Management Discussion | You can’t handle the Rebuild!

[TruGr1t]

Seriously what is with the immature garbage around this team. Why am I consistently reading crap that sounds like a high school WhatsApp group. Go win some games you plugs, maybe make the playoffs. Nobody cares about your bestie.

 

[rypper]

Seriously what is with the immature garbage around this team. Why am I consistently reading crap that sounds like a high school WhatsApp group. Go win some games you plugs, maybe make the playoffs. Nobody cares about your bestie.

...it's a joke.

 

[Hit the post]

Seriously what is with the immature garbage around this team. Why am I consistently reading crap that sounds like a high school WhatsApp group. Go win some games you plugs, maybe make the playoffs. Nobody cares about your bestie.

I always thought I was your BFF.

 

[604]

Best we can do is empty out the arena.

I find it hilarious that FAQ has 3 sports franchises in his name (Canucks, Warriors and Titans) and each and every one is dysfunctional as f*** right now.

This comes as no surprise. A scummy person will breed a shit culture.

It's a reverse Kronke.

I agree. I think having spent tens of millions on replacement level players in OEL, Myers, Pearson, etc. would be a bigger detriment to the cap structure than Boeser and Mikheyev, but I’m happy to agree to disagree here.

Can't we just agree that Mikheyev is the new Pearson?

 

[Nucker42]

 

[MS]

It's not mutually exclusive though isn't it? Gills could have hit on his hypothetical high first round picks and still left the cupboard bear. The same applies to Benning. And we know in 2010 the Ballard trade was contingent upon Bennett and Tinordi not being available. According to the leaked rankings, the Canucks had Kuznetsov as the BPA. Again, these are the type of draft decisions that make a difference. Heck, Burke has an amazing record with a top 3 pick and really good with a top 10 pick but he's considered a poor drafting GM.

Many times a GM would say they had the player ranked higher and that's information we can use to evaluate a GM's draft. The reports told us that the Canucks had Podkolzin in another tier and likely ranked below Zegras. The behind the scenes video essentially told us that the Canucks had Boeser, Lind, and Lekkerimaki ranked much higher than where we drafted him. Based on Gillis' comments, we can be pretty sure that the Canucks had Horvat ranked at least 7th overall. Based on Linden and Benning's comments and reactions, we can be pretty certain that the Canucks had Makar and Petey on top of the draft. Based on Weisbrod's comments, the Canucks had Hughes ranked #3. So it isn't just about where the Canucks drafted but where they had the players ranked. Then there's the actual draft where the Canucks actually picked a player ahead of others.

With Lekkerimaki, for me it made total sense to draft him ahead of Ostlund and Ohgren. Lekkerimaki played more games with the big club. Based on where players were expected to go, Lekkerimaki vs Kemell was the interesting one to me. Small sample size, but based on the Lekkerimaki and Klimovich picks, I somehow feel that with Harvey at the helm, we've gotten away from the high motor high compete type players, which is also apparently what Allvin doesn't value too highly.

Moving this to appropriate thread.

Obviously you can get into the nitty-gritty of minutia on any pick.

In the big picture, the Canucks in 2014 were an end-of-cycle elite team. Almost without exception, teams in that position have 'empty cupboards' because they've been trading away picks/prospects to augment a competitive team, don't get high first round picks, and have been focusing on winning games over player development. The teams in that position right now in the NHL - Pittsburgh, St. Louis, TB, Colorado, Boston, etc. - all have bottom-10 prospect pools as well. It's just how it goes.

Conversely, when you finish at the bottom of the standings every year and have a top-5 pick, you are overwhelmingly likely to draft a string of impact players. And the same thing would have happened under Gillis if he was here presiding over a rebuild.

Fans celebrated Benning for getting decent results in a situation where it was basically impossible to do any worse than that, and eviscerated Gillis for getting poor results in a situation where nobody gets good results.

 

[canuckking1]

The 2021 offseason set this team backs a half decade or more. Could’ve been a contender if they played their cards right canning Benning post bubble and bringing in a competent management team.

 

[CanucksSayEh]

Keeping Tanev and McCann, followed by the ripple effect... this team would be looking legit. While that didn't happen, and it's really screwed things, it also shows that such players can be had easily every year. Guaranteed there will be pieces the team needs available over the next year, at a price that works.

 

[Hit the post]

Keeping Tanev and McCann, followed by the ripple effect... this team would be looking legit. While that didn't happen, and it's really screwed things, it also shows that such players can be had easily every year. Guaranteed there will be pieces the team needs available over the next year, at a price that works.

Look at that Canucks 2014 draft: Some real duds but some real hits. Assuming they kept the players and/or had a head coach that didn't scare them off.

 

[VibinCanuck]

Hate to say it, but I would be fielding offers for Pettersson to get massive futures and use them as sweeteners to get rid of Miller.

The rebuild needs to start, and they need to get Miller out. I'm done with the mediocrity. Absolutely sick of it.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

Hate to say it, but I would be fielding offers for Pettersson to get massive futures and use them as sweeteners to get rid of Miller.

The rebuild needs to start, and they need to get Miller out. I'm done with the mediocrity. Absolutely sick of it.

I absolutely believe you can get rid of Miller without having to attach anything to him in the off-season before the new contract kicks in.

 

[CherryToke]

Can he make a chicken salad out of chicken shit?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I absolutely believe you can get rid of Miller without having to attach anything to him in the off-season before the new contract kicks in.

Why would a team in any position, whether contending or rebuilding, want to add that in to their locker room?

 

[Oliewud]

YOU HAD ONE JOB IN THE OFF SEASON...TRADE MILLER

USELESS!

 

[F A N]

Can he make a chicken salad out of chicken shit?

I have no doubt that he can. The biggest question is will the salad have good structure?

 

[F A N]

Moving this to appropriate thread.

Obviously you can get into the nitty-gritty of minutia on any pick.

In the big picture, the Canucks in 2014 were an end-of-cycle elite team. Almost without exception, teams in that position have 'empty cupboards' because they've been trading away picks/prospects to augment a competitive team, don't get high first round picks, and have been focusing on winning games over player development. The teams in that position right now in the NHL - Pittsburgh, St. Louis, TB, Colorado, Boston, etc. - all have bottom-10 prospect pools as well. It's just how it goes.

Conversely, when you finish at the bottom of the standings every year and have a top-5 pick, you are overwhelmingly likely to draft a string of impact players. And the same thing would have happened under Gillis if he was here presiding over a rebuild.

Fans celebrated Benning for getting decent results in a situation where it was basically impossible to do any worse than that, and eviscerated Gillis for getting poor results in a situation where nobody gets good results.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the cupboards are bare if you previously drafted well and have young pieces to build around on the roster. I don't think the Penguins drafted well. St. Louis does have Thomas and Kryou leading the team and they are from Juolevi and Petey's drafts. Tampa probably will be impacted but their high end players are still high end players and younger than the Sedins were in 2014. Colorado's top players are under 30 so not a comparable. Boston, I think, have been carried by their star players who have aged very well. They also drafted well in the past so have mid to early 20s players playing significant roles. Again, my main point is that you can still evaluate the drafting based on who was picked ahead of others and it doesn't matter where you're picking. I've named plenty of examples of where a drafting a different player with a late first round pick or later would have made a big difference. Another example is drafting Patrick White over Perron.

At draft time we often talk of drafting players who would play for 10-15 years. The guy you drafted 10 years earlier can be a star level player who is expected to be in his prime for at least a few more years - like Horvat. who was drafted ~10 years ago and he's having a career year. Sedins led us to the Cup finals more than 10 years after they were drafted.

To simply look at the prospect cupboard at the time of GM change is simply short-sighted.

 

[Spectrefire]

Why would a team in any position, whether contending or rebuilding, want to add that in to their locker room?

Because maybe there's a team out there with a GM dumber than Patrik Allvin?

 

[canucksfan]

Why would a team in any position, whether contending or rebuilding, want to add that in to their locker room?

Pretty much. A young rebuilding team would want nothing to do with him. A contending team likely won't take a chance because his cap hit is too high and he's been underperforming.

I could see a desperate team taking a chance if the Nucks retain salary. If the team has missed out on FA targets.

 

[MarkMM]

Pretty much. A young rebuilding team would want nothing to do with him. A contending team likely won't take a chance because his cap hit is too high and he's been underperforming.

I could see a desperate team taking a chance if the Nucks retain salary. If the team has missed out on FA targets.

Best bet would be to find teams that have trouble attracting high end players; for all his faults, Miller can produce and since he's locked in, then if a team that otherwise couldn't sign UFA's because their city / team sucks to play for, well, Miller could be traded before his contract kicks in and then he's trapped there.

 

[4Twenty]

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the cupboards are bare if you previously drafted well and have young pieces to build around on the roster. I don't think the Penguins drafted well. St. Louis does have Thomas and Kryou leading the team and they are from Juolevi and Petey's drafts. Tampa probably will be impacted but their high end players are still high end players and younger than the Sedins were in 2014. Colorado's top players are under 30 so not a comparable. Boston, I think, have been carried by their star players who have aged very well. They also drafted well in the past so have mid to early 20s players playing significant roles. Again, my main point is that you can still evaluate the drafting based on who was picked ahead of others and it doesn't matter where you're picking. I've named plenty of examples of where a drafting a different player with a late first round pick or later would have made a big difference. Another example is drafting Patrick White over Perron.

At draft time we often talk of drafting players who would play for 10-15 years. The guy you drafted 10 years earlier can be a star level player who is expected to be in his prime for at least a few more years - like Horvat. who was drafted ~10 years ago and he's having a career year. Sedins led us to the Cup finals more than 10 years after they were drafted.

To simply look at the prospect cupboard at the time of GM change is simply short-sighted.

I’ve been following this discussion. It appears you missed the point.


White over Perron, Sedins taking 12 years to make the finals, and even Kyrou/Thomas don’t really have anything to do with expected pick value being discussed.

Even if the previous regime had hits like Pearson over Gaunce and Saad over Jensen, the future outlook would’ve barely changed. It’s rare the difference makers are available 22-32 overall.

Where they tend to be available - the top 10.

Gillis era Canucks fair quite well with Horvat and Hodgson. Benning era found 2 elite talents in Hughes and Pettersson but have a couple whiff in Juolevi and two other disappointments (time is hopefully on Podkolzin’s side).

Missing there is much worse than missing in the 20’s imo.

 

[RobertKron]

I’ve been following this discussion. It appears you missed the point.


White over Perron, Sedins taking 12 years to make the finals, and even Kyrou/Thomas don’t really have anything to do with expected pick value being discussed.

Even if the previous regime had hits like Pearson over Gaunce and Saad over Jensen, the future outlook would’ve barely changed. It’s rare the difference makers are available 22-32 overall.

Where they tend to be available - the top 10.

Gillis era Canucks fair quite well with Horvat and Hodgson. Benning era found 2 elite talents in Hughes and Pettersson but have a couple whiff in Juolevi and two other disappointments (time is hopefully on Podkolzin’s side).

Missing there is much worse than missing in the 20’s imo.

White over Perron is also a prime example of the importance of having a volume of picks over pretty much all else towards overall drafting outcomes.

Perron was an overage draftee who was, IIRC, considered a potential attitude problem, and had some weird background like he'd been playing house hockey or something in his D-1 or whatever it was. The Blues had 10 picks in that draft - a whopping three in the first round with two seconds as well, for a total of 8 picks in the top 100 - and had already taken Lars Eller and Ian Cole by the time they selected Perron. They'd made 2 first round picks the year before (six in the first four rounds), as well, and had been drafting en masse for years.

The Blues could afford to roll the dice on Perron, while the Canucks - who had only 2 picks in the first four rounds at that draft, as well as the year before - made what would have been considered a reasonably "safe" pick with White (and also with Ellington in the second), because they needed to get bodies in their system above all else. Problem when you have to make the safe pick, is that the "safe" pick can bust all the same.

Edit: got curious if my memory was off, and looked it up a bit. Perron didn't play organized hockey in his D-2, played Midget B in his D-1, and then Midget AAA his draft year, before breaking into the QMJHL in his D+1 and being taken by the Blues and making the NHL the year after that. IIRC - and I didn't research this part - he played at the Quebec Peewee tourney, and then later got booted from his team due to behaviour or something like that.

 

[arttk]

Why would a team in any position, whether contending or rebuilding, want to add that in to their locker room?

Because they have actual leaders that can shut his ass down? You think he would behave like this in like Boston?

 

[VanillaCoke]

Ship miller anywhere before his ntc.
Columbus, Ottawa, Anaheim who cares.
I'd take Zaitsev and formenton and call myself lucky.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

So.....what does our analytics department do on the daily?

 

[TruGr1t]

Still can’t get over how they seemingly had the right approach to Miller all last year (ie. don’t pony up for his 99-pt season, don’t go 7-8 years, don’t pay him as a centre etc.) and then totally f’d it all up at the last minute.