Management Thread | 5th Youngest Team in the League Edition

[Bleach Clean]

You think that RFAs refuse to sign subsequent contracts more often than not?

I'm also unsure that a pick that is currently like 16th or whatever would be considered "high" when we're talking about it being likely to produce an impact player on their ELC.

More often than prospects refusing to sign ELCs? Yes, but a slim cohort either way.

I think a 1st rounder being high relative to a 7 round draft is pretty fair, but we can change the definition if you want?

Regardless, does any of the above change the base understanding that high picks (whatever you want to shift that to mean) represent the best chance to make the strongest possible future team?

 

[God]

here are the 71 defensemen taken between 10-20 from 2003-2021

#10: Bouchard, Koekkoek, Brodin, McIlrath, Ellerby, Bourdon, Valabik
#11: Soderstrom, Siemens, Ellis
#12: Dobson, Murphy, Fowler, de Haan, Myers, McDonagh, Staal, Thelen
#13: Bean, Zboril, Morrissey, Gormley, Teubert
#14: York, Foote, McAvoy, Honka, Oleksiak, Kulikov, Shattenkirk, Pokulok, Seabrook
#15: Brannstrom, Pulock, Ceci, Forbort, Karlsson, Plante
#16: Guhle, Valimaki, Chychrun, Zadorov, Leddy, Wishart
#17: Smith, Liljegren, Fabbro, Sanheim, Beaulieu, Rundblad, Gardiner
#18: Vaakanainen, Stanley, Chabot, Mueller, Cole, Parent
#19: Schneider, Thomson, DeAngelo, Klefbom, Sbisa, Mitera, Kindl
#20: Mukhamadullin, Heinola, Cholowski, Murphy, Del Zotto, Fischer, Burns

i bolded defensemen who are/were at hronek's level or are projected to be there. 23/70 because i'll omit bourdon. 33% chance at getting a top 4 defenseman, probably 10 or so guys on there are top pairing.

i guess i see what allvin and co. are betting on. if you can guarantee a good outcome and drop any dreams of having a top pairing defenseman (~15% chance), it's not a huge deal to forgo whatever money you save on an ELC waiting for a guy to go through growing pains.

 

[RobertKron]

More often than prospects refusing to sign ELCs? Yes, but a slim cohort either way.

I think a 1st rounder being high relative to a 7 round draft is pretty fair, but we can change the definition if you want?

Regardless, does any of the above change the base understanding that high picks (whatever you want to shift that to mean) represent the best chance to make the strongest possible future team?

Your point was that the Hronek trade was robbing them of an impact player on an ELC. The draft could be fifteen rounds deep, and it still wouldn't have anything to do with the realistic likelihood of getting an impact player on an ELC out of that pick. This is also why it is relevant that they still have what is quite likely to be the higher of their first rounders.

 

[aight]

True.
12 times taxpayers footed big bills for new stadiums and arenas

- Year opened: 2009
- Total cost: $2.3 billion
- Public funding: $1.2 billion
- Portion publicly funded: 52%
- Tenants: New York Yankees (MLB)

I would not be against helping with paying for Yankee stadium if I was a Yankee fan. I’d be proud of my team’s winning tradition and ok with chipping in for our new park. I’d also feel that way here were the Canucks an organization to be proud of.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Your point was that the Hronek trade was robbing them of an impact player on an ELC. The draft could be fifteen rounds deep, and it still wouldn't have anything to do with the realistic likelihood of getting an impact player on an ELC out of that pick. This is also why it is relevant that they still have what is quite likely to be the higher of their first rounders.

Please explain the statement in bold.

 

[RobertKron]

Please explain the statement in bold.

Given that we are talking about the likelihood of a pick generating an impact player on their ELC, it is silly to respond to my comment by talking about how many rounds there are in the draft.

The thing that matters is if it's a pick in the general range that has a strong likelihood of producing that kind of prospect that you're talking about the team missing out on by trading that pick.

A 17OA pick or whatever is probably not typically considered a "high" pick when we're talking about being more likely than not to produce an ELC impact player.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Given that we are talking about the likelihood of a pick generating an impact player on their ELC, it is silly to respond to my comment by talking about how many rounds there are in the draft.

The thing that matters is if it's a pick in the general range that has a strong likelihood of producing that kind of prospect that you're talking about the team missing out on by trading that pick.

A 17OA pick or whatever is probably not typically considered a "high" pick when we're talking about being more likely than not to produce an ELC impact player.

What part of the following are you having trouble understanding?

"I don't automatically assume 1st round picks turn into impact players on their ELCs. Does that upset the base understanding that high picks represent the best chance to make the strongest possible future team?"


Edit: If the base point you are wanting to make is that a 17OA pick is not likely to turn into an ELC impact player (depending upon what you mean here). Fine. Granted. Those are the percentages of the draft. I still don't think that upsets the idea that the draft is still the best spot to procure such talent, in general. Hence, the best chance to make the strongest possible future team. I hope that clarifies things here.

 

[RobertKron]

What part of the following are you having trouble understanding?

"I don't automatically assume 1st round picks turn into impact players on their ELCs. Does that upset the base understanding that high picks represent the best chance to make the strongest possible future team?"


Edit: If the base point you are wanting to make is that a 17OA pick is not likely to turn into an ELC impact player (depending upon what you mean here). Fine. Granted. Those are the percentages of the draft. I still don't think that upsets the idea that the draft is still the best spot to procure such talent, in general. Hence, the best chance to make the strongest possible future team. I hope that clarifies things here.

If you don't think the pick is likely to turn into an ELC impact player, then it becomes extremely debatable whether using that pick in the draft represents the best chance to make the strongest possible future team versus using that pick to acquire a solid RHD in his 24yo season. This is especially so when considering the fact they they still have another, likely higher first round pick.

Edit: and like, upstream you're talking about how they chose Hronek over an ELC producer, and now you're acknowledging that the pick isn't likely to turn into an ELC impact player and acting like that's somehow not significant.

 

[TryamkinPleaseReturn]

You think rebuilding and ending up like the Avs is easy otherwise?

There is a reason there are only a handful of really good teams. Shits hard regardless of what path you take. Rebuilding does not give you better odds.

The funny thing to me is the people who say "it's not realistic for us to be a contender. Just rebuild and get Bedard!" The levels of misunderstanding of this sentiment, from draft lottery odds, to what an actual rebuild entails, is impressive.

 

[Bleach Clean]

If you don't think the pick is likely to turn into an ELC impact player, then it becomes extremely debatable whether using that pick in the draft represents the best chance to make the strongest possible future team versus using that pick to acquire a solid RHD in his 24yo season. This is especially so when considering the fact they they still have another, likely higher first round pick.

I don't think it's debatable RK. It goes hand in hand with understanding the percentages of players converting at the draft. The overall percentages are already low, and they scale along with quality. If you accept that and still recognize it as the best funnel to create the best future team, that's what you prioritize. If you don't, well, we've seen that discussion play out multiple times during the Benning era here. Trade all picks for players then etc...

The priority has to be set on one path or another. Targeting the mid-aged 25 year old player is trading long-term potential quality for short term roster impact. That's the trade off for VAN and DET.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

here are the 71 defensemen taken between 10-20 from 2003-2021

#10: Bouchard, Koekkoek, Brodin, McIlrath, Ellerby, Bourdon, Valabik
#11: Soderstrom, Siemens, Ellis
#12: Dobson, Murphy, Fowler, de Haan, Myers, McDonagh, Staal, Thelen
#13: Bean, Zboril, Morrissey, Gormley, Teubert
#14: York, Foote, McAvoy, Honka, Oleksiak, Kulikov, Shattenkirk, Pokulok, Seabrook
#15: Brannstrom, Pulock, Ceci, Forbort, Karlsson, Plante
#16: Guhle, Valimaki, Chychrun, Zadorov, Leddy, Wishart
#17: Smith, Liljegren, Fabbro, Sanheim, Beaulieu, Rundblad, Gardiner
#18: Vaakanainen, Stanley, Chabot, Mueller, Cole, Parent
#19: Schneider, Thomson, DeAngelo, Klefbom, Sbisa, Mitera, Kindl
#20: Mukhamadullin, Heinola, Cholowski, Murphy, Del Zotto, Fischer, Burns

i bolded defensemen who are/were at hronek's level or are projected to be there. 23/70 because i'll omit bourdon. 33% chance at getting a top 4 defenseman, probably 10 or so guys on there are top pairing.

i guess i see what allvin and co. are betting on. if you can guarantee a good outcome and drop any dreams of having a top pairing defenseman (~15% chance), it's not a huge deal to forgo whatever money you save on an ELC waiting for a guy to go through growing pains.

it’s a nitpick but i think it’s very early and quite optimistic to say deangelo or even mdz are below hronek’s level

hronek has yet to surpass mdz’s career scoring year, which was set in a season with only one 100 pt scorer

 

[RobertKron]

I don't think it's debatable RK. It goes hand in hand with understanding the percentages of players converting at the draft. The overall percentages are already low, and they scale along with quality. If you accept that and still recognize it as the best funnel to create the best future team, that's what you prioritize. If you don't, well, we've seen that discussion play out multiple times during the Benning era here. Trade all picks for players then etc...

The priority has to be set on one path or another. Targeting the mid-aged 25 year old player is trading long-term potential quality for short term roster impact. That's the trade off for VAN and DET.

I mean, yes, in a hypothetical world where nuance doesn't exist, I guess that's reasonable.

It would, then, also make sense to trade every player to which they own the rights for a pick as soon as they have a good run of play, since that pick could potentially turn into an even better player, which would represent the best way to create the best future team.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I mean, yes, in a hypothetical world where nuance doesn't exist, I guess that's reasonable.

It would, then, also make sense to trade every player to which they own the rights for a pick as soon as they have a good run of play, since that pick could potentially turn into an even better player, which would represent the best way to create the best future team.

Exactly, and that doesn't happen because teams keep their picks and draft, more often than not, to hopefully yield the best possible future team. To that end, VAN has chosen to forgo that mode with the NYI pick to get help now... because now is what they are concerned with most. Following that along, trade the 1st to get better now X2.

 

[RobertKron]

Exactly, and that doesn't happen because teams keep their picks and draft, more often than not, to hopefully yield the best possible future team. To that end, VAN has chosen to forgo that mode with the NYI pick to get help now... because now is what they are concerned with most. Following that along, trade the 1st to get better now X2.

Except that you've already said that Hronek very possibly, or even probably, helps the team more in both the present and future than the player chosen with that pick, and you're ignoring that still having that second, higher first rounder makes moving the NYI pick easier for them to stomach.

Also, just going to point out what a weird non sequitur that post was.

 

[TryamkinPleaseReturn]

A quibble with something from an earlier post...think our 2nd is now well past the "practically a late 1st" threshold. Not even certain it will be in the first third of the round at this point.

I could be way off but I have the feeling that picks in the first half of the second round have similar success rate to the last few picks in the first round. My gut says the first few picks of draft - the first 5 picks or so - have way more value than the next 10, and those 10 (from, say, 5-15 or so) have way more value than the next 30 or so, and those 30 (15-45) are the last decent chance of getting a superstar.

But I guess your point is that our 2nd is being pushed further and further away from the first round, which is true, and also great (although it kind of sucks that our first also moves with it, but such is life)

 

[RandV]

Good post, solid read.

I disagree on there being a big change on the organization though. To me, it seems like the plan has always been (and still is) to make the playoffs at all cost. There seems to be a lack of patience with this organization - short term gain for long term pain. Trade away futures for win now pieces. This isn't a rebuild or retool on the fly - its an all in to try and make the playoffs.

Just pointing this out as it seems to be a common opinion, but "make the playoffs at all cost" seems a little over dramatic.

Like for this season consider Calgary, a few points out at the deadline, and 7 games left on the season still 2 (or 3 as they lose the tie breaker) back of Winnipeg for the final spots so could make it but with Nashville also in the mix will probably fall a couple of points short. So for Calgary to have an ownership mandate to 'make the playoffs at all costs!!!', they could have dumped all their draft picks and whatever prospects they have to propel themselves into 8th place.

I mean sure that's something Benning would do, and basically did with the OEL trade, but do people really think current management would do such a thing? Because that's what "make the playoffs at all cost" implies.

 

[God]

it’s a nitpick but i think it’s very early and quite optimistic to say deangelo or even mdz are below hronek’s level

hronek has yet to surpass mdz’s career scoring year, which was set in a season with only one 100 pt scorer

they might be equal or better in offensive ability but there's no chance either of them can/could handle tough minutes defensively. hronek is trending in the right direction there.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Except that you've already said that Hronek very possibly, or even probably, helps the team more in both the present and future than the player chosen with that pick, and you're ignoring that still having that second, higher first rounder makes moving the NYI pick easier for them to stomach.

Also, just going to point out what a weird non sequitur that post was.

Hronek vs a 1st rounder is probably more likely to play an NHL game. And that still does nothing to refute the point that the best possible future team relies on the draft, due to the potential of the more quality asset.

The remaining 1st assuaging their fears about the secondary plan (the best future team), matters less than their fears being overcome to execute the Hronek trade itself, serving their primary plan. Meaning, it should now be easier for them to overcome the same concern again with the remaining pick.

On the non-sequitor: I misread your post. My mistake. The only acknowledgment that matters in either hypothetical is that the better/best players are likely procured via drafting, and not trading into the non-top end, realized asset(s).

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

they might be equal or better in offensive ability but there's no chance either of them can/could handle tough minutes defensively. hronek is trending in the right direction there.

i guess my point is i don’t think we’ve seen enough of hronek to know if he really is better than those two in the non-offensive ways yet

as recently as last season, didn’t detroit fans report that he was horribad defensively?

 

[God]

i guess my point is i don’t think we’ve seen enough of hronek to know if he really is better than those two in the non-offensive ways yet

as recently as last season, didn’t detroit fans report that he was horribad defensively?

it was a mixed bag that felt a lot like canucks fans complaining about edler giveaways, but point taken and the rate now stands at 35%.

 

[andora]

Mental gymnastics, sigh. You just had poster @strattonius explain the exact premise I am extending here.

Let's do this another way. Instead of me outlining ad nauseum the value of a pick vs a mid-aged player (to people I know understand acutely that value anyway), please just explain to me what DET received in terms of value in this trade? Take that explanation, and use it as a counterpoint to advocating for the Hronek trade.

That will make it easier.

i understand what Strattonius said and have understood what you have said however disagree with how black/white it has been portrayed.

I think detroit received two draft picks that can be used to draft players for them or can be used in trade scenarios to attain existing nhl players.

With the first rounder (memory fuzzy).. but they roughly are looking at a 15 to 20ish percent chance at selecring an impact player. With the 2nd rounder they are looking at (agsin memory fuzzy) 15 to 20,ish % at drafting an nhl player (not impact). I think impact players out of the 2nd round is between 10 and 15.

They also receive cap flexibility for next summer when hronek would have been due, which in turn allowed them to run moderate depth in wallman and maatta.

I don't think it's debatable RK. It goes hand in hand with understanding the percentages of players converting at the draft. The overall percentages are already low, and they scale along with quality. If you accept that and still recognize it as the best funnel to create the best future team, that's what you prioritize. If you don't, well, we've seen that discussion play out multiple times during the Benning era here. Trade all picks for players then etc...

The priority has to be set on one path or another. Targeting the mid-aged 25 year old player is trading long-term potential quality for short term roster impact. That's the trade off for VAN and DET.

the last sentence - it's too final
- one path or another - far too simplified - there are more than two paths
- short term roster impact - very presumptive in short term
- pigeon holing detroit into one side (or path) of this comparison when we don't even know what detroit will do with those draft picks yet.

 

[credulous]

i guess my point is i don’t think we’ve seen enough of hronek to know if he really is better than those two in the non-offensive ways yet

as recently as last season, didn’t detroit fans report that he was horribad defensively?

he was a healthy scratch last season for not playing well in his own end, yes

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

I would not be against helping with paying for Yankee stadium if I was a Yankee fan. I’d be proud of my team’s winning tradition and ok with chipping in for our new park. I’d also feel that way here were the Canucks an organization to be proud of.

Only way I agree with any part of this is if the private/public partnership results in a venue that is partly owned by the pubic entity along those funding lines. Otherwise it's just using public money to create private profit

 

[RandV]

More often than prospects refusing to sign ELCs? Yes, but a slim cohort either way.

I think a 1st rounder being high relative to a 7 round draft is pretty fair, but we can change the definition if you want?

Regardless, does any of the above change the base understanding that high picks (whatever you want to shift that to mean) represent the best chance to make the strongest possible future team?

In my opinion just flat out no, and I feel like a lot of people where blinders on this topic. Ultimately what the Canucks need to be a 'contender' is more impact players. Via the draft, the direction is clear: do bad in season, get a chance to draft a great player. Outside the draft though it is unpredictable how you do this, but not impossible. JT Miller is a PPG for us who effectively cost Hugo Alnefelt and Shakir Mukhamadullin, and of course now Andrei Kuzmenko who was acquired for free.

So for me the equation comes down to can we a) achieve another Miller/Kuzmenko addition (and we still have our own picks) to add to Pettersson/Hughes vs b) if going the draft route will we come out with a better core than Pettersson/Hughes if they decide to leave. Leaving for them is probably 50/50 at that point, as they have a little thing called Unrestricted Free Agency and we just saw this with Horvat.

To put some data to it, let me go through hockeydb.com over teams drafting the past 10+ years when they go on 'benders' putting together a string of top 10 picks.

ANA: Zegras, Drsydale, McTavish, Mintykov
Boston: None (and currently the best team in the league and Cup favourites, all retool)
Buffalo: Savoie, Power, Quinn, Cozens, Dahlin, Mittlestad, Nylander, Eichel, Reinhart, Ristolainen
Calgary: Tkachuk, , Bennett, Monahan
Carolina: Svechnikov, Necas*, Bean*, Hanafin, Fleury, Lindholm
Chicago: Dach, Boqvist
Colorado: Makar, Jost, Rantanen, , MacKinnon
Columbus: Dubois, Werenski
Dallas: one with Heiskenen but otherwise no streak
Detroit: Kaspar, Edvinsson, Raymond, Seider, Zadina, Rasmussen
Oilers: Puljujarvi, McDavid, Draisatl, Nurse, Yakupov, RNH, Hall,
Florida: Ekblad, Barkov
LA: Clarke, Byfield, Turcott,
Minnesota: Dumba, Brodin, Granlund
Montreal: no streak, but have Slafkovsky, Kotkaniemi, and Galchenyuk as top 5 picks the last 10 years

That's half the league done, good enough for the point I'm making. Everyone wants to do a Colorado which is basically the perfect rebuild, but for top picks that's a 1 in 16 with various levels of success moving down the line. Considering the Canucks starting point is Pettersson/Hughes, then if they toss in the towel and come out with MacKinnon/Makar that's a win, but something like Dubois/Werenski is a loss and thing can easily turn into a long running disaster.

 

[Bleach Clean]

i understand what Strattonius said and have understood what you have said however disagree with how black/white it has been portrayed.

I think detroit received two draft picks that can be used to draft players for them or can be used in trade scenarios to attain existing nhl players.

With the first rounder (memory fuzzy).. but they roughly are looking at a 15 to 20ish percent chance at selecring an impact player. With the 2nd rounder they are looking at (agsin memory fuzzy) 15 to 20,ish % at drafting an nhl player (not impact). I think impact players out of the 2nd round is between 10 and 15.

They also receive cap flexibility for next summer when hronek would have been due, which in turn allowed them to run moderate depth in wallman and maatta.

Ok, thank you for outlining your view of what DET received in exchange for Hronek. Appreciate it.

To sum, they received the chance to draft either an impact player (higher quality) or a good player (same quality) that will provide unmatched efficiency via ELC. That is the impetus to make this trade. That was worth trading the realized good player asset in Hronek. Future, or more future (if you want to contend Hronek still serves the future (relative vs absolute)), for present. Do we agree?

The ability to trade into a similar player for better term (unlikely) and cap flexibility (they have that already) should be deemed secondary to their primary objective in this trade (if we are discussing this in good faith).

the last sentence - it's too final
- one path or another - far too simplified - there are more than two paths
- short term roster impact - very presumptive in short term
- pigeon holing detroit into one side (or path) of this comparison when we don't even know what detroit will do with those draft picks yet.

I think all three bulleted points have been addressed above.

You have to understand that the context informs the path. This team is bereft of a pipeline, cap space, and has nigh immovable contracts. Its core is thin. And so, the decision to continue to bleed high picks, given that context, is rather extreme in of itself. They have little, yet they chose to sell what little they had to compete now. Selling what little they have left is just a continuation of that same philosophy.