Management Thread | Regular Season Edition

[arttk]

I thought Millers peak season was his first year here. Then it was the 99 point season. Then he was garbage to start last season. Now this is as good as he will get. Lmfao. Most of the folks that post this crap couldn’t tie their own skates let alone use them for anything other than to cut the cheese.

miller is proving that aging curve doesn’t apply to him yet. I think once in awhile you get a star that simply don’t decline that much as they are like Pavelski, Kopitar and etc. let’s hope Miller is one of those but we have to realize that it is super hard to project because most players do decline hard after 30.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

I want sustained success and a team that builds a winning culture that lasts, not a team that shoot’s its wad on a gamble, then return to sucking again.
Benning’s tenure and our system-wide suckage nearly killed me as a fan of this team.
I’m getting old, and I realize that winning a Cup is as much luck as skill. Going forward, I want to always be dealt in… but I don’t want to just put all my chips on Red. Sorry about the mixed metaphor.

 

[Petey O]

I want sustained success and a team that builds a winning culture that lasts, not a team that shoot’s its wad on a gamble, then return to sucking again.
Benning’s tenure and our system-wide suckage nearly killed me as a fan of this team.
I’m getting old, and I realize that winning a Cup is as much luck as skill. Going forward, I want to always be dealt in… but I don’t want to just put all my chips on Red. Sorry about the mixed metaphor.

I understand your position and I agree, but there are years you have to put more of your chips into the pile than others. One piece above your opponent could determine a series win or a series loss. At the same time, it could simply not matter at all, you're right. But sometimes, with the cap in consideration, it's smarter to 'go for it' some years than others.

 

[andora]

I understand your position and I agree, but there are years you have to put more of your chips into the pile than others. One piece above your opponent could determine a series win or a series loss. At the same time, it could simply not matter at all, you're right. But sometimes, with the cap in consideration, it's smarter to 'go for it' some years than others.

But that is the debate.. and i am confident we have management that understand

You do not go big on rentals.. you go cheap on depth rentals and big on age relative term players

I like to think of it as leafs oreilly versus avs cogliano.. amongst the tons of examples

Blowing your chips on deadline name rentalsnisndumb, always has been imo..

 

[Petey O]

But that is the debate.. and i am confident we have management that understand

You do not go big on rentals.. you go cheap on depth rentals and big on age relative term players

I like to think of it as leafs oreilly versus avs cogliano.. amongst the tons of examples

Blowing your chips on deadline name rentalsnisndumb, always has been imo..

Rentals only make sense if you're a perennial contender and you need a piece to put your team over the edge. They do not really make sense in the Canucks' current state, unless the FO add at least one top 4 D and another top 6 piece, in my opinion. Then you could bring in a more offensively minded 3C rental who is also responsible defensively, and that sort of player could put you in the top 5~ in the NHL in terms of realistic cup odds.

I largely agree, though. I want the Canucks to be a perennial contender, not just a one and done like a number of Canucks teams in the past. One and done is only good if you actually win the cup. The Canucks have failed at that 3 different times, and I'd love to see at least 4 or 5 years of being a legitimate cup contender. That 2011 core was likely the closest thing we've seen to that, and they were only a legitimate, undisputed contender for arguably two years, maybe three.

As shaky as Carolina has been this season, I'd love to see the Canucks turn into a Hurricanes tier team. Always in the running, not always the favourites but always up there.

 

[andora]

Rentals only make sense if you're a perennial contender and you need a piece to put your team over the edge. They do not really make sense in the Canucks' current state, unless the FO add at least one top 4 D and another top 6 piece, in my opinion. Then you could bring in a more offensively minded 3C rental who is also responsible defensively, and that sort of player could put you in the top 5~ in the NHL in terms of realistic cup odds.

I largely agree, though. I want the Canucks to be a perennial contender, not just a one and done like a number of Canucks teams in the past. One and done is only good if you actually win the cup. The Canucks have failed at that 3 different times, and I'd love to see at least 4 or 5 years of being a legitimate cup contender. That 2011 core was likely the closest thing we've seen to that, and they were only a legitimate, undisputed contender for arguably two years, maybe three.

As shaky as Carolina has been this season, I'd love to see the Canucks turn into a Hurricanes tier team. Always in the running, not always the favourites but always up there.

Fair enough

I would say they are even dumb when you are a contender - if you are a contender you should have your horses already

You need injury depth, vet depth - that is all a contender should be adding imo while continuing to maximize value on picks prospects being traded for only termed players

That is a rhythm that is successful lomger term imo

 

[arttk]

Fair enough

I would say they are even dumb when you are a contender - if you are a contender you should have your horses already

You need injury depth, vet depth - that is all a contender should be adding imo while continuing to maximize value on picks prospects being traded for only termed players

That is a rhythm that is successful lomger term imo

if we have a good offseason then we can start to think about rentals next season. hopefully some of the top UFAs do actually make it to UFA and we take a run at them.

 

[andora]

if we have a good offseason then we can start to think about rentals next season. hopefully some of the top UFAs do actually make it to UFA and we take a run at them.

Ehh.. depends.. i mean you gotta measure salary + age + term against what you could get in trade and those 3 factors

If you can make a trade for something net neutral impactful for projected for longer i would likely opt for trade. I mean say the trade means youre out a propect and a 1st versus the free agent. Say the free agent projects to 3 years but you project the trade for 6 years? 1st round worth the 3 yrs - f*** yeah it is

 

[arttk]

Ehh.. depends.. i mean you gotta measure salary + age + term against what you could get in trade and those 3 factors

If you can make a trade for something net neutral impactful for projected for longer i would likely opt for trade. I mean say the trade means youre out a propect and a 1st versus the free agent. Say the free agent projects to 3 years but you project the trade for 6 years? 1st round worth the 3 yrs - f*** yeah it is

if we can pull off another Hronek like deal that that would be ideal but even if that opportunity comes up, we probably only have enough assets to make one trade like that. Would prefer to make that kind of trade at next years TDL so we can have another draft first.
Of course to do that we need to be a bit lucky and be able to sign like a forward and D in UFA. Like let’s say we get a Reinhart/Nylander + Tanev and then another depth D, that along with the subtraction of mother f***ing Myers would make us closer to be a contender.

 

[andora]

if we can pull off another Hronek like deal that that would be ideal but even if that opportunity comes up, we probably only have enough assets to make one trade like that. Would prefer to make that kind of trade at next years TDL so we can have another draft first.
Of course to do that we need to be a bit lucky and be able to sign like a forward and D in UFA. Like let’s say we get a Reinhart/Nylander + Tanev and then another depth D, that along with the subtraction of mother f***ing Myers would make us closer to be a contender.

Lol at myers

Personally I'm not interested in adding an eight figure free agent and tanev would need to be flexible as well

 

[arttk]

Lol at myers

Personally I'm not interested in adding an eight figure free agent and tanev would need to be flexible as well

I think adding another legit 1st line player gives us a lot of flexibility. You now have the option of trading away Boeser for a 1st + if his form continues. You can’t get another young top6 guy for a 1st but if you trade Boeser you will hav 2 then you can make that move.
If you don’t trade Boeser you can now bump Mik to the 3rd line so now you might lot need a high power 3C or you can trade Mik for some asset and free up cap to do something risky like sign Pesce lol

 

[RandV]

miller is proving that aging curve doesn’t apply to him yet. I think once in awhile you get a star that simply don’t decline that much as they are like Pavelski, Kopitar and etc. let’s hope Miller is one of those but we have to realize that it is super hard to project because most players do decline hard after 30.

I don't know but I feel like perception has been skewed on this topic from the balance of players. Just going by the top talents, go back to the 90's stars, and guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Modano, were playing effectively well into their late 30's. Then the next generation of stars, Thornton, Lecavailer, Sedins, they could barely make it to 35.

On the odds that a player can play effectively in the NHL that late in their career, it seems to me the guys we've been watching retire the past 5-10 years are a bad batch in terms of both talent and career longevity. The current Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin are doing much better and looking more like the 90's guys.

Like pre-cap CBA the UFA age was 30 years old, and you never got the sense back then that fans thought players being signed were 'too old'. In comparison to the hilarious Loui Eriksson UFA summer where you had like 6 30 year old players sign big deals and immediately all suck. You have to ask how much of an outlier that was and how much it skewed our perception.

 

[F A N]

I don't know but I feel like perception has been skewed on this topic from the balance of players. Just going by the top talents, go back to the 90's stars, and guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Modano, were playing effectively well into their late 30's. Then the next generation of stars, Thornton, Lecavailer, Sedins, they could barely make it to 35.

I wouldn’t say Yzerman and Modano aged better than Thornton and the Sedins especially if you considered their respective peaks. Sedins also didn’t benefit from having the same level of supporting cast.

 

[RobertKron]

I wouldn’t say Yzerman and Modano aged better than Thornton and the Sedins especially if you considered their respective peaks. Sedins also didn’t benefit from having the same level of supporting cast.

Also, for every Yzerman or Modano there's a Kariya or LaFontaine.

 

[F A N]

Like pre-cap CBA the UFA age was 30 years old, and you never got the sense back then that fans thought players being signed were 'too old'. In comparison to the hilarious Loui Eriksson UFA summer where you had like 6 30 year old players sign big deals and immediately all suck. You have to ask how much of an outlier that was and how much it skewed our perception.

Because there was no cap and the age where players became a UFA is the age you get them. It’s an avenue to improve the team and rich teams will try and buy wins. Just before the cap came in there were only a select few teams who could afford the big name free agents. A team like the Rangers can sign free agents and then buy them out. It’s still a lot of money but it’s seen as the cost of doing business.

When the cap came in, compliance buyouts were spent on older players. Gillis made a point of not singing players past the age of 33 if he could help it. There were also front loaded contracts. Of course exceptions were made. We did go after Shane Doan who was around the same age as when Messier signed here.

I don’t think perceptions really changed, but the landscape did. Crosby is 36. If the Canucks were a C away from contention and Crosby was a UFA last summer how many of us would be against signing Crosby to a 4 year contract?

Teams are still handing out contracts that pay players into their 35/36 years like we did with Miller. Teams just have to be more careful with the cap.

 

[RobertKron]

Because there was no cap and the age where players became a UFA is the age you get them. It’s an avenue to improve the team and rich teams will try and buy wins. Just before the cap came in there were only a select few teams who could afford the big name free agents. A team like the Rangers can sign free agents and then buy them out. It’s still a lot of money but it’s seen as the cost of doing business.

When the cap came in, compliance buyouts were spent on older players. Gillis made a point of not singing players past the age of 33 if he could help it. There were also front loaded contracts. Of course exceptions were made. We did go after Shane Doan who was around the same age as when Messier signed here.

I don’t think perceptions really changed, but the landscape did. Crosby is 36. If the Canucks were a C away from contention and Crosby was a UFA last summer how many of us would be against signing Crosby to a 4 year contract?

Teams are still handing out contracts that pay players into their 35/36 years like we did with Miller. Teams just have to be more careful with the cap.

Yeah, there's no comparison regarding the risk of signing an older player, because that player being bad was only a financial problem rather than significantly handcuffing the team going forward. Like, could you imagine how much worse the Messier era would look if the team suffered a cap penalty for a half decade or whatever after buying him out?

Also the game is just plain different now. The fitness level across the board is different. The type of attributes that lead to success are different. Beyond that, there were also plenty of strong players from that 90s era who fell off in their early-mid 30s. Those just aren't necessarily the players we think of as top dogs due to survivorship bias or whatever the correct term for that is - Roenick, LaFontaine, Kariya, Janney, etc. weren't ticking along strong into their late 30s.

 

[MS]

I don't know but I feel like perception has been skewed on this topic from the balance of players. Just going by the top talents, go back to the 90's stars, and guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Modano, were playing effectively well into their late 30's. Then the next generation of stars, Thornton, Lecavailer, Sedins, they could barely make it to 35.

On the odds that a player can play effectively in the NHL that late in their career, it seems to me the guys we've been watching retire the past 5-10 years are a bad batch in terms of both talent and career longevity. The current Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin are doing much better and looking more like the 90's guys.

Like pre-cap CBA the UFA age was 30 years old, and you never got the sense back then that fans thought players being signed were 'too old'. In comparison to the hilarious Loui Eriksson UFA summer where you had like 6 30 year old players sign big deals and immediately all suck. You have to ask how much of an outlier that was and how much it skewed our perception.

It's a hard thing to figure.

Per the bolded :

1) Careers were definitely longer in the 94-04 DPE. Lots of '80s stars had really long careers, and the slower clutch/grab hockey seemed to extend careers.

2) That 2016 UFA group were all 2nd line types, and those guys ARE a problem with aging. If you have a Sidney Crosby who's a 100-point MVP-level player at age 32 and he drops off by 20 or 30% by age 36 ... you're still dealing with a point-per-game 1st line player. When a 50-point second-liner drops off by 20 or 30% ... suddenly you have a bottom-roster player getting horribly overpaid.

The guys that tend to age well have a few things in common :

1) Limited injury history.

2) 1st line/elite players at their peak.

3) Highly competitive/driven personality types who maintain their fitness and focus as opposed to letting themselves go.

Miller would *seem* to hit all 3 boxes. He's an outstanding top-level player, he never gets hurt, and (despite his over-emotional and spazzy nature) is a high-achiever type who is trying to qualify for PGA events the second the NHL season is over. The guy seems to love playing hockey.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

The thing with Miller is I think he will be an effective two-way winger + PP weapon for most of his extension, but I don't know how long he can perform like this as a center. And if he can't - that will put a big dent in the Canucks cup aspirations.

 

[arttk]

I would too.....
Im kidding im kidding

Grandma on the other hand

 

[oceanchild]

Posted just because there isn't an open one now.

Here is the last post from the dead thread;

Oceanchild;

Wondering if you have changed your mind ?

************************************************************

So to start off controversially

Who woud you keep if the team HAS to trade either Pettersson or Hughes?

I still think this team isn’t built to win the cup, our Right Side Defence is simply not good enough, we don’t have young developing players to call up if needed (no depth to cover injury). I think we need a more dynamic third line Center that can play against the other teams top line, and we need a top 6 forward that can play with Petey and forcheck hard. This with a horrible PK that for whatever reason hasn’t made the leap forward that I would expect.

That being said this Management Group has been either the best or in conversation as the best for the last 12 months at least. We need a couple more rabbits out of hats to be a true contender.

I’m not sure where Pettersson would go that would absorb his salary and give him a better chance to win, I am also not sure that this group can win a cup (only due to time constraints and salary cap issues). But I do think Hughes taking a step forward and the team being in the position it is does change my mind from the summer and I am willing to trade our first (for a player with term longer than this season). It also makes it that I keep Hughes over Pettersson if I need to choose.

 

[oceanchild]

In the history of this franchise, no one player has individually done more to cost this team a Stanley Cup during a period of competitiveness than Dan Cloutier.

Awful, awful goalie.

Agreed, those teams never really had a chance to win, he was to prone to soft goals and it was to deflating.

 

[oceanchild]

Even in like three whole pixels of resolution it's still pretty visceral.


This one was also a doozie. I can't imagine being a defenseman in one of those series.

Both great hits, Scott Steven’s still owns the belt on big hits in the playoffs though. Dude decimated people.

 

[oceanchild]

The mechanics of the OEL buyout, Petey still being under contract, and getting incredible value out of Miller, Hughes, and Hronek right now do indicate that this season really should be their big push.

Right now they're basically getting all the benefit of the OEL buyout. After this, they'll have a significant hit on the books. Petey's contract will balloon. Hronek's deal will balloon. And potentially are looking at career seasons for Miller and Hughes. They should be maximizing this season. This is a team that should be a contender now (but isn't, for obvious reasons).

After this season, they're not going to be getting the same surplus value from this group of players. And you're only looking at a few more seasons before Demko and Hughes need new contracts.

Agreed and we lack the prospect depth to realistically expect that added value to be repeated.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

if im nearly 70 i wouldnt care either

Nearly 70? He's 74!

 

[arttk]

Nearly 70? He's 74!

Yeah he’s firmly in the I don’t give a f*** zone because death is soon.