Management Discussion | You can’t handle the Rebuild!

[brock hughes007]

My question is what are they waiting for? They want to wait until the Canucks are mathematically eliminated? They think the current status quo is adequate?

This management has communicated so very little about what their plan is. It’s a new level of frustration.

What's really funny here is that management thinks we should all be still buying tickets to watch the same shit show,when they have done nothing to improve the team.It is like having that same cup of coffee with Jim Benning,ya want to spit it out.

 

[Peter Griffin]

The issue with the way this management teams wants to build is that you have to be aggressive and they've shown to be anything but that. They preach patience, patience is perfect for a proper, drawn out re-build. What they're doing is only going to patiently watch the key members of this team age out before they actually put a proper team on the ice.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

Why would the NHL head office care who Vancouver or Montreal brought in? Are they helping Rutherford/Gorton or Vancouver/Montreal?

adorable tbh

 

[racerjoe]

The issue with the way this management teams wants to build is that you have to be aggressive and they've shown to be anything but that. They preach patience, patience is perfect for a proper, drawn out re-build. What they're doing is only going to patiently watch the key members of this team age out before they actually put a proper team on the ice.

This seems to be a popular sentiment around here and I want to push back on it. I think there are times to be aggressive make no mistake, However if we look back at the Canucks History, it was being patient that lead to the 2011 team. Mike Gillis was very patient.

Look at The Eichel situation, look how long it took for them to make that trade. Even Sakic was was patient trading O'Reilly.

Timing and exacuation are what matters, we don't know how those two will play out yet. It could work out or it could backfire.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

This seems to be a popular sentiment around here and I want to push back on it. I think there are times to be aggressive make no mistake, However if we look back at the Canucks History, it was being patient that lead to the 2011 team. Mike Gillis was very patient.

Mike Gillis first off-season: Let Naslund walk, brought in Demitra and Sundin, offer-sheeted Backes, traded for Bernier.

That represents the kind of aggression and creativity that Ruthervin needed to bring.

 

[canucksfan]

This seems to be a popular sentiment around here and I want to push back on it. I think there are times to be aggressive make no mistake, However if we look back at the Canucks History, it was being patient that lead to the 2011 team. Mike Gillis was very patient.

Look at The Eichel situation, look how long it took for them to make that trade. Even Sakic was was patient trading O'Reilly.

Timing and exacuation are what matters, we don't know how those two will play out yet. It could work out or it could backfire.

But can the current Canuck team afford to be patient? Horvat and Kuzmenko are UFAs and EP will be an RFA next season. They have little cap flexibility and a horrible prospect pool.

EDIT: I see the other posts around mine and some good examples of Gillis being aggressive.

 

[Peter Griffin]

This seems to be a popular sentiment around here and I want to push back on it. I think there are times to be aggressive make no mistake, However if we look back at the Canucks History, it was being patient that lead to the 2011 team. Mike Gillis was very patient.

Wasn't Mike Gillis' first move to allow long-time Canuck and team captain Markus Naslund to walk away? Wasn't one of his biggest moves to make a major contract offer to Mats Sundin? Sure he didn't go out and trade the Sedins or something, but he made bold, aggressive moves. Moving Miller when they had the chance would've been such a move.

 

[4Twenty]

This seems to be a popular sentiment around here and I want to push back on it. I think there are times to be aggressive make no mistake, However if we look back at the Canucks History, it was being patient that lead to the 2011 team. Mike Gillis was very patient.

Look at The Eichel situation, look how long it took for them to make that trade. Even Sakic was was patient trading O'Reilly.

Timing and exacuation are what matters, we don't know how those two will play out yet. It could work out or it could backfire.

It was not. This narrative is false.

Came in and immediately and moved on from Naslund.

Went chasing the elusive PWF immediately (Backes offersheet).

I get why you’re trying to draw this parallel but I disagree with it and think it’s wrong.

 

[credulous]

It was not. This narrative is false.

that canucks team broke 100 points in 4 of the 5 seasons leading up to the finals (including the three seasons immediately proceeding the finals and 6 of the preceeding 8 seasons). the year they missed the playoffs was an aberration not their 'true' talent level. that was an elite team that they kept elite through a series of smart moves

being patient with a mediocre team that's missed the playoffs for 3 straight seasons and only qualified once on a technicality in the last 8 seasons is just a recipe for more mediocrity

 

[m9]

This seems to be a popular sentiment around here and I want to push back on it. I think there are times to be aggressive make no mistake, However if we look back at the Canucks History, it was being patient that lead to the 2011 team. Mike Gillis was very patient.

Look at The Eichel situation, look how long it took for them to make that trade. Even Sakic was was patient trading O'Reilly.

Timing and exacuation are what matters, we don't know how those two will play out yet. It could work out or it could backfire.

Gillis was hired in April and within 3 months had traded 2nd & 3rd rounders for Steve Bernier and signed David Backes to an offer sheet which ended up being matched. Those aren't massive, ground-breaking deals but both were more aggressive than anything this group has done in a year and show an ability to make moves bigger than nipping at the edges of the roster and some aggression. He also took over an 88pt team and turned it into a 100pt/playoff team his first year.

This management group took over an even worse team and did very little to change it. One year little, they have kept the roster basically the same and the on-ice product has stayed the same or gotten worse. They will not be a playoff team.

As of now, there is no comparison to Gillis or the start of Gillis's regime.

Not sure what the Eichel comparison has to do with anything. He was coming back from a very serious neck injury and there were massive doubts about his future. You can bet if Brock Boeser was on the sidelines with a rare neck injury people would be a bit more patient about getting something done on that player.

 

[racerjoe]

Mike Gillis first off-season: Let Naslund walk, brought in Demitra and Sundin, offer-sheeted Backes, traded for Bernier.

That represents the kind of aggression and creativity that Ruthervin needed to bring.

But can the current Canuck team afford to be patient? Horvat and Kuzmenko are UFAs and EP will be an RFA next season. They have little cap flexibility and a horrible prospect pool.

EDIT: I see the other posts around mine and some good examples of Gillis being aggressive.

Wasn't Mike Gillis' first move to allow long-time Canuck and team captain Markus Naslund to walk away? Wasn't one of his biggest moves to make a major contract offer to Mats Sundin? Sure he didn't go out and trade the Sedins or something, but he made bold, aggressive moves. Moving Miller when they had the chance would've been such a move.

It was not. This narrative is false.

Came in and immediately and moved on from Naslund.

Went chasing the elusive PWF immediately (Backes offersheet).

I get why you’re trying to draw this parallel but I disagree with it and think it’s wrong.

There was no UFA long time captain to let go... the closest we has was an RFA... So there is no parallel to Naslund.

This offseason would be closer when our long term captain is a UFA to be, we will see what happens.

Overall Gillis was very patient. You can't argue that. Look at the Luongo situation or even how long it took to finally deal for Booth.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i just have to think, if you're a super rich guy and you mean well and want your hockey team that your city is invested in to succeed, and you're willing to spend extra money and invest your own free time into it, and after eight years of "helping" it's been almost unceasingly a pile of crap and your city is on the spectrum of checked out and watching soccer-to-in a deep depression-to so angry they're throwing jerseys on the ice, at a certain point you have to look in the mirror and ask, AITA?

 

[racerjoe]

Gillis was hired in April and within 3 months had traded 2nd & 3rd rounders for Steve Bernier and signed David Backes to an offer sheet which ended up being matched. Those aren't massive, ground-breaking deals but both were more aggressive than anything this group has done in a year and show an ability to make moves bigger than nipping at the edges of the roster and some aggression. He also took over an 88pt team and turned it into a 100pt/playoff team his first year.

This management group took over an even worse team and did very little to change it. One year little, they have kept the roster basically the same and the on-ice product has stayed the same or gotten worse. They will not be a playoff team.

As of now, there is no comparison to Gillis or the start of Gillis's regime.

Not sure what the Eichel comparison has to do with anything. He was coming back from a very serious neck injury and there were massive doubts about his future. You can bet if Brock Boeser was on the sidelines with a rare neck injury people would be a bit more patient about getting something done on that player.

If we are talking about failed moves, should we talk about the NYI deal that was matched?

 

[Peter Griffin]

There was no UFA long time captain to let go... the closest we has was an RFA... So there is no parallel to Naslund.

This offseason would be closer when our long term captain is a UFA to be, we will see what happens.

Overall Gillis was very patient. You can't argue that. Look at the Luongo situation or even how long it took to finally deal for Booth.

The major thing he did was come in and change the direction and leadership of a team that had stagnated. This management group has chosen to extend that direction. That's the issue and the major difference.

 

[racerjoe]

The major thing he did was come in and change the direction and leadership of team that had stagnated. This management group has chosen to extend that direction. That's the issue and the major difference.

What do you think is happening with Horvat?

 

[m9]

If we are talking about failed moves, should we talk about the NYI deal that was matched?

What NYI deal was "matched"?

 

[racerjoe]

What NYI deal was "matched"?

the one at the draft... again failed move...

 

[Peter Griffin]

What do you think is happening with Horvat?

They're desperately trying to keep him?

 

[racerjoe]

They're desperately trying to keep him?

That doesn't sound true to me... started off offering him 5.1, now word is they are looking to move him... is that desperation?

 

[Peter Griffin]

That doesn't sound true to me... started off offering him 5.1, now word is they are looking to move him... is that desperation?

The word from the GM himself is that they'll see how negotiations go between now and the trade deadline. They absolutely want him back at all costs, they just assumed they'd get him back for a pittance.

 

[m9]

the one at the draft... again failed move...

We don't even know if there was a trade. Even if there was one, we have no idea if it was big or was some pick flip.

You are comparing that in terms of aggression to a GM signing a player to an offer sheet?

 

[canucksfan]

The word from the GM himself is that they'll see how negotiations go between now and the trade deadline. They absolutely want him back at all costs, they just assumed they'd get him back for a pittance.

I would think, part of the problem now is he's going to get a lot more and the team has cap problems.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I would think, part of the problem now is he's going to get a lot more and the team has cap problems.

That may be true, but that's a problem they've helped create and isn't an indication of them aggressively changing the leadership and direction of the team. It's an indication of them being forced to move Horvat because they painted themselves into a corner.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

There was no UFA long time captain to let go... the closest we has was an RFA... So there is no parallel to Naslund.

This offseason would be closer when our long term captain is a UFA to be, we will see what happens.

Overall Gillis was very patient. You can't argue that. Look at the Luongo situation or even how long it took to finally deal for Booth.

there's some truth in both sides here

no there wasn't a captain to let go of last summer, but there was a guy who'd led the team in scoring two out of the previous three years who was retained instead of swapped out for pieces that made more sense with what the team needed. not completely analogous to naslund, but in the same ballpark.

otoh, the luongo deal took so long because the team's hands were tied, cap-wise. on that front, similar to the predicament allvin/rutherford find themselves in. but they didn't help themselves in that respect with the miller, boeser, and mikheyev contracts.

cap aside, i also don't see a lot of difference between the bernier trade and mikheyev signings. similar third line level players that you're betting on clicking with your stars on a higher line.

but the other huge thing gillis did in that first offseason was name luongo captain. cleared out the previous leadership group (naslund and morrison not re-signed, linden retired) and handed the reins to luongo and the sedins, and brought in sundin as a fresh voice to guide them. i don't think giving luongo the C was the right move, but that was a bold af culture-shift move.

whereas the current group is a year in and has done zero to change a culture that anyone can see is completely and utterly broken.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

There was no UFA long time captain to let go... the closest we has was an RFA... So there is no parallel to Naslund.

This is absurdly pedantic. Regardless of captaincy or free agency status, Gillis decided to let a long-time core piece go for nothing but cap space to give him flexibility to make other moves. Ruthervin had the opportunity to do similar things with both Boeser and Miller, and chose not to. That's the difference.