Management Thread | 5th Youngest Team in the League Edition

[Diogenes92]

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

I didn't say it was. I said they'd have a 10-20% chance at Bedard if they finished bottom 5.

There was a chance of a bottom 5 finish before the Canucks went on a streak where they kept tying games in the final minute and picking up points.

Then they went on a big streak after those games and made it a moot point.

 

[racerjoe]

I didn't say it was. I said they'd have a 10-20% chance at Bedard if they finished bottom 5.

There was a chance of a bottom 5 finish before the Canucks went on a streak where they kept tying games in the final minute and picking up points.

Then they went on a big streak after those games and made it a moot point.

Again if we finished bottom five we don't have a 10% chance...

There wasn't really a chance, again when we were 5th worst, we were still projected to finish 9th based on strength of schedule.

With are streak, we may finish a few spots off that 9th.

Your premise isn't based on what was most likely, but what you hoped.

 

[F A N]

There wasn't really a chance, again when we were 5th worst, we were still projected to finish 9th based on strength of schedule.

Sorry if I missed an earlier discussion. Where are you getting this?

At the end of the day projections are just projections. The Canucks were 2-0 against Arizona and then lost on March 16.

 

[racerjoe]

Sorry if I missed an earlier discussion. Where are you getting this?

At the end of the day projections are just projections. The Canucks were 2-0 against Arizona and then lost on March 16.

There is a few sites that will project results. Right now we are projected to finish with 83 points and 9th last from the first one that came up on google.

2022-23 NHL Predictions

FiveThirtyEight's 2022-23 NHL forecast predicts the winner of each hockey game and calculates each team's chances of advancing to the playoffs and winning the Stanley Cup.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

That is just the first one, and not the one I normally look at mind you, but just to show the ease of the information.

I agree it is just projections, but it shows most likely, outcome and really that is how we should look at things. For instance if we were dead last in the NHL we shouldn't be thinking we will get Bedard. It just isn't the most likely outcome.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Again if we finished bottom five we don't have a 10% chance...

There wasn't really a chance, again when we were 5th worst, we were still projected to finish 9th based on strength of schedule.

With are streak, we may finish a few spots off that 9th.

Your premise isn't based on what was most likely, but what you hoped.

In January, lots on the radio and on Twitter were wondering how the Canucks would get to 80 points. Which is weird they didn't factor in SoS, which can really spin you into false hope/peril when the team is as mid as A&W fries, as the kids say.

 

[racerjoe]

In January, lots on the radio and on Twitter were wondering how the Canucks would get to 80 points. Which is weird they didn't factor in SoS, which can really spin you into false hope/peril when the team is as mid as A&W fries, as the kids say.

People forget seasons are long, you will hit highs and lows, you generally are not as bad as your lows, and not as goof as your highs.

 

[Diogenes92]

Again if we finished bottom five we don't have a 10% chance...

There wasn't really a chance, again when we were 5th worst, we were still projected to finish 9th based on strength of schedule.

With are streak, we may finish a few spots off that 9th.

Your premise isn't based on what was most likely, but what you hoped.

Last place has a 25.5% chance to win, 2nd last 13.5%, 3rd is 11.5%, 4th is 9.5%, and 5th is 8.5%.

So if they had finished anywhere from 4th on, they'd basically have a 10% chance or better.

I never said that they'd finish exactly in 5th place. Bottom 5 does not necessarily mean 5th.

I also understand that it was a longshot for them to finish in the bottom 5, but it was certainly becoming a possibility before their big Demko/high shooting % streak.

It seems like you can't stand losing a debate. Sometimes its okay to just say:

"Fair enough."

There's no shame in it.

 

[racerjoe]

Last place has a 25.5% chance to win, 2nd last 13.5%, 3rd is 11.5%, 4th is 9.5%, and 5th is 8.5%.

So if they had finished anywhere from 4th on, they'd basically have a 10% chance or better.

I never said that they'd finish exactly in 5th place. Bottom 5 does not necessarily mean 5th.

I also understand that it was a longshot for them to finish in the bottom 5, but it was certainly becoming a possibility before their big Demko/high shooting % streak.

It seems like you can't stand losing a debate. Sometimes its okay to just say:

"Fair enough."

There's no shame in it.

So this post is laughable. You admit to being wrong so close is good enough then say I can't be wrong... weird.

Sure it was a low possibility... that isn't the debate. Your point was completely wrong. Again it was what you wished to happen. That is fine. It just isn't based on reality.

 

[Diogenes92]

So this post is laughable. You admit to being wrong so close is good enough then say I can't be wrong... weird.

Sure it was a low possibility... that isn't the debate. Your point was completely wrong. Again it was what you wished to happen. That is fine. It just isn't based on reality.

You're unbelievable.

It's basic logic and common sense.

Do you believe that bottom 5 specifically means 5th?

I sure hope not.

I don't care if their chance of a bottom 5 finish was low or not. There was a possibilty of it happening in the not too distant past and it's a shame for all fans and the organization that it didn't turn out that way.

 

[racerjoe]

You're unbelievable.

It's basic logic and common sense.

Do you believe that bottom 5 specifically means 5th?

I sure hope not.

I don't care if their chance of a bottom 5 finish was low or not. There was a possibilty of it happening in the not too distant past and it's a shame for all fans and the organization that it didn't turn out that way.

If you wanted your 10% you should have said bottom 3... but that wouldn't fit your narrative as the Canucks were never that bad.

Don't tell me I am wrong when you clearly are. You are just trying to move goal posts to fit what you want.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Last place has a 25.5% chance to win, 2nd last 13.5%, 3rd is 11.5%, 4th is 9.5%, and 5th is 8.5%.

So if they had finished anywhere from 4th on, they'd basically have a 10% chance or better.

I never said that they'd finish exactly in 5th place. Bottom 5 does not necessarily mean 5th.

I also understand that it was a longshot for them to finish in the bottom 5, but it was certainly becoming a possibility before their big Demko/high shooting % streak.

The other point here is that it's not just about tanking for 1st overall / Bedard. Only focusing on getting first overall and thinking those who are pro-tank are just pinning their hopes on an unrealistic lottery chance is such a reductionist viewpoint.

The top 4 are all exceptional prospects who could all be 1st overall in many other years. What Fantilli, Michkov and Carlsson are all doing is insane. Normally I'm fairly indifferent to the tank but this year is something special. Canucks trading a 1st for a RHD weirdly at the deadline and going on a late season push is such a Canuck thing to do. Is Petterson and Hughes levelling up and good habits being formed a good thing? Sure. But it is incredibly insignificant to having a franchise stud like Fantilli for the next decade.

 

[RandV]

People forget seasons are long, you will hit highs and lows, you generally are not as bad as your lows, and not as goof as your highs.

This is what I was going to point out. I'm not going to dig up the exact record but when we dropped that far it was at the tail end of like a 10 game losing skid. On the other end of that going by extremes, somewhere around the mid point of the season on the strength of a 10 game winning stretch we also got to about 2 points from a playoff spot.

As a general rule of thumb you shouldn't set your projection for a any team while they're on an extended streak, good or bad. Are the Canucks winning more than they probably should right now hurting their draft position? Sure. Was it feasible that they could hold onto 5th last or better? No not really. If you analyze the team in the standings at the end of the season they hit a low mark of holding 5th last and a high mark of maybe 14/15th last and will probably finish about 9th/10th last. I'd think realistically what the Tocchet bump has cost us is we would have bounced back of that stretch but only into 7th/8th last place. We're not as bad as Arizona/Montreal to stay in the #5 slot and no way we'd drop below San Jose/Columbus/Anaheim/Chicago/ to move higher in the draft.

People can cry about the winning streak hurting the draft position as they want but I think they need to let that 5th last or better dream go. It was temporary and unsustainable.

 

[Diogenes92]

The other point here is that it's not just about tanking for 1st overall / Bedard. Only focusing on getting first overall and thinking those who are pro-tank are just pinning their hopes on an unrealistic lottery chance is such a reductionist viewpoint.

The top 4 are all exceptional prospects who could all be 1st overall in many other years. What Fantilli, Michkov and Carlsson are all doing is insane. Normally I'm fairly indifferent to the tank but this year is something special. Canucks trading a 1st for a RHD weirdly at the deadline and going on a late season push is such a Canuck thing to do. Is Petterson and Hughes levelling up and good habits being formed a good thing? Sure. But it is incredibly insignificant to having a franchise stud like Fantilli for the next decade.

I totally agree that the 2nd-5th picks would be a fantastic consolation prize if Bedard doesn't happen. I've said as much in earlier posts.

That's why it sucks that they are playing their way into potentially 9th or worse.

I personally don't feel that playing the absolute crap out of our tops guys for an entire season next year is going to work for more than 30 games. Tochett will need to adapt.

 

[Diogenes92]

If you wanted your 10% you should have said bottom 3... but that wouldn't fit your narrative as the Canucks were never that bad.

Don't tell me I am wrong when you clearly are. You are just trying to move goal posts to fit what you want.

3rd last to worst would be a 11.5% to 25.5% chance.

So, that's not 10% either if you really feel the need to go there.

9.5% for 4th is close enough to 10% when I'm simply trying to make a point about that being a better place to be than where the Canucks are clearly headed this season.

Again, I never specifically said 5th last in any of my posts. I made a ballpark percentage range to make a completely different point than what you seem to be obsessed with.

You latched onto that specific part of it for some weird reason. Most likely because you have to find some way to be right in every debate you get into. Even when its something that nobody cares about.

 

[credulous]

I personally don't feel that playing the absolute crap out of our tops guys for an entire season next year is going to work for more than 30 games. Tochett will need to adapt.

allvin and team will need to figure out a way to add a ton of depth. other than kuzmenko, pettersson, miller, mikheyev, boeser, garland, beauvillier, joshua, hughes, hronek and bear there's no one on the roster/in the system that you can say definitely deserve a spot in the lineup. you can probably get away with bringing back aman, pdg and maybe wolanin or rathbone but that's still a ton of lineup spots unfilled

 

[Bleach Clean]

Going back to the strongest possible future team conversation earlier (re: Hronek):

- On the point of the difficulty of acquiring a mid-pair RHD, and the state of the D (current + pipeline): Granted, but current needs don’t factor for the best future team, and the best future team has to compare forsaking quality for current surety.

- On the lower likelihood of obtaining an impact/top line ELC player with a mid-1st pick: I believe only 21% of picks outside the top3 become impact NHLers (IIRC). But this is the accepted standard of even having an opportunity at that level of player (drafting in mid-high 1st round).

- Next, given that hit rate, propping up the relevance of the current higher pick in terms of still having a chance at an impact player is essentially the same as propping up the traded pick for said same.

- On them having their pick: From Dobber, about 37% of 1st rounders play 100 games in the NHL, or more. And so, given that the general quality in the 1st is future top6/top pair players, DET’s bet is that they can get the base floor of this player in the 1st with better value (ELC).

- On non-impact, good players (Hronek): For the sake of argument, even if it’s 30% (Over 21% and under 37%) likely that a good player (non-impact) is pulled from the 1st round, you’ve forgone another chance at said player (2 such players instead of 1).


To sum: The impact player is of better quality, but less likely to obtain (as it normally is). With this trade, the Canucks have likely forgone that opportunity with the trade, in order to gain surety now. Fair, but to say it serves the future just as well is to ignore that probability, and the greater chance for a player of Hronek’s ability (non-impact) on an ELC. That's the trade off.

The Canucks felt that trade off was worth it for a pick that has a 37% chance of playing 100 games or more. Fine, but then use that same methodology, with the lower likelihood of gaining an impact player, and trade the remaining pick.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Again if we finished bottom five we don't have a 10% chance...

There wasn't really a chance, again when we were 5th worst, we were still projected to finish 9th based on strength of schedule.

With are streak, we may finish a few spots off that 9th.

Your premise isn't based on what was most likely, but what you hoped.

If they did some work to maximise their odds they could have easily got there.

Instead they prioritized winning.

But you knew that already.

 

[F A N]

There is a few sites that will project results. Right now we are projected to finish with 83 points and 9th last from the first one that came up on google.

2022-23 NHL Predictions

FiveThirtyEight's 2022-23 NHL forecast predicts the winner of each hockey game and calculates each team's chances of advancing to the playoffs and winning the Stanley Cup.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

That is just the first one, and not the one I normally look at mind you, but just to show the ease of the information.

I agree it is just projections, but it shows most likely, outcome and really that is how we should look at things. For instance if we were dead last in the NHL we shouldn't be thinking we will get Bedard. It just isn't the most likely outcome.

Thanks. It's an interesting discussion nonetheless since the Canucks had a tough schedule under Boudreau has taken the bulk of the blame (by management) for the team's performance this season.

 

[racerjoe]

3rd last to worst would be a 11.5% to 25.5% chance.

So, that's not 10% either if you really feel the need to go there.

9.5% for 4th is close enough to 10% when I'm simply trying to make a point about that being a better place to be than where the Canucks are clearly headed this season.

Again, I never specifically said 5th last in any of my posts. I made a ballpark percentage range to make a completely different point than what you seem to be obsessed with.

You latched onto that specific part of it for some weird reason. Most likely because you have to find some way to be right in every debate you get into. Even when its something that nobody cares about.

If you want to play the close enough game then surely the 6% odds we have now is also close enough? Its not a huge difference.

I don't know why you keep saying 5th as if that was what I was specifically saying. However it is still where this team bottomed out. It was the low watermark for this team mid season after a huge losing streak.

I am latching onto the fact that your idea wasn't likely at any point, and was wrong.

Period.

If they did some work to maximise their odds they could have easily got there.

Instead they prioritized winning.

But you knew that already.

No they mostly don't get there. That is the point. Again odds had us most likely finishing 9th even when we were 5th. I don't know what is hard to understand about that.

Really besides starting Martin I am not sure what you would want to do. We have an AHL defense being iced right now.

Thanks. It's an interesting discussion nonetheless since the Canucks had a tough schedule under Boudreau has taken the bulk of the blame (by management) for the team's performance this season.

I think a number of things all came together to make the team look as bad as we were. From system, to goaltending, and a coach everyone knew wasn't going to be here. Then yeah we had a tough schedule to start the season. Then you had players worried about the deadline, it was a clusterf***.

That shouldn't be looked at as an excuse, it is just what happened. It all has to be better for us to be better.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

No they mostly don't get there. That is the point. Again odds had us most likely finishing 9th even when we were 5th. I don't know what is hard to understand about that.

Really besides starting Martin I am not sure what you would want to do. We have an AHL defense being iced right now.

Trading more players at the deadline, not starting Demko every game and not playing Hughes 30mins per game.

None of this is news to you. It was a choice. They prioritized other things than maximizing their draft capital.

I guess their incentives where to do so. They wanted to see if they could win with another coach and a more defensive system. Also, they acted like a playoff team in the offseason and fell flat on their faces and had to try to justify their actions.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

I think Hronek is primarily agreed to be a mid-pairing RHD. An impact player would be a top line forward/dman. Therefore, he’s a step below. That said, he could surprise a la Miller.

Unclear on your point about Bo, as he was willing to re-sign here? I agree that it is impossible to predict, and I don’t think one aspect will tip the scale for Pettersson. He will have to take his entire tenure into account. Everything down from the owner (alarm bells) on down. A playoff performance could help, or it could mean little (if he's aware enough to know how far the team is from winning a cup). We just don’t know.

The rebuild I’m advocating for is with Pettersson, Hughes and Demko in place… not at the expense of them. So I understand when you say it’s hard to get that calibre of player by re-drafting them. However, because the surrounding elements of the team and the pipeline are so bad, I would lean towards rebuilding around them instead of simply re-tooling. A focus on more futures. But if they choose to re-tool, then lean into that re-tool hard because you might as well squeeze every drop of blood from that stone.

Last, the draft is the best area to expect any kind of realistic chance at an impact player. Kuzmenkos are gifts we can’t expect to replicate. So that would be my aim to support the thin core moving forward.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I think Hronek is primarily agreed to be a mid-pairing RHD. An impact player would be a top line forward/dman. Therefore, he’s a step below. That said, he could surprise a la Miller.

Unclear on your point about Bo, as he was willing to re-sign here? I agree that it is impossible to predict, and I don’t think one aspect will tip the scale for Pettersson. He will have to take his entire tenure into account. Everything down from the owner (alarm bells) on down. A playoff performance could help, or it could mean little (if he's aware enough to know how far the team is from winning a cup). We just don’t know.

The rebuild I’m advocating for is with Pettersson, Hughes and Demko in place… not at the expense of them. So I understand when you say it’s hard to get that calibre of player by re-drafting them. However, because the surrounding elements of the team and the pipeline are so bad, I would lean towards rebuilding around them instead of simply re-tooling. A focus on more futures. But if they choose to re-tool, then lean into that re-tool hard because you might as well squeeze every drop of blood from that stone.

Last, the draft is the best area to expect any kind of realistic chance at an impact player. Kuzmenkos are gifts we can’t expect to replicate. So that would be my aim to support the thin core moving forward.

Yeah. This bolded part should be obvious.

Its like looking at Boston / Dallas drafting most of their new cores with late picks and saying "See!? You just need to really concentrate and draft really hard and then you are good to go."

 

[Jyrki21]

Trading more players at the deadline, not starting Demko every game and not playing Hughes 30mins per game.

None of this is news to you. It was a choice. They prioritized other things than maximizing their draft capital.

I guess their incentives where to do so. They wanted to see if they could win with another coach and a more defensive system. Also, they acted like a playoff team in the offseason and fell flat on their faces and had to try to justify their actions.

I don't know if it's been posted here before, but Jackson McDonald had a really good thread about how the Canucks' actions don't really suggest they are treating this as a "training camp" after all. He also addressed this really well on the latest Roxy Fever podcast (basically, if there was ever one season to "pull the chute" and then quickly regroup for next year, this was it -- other teams do this all the time):







It's worth reading the rest of the thread too -- I know HF limits the number of embedded tweets.

 

[racerjoe]

Trading more players at the deadline, not starting Demko every game and not playing Hughes 30mins per game.

None of this is news to you. It was a choice. They prioritized other things than maximizing their draft capital.

I guess their incentives where to do so. They wanted to see if they could win with another coach and a more defensive system. Also, they acted like a playoff team in the offseason and fell flat on their faces and had to try to justify their actions.

Who else would you have liked them to trade...

Our odds have currently changed 2.5%

That difference I think is worth how the team is playing, Hughes getting into another level, Petterson getting into another level, Miller finding his game again.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

I don't know if it's been posted here before, but Jackson McDonald had a really good thread about how the Canucks' actions don't really suggest they are treating this as a "training camp" after all. He also addressed this really well on the latest Roxy Fever podcast (basically, if there was ever one season to "pull the chute" and then quickly regroup for next year, this was it -- other teams do this all the time):







It's worth reading the rest of the thread too -- I know HF limits the number of embedded tweets.

You get four callups post trade deadline, half this stuff isn't even possible. Jackson should know better tbh.