Management Discussion | You can’t handle the Rebuild!

[Peter Griffin]

The Canucks are an absolutely dreadful team at 5-on-5. Blaming that on goaltending is bizarre. Great goaltending would definitely improve this team, but that's not the crux of the issue.

 

[iFan]

The Canucks are an absolutely dreadful team at 5-on-5. Blaming that on goaltending is bizarre. Great goaltending would definitely improve this team, but that's not the crux of the issue.

it shows you how bad this team really is that if our goalie has an off year we’re screwed. It’s such a cop out to blame it on Demko well ignoring all the other issues with the roster and what this crappy new management have done or really what they haven’t done. Demko is one player on the team, it’s not on him, it’s an issue with the construction of the team. Some people are safe people and they don’t like changes, they’d rather watch a shitty middle of the pack team because it’s safer to them than making big moves to change the direction. This core group is done, nothing in the system no cap room, too many bad contracts… it’s time for some renovations.

 

[pitseleh]

PDO isn't some thing that magically regresses to 1 for all NHL teams over the course of a season and any derivation from that is luck. If you have a team that has 1) A talented group of forwards up front and a quality PP setup and 2) an elite starting goalie, you expect to drive a significantly positive PDO. TB drives a massive PDO basically every year because their goalie stops a higher percentage of shots than the league average and their elite PP and deadly group of forwards means that they're always near the top in terms of team shooting percentage.

Given the group of talented forward this team has and the very good PP, and given the expectation that Demko would be a top-5-ish starter in the NHL, the expectation would be that this team would be somewhere top-10 in the NHL in PDO (as they were last year, and as they were in 19-20 for the same reasons).

They're currently 22nd.

Usually when people refer to PDO they’re referring to it at even strength because on special teams skill plays a bigger role and the samples are smaller.

Yes, teams with elite goaltending can regularly drive even strength PDOs above one, but the Canucks have only had one such season from Demko - last season. This season could be regression to the mean just as much as it could be a regression in talent. On the whole they haven’t been unlucky, at least.

There seems to be little question this team has special skill on the PP that let’s then drive above average SH%, but there seems to be just as much of a question as to whether there is a personnel issue causing the team’s PK SV% to be in the toilet.

 

[Peter Griffin]

it shows you how bad this team really is that if our goalie has an off year we’re screwed. It’s such a cop out to blame it on Demko well ignoring all the other issues with the roster and what this crappy new management have done or really what they haven’t done. Demko is one player on the team, it’s not on him, it’s an issue with the construction of the team. Some people are safe people and they don’t like changes, they’d rather watch a shitty middle of the pack team because it’s safer to them than making big moves to change the direction. This core group is done, nothing in the system no cap room, too many bad contracts… it’s time for some renovations.

And the thing is, Rutherford identified this team as one that relies far too much on their goaltender to win games last season, yet they decided to double down and run it back. Moving on from Boeser and Miller were two moves that could've freed up capspace, added some much needed futures to this organization and overhauled a forward group that is far too passive.

 

[racerjoe]

The Canucks are an absolutely dreadful team at 5-on-5. Blaming that on goaltending is bizarre. Great goaltending would definitely improve this team, but that's not the crux of the issue.

This is a false narrative. People are not saying problem fixed, they are saying problem masked like last year.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The Canucks have been bad defensively this season, and their goaltending has been as bad as it has been in decades.

Couldn't both things be true?

 

[Peter Griffin]

This is a false narrative. People are not saying problem fixed, they are saying problem masked like last year.

Hence why I said, "that's not the crux of the issue".

 

[racerjoe]

Hence why I said, "that's not the crux of the issue".

Agreed, but it doesn't mean that the team should not be better with the goaltending they have gotten for the last what two decades? That is the discussion that is being had right now.

 

[arttk]

Again, the point of my post was to say that *most* of that would have to go right to be top 13 in the league. That is not wrong.

Perceiving it any other way is strange.

btw, I should be clear. If most of the things you posted happened, this is what it translates to.

2 1st line with multiple 80+ point players
3 rd line that is like a borderline 2nd line
Legit #1 defender
Actual 2nd paring
Vezina goaltending
Elite PP and average to above average PK.

That’s like contender level shit. So it’s weird to say, well if we have success, most of these items will need to happen. It’s more like if most of these happen, we are like one or two piece away from the cup.

If you want to convey, well to be in an upward trajectory and be a playoff team, we really need like 3 or 4 things to happen.

 

[Peter Griffin]

The Canucks have been bad defensively this season, and their goaltending has been as bad as it has been in decades.

Couldn't both things be true?

Yes. The major issue with this team, it's 5-on-5 play and defensive structure, hasn't improved and has no signs of improving.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Agreed, but it doesn't mean that the team should not be better with the goaltending they have gotten for the last what two decades? That is the discussion that is being had right now.

Well yea, with Vezina calibre goaltending this team might be in a playoff position right now. Doesn't change the fact that is a horrible way to a construct a team and not something to bank your teams' hopes on. It's certainly not "80% of the team's problem". The team's problem is that they're a horrible 5-on-5 and defensive team that relies far too much on getting excellent goaltending.

 

[Peen]

btw, I should be clear. If most of the things you posted happened, this is what it translates to.

2 1st line with multiple 80+ point players
3 rd line that is like a borderline 2nd line
Legit #1 defender
Actual 2nd paring
Vezina goaltending
Elite PP and average to above average PK.

That’s like contender level shit. So it’s weird to say, well if we have success, most of these items will need to happen. It’s more like if most of these happen, we are like one or two piece away from the cup.

If you want to convey, well to be in an upward trajectory and be a playoff team, we really need like 3 or 4 things to happen.

Why are you implying that these are far fetched ideas? The literal original post I made discussed that I felt that people who believed them to be a top 13 or so team believed in most of those things.

MS is literally one of those people. He believed in the elite top nine with lots of offensive firepower.

He believed that we would get vezina goaltending. He believed we would get an elite PP and that PKing wouldn’t revert to being historically bad (it wasn’t historically bad under BB last year). MS has historically been higher on Myers than most other posters here.

All that original post was saying was that some shit goes the way you expect, some doesn’t, some exceeds it.

The people who saw a team that had a genuine shot of finishing that high believed that a majority of those things would go well (however you want to pick and choose which things do go well). I never said it to be 17/18 things or whatever - because then sure, they would be a cup contender.

 

[MS]

Nobody is saying that this isn't a bad defensive team, and doesn't need major defensive repairs.

But on paper this is a very good offensive team (and that's played out in the actual games) with a young starting goalie who had back-to-back seasons where he was a top-5-ish goalie in the NHL and no reason to think that wouldn't continue.

The reasonable expectation would be that this team would score a lot of goals and if Demko maintained his level of play should still be driving a positive goal differential and be sitting somewhere in the playoff range. And that would have played out if we were getting the goaltending that was expected. But instead we've received the worst goaltending we've had since the 1980s.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Well yea, with Vezina calibre goaltending this team might be in a playoff position right now. Doesn't change the fact that is a horrible way to a construct a team and not something to bank your teams' hopes on. It's certainly not "80% of the team's problem". The team's problem is that they're a horrible 5-on-5 team and defensive team that relies far too much on getting excellent goaltending.

They didnt need 'excellent' goaltending in the first quarter of the season (where they were blowing multiple goal leads)..they just needed average goaltending....Our goaltending was (and maybe still is) second from the bottom of the league.

Poor defensive play..bad goaltending
Bad goaltending..poor defensive play

rinse.repeat.

 

[MS]

They didnt need 'excellent' goaltending in the first quarter of the season (where they were blowing multiple goal leads)..they just needed average goaltending....Our goaltending was (and maybe still is) second from the bottom of the league.

Poor defensive play..bad goaltending
Bad goaltending..poor defensive play

rinse.repeat.

Yes.

There are 3 basic components to success - offensive play, defensive play, and goaltending.

If you have 2 of those 3 things at a very high level - which on paper we did - you'll probably be pretty decent even if the 3rd is awful.

If you have 1 of those 3 and the other two are both horrific, you're going to be bad.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Yes.

There are 3 basic components to success - offensive play, defensive play, and goaltending.

If you have 2 of those 3 things at a very high level - which on paper we did - you'll probably be pretty decent even if the 3rd is awful.

If you have 1 of those 3 and the other two are both horrific, you're going to be bad.

Our D was always going to hinder our ability to produce offense. You need capable defensemen that can connect with crisp outlet passes or jump into the play (and not get caught out). We pretty much have a cast of guys along with a system that forces the offense to create their own scoring chances. Offense was not so high level in my eyes due to this.

 

[Hit the post]

Our D was always going to hinder our ability to produce offense. You need capable defensemen that can connect with crisp outlet passes or jump into the play. We pretty much have a cast of guys along with a system that forces the offense to create their own scoring chances. Offense was not so high level in my eyes due to this.

I would also argue our F is always going to hinder our ability to defend. It's just an awful way to construct a roster.

 

[Hodgy]

I don't think he has negative value but I'd be willing to be convinced that he does.

I don't think he has particularly high positive value (and never did,) but his contract is more or less market rate. It's what I'd expect him to get as a UFA, more or less.

As pitseleh pointed out, the contract was market rate when signed but he has performed pretty abysmally since signing it. Of course its only been about 36 games so its hard to say how much of an impact this stretch of play would have on his market value. However, it must be said that it isn't just "bad" or "underwhelming" play over this stretch of games, he's also re-raised some pretty serious character issues and I think other GMs would be more hesitant about taking on his contract because of these current character issues rather than simply his poor play as presumably his play will regress to the mean and improve.

I made this argument on Twitter but people let the quality of the team impact how they view contract value, and it really shouldn't. I haven't heard anyone argue that Mika Zibanejad, for example, is "negative value." If the Canucks were actually a good team, nobody would say it about Miller either.

I kind of get what you are saying, but Miller has being bad and the Canucks have being bad. Miller was great last year and the Canucks were bad last year. If Miller was performing close to his historical Canucks levels then I don't think his contract would be receiving anywhere near the criticism it has received

I agree that if the Canucks were a good team then people would be generally less concerned. This is true about any players struggles though.

 

[credulous]

you can probably pivot this roster to one that scores a ton but is still bad defensively and is propped up by elite goaltending but is that really a win? you make the playoffs, sure, but then you get demolished when games tighten up? are we really aiming for first/second round exits as our success criteria?

i think it's overlooked just how awful this team is at controlling play. miller, horvat, boeser, garland, kuzmenko, hoglander, podkolzin and even the spare parts like dries, pederson and lazar are all well below average in this regard. the canucks best players at controlling play are not even that good. for all the talk about pettersson contending for the selke the truth is he's probably not even in the upper quartile of the league at being defensively responsible

the defense is even worse. they just can't move the puck with any kind of consistency and they get absolutely feasted on in transition

you don't even need to look at stats. how many games this year have the canucks had the better share of possession? how many games did they lose that you thought they deserved to win? worse, how many did they win that they probably deserved to lose?

you can't build a competitive team around elite finishing and goaltending. the best teams are all the teams that control play

 

[mriswith]

I don't think it's reasonable to experience a major regression in your defense, like we did this year with OEL and Myers reverting back to poop and Hughes not performing to expectations, not to mention the downgrade in team defense from the forwards and at centre, and still expect the same level of goaltending.

 

[Hodgy]

Folks said similar things about acquiring Granlund and Baertschi.

Baertschi actually wasn't a bad gamble. The subsequent contract was terrible, and obviously his concussion injuries played a part, but the actual Baertschi trade was pretty good. But even then - and I have already posted on this - Baertshi isn't a fair comparable to Bear or Dermott as he was less of an established regular NHLer than either. So the comparison is poor.

Granlund is also a poor comparison. Granlund had played 86 games, over three years, before being acquired.
Bear when acquired had played 190 games and Dermott had played 251. So the chances of Granlund turning it around and progress should reasonably be seen as less likely that Bear or Dermott since the latter two had established far more at the NHL level.

Also, Baertshi was acquired for a 2nd round pick and Granlund was acquired for a recentish first round pick (so perhaps a second in value?) so both of them, despite substantially lesser NHL track records, were acquired for more.

Of course I take your point that Granlund and Baertshi had some NHL experience, and therefore, perhaps, had a better chance of succeeding as say a top six winger than a second round pick? I not sure if its true in those circumstances but I get your point. But there is a gradient in terms of what you are giving up, and how much NHL experience the NHL player is acquiring, and in your two examples Benning both gave up more than Bear/Dermott (I am assuming Shinkaruk had more value than a third, but who knows) for players with less experience. So you are in a different point of the gradient and the comparisons aren't great.

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

It seems identical if you don't think much about it? Sbisa was acquired and targeted as a relatively major component of the Kesler deal. Fans thought he was a throw in but Benning very clearly thought he was a top four defensemen. There isn't really any evidence that management thought Bear was as good as Benning though Sbisa. And at the end of the day Bear was acquired for very little.

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.

Ya, this may be true. I'd be interested to see what the chances are of a 25 year old going from a bottom pair defensemen, for example, to a top four defensemen.

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

Any evidence for this?

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

Probably not. But mid-to-late round picks are almost never going to end up resulting in "needle movers". That's just the reality of it.

 

[Hodgy]

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

This is a good post and I appreciate your analysis and detail. Ultimately, the crux of the point is what percentage of 25 year old players significantly develop as they enter there 26-30 seasons, or whatever. I have no idea, and you seem to think that its a very low percentage. I assume you have no evidence other than just your observations? For clarity, I expect the percentage would be relatively low.

But I do recognize that your total potential for a 25 year old is probably less than for a pick. So, for example, while you may have a better chance of the 25 year old bottom pairing defensemen turning into a middle pairing defensemen than the 3rd round pick, the third round pick may have a higher chance of turning into a top pairing defensemen. Its interesting though.

 

[Ernie]

An offensively oriented roster can be effective as long as it plays a structured system.

Rutherford has won more than one cup with that setup. But if that's the way they wanted to go they should have cut the cord on Boudreau in the summer. It would have been an unpopular move but they could have communicated their vision. Now we are stuck in limbo.

 

[m9]

I don't think it's reasonable to experience a major regression in your defense, like we did this year with OEL and Myers reverting back to poop and Hughes not performing to expectations, not to mention the downgrade in team defense from the forwards and at centre, and still expect the same level of goaltending.

I don't have the data in front of me, but 650 the other day Kevin Woodley said the Canucks were the 2nd worst team in the league in terms of allowing high-danger chances. Lines up pretty well with what (most) people have watched this year.

 

[arttk]

Why are you implying that these are far fetched ideas? The literal original post I made discussed that I felt that people who believed them to be a top 13 or so team believed in most of those things.

MS is literally one of those people. He believed in the elite top nine with lots of offensive firepower.

He believed that we would get vezina goaltending. He believed we would get an elite PP and that PKing wouldn’t revert to being historically bad (it wasn’t historically bad under BB last year). MS has historically been higher on Myers than most other posters here.

All that original post was saying was that some shit goes the way you expect, some doesn’t, some exceeds it.

The people who saw a team that had a genuine shot of finishing that high believed that a majority of those things would go well (however you want to pick and choose which things do go well). I never said it to be 17/18 things or whatever - because then sure, they would be a cup contender.

I am not arguing if they are far fetched or not. I am just stating that you are underselling how strong the team is hypothetically if everything on your list goes right. That’s not just a top 13 team, that’s a top 5 team.

I don think it’s realistic on the defensive side so i would never argue that OEL and Myers could play like a legit paring and I am doubt that Hughes can ever be a dominant 2 way guy.

But I think if Miller is playing at the same level he did(ppg center), the top9 is kinda insane… I mean, what was the last team that had 3 ppg centers potting 100pts, 50goals separately? That’s insane offensive production down the middle.