Management Thread | The Song Remains the Same Edition

[I Hart Conor Garland]

But wasnt this about Miller and Tampa??
View attachment 643770

Awwww look how cute Ryp is

 

[me2]

Miller sucks at defense? Well get him 2 wingers that can defend better and are good on the PK.

So not only did we get a coach for the purpose of babysitting Miller, we also have to two wingers to babysit him as well?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

So not only did we get a coach for the purpose of babysitting Miller, we also have to two wingers to babysit him as well?

One might say he is at the.... CORE... of our problems.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

One might say he is at the.... CORE... of our problems.

 

[arttk]

So not only did we get a coach for the purpose of babysitting Miller, we also have to two wingers to babysit him as well?

I mean if we getting him the right wingers will enables him to get back to ppg+ form then is that suppose to be a bad thing?

Are you going to argue that the GM shouldn’t do stuff to maximize each players potential. here is a hypothetical, if we can bring in 2 wingers that can do all the defense for Miller and that makes Miller go back to his 99pt form, is that like a bad thing?

 

[racerjoe]

A transition year usually involves transition. Perhaps year 2 will see a transition year because year one was rerun.

You could have kept Benning and Green for another year and you'd be in the same spot we are now. If you had then it would have been just another Benning year. Who would have been happy with Benning's performance if this last 13 months had came from Benning? (Besides PoM). Yet it gets defended even though Rutherford admits it was a failure and still can't explain his plan for the next few years.

That is what I am sure some were saying when we then traded for OEL... one more year whats the worse that could happen?

 

[F A N]

Miller sucks at defense? Well get him 2 wingers that can defend better and are good on the PK. 3rd line sucks at defense? Now Bo is gone get a defense first center who is good on the PK. You add more guys who can defend to the team and have those guys do more of the heavy lifting.
Defensive first guys are easier to get in the FA market and trade because GMs tend to focus on points first guys. We had no problem getting Mik did we?

I agree with this but that assumes that the Canucks see JT as a C and not a winger. The focus should be finding players to play with Petey and Hughes. Miller and OEL is next up on the list. Horvat is probably not long here but in the past he needed a left winger who he had good chemistry with.

But ya, with Miller if he's playing wing you need to find him a C if Petey isn't it.

So not only did we get a coach for the purpose of babysitting Miller, we also have to two wingers to babysit him as well?

The captain has to have a good relationship with the coach.

 

[theguardianII]

What is so hard to understand? They did their job and scored points and drove their line.

The team is losing because the whole team sucks defensively. You don’t need to replace every single god damn player to improve the defense or the PK. You have 4 forward lines, you don’t need every single one of them to be selke winners to be good at defense.

Miller sucks at defense? Well get him 2 wingers that can defend better and are good on the PK. 3rd line sucks at defense? Now Bo is gone get a defense first center who is good on the PK. You add more guys who can defend to the team and have those guys do more of the heavy lifting.
Defensive first guys are easier to get in the FA market and trade because GMs tend to focus on points first guys. We had no problem getting Mik did we?

Myers is going to be gone after his signing bonus is paid, replace him. OEL sucks on D, buy that f***er out and get somebody else.

There other ways to solve problem other than hit the giant reset button you know.

The goal should always be, create an environment where guys push each other to be better. We’ve seen Miller be effective in Tampa. Benning f***ed up by creating this f***ed up team environment. But I don’t believe that it’s so f***ed you have to trade everyone. If you put two guys who bust their ass and work hard defensively beside JT, it’s super likely that he is going to do the same. And I don’t understand why you want to lump in kuz as if he is part of the problem. Petey’s line is like the only line that actually hauls ass and play hard. If anything you want more Kuz on the team.

You echo many of the opinions here but your post is a broad vision with a generalized suggestions without taking many things into account.

Mik is one of those players that plays with Miller but then so is Garland and most of the team at one time or another. Replacing his 2 wingers could include Garland, Boeser, Horvat and Kuzmenko at any time that they have played with him.

Ya Benning fracked the team but what team will trade a superior defensive stud for Dries, Lockwood or Joshua? And where is the cap space for these guys?

As you point out guys like Kuzmenko don't fall out of trees either, BTW the team should thank Milstein for both him and Mikheyev.

I agree Miller is a very good complimentary player, a little better than a lot but struggles to drive a line.

Myers IMO is a better player when he doesn't have to be the best defensive player on the ice, better at a 3/4 slot but there isn't any better on the team and if he was on a better team he is a better player much like Miller would be with help.

OEL's contract is Benning's poison pill but again he didn't get that money by playing like Tanev, he got it by playing like Hughes so he might be what Hughes will look like in 4 years if Hughes is relied on to be a shut down defenceman, another player forced to play outside his strengths by a bad build. But he could be much better on a different team or playing more PP, less PK. But I agree he is and never was what was needed here unless Hughes could/can never adjust to playing a heavy game. Still though outside his skills.

To do a lot of what you post requires some of these coveted players to be moved.

Like I posted last time;

What have these 150 point guys achieved on this team? Now having 30 losses in 49 games. Change some of the players and those points go down, move some of those players for better two way players and goals against go down but wins go up.

I am pretty sure it was a Scotty Bowman quote that said "the team that wins the Vezina, wins the cup" this was true of the old NJD, the most boring team to watch but with Vezina candidate regular Brodeur.

As far as "other ways" yes a way the Canucks have never done, which is a full rebuild. Over 50 years with only two quick tanks, one got Linden and Nedved, the next got the Sedins those worked out not bad.

 

[PG Canuck]

Horvat for Carlo?

Sheesh let’s not try to turn this ship around too fast fellas.

 

[bossram]

This is not about short term, it’s about long term as well.

You know you can keep some players and still build for the future right? It’s like you don’t need to do a full scorch earth rebuild to get young assets.

The certainty is knowing that you have a 1st line that is really good, knowing that you have a PPG that can drive the 2nd line and the PP and a offensive D that can drive offense from the back. Certainty is knowing how much offense you will get as a baseline so you can focus on things that are easier to control such as improving the defense by getting forwards that can do that.

Regarding how are they trading those players, how the f*** do I know, do I look like the GM to you? It’s not like you know for sure they can’t be traded either. It’s not like you are on the GM trade email list or WhatsApp group. As far as I can tell, Servalli said there are actual interest for those players and I’ve said I will reserve my opinion until they show they can/cannot get it done by this off-season. I feel like all of us are so damn off with valuation that there is no point to just make up hypothetical returns and convince ourself that just the return and get pissy when it doesn’t happen.

Trade market and FA market dynamics are very different. FA market is limited by who is actually available. Just do a quick search and you’ll see the market has like maybe 10 guys available at that level and half of them are like 32+. Also FA market doesn’t require any additional assets so GMs prefer that because it’s a “cheaper” solution and they are essentially in control. They offer a price they think it’s fair and the FA decides to sign or not.
Trade market is different because if GMs are going to spend additional assets, they are going to be picky about style, fit and also contract. Also there are other dynamics such as wanting to take advantage of another GM on the other side, the desire to a trade or not lose one. So I don’t think Boeser is hard to trade, it’s just hard to get the value they want for him. If he sets the price at like a 4th rounder I am sure some GM will bite but they probably want more than that and once again if you listen to Servalli, there is interest, it’s just a matter of gamesmanship between the GMs.

So basically your plan, lacking any additional explanation, boils down:

1. Keep mostly the same team
2. Trade the crappier players for basically nothing
3. ????
4. Profit

My faith in Rutherford has been restored. Thank you. This is a plan I can get behind.

Yes just yes

1. Why should they extend the cap burden of OEL out to such a time when Canucks might be competitive?

2. The "cap will go up" argument is already terrible. But even humouring it, there's no guarantee it even goes up as fast as people think. It looks like Bally Sports might go bankrupt - that's a chunk of projected U.S. revenue that will get wiped out.

 

[Gurn]

I'm not sure why, but I'm always surprised at the amount of people that:
are continually willing to put the same pan of ingredients, back in the oven; expecting that THIS time the yeast will activate, and the cake will rise.

Nope- didn't work the first time, try again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

 

[gringo]

So basically your plan, lacking any additional explanation, boils down:

1. Keep mostly the same team
2. Trade the crappier players for basically nothing
3. ????
4. Profit

My faith in Rutherford has been restored. Thank you. This is a plan I can get behind.


1. Why should they extend the cap burden of OEL out to such a time when Canucks might be competitive?

2. The "cap will go up" argument is already terrible. But even humouring it, there's no guarantee it even goes up as fast as people think. It looks like Bally Sports might go bankrupt - that's a chunk of projected U.S. revenue that will get wiped out.

1.) because you can’t build a team with OEL on it- and no team with take him even at a reduced cap hit.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I'm not sure why, but I'm always surprised at the amount of people that:
are continually willing to put the same pan of ingredients, back in the oven; expecting that THIS time the yeast will activate, and the cake will rise.

Nope- didn't work the first time, try again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

People became attached and fell in love with this core. It happens a lot. It’s like not being able to see faults in your significant other because you’re infatuated with them. You also have some cavemen fans who think if you’re ever critical of the team then you’re not a real fan, and you should always support and cheerlead the team regardless of what they do.

 

[MS]

I'm not sure why, but I'm always surprised at the amount of people that:
are continually willing to put the same pan of ingredients, back in the oven; expecting that THIS time the yeast will activate, and the cake will rise.

Nope- didn't work the first time, try again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

This is such a strawman.

Nobody wants ‘the exact same ingredients’. Some people just want get rid of the actual bad players instead of the team’s best players who are not the problem.

 

[platotld]

1. Why should they extend the cap burden of OEL out to such a time when Canucks might be competitive?

What do you mean by the above. I am confused. Are the Canucks competitive now? Next year or the year after? If so bravo to the Management team. An OEL payout means we have 4 years (, one more than the perceived 2-3 years Jim and company hope to acheive sucess) to make a good playoff style team. Why should they extend the cap burden? You mean why extend a portion of the OEL'scap hit he has currently to the team without him playing. I guess? You are extending nothing as you can see below.

What you do is remove a player who costs X, retaining Y and adding players you feel or know can help the team during this time. The question should be is what we can get for those savings going to be better? No one knows for sure, years 3-4 with a 4.7 mill cap hit would hurt. But the last 4 years after saving 6 million per year looks good. In the meantime give you some cap flex and time to find the players who can fit in during the second half of the buyout term.

So they do not extend the cap burden according to this above and also a doublecheck HERE as well. So removing that from the eqauation, why reason would we have to keep an aging devoling player?

 

[VanillaCoke]

OEL buyout after next season is even more favorable..

 

[credulous]

So they do not extend the cap burden according to this above and also a doublecheck HERE as well. So removing that from the eqauation, why reason would we have to keep an aging devoling player?

there's a $2126667 cap charge from the 2027 season to the 2030 season if you buy him out. if you just let his deal expire that cap charge doesn't exist. that's what people mean when they say extend the cap commitment

i'm very negative on an oel buyout. i don't think the 7 mil next year or 5 mil the year after are significant enough savings to justify the minimal cap savings in the 2025 and 2026 seasons or the cap charge beyond that

i think if it's the only way to get a pettersson extension done then fine i guess it's worth it but in that case you'd wait until the 2024 offseason to execute the buyout. i also don't think it's the only way they can do a pettersson extension. if you buyout oel just to sign a 6m per dman to a deal with term what you're effectively doing is getting a 6.2/8.4/10.8/10.8/8.3... million dollar dman. i don't think there's any way the team is any better with that kind of contract on the books than with oel even if oel is in the pressbox or on ir or whatever

 

[iceburg]

Just based on JRs comments to date, I believe they are committed to fixing the cap problem by this summer. It will come as buyouts or trades of Garland, Boeser and OEL.

Best option is to trade Garland and Boeser with retention of $1M to $2M each. OEL is untradable. Buying him out results in a cap saving average over $4M/yr for the next 4 years.

These 3 moves will open up $13M to $14M in cap space.

That's plenty of room to sign Horvat this year and EP next year. That said, I would still move off Horvat this year to get younger assets and not commit to an 8 year contract that will be a major drag on developing the team..

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I'm not sure why, but I'm always surprised at the amount of people that:
are continually willing to put the same pan of ingredients, back in the oven; expecting that THIS time the yeast will activate, and the cake will rise.

Nope- didn't work the first time, try again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

Will be funny to watch, at least.

 

[sting101]

If you buyout Garland and Boeser thats 8.5 million right there in cap space so this we cant afford Bo AND Petey narrative is bunk

I would suspect that Anahein SJ Det and others would take either on the cheap where we dont ahve to retain cap allocation

 

[CanucksMJL]

I'm not sure why, but I'm always surprised at the amount of people that:
are continually willing to put the same pan of ingredients, back in the oven; expecting that THIS time the yeast will activate, and the cake will rise.

Nope- didn't work the first time, try again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody here makes roster decisions for the Canucks. We've all got our opinions on what the best path is, but we're on a message board for fans. There are no decisions made here. Some fans just want the team to win. Some fans have the perfect strategy for winning championships at the highest level and are annoyed that anyone disagrees with them but can't quite articulate it coherently or consistently. Some fans want the cup and nothing else matters, so they critique and discuss and praise and evaluate because it's fun to explore the why's and the how's of building a champion. The rest of us are here on HFboards.

 

[Bgav]

a year and a half of straight rumors and no major trades. lawl

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

What do you mean by the above. I am confused. Are the Canucks competitive now? Next year or the year after? If so bravo to the Management team. An OEL payout means we have 4 years (, one more than the perceived 2-3 years Jim and company hope to acheive sucess) to make a good playoff style team. Why should they extend the cap burden? You mean why extend a portion of the OEL'scap hit he has currently to the team without him playing. I guess? You are extending nothing as you can see below.

What you do is remove a player who costs X, retaining Y and adding players you feel or know can help the team during this time. The question should be is what we can get for those savings going to be better? No one knows for sure, years 3-4 with a 4.7 mill cap hit would hurt. But the last 4 years after saving 6 million per year looks good. In the meantime give you some cap flex and time to find the players who can fit in during the second half of the buyout term.

View attachment 643889
So they do not extend the cap burden according to this above and also a doublecheck HERE as well. So removing that from the eqauation, why reason would we have to keep an aging devoling player?

Got an inkling for Crate&Barrel now.

 

[TruGr1t]

If you buyout Garland and Boeser thats 8.5 million right there in cap space so this we cant afford Bo AND Petey narrative is bunk

I would suspect that Anahein SJ Det and others would take either on the cheap where we dont ahve to retain cap allocation

That's not the narrative ... it's that you could do it, but you'd move forward with a roster that has as many holes as a slice of swiss cheese and no cap space or prospects to fill them. It would be another wasted decade.

 

[Peen]

a year and a half of straight rumors and no major trades. lawl

it’s really stupid. if van wants to compete short term, they will re-sign bo and this is just stupid posturing considering they have no leverage. they caved with jt. these rumors are meaningless to me. the rest of them are mostly just that we want to move bad cap. like ok thanks for telling me the obvious?

honesty the only interesting rumor is demko. that only surfaces if his body is f***ed or because he wants out.