Management Discussion | You can’t handle the Rebuild!

[gringo]

it’s amazing to watch this fan base turn to bickering and bitter factionalism from all the losing. I’m not just talking hf boards dot com but all over the internet and chat groups.

One thing for sure the vast majority of the fan base wants is a rebuild. Management needs to show leadership and just do it. It’ll be sad to see us draft outside the top 5 this year.

 

[bossram]

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.

Yeah, that is probably what management was thinking. The problem is that they were hilariously wrong and anyone with a brain knew it at the time.

I said, repeatedly, a year ago, that Miller's max value was at the TDL as a two-year super rental and that was when they should have traded him. Management didn't do what needed to be done then. Now they face the consequences.

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

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.



Bolded are the ones you can say hit.

This stuff is super tough, because needing everything to break right in order to be a solid playoff team is a pretty great indicator that your team is not good. And very few of those rely on internal development, on existing young players plausibly improving. Many of them rely on "Oh shit I hope this veteran never slows down" or "I hope this outlier season is now the norm for X player". Just from a probability standpoint, it would be very stupid to rely on many of these things happening, let alone enough to make a difference in the direction of the franchise

 

[Hodgy]

this just boils down to whether you think getting a 3rd/4th pairing guy for 70 games is worth a third. i think it's a disaster especially when it's someone like dermott where you have tons of evidence he's not anything more than that staring you in the face. if you think that's good value then great, we can stop discussing this

I think this is the crux of the problem. Player development is inherently unpredictable, and a certain percentage of 25 year olds that are playing bottom pairing minutes at that age will develop into top four defensemen. Ultimately projecting which players will make that jump is extremely difficult and there is a ton of luck involved. So, you can project that Dermott won’t make that jump, and that’s fine, but there is no certainty that your projection will be correct. The crux of the problem seems to be that you believe your projection is certain and therefore you conclude we shouldn’t give up a third for a bottom pairing defensemen. But this conclusion is based on the untrue premise that Dermott will never become anything more than a bottom pairing defensemen.

While only somewhat related, consider what the chances are of an 18 year old prospect drafted in the 3rd round becoming a four defensemen vs. an “established” 25 year old bottom pairing defensemen. I would think those chances are smaller than a 25 year old who is currently playing as a bottom pair defensemen.

Lastly, you have stated that Bear and Dermott were essentially on their way out of the NHL. This is just an opinion and not actually supported by any evidence. We don't know that zero of the other 30 teams wouldn't have played Bear or Dermott in the NHL if the Canucks didn't acquire them, and frankly, I find that hard to believe.

 

[theguardianII]

it’s amazing to watch this fan base turn to bickering and bitter factionalism from all the losing. I’m not just talking hf boards dot com but all over the internet and chat groups.

One thing for sure the vast majority of the fan base wants is a rebuild. Management needs to show leadership and just do it. It’ll be sad to see us draft outside the top 5 this year.

Apparently the players are making that decision for them.

So many players want out now, Boeser is okay with it, Horvat is just not worth the money or the time, Miller shows distain, Schenn now silent, Garland must be thrilled and Pettersson is going through the motions.

The borderline NHLer's are playing for all they are worth. Kuzmenko even looks tired.

They have to clean the room.

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

This is the part that is 100% understandable and pretty indefensible by management from the perspective of any guy on this team. This is not a situation where Miller was up for an extension a year before Horvat or something, where they were making bets based on different timelines.

This team saw Miller have a crazy outlier, career year, and then panicked and bit the bullet and paid the inflated market price for him, explicitly prioritizing him over their captain and longest-tenured player. Players in the room likely looked at that and went "okay I guess I get signing Miller, he's good" but this is only really palatable if Miller continues to be a superstar. The moment he comes back down to earth, this becomes a shitshow. Horvat is an actual leader in the room, he is a great centre on a team with terrible centres outside of him & Pettersson, etc etc etc.

Miller & Horvat coming off the books at the same time was a very obvious opportunity to fundamentally alter the direction of the team. The Canucks have obviously played their hand in the worst possible way, turning an asset into an anchor and pricing their captain out of town. Great job by all

 

[Snatcher Demko]

This is what bad management looks like. The #1 job is to understand what you have and then that will dictate the direction of the club.

They somehow figured they could score their way out of their problems and rely on Demko for the rest. They thought they had a contender. They did nothing to address the defense.

Incredibly, they even misjudged the mental makeup of the players and the room. This group just doesn't have anything resembling cohesion.

They bungled the first, most important aspect of being good managers and everything since has been lip service to save face and further deny the inevitable and even dig themselves in further.

 

[Bgav]

Find it funny insiders like Servalli are going on the radio now saying they cant believe the canucks arent rebuilding. This is the same guy that mocked canucks fans because we didn't know how long and painful a rebuild is. LMAO.

At least people are finally saying the obvious I guess.

 

[mriswith]

Find it funny insiders like Servalli are going on the radio now saying they cant believe the canucks arent rebuilding. This is the same guy that mocked canucks fans because we didn't know how long and painful a rebuild is. LMAO.

At least people are finally saying the obvious I guess.

Seravelli and the other insiders are just thinking the unthinkable and playing video games

We'll show them, just as soon as a half dozen miracles fall from the sky. Any day now.

 

[4Twenty]

I think this is the crux of the problem. Player development is inherently unpredictable, and a certain percentage of 25 year olds that are playing bottom pairing minutes at that age will develop into top four defensemen. Ultimately projecting which players will make that jump is extremely difficult and there is a ton of luck involved. So, you can project that Dermott won’t make that jump, and that’s fine, but there is no certainty that your projection will be correct. The crux of the problem seems to be that you believe your projection is certain and therefore you conclude we shouldn’t give up a third for a bottom pairing defensemen. But this conclusion is based on the untrue premise that Dermott will never become anything more than a bottom pairing defensemen.

While only somewhat related, consider what the chances are of an 18 year old prospect drafted in the 3rd round becoming a four defensemen vs. an “established” 25 year old bottom pairing defensemen. I would think those chances are smaller than a 25 year old who is currently playing as a bottom pair defensemen.

Lastly, you have stated that Bear and Dermott were essentially on their way out of the NHL. This is just an opinion and not actually supported by any evidence. We don't know that zero of the other 30 teams wouldn't have played Bear or Dermott in the NHL if the Canucks didn't acquire them, and frankly, I find that hard to believe.

Folks said similar things about acquiring Granlund and Baertschi.

Like the thought process seems identical to targeting a guy like Sbisa. Formerly played big mins in the NHL etc.

So while they maybe aren’t Pouliot, as they’re older, there’s also likely less “upside”.

25/26 year olds are what they are. Hutton and Stecher didn’t “kick on” at that age. They were what they were. I’m guessing the majority of quality nhl dmen were established as such prior to this age.


Bear/Dermott aren’t attempts at acquiring potential. They’re bodies.

I don’t mind either but they’re not needle movers.

 

[m9]

How about simply just not spending future assets like draft picks/prospects when the team sucks? Isn't that what it always comes down to? Everyone understands the concept of spending when you're a contender pushing.

 

[sting101]

Were not getting Bedard without a ridiculous amount of luck. Using your lottery winnings as a method for paying your mortgage is probably not advisable

If Horvat doesn't want to be here anymore i cant blame him but im with MS on this in that signing Boeser Michayev and Miller without signing Horvat makes no sense and everything we've heard from PA suggests they dont want to step back.

People can argue they are doing the wrong thing here but it's clearly not what they had in mind and have yet to show they are relenting

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

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.

I don’t think Miller was traded for 2 reasons:

1) He didn’t have the value he thought he had. Teams just aren’t going to give us young defencemen, top defensive prospects, or good young roster players. Taking a step back isn’t and taking the best futures package isn’t an option either. We really should of been retaining as well.

2) They thought the last 50-60 games of last season was the “real Canucks” and ignored that this group has maybe played like a playoff team like 50% of the previous 3 seasons. A lot of that was from goaltending as well. That an inconsistent team with very few players that can play a 2way game are inconsistent again should surprise no one, but they were caught with their pants down.

It’s weird they were playing hardball with term and money but than they just gave in. I think you are right in that they didn’t want to lose him for nothing, but they also realized he wasn’t going to return what they hoped and didn’t want to take a futures package. So they just caved and gave the term that he wanted.

 

[sting101]

How about simply just not spending future assets like draft picks/prospects when the team sucks? Isn't that what it always comes down to? Everyone understands the concept of spending when you're a contender pushing.

Exactly......chisel off when you're not good and add when you're legit

 

[Jyrki21]

Many (including Frank Seravalli) feel that JT Miller's contract holds negative value. Right? So far so good.

H&B asked today whether it'd be worth taking a deal for nothing to get it off the books. Fair question to ask.

S&P asks the same question in other words [notwithstanding he probably wouldn't get claimed if waived] and the fans erupt in rage in the replies, again demonstrating that they don't understand how the hard cap system works.



hOw cOUld yOu wAIvE a gOoD pLAyEr?!?

This reminds me of @Melvin's frustration over "you trade contracts, not players" and how fans still don't get why you can get Nate Schmidt for "only" a 3rd rounder.

 

[4Twenty]

I think Miller caved not the team. Miller gave up the 8th season and money because imo he knew he needed to capitalize on the “99 point season”.

 

[Hodgy]

Many (including Frank Seravalli) feel that JT Miller's contract holds negative value. Right? So far so good.

H&B asked today whether it'd be worth taking a deal for nothing to get it off the books. Fair question to ask.

S&P asks the same question in other words [notwithstanding he probably wouldn't get claimed if waived] and the fans erupt in rage in the replies, again demonstrating that they don't understand how the hard cap system works.



hOw cOUld yOu wAIvE a gOoD pLAyEr?!?

This reminds me of @Melvin's frustration over "you trade contracts, not players" and how fans still don't get why you can get Nate Schmidt for "only" a 3rd rounder.

Speaking of @Melvin, I'd be curious to hear whether he thinks Miller has negative trade value because I think a month or two ago he said that he thought fans were overreacting by suggesting that he might.

 

[me2]

[

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

Maybe if Allvin just waits longer the offers will improve!

They should have just held off signing him and flipped him during this season. Panic move signing him.

 

[credulous]

I think this is the crux of the problem. Player development is inherently unpredictable, and a certain percentage of 25 year olds that are playing bottom pairing minutes at that age will develop into top four defensemen. Ultimately projecting which players will make that jump is extremely difficult and there is a ton of luck involved. So, you can project that Dermott won’t make that jump, and that’s fine, but there is no certainty that your projection will be correct. The crux of the problem seems to be that you believe your projection is certain and therefore you conclude we shouldn’t give up a third for a bottom pairing defensemen. But this conclusion is based on the untrue premise that Dermott will never become anything more than a bottom pairing defensemen.

While only somewhat related, consider what the chances are of an 18 year old prospect drafted in the 3rd round becoming a four defensemen vs. an “established”. I would think those chances are smaller than a 25 year old who is currently playing as a bottom pair defensemen.

Lastly, you have stated that Bear and Dermott were essentially on their way out of the NHL. This is just an opinion and not actually supported by any evidence. We don't know that zero of the other 30 teams wouldn't have played Bear or Dermott in the NHL if the Canucks didn't acquire them, and frankly, I find that hard to believe.

i just don't think this is true. sometimes a player with top 4 upside is blocked by better players and needs to change teams to get that opportunity and sometimes a player who really isn't good enough for the role gets forced into it for a while by a team without better options but most top of the lineup nhl players are top of the lineup players pretty early in their careers. the exceptions are mostly weird outliers like undrafted free agents or college seniors who didn't get opportunities early in their career and have to prove themselves multiple times to get a shot and players with injury issues who lose out on development time. there's also journeymen and fringe players who have 1 or 2 outlier seasons where they play way above their career performance but i don't really count those as players developing

the only current players who really didn't cement themselves as top of the lineup regulars until their age 25 seasons are mayfield and maybe ceci (although ceci went from playing top 4 minutes badly to playing top 4 minutes arguably competently. i'm not sure he really counts). gourde arguably? everyone else is either very borderline or had a weird path like coleman. even a player like marchment who is the poster boy for this theory of late bloomers pretty much immediately established himself as an nhl regular when he finally got a shot at the nhl. he bounced a little between the nhl roster and the covid taxi squad but once he got into the lineup he stayed in the lineup and played out the stretch and all florida's playoff games

i think you can go down as low as 22 or 23 years old and this mostly still holds true once you eliminate players who played overseas or in college up until 21 or 22.

i know it's en vogue to think superior pro scouting can build you a competitor but i just don't see any evidence. the kinds of players you build around still come from where they have always come from: amateur scouting and the draft. that's not to say you can't get decent depth contributors from pro scouting or that pro scouting doesn't matter (it definitely matters if you intend on building through trades) but teams just aren't finding these diamonds in the rough at anywhere near the rate you'd be led to believe by some of these discussions

as for dermott and bear being on their way out you're right that it's just my opinion. i'm fallible and i'm frequently wrong. however i don't think you get bear for a 5th (with retention, even) if there's teams actually willing to give him a chance. as for dermott he looks basically like troy stetcher or ben hutton to me. got given multiple chances to step up, failed each time, got written out of future plans. troy stetcher and ben hutton are still in the league but they're holding on by their fingernails. they're not players anyone is excited to add to their teams

How about simply just not spending future assets like draft picks/prospects when the team sucks? Isn't that what it always comes down to? Everyone understands the concept of spending when you're a contender pushing.

right on. dermott for a 3rd is fine if you're a cup contender who needs insurance for the playoffs. it's an awful trade if you're doing it with an eye to building to the future

 

[me2]

Many (including Frank Seravalli) feel that JT Miller's contract holds negative value. Right? So far so good.

H&B asked today whether it'd be worth taking a deal for nothing to get it off the books. Fair question to ask.

S&P asks the same question in other words [notwithstanding he probably wouldn't get claimed if waived] and the fans erupt in rage in the replies, again demonstrating that they don't understand how the hard cap system works.



hOw cOUld yOu wAIvE a gOoD pLAyEr?!?

This reminds me of @Melvin's frustration over "you trade contracts, not players" and how fans still don't get why you can get Nate Schmidt for "only" a 3rd rounder.

"Would you sign XYZ to $8m/8?"

Hell no, that is stupid, he's not worth that. I would not want that contract on the team

The same player after signing

"Would you waive XYZ, he's making $8mx8?"

Hell no, he's still scores points. Waiving him is dumb.


The moment the player hits the roster fans go from saying he's someone the team was better off without that contract to someone they don't want off the team. If you waive them and they get claimed you are just back where you were before you didn't want them signed

 

[credulous]

fans are obsessed with losing something for nothing. it's unthinkable to subtract a player like miller or boeser from the roster without getting something back in return. very few people have adjusted to realizing the cap space is the main value you get back. without cap space (or a way to create it) it doesn't really matter what kinds of assets you have to offer in trades. you can't complete trades if you can't fit players you acquire under the cap

as for whether miller would get claimed if he were waived i don't think he would but it would be close. buffalo or anaheim might see some value there. i don't think that means he has no or negative trade value though it just means teams aren't going to be able to perform the work required to fit him into their salary structure before he clears

 

[sting101]

Miller's agent played the Canucks well

I think they gave the team an ultimatum that if he wasn't signed by the end of summer that they would not be talking and he would be going to UFA.

Canucks should have called their bluff but i believe they thought they would be in a playoff race and trading him would create a distraction and would have sabotaged the season. The offers were not good enough at the time given the incredible run he was on and they still had his 5.25 cap hit for another year but given the contract they handed out that all became moot because they created a worse asset unless the goal was to supply a contention window for the next 3 yrs.

At some point this organization if it had good ownership and management would not be committing itself to players that have not brought success to the franchise long terms beyond 32/33 yrs old. It would be a little more understandable as a repeat playoff team enticed by free agency but as a middling team these types of moves are crippling locking you into a declining middling team where the room easily becomes punching the clock vs actually having a group that believes they can win.

I want the team to be aggressive like most here but it pains me to say that it's gonna have to be a slow purge. There is no reason to panic this team is not close but the next couple months hopefully gets rid of the misfit toys and anybody that doesn't think they need to pull their weight.

 

[racerjoe]

For what its worth, I think Miller is paid for being a PPG player not a 99 point season.

Not to say we should have signed him, or we didnt cave or anything like that, just looking at scorers and stats, he is paid as a PPG player.

 

[TruGr1t]

Henderson hit the nail on the head here. Blaming the fans and media is a strawman, ownership and management built this problem from the ground-up.

 

[Diogenes92]

For what its worth, I think Miller is paid for being a PPG player not a 99 point season.

Not to say we should have signed him, or we didnt cave or anything like that, just looking at scorers and stats, he is paid as a PPG player.

He's being paid as a centre, not a winger. We all know that he's much more of a winger.