Management Thread | The Song Remains the Same Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
The purpose of a tank is to, while already old and near the bottom, at the end of a cores lifespan, bottom out and start building a new core. The draft is a good place to build a core, this is obvious. Elite, franchise players come from those first 10 picks in the draft, with more certainty at the top.

The Canucks have a core of elite players. You can say oh they didnt tank on purpose blah blah whatever, but they got the return from a tank nevertheless. A better than average return from a tank. Pettersson and Hughes (and Demko if he returns to form) are excellent players that you cannot bet on getting even from those first 5 picks in the draft. Ask NYR, the team who apparently did everything oh-so-perfectly in rebuilding, how that's gone for them. They are a good team - obviously; but that's even more evidence to the positive that not all good players, and especially not all good depth, come from the top of the draft.

The Vancouver Canucks, with their core assembled, will only become a good team contingent on coaching, development, and savvy management. Just like Carolina, just like Pittsburgh, just like Boston, and just like Tampa. All of these teams at the absolute apex of the league who have, evidently, not just f***ing blown it up and tanked as soon as their players were at "peak value".

Our team needs depth, and structure, and culture. In that regard, I would argue having good development, a good farm team, good coaching; are more important than the specific guy you pick in rounds 2-6. It's not realistic to just acquire and build a good team of players that are good. You have to make the team good, and make the players on the team good. This is how contenders become contenders and sustain success, and has never been more important than now in the cap era (which is what Seattle clearly understood).
Agree with most of this.

Except that its not enough to have a core of 2 players in their statistical primes. I think we have 1/2 a core from the missmanagement by Benning.

I dont understand how people can ignore that we are actually trying to win this year and we are bad enough to be just a notch above the teams that are intentionally tanking. That is where we are starting our retool from.

There is NOTHING special about having 2 good players with only one of them signed long term.
 
Maybe, Pearson isn't the only guy with medical issues?
wonder if management 'pushed' him to come back sooner than he should have.
Hughes played through a lowerbody issue for like the first 20-30 games.

Mihkeyev obviously is playing through something, his skating isnt there.

Myers returned from his leg injury way sooner than expected.

Boeser returned early from his hand surgery.


I think there is a trend there.
 
Maybe, Pearson isn't the only guy with medical issues?
wonder if management 'pushed' him to come back sooner than he should have.

[list of Canucks who played through injuries]

I think there is a trend there.
This is not a Canucks management issue. Players across the league play through injuries when they probably shouldn't and it's the players that push themselves to do so.

Rick Westhead has a Twitter thread about research on “former hockey enforcers” and one thing that jumps out is how desperate players are to stay in the lineup (which can lead to substance abuse). Frank Corrado talked about this a little bit on Donnie and Dhali (or it might have been another podcast). He tried to play through a major injury when he was with Pittsburgh.

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hyzer
Agree with most of this.

Except that its not enough to have a core of 2 players in their statistical primes. I think we have 1/2 a core from the missmanagement by Benning.

I dont understand how people can ignore that we are actually trying to win this year and we are bad enough to be just a notch above the teams that are intentionally tanking. That is where we are starting our retool from.

There is NOTHING special about having 2 good players with only one of them signed long term.
I think it also misunderstands parts of what a rebuild accomplishes.

Yes, the major reason is to draft new core players. People can say the Canucks accomplished this via unintentional sucking, but as you said, coming out of it with only 2 or 3 projectable core players is a bad result. They really need a nucleus of Petey/Quinn/Demko that also has another top-pairing defenseman, elite winger, and high-end center. They don't have those pieces.

There are also two other components of a rebuild that the Canucks did not, are not, and will not benefit from:

1. Cheap depth to backfill the core. Having a lot of picks and prospects (which the Canucks never accumulated) means that they'll have some ELCs to slot in roles lower in the lineup. ELC players contributing to a playoff/contending team provide enormous value. They're extremely cap efficient and let the club upgrade elsewhere.

2. Ideally a rebuild clears out non-core players on larger cap hits. This gives the club future cap flexibility to improve the team when the time is right. The Canucks have not understood this concept for a decade.

So no, the Canucks did not reap the benefits of a rebuild, even unintentionally.
 
I think it also misunderstands parts of what a rebuild accomplishes.

Yes, the major reason is to draft new core players. People can say the Canucks accomplished this via unintentional sucking, but as you said, coming out of it with only 2 or 3 projectable core players is a bad result. They really need a nucleus of Petey/Quinn/Demko that also has another top-pairing defenseman, elite winger, and high-end center. They don't have those pieces.

There are also two other components of a rebuild that the Canucks did not, are not, and will not benefit from:

1. Cheap depth to backfill the core. Having a lot of picks and prospects (which the Canucks never accumulated) means that they'll have some ELCs to slot in roles lower in the lineup. ELC players contributing to a playoff/contending team provide enormous value. They're extremely cap efficient and let the club upgrade elsewhere.

2. Ideally a rebuild clears out non-core players on larger cap hits. This gives the club future cap flexibility to improve the team when the time is right. The Canucks have not understood this concept for a decade.

So no, the Canucks did not reap the benefits of a rebuild, even unintentionally.
A good read, I am not disagreeing.

One thing missed is the "window", a time period that a lot of fans think doesn't happen, age of players.

Even the three named are only three because of time.

Two or three years ago Horvat would have been a key core piece but now at 28 yrs old, 29 next season, farther into the future must be looked at more. Petey is 24 yrs old drafted in 2017, 6 years ago, by the time his existing contract ends he will be going on 26 yrs old.

Three core players are not a playoff contender line up BUT they are enough to soft sell some fans on "hope".

Hughes played through a lowerbody issue for like the first 20-30 games.

Mihkeyev obviously is playing through something, his skating isnt there.

Myers returned from his leg injury way sooner than expected.

Boeser returned early from his hand surgery.


I think there is a trend there.
Desperation! Panic!, False Hope!, Disbelief, Shock, hope that they are used as excuses for being 39 points behind the top team in the league
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gurn
The problem for the Canucks is that they need to turn over like a third to half the roster, move out terrible contracts to free up cap space, replenish their prospect pipeline, sign significant UFAs to fill major roster holes, etc. and usually doing each of those things requires borrowing from one of those other areas to achieve it.

They basically don't have any significant position of strength from which they can draw to bolster the deficient areas. Like, it'd be one thing if they had a surplus of decent prospects to move or to enable them to be okay moving a number of picks, or a lot of cap space to take on bad contracts, or a logjam of young roster players at centre or D to move for excess help elsewhere. But, unfortunately, they're tight on the cap, have a lot of bad contracts, have almost no prospects of any realistic appeal, and they don't have many pieces to move in real no-brainer win deals that don't leave significant holes in their absence.
This can't be mentioned enough, because it keeps getting glossed over. The Canucks situation is so unique in this regard. It's actually almost difficult to put yourself in such a spot. Yes, you have some good young players to build around, but you can't build around them because you have to many old or unproductive players on long costly contracts you need to move. You can use picks to do so, but then there's nothing in the pipeline to add to your core. So you use UFA's which are notoriously difficult to work with as they're generally very overpaid and or, want to go to contenders.

Ordinarily one would be stoked with a player like Kuzmenko signing, but given the context (which is repeatedly glossed over or ignored), you can see that it doesn't move the needle ... other than maybe encouraging Pettersson to resign.

Personally, I can't imagine Pettersson sticking around, so once he goes, perhaps the flood gates will open. Mind you, that's just kicking the can down the road a few years and ignores the fact the club is going to use their draft picks to try and improve the club by adding them to trades for cap space.

Most likely, in three years from now we'll all be talking about a tear down that's going to take many more years due to the lack of any rookies or youth coming through the farm due to a lack of picks over the years. Maybe in 10 years the Canucks will be hated again for being a threat in the league. 2033.
 
I get nitpicky about this sort of thing but Horvat turns 28 in a few months and will be 28 for the entirety of next season.
 
this has probably already been posted but i just read the dumbest thing—



I do wonder, however, if Rutherford felt compelled to deepen the engagement of his fan base with all the media appearances and updates he provided that are normally kept internally.

Let’s blame HBO for this. Ever since they first aired the reality sports show “Hard Knocks” in 2001, followed by 24/7 in 2007, the thirst for an inside look at how sports teams are run has never been greater. With favourite athletes and celebrities providing daily updates on their personal social media platforms, that look behind the curtain has now become an expectation, if not an obsession.

Do we run the risk of bringing fans too close to the sometimes unappetizing back-office politics of the game and turning them off? The tough decisions GMs often face can be unpleasant and sticky. Do we throw back the curtain in an effort to be more transparent and “honest” as Rutherford stated? Keeping his cards closer to his chest would have been more appropriate and certainly kinder to a beloved coach.

As an industry, the NHL should be concerned when fans start flying too close to the sun. While some teams have shown an ability to portray a strong social image, others such as Vancouver have faltered. As fans learn more about the inner workings and internal struggles in pro hockey, we run the risk of them losing the mystique of their favourite childhood hockey teams that made them fans in the first place. And they’ll be left as disappointed about the game as Canucks fans are now about the treatment of Boudreau.


cousin dregs, of course
 
  • Like
Reactions: vancityluongo
A good read, I am not disagreeing.

One thing missed is the "window", a time period that a lot of fans think doesn't happen, age of players.

Even the three named are only three because of time.

Two or three years ago Horvat would have been a key core piece but now at 28 yrs old, 29 next season, farther into the future must be looked at more. Petey is 24 yrs old drafted in 2017, 6 years ago, by the time his existing contract ends he will be going on 26 yrs old.

Three core players are not a playoff contender line up BUT they are enough to soft sell some fans on "hope".
Oh I agree and I've posted about the Canucks' "timeline" a lot elsewhere. By the time the Canucks can actually compete, how old are Petey and Hughes? 28?

If they're at that age before you can even think of contending, the Canucks' contending window shrinks dramatically when their core players are already middle-aged in NHL terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theguardianII
Oh I agree and I've posted about the Canucks' "timeline" a lot elsewhere. By the time the Canucks can actually compete, how old are Petey and Hughes? 28?

If they're at that age before you can even think of contending, the Canucks' contending window shrinks dramatically when their core players are already middle-aged in NHL terms.
How old were the last few winning teams cores?
 
Oh I agree and I've posted about the Canucks' "timeline" a lot elsewhere. By the time the Canucks can actually compete, how old are Petey and Hughes? 28?

If they're at that age before you can even think of contending, the Canucks' contending window shrinks dramatically when their core players are already middle-aged in NHL terms.
Uhh Petey at 28 is 3.5 years away. I think you are being overly optimistic about how long contender windows actually are. Avs have like 4-5 year window. Like last year was like year 2 of the window and with Mack’s contract expiring and him needing a giant extension, that window is going to close soon.

If we can start the window when Petey is at 28, you can argue that gives us maybe like 3-4 years. If we draft a really good piece with our top10 pick then the window can be extended. That’s the thing you all are absolutely blind to. You only need to luck out like Dallas to have the window extended. That’s why teams tend to keep their core players because you never know if one or two picks hit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: racerjoe
Uhh Petey at 28 is 3.5 years away. I think you are being overly optimistic about how long contender windows actually are. Avs have like 4-5 year window. Like last year was like year 2 of the window and with Mack’s contract expiring and him needing a giant extension, that window is going to close soon.

If we can start the window when Petey is at 28, you can argue that gives us maybe like 3-4 years. If we draft a really good piece with our top10 pick then the window can be extended. That’s the thing you all are absolutely blind to. You only need to luck out like Dallas to have the window extended. That’s why teams tend to keep their core players because you never know if one or two picks hit.
Their "window" should be now. While Petey and Quinn are on value deals. When they've re-signed Kuz to a value deal.

In 3-4 years, Petterson is going to be on a Mackinnon-style extension, making filling the rest of the roster tougher. You've made my point. The clock on the "window" is already ticking. It's just being wasted because management has been so terrible. How much longer does the window stay open when Petey/Quinn/Demko/Kuz all need new contracts and the Canucks have no prospect depth coming behind?

The bolded is a terrible plan. "Just get lucky, we'll get lucky, bank on some lucky draft picks". That's the best we can hope for? Maybe we draft 3 core players with late 1sts and 2nds like Dallas? Seriously?
 
Like the last 10 teams to win the cup all had cores that were in mid/late 20s and early 30s.
And all of those teams were actually already good for several seasons before they actually won.

What are the Canucks? At 28 everyone magically wins?

Age at start of season:
COL: Makar 22, Mackinnon 26, Rantanen 24, Landeskog 28, Toews 27, Nichushkin 26, Byram 20

Mostly skewing younger than what Petterson and Hughes will be whenever the Canucks are actually relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seattle Totems
Had a little laugh listening to the pre-game media availability with Tocchet. He sounded like he could have been one of the posters on this board lol.

Paraphrasing
I've only been here a week and we gotta change the mindset. Got to be more trust. They need to build trust. Every department needs to trust each other. Asking what is this team's identity? Hard team to play against? Smart Team? Selfless team?
 
"A lot can happen".

Is this the new "anything can happen"?

Like, if these are the arguments in favour of management's plan, that's really not good.
You think the roster won't look drastically different in 5 years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: racerjoe
Where did they get their core players?

I'm guessing through the draft.
Drafting, trades, free agency.

The team clearly isn't going to tank and rebuild, so this is where we're at. Using our draft picks, tapping into other markets, making trades etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad