take a run with them was over the past 3-4 years.

You quite simply cannot pull off what management wants to pull off with a moribund farm system, no contributors on ELCs, and basically your entire core maturing into full contract value. You just can't.

Since you have no real trade assets of value outside of Horvat (who moving will actually hurt more than help the team in the near-term), you are by definition trying to build the supporting cast through free agency, and by surfing the bargain bin for cast-offs from other teams with some upside. The probability of this working isn't zero, but it's close.

Even if it works, you probably top-out at a budget version of the WCE-era Canucks.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

Benning took a flyer on Pedan and it didn't work out. I can see why he took the swing. Allvin took a flyer on Dermott. I'm not sure if the Dermott should be considered as a worse deal quite frankly - sure he's a bonafide NHLer versus a raw prospect, but he was a known quantity as a bottom pairing defenseman (at best). I certainly didn't see a need or want for the guy - what does he bring that Stecher or even Burroughs didnt already provide?

And I just hate seeing the pissing away of draft picks, even middle rounders. Yeah the probability is low but it's better than zero and it's the principle of asset management. We've just been through Benning's death by 1000 cuts.

 

[m9]

I'm just so f***ing bored of this team. There are 24 games between now and the deadline. Around 60 hours of hockey. I'm expected to waste all that time? f*** that.

I'm not demanding trades now but holy hell is it a lot to ask for people to wait around for the trade deadline when it's still two months away.

The saddest part is that this post could be from this year, last year, or a few other years in the last decade and still be 100% true.

 

[credulous]

I don't even think this is the argument. The salary cap is the argument. Even if you believe Pettersson, Demko and Hughes are the "core" you can win a Cup with (I don't really believe it, but could possibly be sold on it with effectively an "elite" supporting cast), the time to take a run with them was over the past 3-4 years.

You quite simply cannot pull off what management wants to pull off with a moribund farm system, no contributors on ELCs, and basically your entire core maturing into full contract value. You just can't.

sure. cap is a big part of why this core isn't good enough. it's not that pettersson, hughes, miller, horvat and demko aren't good enough it's that they aren't good enough compared to what other teams are getting out of the same level of cap commitment. that's more than 30 mil even on miller and horvat's 'cheap' contracts. tampa has kucherov, point, hedman and cirelli for the same amount. colorado has mackinnon, makar, rantanen and nichushkin or toews. vegas has eichel, stone, theodore, mcnabb and stephenson. et cetera

vancouver also has a mind boggling amount of money tied to pure dead weight like boeser, oel and myers. you'd need to find 2 or 3 elite level players making less than a million each to make up for that

 

[Soups On]

I have said before, that the Miller contract is a fireable offense, if we hadn't literally just hired these guys.

People continue to quibble over the virtue of minor moves like Bear and Mikheyev, but those don't really matter in the context of the 30,000ft view where management is making blunt dumb decisions like the Miller contract. The issue here is not the tinkering around the edges, it's the overall strategy and direction of the team. It's wrong. This core is not salvageable post-Horvat, as soon as everyone admits that we can move on.

The timing of the contract was just so piss poor. Why did they NEED to sign him in the summer? Still had a year where he's relatively cheap AND if they wanted to trade him, they could retain 50% ! Say what you will about Miller being a bitch when things aren't going his way - when he's on, he's a gamechanger. GMs would for sure take a gamble on that - look what was paid for a guy like Copp.

But no - they shot themselves in the foot with the classic buy high sell low like some Wallstreet Bets fanatic caught at the top of an obvious pump and dump.

Just imagine - if they hadn't done that they would have the option to completely revamp the outlook of the team with players like Horvat, Miller, Schenn, Kuzmenko, and literally anyone else not named Petey, Hughes, or Demko on the trade block. I mean would they sell all those too guys? No, but it's about having options and flexibility.

 

[theguardianII]

I have said before, that the Miller contract is a fireable offense, if we hadn't literally just hired these guys.

This contract is a mystery.

It ranks with Benning's blunders.

I know a lot of posters dwell on OEL, Myers and Eriksson but to me this contract ranks with Poolman, Garland and Ferland. Two of these contracts were massive raises for players under RFA status and without a lot of NHL game success behind them. Garland and Poolman were RFAs making league minimum, they had no leverage, but both got raises, Garland went from 775K to 5 million and Poolman from 775K to 2.5 million. Even Ferland who could not get an insured contract because doctors would not clear him to play went from out of the league to doubling his last contract. 1.75 mil to 3.5 million.

Miller had another year to go, there was no rush unless there is something already in the works that required cost certainty. Even then 8 million a year might not be so bad in a couple of years of cap increases but his age makes this deal totally wrong for the Canucks. Maybe Allvin thinks he will age like Malkin and Crosby and some of the other older Penquins but then those are on a team with a winning history and culture.

There is another common belief that they will not retain any money in any trade, this is baffling in view of they signed Miller's future albatross. Spending/wasting money for a couple of years should be looked at as a positive if the result is flexibility and futures in the form of prospects/picks.

Making trades sooner than later will put the team in a better draft position regardless if they get Bedard or not. Anaheim is just 9 points back, a 4 game losing streak could have the team in the #4 draft slot. A huge win for the fanbase.

Superstars don't get traded often, it happens but so rarely. Most of these guys get worn down with losing and become satisfied to be "professional" entertainers. That may have happened with Miller, he obviously wants to win but his signing for money could be the first difficult step for him towards being an entertainer. You can see this with this team, hitting without meaning, avoiding hits or blocked shots, avoiding the dirty areas (not all, just the stars), a distinct lack of emotion for losing.

Still the team should retain to enhance, spend the money to "buy" an improved draft pick or prospect. There are plenty of teams with cap space next year and lots of teams trying to extend their playoffs windows or taking the last step for making the playoffs.

 

[bossram]

I have said before, that the Miller contract is a fireable offense, if we hadn't literally just hired these guys.

People continue to quibble over the virtue of minor moves like Bear and Mikheyev, but those don't really matter in the context of the 30,000ft view where management is making blunt dumb decisions like the Miller contract. The issue here is not the tinkering around the edges, it's the overall strategy and direction of the team. It's wrong. This core is not salvageable post-Horvat, as soon as everyone admits that we can move on.

100%, I've been complimentary of some of the small wins they made (like Bear), but it doesn't matter when they make critical errors (like Miller). There's no "wait and see" now. The jig is already up.

The club has no hope and no future other than praying for a lottery win.

 

[TruGr1t]

 

[bossram]

They've chosen Miller as the face of the franchise.

An ornery, unaccountable, lazy, and overpaid winger.

People ripped on Naslund for years for being "too soft, not winning when it counts, etc", but does anyone remember Nazzy making as blatantly lazy plays that Miller makes on a nightly basis? Anyone remember Nazzy making excuses to the media night after night? Or outright lying to the media? Where'd the people saying Miller should be the captain go? Any takers left?

It's pathetic. This club is a laughingstock. Deservedly.

 

[iceburg]

I'll say upfront that what I'm about to say is a stretch but it's the only way I can understand the Miller signing.

After a 99 point season Miller was in a perfect spot to negotiate. They simply had to meet his terms or he would play out the year and walk. He wasn't taking a hometown discount. He was perfectly justified in expecting that he would receive a similar contract on the open market.

From the club's perspective they had an asset that they didn't want to lose for nothing (we've seen that play out before). I expect they would have been happy to sign him for 6x$6M and should have been resistant to go higher. So, their calculus I'm guessing was that they would pay $2M more than they wanted to and one of two things would happen: Miller repeats his 99 point season for a good portion of his contract thereby justifying the 7x$8M or he doesn't. If he doesn't (likely) then they still retain a tradable asset that could bring a significant return with retention.

Bottom line is that they basically paid an extra $2M x years remaining (the amount retained) to pay for what they get in a trade. Of course, this would need to be balanced against the assets acquirable with the cap space flexibility. I get that there's a no move clause but that just means that the player gets to say he's ok with the trade.

I told you it was a stretch but that's the only rationale I can think of to sign that contract. For clarity, I don't think it's a good rationale.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

There is no question to me that teams would take players like Miller if you were willing to take their short term bad salary.

And not in some stupid Jim Benning trade where we also get a top ten pick and a high 2nd.

If you're a team trying to take your last few kicks at the can and want to not give up major futures, it's definitely out there. Think something like Boston moving Craig Smith, Mike Reilly, Derek Forbort and their combined cap hits for a longer term better player. Maybe it's not a f***ing seven year commitment, but some sort of deal like that probably exists.

I guarantee you the Canucks could have pulled off a Jason Zucker and a high pick for Brock Boeser (expiring) trade a year ago. Or at least, something like that.

I think thats wishful thinking at this point. Even if Boston see this as their final kick at the can, there are better options than committing to 7 years of JTM. They can just go out and rent a player like ROR/Tarasenko/Kane/etc. Unless a team plan on a 7 years rebuild, there is no reason to trade for JTM.
Also, the hockey world has finally caught on (if they haven't already) what kind of player/person JTM is. I can't imagine any team sees all that and think "I want that guy around my prospects" or "I want that guy on my team when we are trying to make a deep run in the playoff."