Management Discussion | You can’t handle the Rebuild!

[Peter Griffin]

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.

Bingo. This management group has decided to continue on with a group that has proven nothing, stagnated and appears to be in dire need of a shakeup. Not moving Miller last season was a major missed opportunity.

 

[4Twenty]

Imagine glossing over signing Miller to discuss hypothetical Horvat? Agenda is plain to see. Certain folks are desperate for this regime to not seem inept.

 

[Hodgy]

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.

Ya. I think they have always intended to re-sign Horvat but were trying to get as reasonable as a contract as possible which is fine. In hindsight, their decision to grind him on the amount has backfired because Horvat is having a career year, and therefore, has likely priced himself out of Vancouver. But to be fair, no one could have predicted that Horvat was going to be on pace for a 60 goal season so I am not sure its fair to criticize management for this.

Personally, I don't think they ever should have been trying to re-sign Horvat (or Miller either) but both players seem to be a part of management's plan.

Bingo. This management group has decided to continue on with a group that has proven nothing, stagnated and appears to be in dire need of a shakeup. Not moving Miller last season was a major missed opportunity.

Ya. I get that its difficult to trade "good" players, but when you have a shitty team and you can't trade the bad players, then why would you bring back the "good" players? I get the desire to do so but the team is already shitty with these "good" players, and the ones we are discussing are only going to get old and worse.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Ya. I think they have always intended to re-sign Horvat but were trying to get as reasonable as a contract as possible which is fine. In hindsight, their decision to grind him on the amount has backfired because Horvat is having a career year, and therefore, has likely priced himself out of Vancouver. But to be fair, no one could have predicted that Horvat was going to be on pace for a 60 goal season so I am not sure its fair to criticize management for this.

Their issue is they prioritized re-signing Miller instead of their captain. They probably could've got Horvat signed for less than $7M AAV this past off-season if he and his agent didn't have Miller's newly signed $8M deal to compare themselves too on this roster.

 

[racerjoe]

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 am sure they want him back... but they sure as hell don't want him back at all costs. Just like I am sure Gillis would have signed Naslund if it wasn't going to cost the team a lot.

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?

So why bring a failed event into the argument? We don't know a lot that I am sure happened. The was a rumor the Canucks specifically got their 3rd back to make an offer sheet, they could have successfully used that as a threat to a team.

I decided not to quote everyone cause there is too many... and one poster is too funny to bother with.

But this is too all of you.

What I am finding is a lot of that is not the same because of X, really when Gillis took over vs JR the teams were in two totally different spots, Gillis had a ton of Cap space and lots or room to maneuver. He chose to be patient and it paid off to sign Sundin.

JR had no room, no UFA's of note to let go. He has chosen to be patient.

Imagine being so blind you can't see how a conversation goes from talking about one captain to talking about another and trying to bring up a player that wasn't in the mold of the player being talked about.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

The big reason why are defences are continually bad is that we have barely drafted any in the first 2 rounds. In the last 15 drafts we have drafted 4 defencemen in the first 2 rounds, and 3 in the last 14 drafts. It’s no wonder we don’t have anyone other than Hughes, and our prospect pool isn’t any better.

I’m not saying to draft Juolevi because “we haven’t taken a defencemen in the first found in 10 years. But, we need to keep our picks in the first 2 rounds, and draft more D in the long term. In the next 5 years we should draft at least 3 defencemen in the first 2 rounds of the draft. We’ve been trying to band-aid our defence together for almost a decade. Some have been very expensive. Dermatology and Bear are also bandaids. Fine for now, but eventually we need to solve the problem not just using bandaids.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I am sure they want him back... but they sure as hell don't want him back at all costs. Just like I am sure Gillis would have signed Naslund if it wasn't going to cost the team a lot.

Gillis signed Pavol Demitra to the same contract Markus Naslund signed with the Rangers. Gillis chose to let Naslund go.

This management group isn't looking to change the direction or leadership of this team, at all.

 

[racerjoe]

Ya. I think they have always intended to re-sign Horvat but were trying to get as reasonable as a contract as possible which is fine. In hindsight, their decision to grind him on the amount has backfired because Horvat is having a career year, and therefore, has likely priced himself out of Vancouver. But to be fair, no one could have predicted that Horvat was going to be on pace for a 60 goal season so I am not sure its fair to criticize management for this.

Personally, I don't think they ever should have been trying to re-sign Horvat (or Miller either) but both players seem to be a part of management's plan.


Ya. I get that its difficult to trade "good" players, but when you have a shitty team and you can't trade the bad players, then why would you bring back the "good" players? I get the desire to do so but the team is already shitty with these "good" players, and the ones we are discussing are only going to get old and worse.

I just wanted to add I think signing Horvat for the price he was asking pre this break out was already a mistake. I wanted to sign him in the offseason thinking we would get fair market and I was wrong on that. Horvat for over 7 doesn't make sense independent of Miller.

Their issue is they prioritized re-signing Miller instead of their captain. They probably could've got Horvat signed for less than $7M AAV this past off-season if he and his agent didn't have Miller's newly signed $8M deal to compare themselves too on this roster.

I think signing Miller was a mistake, I am not sure they prioritized it over Horvat as much as they just found a price that worked. Our best guess at the contract before it was signed was the 8*8.5, so to get him at 7*8 is a good deal even if it is one we should not be signing. I get that if that comes up you sign it before Horvat. (don't confuse that for thinking it was the right decision). I do think that signing miller effect Horvat signing though. However knowing what Horvat wants I am now ok with it and would let him go.

 

[4Twenty]

Their issue is they prioritized re-signing Miller instead of their captain. They probably could've got Horvat signed for less than $7M AAV this past off-season if he and his agent didn't have Miller's newly signed $8M deal to compare themselves too on this roster.

There was never going to be an extension under $7m with OEL on $7.2m. I know it gets bandied about often but I don’t think they were ever taking a deal like that.

 

[credulous]

The big reason why are defences are continually bad is that we have barely drafted any in the first 2 rounds. In the last 15 drafts we have drafted 4 defencemen in the first 2 rounds, and 3 in the last 14 drafts. It’s no wonder we don’t have anyone other than Hughes, and our prospect pool isn’t any better.

the canucks just barely draft at all. they also haven't developed any centers outside of pettersson. people like to look at hit rates of draft picks and dismiss trading draft picks as inconsequential but if you look at the good teams around the league they are almost all built around cores of drafted players and supplemented largely with other drafted players

the thing you should take away from hit rates on draft picks being so low is that it's important to have a lot of draft picks not that draft picks are worthless

 

[racerjoe]

Gillis signed Pavol Demitra to the same contract Markus Naslund signed with the Rangers. Gillis chose to let Naslund go.

This management group isn't looking to change the direction or leadership of this team, at all.

Thats my mistake, I thought Naslund was 2*6 with NYR.

 

[Nucker101]

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.

They’ve signed Boeser/Miller and are trying to lock up Horvat long term. They don’t want to let go of this core

 

[racerjoe]

They’ve signed Boeser/Miller and are trying to lock up Horvat long term. They don’t want to let go of this core

Two of those three they are trying to trade...

 

[Hodgy]

Their issue is they prioritized re-signing Miller instead of their captain. They probably could've got Horvat signed for less than $7M AAV this past off-season if he and his agent didn't have Miller's newly signed $8M deal to compare themselves too on this roster.

I don't necessarily agree with this. They could have prioritized both if they wanted. They decided to grind Horvat but it backfired due to him having an entirely unpredictable season. If Horvat had a bad season, or even one in line with his past seasons, then they wouldn't be in a bind right now.

With Miller, Miller's agent was smart and knew that he needed to sign an extension this summer since his client was coming off of a career year. Accordingly, Miller's agent basically gave management an ultimatum that they had to sign Miller before the season started, and if not, Miller would wait until free agency. Management obviously shouldn't negotiated on this basis but did, and that's how we ended up with the Miller contract.

With Horvat, the circumstances were different and that's why his agent didn't give a "sign before the season" ultimatum. Again, this has obviously worked out very poorly for the Canucks, but it really wasn't very foreseeable that Horvat was going to score at a 60 goal pace. And if Horvat, during the summer, wanted to be paid like a 40-50 goal scorer based on his last half/third or so of last season, then if I was management I also wouldn't have signed him during the summer and would have taken my chances (of course that's assuming that I would have wanted to re-sign Horvat which I didn't).

 

[Nucker101]

Two of those three they are trying to trade...

Only because they can’t sign Bo, trading is clearly plan B.


And how’s trading Boeser working out for them? By all reports teams only want him if the Canucks take an overpaid player back. Awesome.

 

[Hodgy]

There was never going to be an extension under $7m with OEL on $7.2m. I know it gets bandied about often but I don’t think they were ever taking a deal like that.

I don't think OEL's contract would have any bearing. Management didn't sign OEL, nor did they acquire OEL, and everyone knowns OEL's contract sucks.

 

[racerjoe]

Only because they can’t sign Bo, trading is clearly plan B.


And how’s trading Boeser working out for them? By all reports teams only want him if the Canucks take an overpaid player back. Awesome.

As I have been saying, patients.

 

[4Twenty]

I don't think OEL's contract would have any bearing. Management didn't sign OEL, nor did they acquire OEL, and everyone knowns OEL's contract sucks.

You think Horvat’s reps would sign for less? I didn’t then and don’t know.

I also think I’m more willing to pay good players on the higher end of market value than most here.

Hertl signed an 8 year extension. That’s where I thought Bo would land. Many here had him at $6ish. To me those were never realistic (especially to Vancouver).

 

[Nucker101]

As I have been saying, patients.

It’s only going to get uglier so sure. I’ll happily revisit this discussion in the future

 

[Peter Griffin]

I don't necessarily agree with this. They could have prioritized both if they wanted. They decided to grind Horvat but it backfired due to him having an entirely unpredictable season. If Horvat had a bad season, or even one in line with his past seasons, then they wouldn't be in a bind right now.

With Miller, Miller's agent was smart and knew that he needed to sign an extension this summer since his client was coming off of a career year. Accordingly, Miller's agent basically gave management an ultimatum that they had to sign Miller before the season started, and if not, Miller would wait until free agency. Management obviously shouldn't negotiated on this basis but did, and that's how we ended up with the Miller contract.

How is that not prioritizing Miller though?

With Horvat, the circumstances were different and that's why his agent didn't give a "sign before the season" ultimatum. Again, this has obviously worked out very poorly for the Canucks, but it really wasn't very foreseeable that Horvat was going to score at a 60 goal pace. And if Horvat, during the summer, wanted to be paid like a 40-50 goal scorer based on his last half/third or so of last season, then if I was management I also wouldn't have signed him during the summer and would have taken my chances (of course that's assuming that I would have wanted to re-sign Horvat which I didn't).

Hard to say what Horvat and his group were asking for when there are rumours out there that the Canucks' were only offering $5.25M over 8 years.

As I have been saying, patients.

Yes Doctor?

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

the canucks just barely draft at all. they also haven't developed any centers outside of pettersson. people like to look at hit rates of draft picks and dismiss trading draft picks as inconsequential but if you look at the good teams around the league they are almost all built around cores of drafted players and supplemented largely with other drafted players

the thing you should take away from hit rates on draft picks being so low is that it's important to have a lot of draft picks not that draft picks are worthless

Yup. Another way to look at it is that teams are going to have on average 1-2 players a year depending on how many picks they have and where they draft. If picks are traded then you are falling behind teams in bringing in cheap ELC players.

I’m not against trading picks, but you have to get value with them. There isn’t anything helping us right now with the picks Benning traded away. Plus we traded a 2nd to save just over 1m because they won’t bury Stillman.

A lot of those picks traded away would of busted, but just having 1-3 hits could of been a major difference. Maybe some of the contracts we’ve handed out to UFAs don’t need to be signed if we have another player in are top 6 or top 4. Even in the bottom 6.

 

[Hodgy]

You think Horvat’s reps would sign for less? I didn’t then and don’t know.

I also think I’m more willing to pay good players on the higher end of market value than most here.

Hertl signed an 8 year extension. That’s where I thought Bo would land. Many here had him at $6ish. To me those were never realistic (especially to Vancouver).

I'm not commenting on what Horvat would or wouldn't have signed for based on comparable and the market, but I really don't think OEL's contract would be relevant for the reasons I said. Miller's contract? Sure, I get that. OEL's? Nope.

 

[Peter Griffin]

There was never going to be an extension under $7m with OEL on $7.2m. I know it gets bandied about often but I don’t think they were ever taking a deal like that.

I don't necessarily agree with that, I don't think Horvat and his agent were going to compare themselves to a contract that this organization didn't even sign and this management group didn't acquire. But I do agree, a contract under $7M would've been a "team discount" deal for sure, but one that maybe the captain would've agreed to if they hadn't apparently dicked him around instead.

 

[gringo]

You could trade JT Miller right now for probably close the same value he was getting last trade deadline. I’d trade Miller, Bo and Kuz and then dump Myers and waive Boeser and Pearson.

 

[Hodgy]

How is that not prioritizing Miller though?

I don't think it was ever a question of needing to prioritize one or the other. They could have signed both players in September. I provided the reasons why I think Miller was signed in the summer, and not Horvat, and its not because management thought one contract was a "priority" over the other.

Hard to say what Horvat and his group were asking for when there are rumours out there that the Canucks' were only offering $5.25M over 8 years.

I don't really put much stock into that rumour without knowing the context (i.e., what Horvat was asking for). And again, I think it is obvious that the Canucks did try to grind Horvat, but I also don't think that was necessarily a bad idea. If you just give players what they want then you are essentially Jim Benning.