Management Thread | 5th Youngest Team in the League Edition

[Bleach Clean]

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.

I want to understand your position here before rebutting it:

1. Are we considering Hronek an impact player in this scenario? You said "great player", and Hronek is a good player, I'll grant, but not great.

2. The difference between a contender and a pretender is more impact players, and the draft provides the more straight forward path to obtaining impact players, but obtaining impact players outside the draft is possible, if not unpredictable (less likely).

3. Picks 1 through 16 provide varying levels of success in obtaining an impact player. Therefore, not necessarily the likely route to creating the best possible future team.

4. JT Miller cost 2 prospects not expected to be as good as JT Miller. Kuzmenko was free. Both far less costly than trying to obtain a high pick, or expecting it to yield an impact player.

5. The draft route, as in keeping the NYI pick, means we lose Pettersson/Hughes.

Does that relatively describe your position? If not, please correct where needed.

 

[4Twenty]

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.

Can I ask why Bean and Necas have asterisks? Guessing it’s because of low teens picks?

Why didn’t Boston get one for MacAvoy or their infamous 3 picks in a row in 2015.

(It always cracks me up that Boston’s worst seasons in ~2 decades came with Loui Eriksson).

That looks like a pretty quick rebuild on the middle if you ask me. 3 picks in the first round is not a retooling move imo.

I hate the type of analysis you did on the JT Miller pick. Not at you specifically. But it’s very shallow analysis not to acknowledge the missed opportunity by having JT Miller vs not for that season. I think it would’ve been another top 10 pick like it was the years before and the year after.

On quick glance you missed the Avs captain, 2nd overall in 2011 - Landeskog. Same goes for Huberdeau in Florida. Given most of the teams you listed are at different points, just going back 10 years is limiting significant data points. Like if you go back to the foundation of LA’s cup winning team they picked top 10 a lot.

I don’t actually get your purpose of listing these teams and the players. To me it looks like the teams with the most high picks are the better teams (Colorado, Carolina, Edmonton) with some obvious outliers like Buffalo.

Even the statement at the end about swapping QH/EP for Dubois and Werenski is weird. Why are they swapping EP/QH because QH said he doesn’t want to rebuild? Kid has 4 years left on his deal. He really doesn’t have a choice.

Rebuilding doesn’t mean get rid of the 24 yr old core players. It means getting rid of 28 year old Horvat and 30 year old Miller. And not targeting players from 10 drafts ago - Hronek. It leaves little runway for success.

Also “impact players” is jargon. It needs to be quantified or it basically means whatever you want.

 

[RandV]

Can I ask why Bean and Necas have asterisks? Guessing it’s because of low teens picks?

Why didn’t Boston get one for MacAvoy or their infamous 3 picks in a row in 2015.

(It always cracks me up that Boston’s worst seasons in ~2 decades came with Loui Eriksson).

That looks like a pretty quick rebuild on the middle if you ask me. 3 picks in the first round is not a retooling move imo.

I hate the type of analysis you did on the JT Miller pick. Not at you specifically. But it’s very shallow analysis not to acknowledge the missed opportunity by having JT Miller vs not for that season. I think it would’ve been another top 10 pick like it was the years before and the year after.

On quick glance you missed the Avs captain, 2nd overall in 2011 - Landeskog. Same goes for Huberdeau in Florida. Given most of the teams you listed are at different points, just going back 10 years is limiting significant data points. Like if you go back to the foundation of LA’s cup winning team they picked top 10 a lot.

I don’t actually get your purpose of listing these teams and the players. To me it looks like the teams with the most high picks are the better teams (Colorado, Carolina, Edmonton) with some obvious outliers like Buffalo.

Even the statement at the end about swapping QH/EP for Dubois and Werenski is weird. Why are they swapping EP/QH because QH said he doesn’t want to rebuild? Kid has 4 years left on his deal. He really doesn’t have a choice.

Rebuilding doesn’t mean get rid of the 24 yr old core players. It means getting rid of 28 year old Horvat and 30 year old Miller. And not targeting players from 10 drafts ago - Hronek. It leaves little runway for success.

Also “impact players” is jargon. It needs to be quantified or it basically means whatever you want.

Minor comment but I was looking for sequences of specifically top 10 picks, trying to make some allowances like Carolina. When you want to tank you are ideally looking at drafting top 5 a few seasons in a row, though more feasibly you're looking at a top 10 range.

The list I showed is just to illustrate what other teams got out of their high end picks following the route a lot of Canuck fans want to go down. The point I'm making is on the balance of odds is it a better bet for the Canucks to go through that cycle which comes with a much greater chance of losing Pettersson and/or Hughes or are they better off trying to find unexpected angles (like Miller, Kuzmenko, maybe Hronek) to build off what we have.

Because if you tank hard and get all the cap space and prospects, but Pettersson/Hughes are replaced with the equivalent of Dach/Boqvist, you're really not better off.

 

[Brookbank]

2 more years.

If they have a good run next year, Alvin might ink a 5 year

 

[Diogenes92]

They name dropped Ethan Bear. Lol

If he is truly a part of their "new and improved core", then we're in trouble as fans.

 

[Diogenes92]

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.

99% of rebuild supporters don't believe this at all.

We believe that even having a 10-20% chance at Bedard is still provides a better chance to win a cup than anything management can do with another retool attempt.

What I find impressive is the selective blindness of the retool crowd. They will literally bend reality to fit their narrative and shoot down any differeing opinion as if its a virus.

The "Retool Cancel Culture", if you will.

 

[Cancuks]

Even with the worst odds, our past luck shows us we have little no chance at Bedard. The important thing was getting a top 5 pick which would ensure us of a young stud center to replace Horvat who can play 3rd line and eventually take over the 2nd C and move Miller back to the wing. Now we've gone from that almost sure fire thing to a crapshoot where there are no guarantees and a high chance that the player we draft doesn't make an impact for at least 3 seasons if he turns out. It's the same scenario that cost us Matthews in 2016 and Zegras in 2019. Just a few extra points in a meaningless end of season run to "build confidence." Which ends up being flushed down the toilet once training camp begins. I have no doubt we'll be drafting the next Juolevi or Podkolzin this season with our 10-12 pick.

 

[racerjoe]

99% of rebuild supporters don't believe this at all.

We believe that even having a 10-20% chance at Bedard is still provides a better chance to win a cup than anything management can do with another retool attempt.

What I find impressive is the selective blindness of the retool crowd. They will literally bend reality to fit their narrative and shoot down any differeing opinion as if its a virus.

The "Retool Cancel Culture", if you will.

at any point did you think this canucks team could legit be a bottom 3 team in the NHL?

 

[TryamkinPleaseReturn]

Even with the worst odds, our past luck shows us we have little no chance at Bedard. The important thing was getting a top 5 pick which would ensure us of a young stud center to replace Horvat who can play 3rd line and eventually take over the 2nd C and move Miller back to the wing. Now we've gone from that almost sure fire thing to a crapshoot where there are no guarantees and a high chance that the player we draft doesn't make an impact for at least 3 seasons if he turns out. It's the same scenario that cost us Matthews in 2016 and Zegras in 2019. Just a few extra points in a meaningless end of season run to "build confidence." Which ends up being flushed down the toilet once training camp begins. I have no doubt we'll be drafting the next Juolevi or Podkolzin this season with our 10-12 pick.

Can we agree that if we finish dead last in the league, our most likely spot to draft would (overwhelmingly) be 3rd overall? And following this, to get a top 5 pick, we would have to finish as one of the worst 3 teams in the NHL?

This leaves us as needing to finish below 2 of Columbus, Chicago, Anaheim and San Jose. There are awful teams every year, some intentionally, some like Columbus that just fail. But we have to finish below almost all of them (bottom 3) to draft top 5.

So are we keeping guys like Hughes, Demko, Pettersson? I don't think we can finish below Chicago with those 3 on the team. I assume we trade all of them for the best return offered. Probably contending teams will offer their 1st round picks for those guys, so we get some mid to late firsts.

So now we have a team built to suck. No Pettersson, Hughes, Demko, and some extra late first round picks. Now it's a matter of finishing really poorly. If a goalie like Spencer Martin goes on a hot streak, it's probably over. Keeping in mind, a team like Montreal, with so little quality talent, and their best goal scorer injured, and a goalie giving them .891 percentage, have 66 points. They are dead last in their division. And yet, if the lottery were today their most likely spot to draft (overwhelmingly) would be 7th overall.

We have to be significantly worse than them.

So now our situation is: no Hughes, Petey, Demko, no JT Miller. Some extra late first round picks, plus our own pick, which we are trying to manipulate to finish below Chicago. We hope for losses, and we need our goalie to not get hot.

It's not as great a situation as fans imagine. Edmonton somehow got the pick 3 times in a row, and the years of failure only led to further failure. It was just a fluke they happened to stumble upon yet another 1st overall in the correct year, when the odds were very not in their favour.

But now, let's assume we finish bottom 3. We draft 5th overall. Do you get a Michael Dal Colle, Noah Hanifen, Olli Juolevi, Barret Hayton, Alex Turcotte? Or do you get Elias Pettersson? The odds are not very good. And let's say you get super lucky at the lottery and draft 1st overall. This year. All the sucking, immediately pays off. You have a team with Connor Bedard and no-one else. Are you really in position to succeed now? Hockey is such a team game. A guy like Connor Bedard is going to single handedly win you some games, very likely. However, you need more talent to make the playoffs, let alone win a cup. But Bedard is going to keep you from finishing at the bottom of the standings.

There's many problems with this strategy. However, I want to agree with you about the main purpose of tanking being to get a top 5ish pick. That's the purpose, in my opinion, and you have to time it correctly to be in a year like this year, where there are 4 guys that are probably 1st overall talent. If we were tanking, this would be the year to time it up to, and finish absolutely miserably - bottom 2 - so that we could draft 4th overall, and get an elite talent. Then somehow do that 2 or 3 more times, get lucky with some trades, and hope it doesn't turn out like Buffalo.

But realistically, I think you are more likely to hit a home run with the 12th overall pick, then you are to land the 1st or 2nd overall pick.

 

[DS7]

at any point did you think this canucks team could legit be a bottom 3 team in the NHL?

Before the coaching changes in the last two years it certainly felt like we were on pace to. With a historically bad PK to boot.

We finished bottom ten team in 2021, and was last in the division when Green was fired, and sixth in the division when Bruce was fired. It's definitely possible, and this is not a slight to the quality of our stars, but the roster we constructed around them.

 

[DS7]

99% of rebuild supporters don't believe this at all.

We believe that even having a 10-20% chance at Bedard is still provides a better chance to win a cup than anything management can do with another retool attempt.

What I find impressive is the selective blindness of the retool crowd. They will literally bend reality to fit their narrative and shoot down any differeing opinion as if its a virus.

The "Retool Cancel Culture", if you will.

Rebuild is an odd term here, because I'm certainly not on the scorched earth route anymore but I wanted to at least maximize draft capital this year, which was comparable to 2003 and 2015. Maybe a one year reset considering the year is lost. Rest up guys (don't play Hughes 30 min a night and Demko 90% of the starts), put depth players in top 6 and top 4 roles to see what you have in them, and let the chips play out.

We have a core here, but Benning has left it with such a poison pill of contracts and deficit of draft prospects that we have to find efficiencies, and the best place to look for it is in the draft.

Imagine how awesome Petey/Hughes/Demko could be with another highly touted rookie supporting them on a 3 year ELC. Basically another Kuzmenko situation. We are enamoured with Petey and Hughes right now, why are saying putting the team in a position to get a shot at another player of that caliber is so detrimental to the team that they'll leave?

We just saw Larkin extend with the wings after experiencing eight years of losing seasons and seeing their top RHD traded away. I give Petey/Hughes/Demko enough credit to see the big picture of taking one step backward to load up for two steps forward in the future.

 

[Diogenes92]

at any point did you think this canucks team could legit be a bottom 3 team in the NHL?

Bottom 5 was a possibility not too long ago.

 

[Diogenes92]

Rebuild is an odd term here, because I'm certainly not on the scorched earth route anymore but I wanted to at least maximize draft capital this year, which was comparable to 2003 and 2015. Maybe a one year reset considering the year is lost. Rest up guys (don't play Hughes 30 min a night and Demko 90% of the starts), put depth players in top 6 and top 4 roles to see what you have in them, and let the chips play out.

We have a core here, but Benning has left it with such a poison pill of contracts and deficit of draft prospects that we have to find efficiencies, and the best place to look for it is in the draft.

Imagine how awesome Petey/Hughes/Demko could be with another highly touted rookie supporting them on a 3 year ELC. Basically another Kuzmenko situation. We are enamoured with Petey and Hughes right now, why are saying putting the team in a position to get a shot at another player of that caliber is so detrimental to the team that they'll leave?

We just saw Larkin extend with the wings after experiencing eight years of losing seasons and seeing their top RHD traded away. I give Petey/Hughes/Demko enough credit to see the big picture of taking one step backward to load up for two steps forward in the future.

It does seem like most of the retool crowd associates the word rebuild with the "scorched-earth" approach.

I'd have been estatic if they had even decided to just tank for this season since the top 5 prospects are potentially franchise changing players.

Some top prospects in the system would've been nice for a change.

 

[Gstank]

Anybody who though this team was going to be a bottom 3 team at the beginning of the season was just fooling themselves. The generaly consesus was that at the VERY VERY worse we would be 5th and right now we are 8th. With 2 points separating us from 12th

 

[nucks88]

Bottom 5 was a possibility not too long ago.

Before Demko came back...

 

[racerjoe]

Bottom 5 was a possibility not too long ago.

And even at fifth our odds were below that 10% you just quoted. The odds were terrible.

Before the coaching changes in the last two years it certainly felt like we were on pace to. With a historically bad PK to boot.

We finished bottom ten team in 2021, and was last in the division when Green was fired, and sixth in the division when Bruce was fired. It's definitely possible, and this is not a slight to the quality of our stars, but the roster we constructed around them.

The lowest we have realistically been is 5th, and even then we were still projected to finish 9th.

 

[DS7]

The lowest we have realistically been is 5th, and even then we were still projected to finish 9th.

I think if we end up with a pick in the single digits, that's a win from a draft capital POV.

 

[Diogenes92]

And even at fifth our odds were below that 10% you just quoted. The odds were terrible.

Dude...c'mon...

Bottom 5 doesn't literally mean 5th last. It can also mean: 4th, 3rd, 2nd, last.

Every percent counts. Especially when it's a franchise changing locally grown centre like Bedard.

 

[racerjoe]

I think if we end up with a pick in the single digits, that's a win from a draft capital POV.

What is the actual value difference in 9th vs 10th? Is it worth more Miller regaining his form? More than Hughes figuring out how to play like a Norris candidate? More than Petey playing like a top 5 centre?

Dude...c'mon...

Bottom 5 doesn't literally mean 5th last. It can also mean: 4th, 3rd, 2nd, last.

Every percent counts. Especially when it's a franchise changing locally grown centre like Bedard.

So are you changing the pint you were trying to make? And again we were still projected to finish 9th when we were bottom 5.

 

[DS7]

What is the actual value difference in 9th vs 10th? Is it worth more Miller regaining his form? More than Hughes figuring out how to play like a Norris candidate? More than Petey playing like a top 5 centre?

Yes. Because point A is tangible and can be translated into more assets by trading down or for players.

Point B is happening playing with zero pressure against the 4th softest schedule remaining on the docket against mainly tanking teams by a core that hasn't shown it can translate these "meaningful" march games into October for the last few consecutive season.

And these arent mutually exclusive. whose to say they can't do that while we maximize the draft. Tocchet says he's treating this as an extended training camp. And it's a positive sign at least that we shut down hronek. Bank those 30 min hughes games for next year when it actually counts and don't wear down the stars in a lost season.

 

[Diogenes92]

So are you changing the pint you were trying to make? And again we were still projected to finish 9th when we were bottom 5.

Not at all.

A bottom 5 finish would've given the Canucks a far better chance at winning the Bedard sweepstakes. As much as a 10-20% chance vs 5% or less.

And that is worth way more than anything a retool could promise. Which isn't much.

 

[racerjoe]

Yes. Because point A is tangible and can be translated into more assets by trading down or for players.

Point B is happening playing with zero pressure against the 4th softest schedule remaining on the docket against mainly tanking teams by a core that hasn't shown it can translate these "meaningful" march games into October for the last few consecutive season.

And these arent mutually exclusive. whose to say they can't do that while we maximize the draft. Tocchet says he's treating this as an extended training camp. And it's a positive sign at least that we shut down hronek. Bank those 30 min hughes games for next year when it actually counts and don't wear down the stars in a lost season.

Again a 4th softest schedule that had us most likely finishing 9th... (directed more at @Diogenes92)

How is it tangible? What is the actual difference between 9th and 10th? How much of a better player are you getting at 9 compared to 10?

This is just the 2nd season of these "meaningful games" I don't think we know there is a pattern yet. Or at least not one we can see.

They are mutually exclusive in that we are doing well now because we are playing Hughes 30 mins, and so on. But never mind the winning, I don't think that is as important as how the players, are playing, and yes that also includes how the system looks.

Not at all.

A bottom 5 finish would've given the Canucks a far better chance at winning the Bedard sweepstakes. As much as a 10-20% chance vs 5% or less.

And that is worth way more than anything a retool could promise. Which isn't much.

Its not a 10-20% difference... only bottom 3 have a 10% chance and we were not finishing there.

 

[rypper]

Oh Think of the depths you'll go with Spencer Martin and Bruce Bourdeau -Dr Seuss

 

[mriswith]

Fantilli is a superstar in the making too, so double the lottery odds as either of those is a huge win.

Almost 20% odds of getting one of them from 5th last is very good, let alone what you get at 5 vs 10.

Every other bottom 10 team is blatantly tanking like they're the 2015 Sabres, I've never seen such a unanimous tank by so many teams.

The actions of every other GM, in all different stages of team building, speaks for itself about how executives in the league see the value of tanking vs process/momentum in this draft.

 

[RandV]

I want to understand your position here before rebutting it:

1. Are we considering Hronek an impact player in this scenario? You said "great player", and Hronek is a good player, I'll grant, but not great.

2. The difference between a contender and a pretender is more impact players, and the draft provides the more straight forward path to obtaining impact players, but obtaining impact players outside the draft is possible, if not unpredictable (less likely).

3. Picks 1 through 16 provide varying levels of success in obtaining an impact player. Therefore, not necessarily the likely route to creating the best possible future team.

4. JT Miller cost 2 prospects not expected to be as good as JT Miller. Kuzmenko was free. Both far less costly than trying to obtain a high pick, or expecting it to yield an impact player.

5. The draft route, as in keeping the NYI pick, means we lose Pettersson/Hughes.

Does that relatively describe your position? If not, please correct where needed.

Pettersson and Hughes are our 'great' players, so more impact players is a win. For example if Hronek comes back for us next year and is just as good as he was specifically this season for Detroit, that's an impact player. Finding a quality partner for Hughes is tough because there aren't as many RH dmen in the league, but on the left side it shouldn't be nearly as big a challenge to find an Olli Maatta type. So then building off that, let's say the player the Canucks draft with their first starts being a contributing ELC player in 2024-25 like Mason McTavish or Kent Johnson. At that point the only bad Benning contract left is OEL and you have a quality team coming together.

For whether tanking means we'd lose Hughes or Pettersson, really it's impossible to say. Calgary had their best season in a good while and both Gaudreau and Tkachuk bailed on them. But you can't really deny that the odds become greatly increased if you're young franchise players have been in the league 7 or 8 years and only got to sniff the playoffs once or twice. See: Bo Horvat. Regardless though, it's also a good bit harder to tank to the basement having a Pettersson and Hughes on the team. Even with bare bones support they're good enough to keep you closer to 10th last.