Management Thread | The Song Remains the Same Edition

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

With a retool or whatever you want to call it, I have a hard time seeing this team in 3-5 years competing for the cup. Sure, they might get into the playoffs, but not as legitimate contenders.

I would like to see the NYR model of a rebuild (SCORCHED EARTH BABY!) and selling as much as possible for futures. Doesnt mean we need to trade EP or QH right away, but you have to put them into the equation as well. However with the OEL and now the JTM deal, that makes it very difficult to accomplish since they will be extremely difficult to trade....yet we will need some players to wear a jersey and sit on the bench.

We have been doing this "retool" since Benning got here and it clearly isnt working. Im okay with trading our assets, signing new ones, trading those at the deadline (rinse and repeat)...all to get more draft picks!

When a Norris Trophy winner, an all star elite forward, and a first pairing D man literally fall in your lap (because New York)...and you win the lottery twice..That is just called insane luck..Citing that as a rebuild 'model' is absurd.

Having said that, they've drafted some good players in Miller, Schneider..and made some really good trades.

 

[Hit the post]

I don't think Gilligan (or the Skipper or even the Professor) dealt Benning a bad hand.

You look at what was kicking around in terms of usable assets and there were things there. It wasn't Gillis' fault that Benning turned things like Nick Bonino into garbage returns. Or that Benning thought he could right the ship "in a hurry" and doubled-down on the existing core (after at least 2 notable hockey folks--Gillis and Torts--basically stated that the team needed to rebuild.)

We've been seeing a bit of a repeat here with Allvin (reupping on Miller, fence-sitting with Boudreau, etc.) although I would argue that any arguments about Benning leaving him with nothing are far more appropriate here than they were with Benning, though I will freely admit to being incredibly prejudiced towards Benning (although I will also argue I can make a very compelling argument, too.)

It goes back to what you were saying: execution. Yeah, you might get a crap hand, but the way you play it also matters.

And that's all without addressing Frankie Aqua's potential meddling.

I have always argued that Gillis didn't go "all in" enough. I do laugh at the "narrative" sung by the Benning nut huggers that he was left with an empty prospect pool by Gillis. Like seriously that was his job right? To take a team that Nonis/Burke left him & stock up the prospect pool while legit elite players likes the Sedins & Kesler were in their primes? And look at the prospect pool Jethro Bodine left Mr Rogers. This is after 7 years of drafting.

 

[arttk]

There’s people out there who believe accidentally finishing low in the standings = rebuild

No doing that = pre-McDavid joke of the league Edmonton Oilers

That’s what this franchise is right now

I am guessing this is targeted at me.

I don't think accidentally finishing low in the standings = rebuild, I am not sure how you are getting that message.

I think the team is definitely accidentally finishing low but at the same time it looks like management recognizes it and is leaning hard into it. Despite not actually rebuilding, we are pretty much getting the primary benefit of a rebuild which is getting a super high draft pick that allows to draft elite talent that are otherwise unavailable. Are we getting everything you would get from a typical rebuild? No and I don't think anyone is arguing that we are.

You guys can come out and debate, well I don't think rebuild is about getting that high pick (uh huh) and be intellectual dishonest about it. Fact is, would you guys ever advocate a rebuild that doesn't end up with an elite player? Like if the team trades everyone away and goes on a scorch earth rebuild that lasts for like 6 years and at the end of the 6 year, we still don't have a 1D, 1C and 1G. Will anybody be like, yeah that was a great rebuild guys, we're done, we have the prospects and picks, we can stop the rebuild now and try to compete, oh f*** no. You guys are all pretending that getting a high pick doesn't matter in a rebuild when that is probably one of the most important part. You think Chicago threw away everything because tanking for Bedard wasn't important and all they wanted really was just cap and prospect depth.

 

[arttk]

Here are 5 quotes from that site, that you skipped because they didn't fit your narrative.

1.

"Expensive free agents are avoided."

2.

"Overall team salary tends to be low."

3.

"It also is a "signal" to fans to not expect the team to compete and win; GMs or other team executives often want to make sure it's clear they're not trying to win in the short term, because otherwise their jobs may be at stake. "

4.

"A losing team is one that is "stuck" with mediocre players."

5.

"Some teams avoid "rebuild" and instead "refresh" or "retool". The Chicago White Sox are a good example of this: they went through several "retools" since 2005, where the team seemed to have fallen apart and the GM decided to be aggressive in the trade/free agent market rather than a full rebuild. This is often the case in mid-market teams, where an extended losing period might cost too many fans (in particular in a two-team market like Chicago, where the Cubs have the better presence, and so the White Sox need to pretend at least to be competitive). It's often hard to do this for long periods of time, unless you have nearly unlimited salaries available, because constant retooling means you never lose enough games to get high draft picks."

Dont worry. I'll be patient and work with you here so we can catch you up to the concept.

Actually I skipped it because we were debating whether you understand what a rebuild is, not what a rebuilding team should do when they are rebuilding.

Avoiding expensive free agents is what you do when you are in a rebuild, it's not the definition of a rebuild. Ditto with keeping salary low, actually the funny part is that the leafs didn't keep the salary low when they were rebuilding since they were using cap to get more picks.

Signaling to fans that the team is going to suck is also the consequence of deciding to do a rebuild.

A losing team is one that is stuck with mediocre players, lol. And how is that related to what we were talking about? That can be a causation of the need of a rebuild but once again, it's not defining what a rebuild is.

And the final point isn't even talking about what a rebuild is, it just talks about why teams don't do it.

You listed a bunch of stuff on how the team should do when rebuilding but none of it talks about what a rebuild actually is. Ironically the only sentence from the blurb you linked that talks about what a rebuild is, is the one that you are accusing me of inventing meaning from.

So much intellectual dishonesty and gaslighting.

 

[rypper]

The Horvat trade was a step, but it'll be the next trade or two that really tell us the direction they are going.

I'm not going to get too excited or buy into the idea that they've switched philosophies when they could just as quickly turn around and make a win now/help in the immediate future trade.

 

[CanucksMJL]

Again who is it what position has nothing to do with trying. Stop confusing incompetence with effort.

I've long put the posters you're responding to on ignore. I love to hear your takes and appreciate your contributions but it pains me to see you bash your face against the concrete wall. There is nothing there but engineered frustration.

 

[Cupless44]

The Horvat trade was a step, but it'll be the next trade or two that really tell us the direction they are going.

I'm not going to get too excited or buy into the idea that they've switched philosophies when they could just as quickly turn around and make a win now/help in the immediate future trade.

I dont blame you. There hasnt been a well thought out consistent plan and strategy around here for a long while.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

I am guessing this is targeted at me.

I don't think accidentally finishing low in the standings = rebuild, I am not sure how you are getting that message.

I think the team is definitely accidentally finishing low but at the same time it looks like management recognizes it and is leaning hard into it. Despite not actually rebuilding, we are pretty much getting the primary benefit of a rebuild which is getting a super high draft pick that allows to draft elite talent that are otherwise unavailable. Are we getting everything you would get from a typical rebuild? No and I don't think anyone is arguing that we are.

You guys can come out and debate, well I don't think rebuild is about getting that high pick (uh huh) and be intellectual dishonest about it. Fact is, would you guys ever advocate a rebuild that doesn't end up with an elite player? Like if the team trades everyone away and goes on a scorch earth rebuild that lasts for like 6 years and at the end of the 6 year, we still don't have a 1D, 1C and 1G. Will anybody be like, yeah that was a great rebuild guys, we're done, we have the prospects and picks, we can stop the rebuild now and try to compete, oh f*** no. You guys are all pretending that getting a high pick doesn't matter in a rebuild when that is probably one of the most important part. You think Chicago threw away everything because tanking for Bedard wasn't important and all they wanted really was just cap and prospect depth.

What are you even arguing about!? Who said that a rebuild isn't about getting high picks? A rebuild isn't ONLY about getting a high pick, but getting a high pick is definitely ONE PART of it.

Who would advocate a rebuild that doesn't end up with an elite player!? The main point of rebuild is about getting elite players in the draft, AND the flexibility (in assets such as picks and cap space) to acquire elite players in trades and/or free agency.

I'm not sure why or how this is at all confusing...I think there is only 1 person here that is being intellectually dishonest.


PS: One trade does not mean management "is leaning hard into" a rebuild. More transactions need to happen to support that idea. We still have way more "compete now" transactions on the book comparing to "leaning hard into a rebuild" transaction.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

When a Norris Trophy winner, an all star elite forward, and a first pairing D man literally fall in your lap (because New York)...and you win the lottery twice..That is just called insane luck..Citing that as a rebuild 'model' is absurd.

Having said that, they've drafted some good players in Miller, Schneider..and made some really good trades.

It's funny how misconstrued the Rangers continue to be, by the usual suspects.

 

[Nucker101]

I am guessing this is targeted at me.

I don't think accidentally finishing low in the standings = rebuild, I am not sure how you are getting that message.

I think the team is definitely accidentally finishing low but at the same time it looks like management recognizes it and is leaning hard into it. Despite not actually rebuilding, we are pretty much getting the primary benefit of a rebuild which is getting a super high draft pick that allows to draft elite talent that are otherwise unavailable. Are we getting everything you would get from a typical rebuild? No and I don't think anyone is arguing that we are.

You guys can come out and debate, well I don't think rebuild is about getting that high pick (uh huh) and be intellectual dishonest about it. Fact is, would you guys ever advocate a rebuild that doesn't end up with an elite player? Like if the team trades everyone away and goes on a scorch earth rebuild that lasts for like 6 years and at the end of the 6 year, we still don't have a 1D, 1C and 1G. Will anybody be like, yeah that was a great rebuild guys, we're done, we have the prospects and picks, we can stop the rebuild now and try to compete, oh f*** no. You guys are all pretending that getting a high pick doesn't matter in a rebuild when that is probably one of the most important part. You think Chicago threw away everything because tanking for Bedard wasn't important and all they wanted really was just cap and prospect depth.

No one’s denying that finishing low in the standings and hitting on top 5 picks isn’t crucial to a rebuild. It’s that the doing so accidentally is not a real rebuild. Look at the Canucks fans like yourself who say that the core is in place and only a quick re-tool is needed, what’s the issue everyone agrees with? No depth on the roster, no depth in the system, limited cap flexibility, bad contracts that just forced them to move on from their 30-40 goal scoring center and team captain.

People whine about goaltending when Demko went out, that’s the damn issue. If Demko or EP or Hughes are out this team turns into garbage.

Guess what a planned rebuild helps with compared to an unplanned one? Depth!! Some of those magic bean draft picks work out as cheap depth when you have a surplus of them every year for 3-4 straight years. Not to mention being in a better cap position and having greater draft pick capital to make more Ethan Bear, Nate Schmidt, John Marino and JT Miller type trades instead of being forced into Dickinson-Stillman trades.

But sure, let’s keep pretending like this isn’t the pre-McDavid Oilers we all used to make fun of.

Only thing missing all these years was an Oil Change documentary for the added comedy.

 

[arttk]

What are you even arguing about!? Who said that a rebuild isn't about getting high picks? A rebuild isn't ONLY about getting a high pick, but getting a high pick is definitely ONE PART of it.

Who would advocate a rebuild that doesn't end up with an elite player!? The main point of rebuild is about getting elite players in the draft, AND the flexibility (in assets such as picks and cap space) to acquire elite players in trades and/or free agency.

I'm not sure why or how this is at all confusing...I think there is only 1 person here that is being intellectually dishonest.


PS: One trade does not mean management "is leaning hard into" a rebuild. More transactions need to happen to support that idea. We still have way more "compete now" transactions on the book comparing to "leaning hard into a rebuild" transaction.

I guess you missed one of the post I replied to where someone was saying, paraphrased, there is nothing special about elite players, every team has a couple of time, its the depth that matters and rebuilding is about getting the assets to build that depth, oh and capspace.

And the thing is we are talking about this in the context of what this team needs. I think proponents of the rebuild are arguing, we need to rebuild because everything f***ing sucks essentially.

I am simply responding by saying, we are getting the MAIN BENEFIT of a rebuild this season which is getting a super high pick and having the chance to pick up an elite player. Yes we are not getting AS MUCH flexibility that you would typically get from a rebuild in terms of capspace and assets but at the same time, it's not like the team is planning to retain Boeser, Myers, Pearson, Garland and maybe even OEL. Like there will be some flexibility in capspace and hopefully some accumulation of assets when those guys are traded away or bought out (OEL). Will it be as much as a typical rebuild? No, but at the same time there won't be as many holes to fill compared to a rebuild.

Right now we have a 1st line that is really good if Tocchet is done with beating defense into Kuz and a 2nd line that has Miller driving it. The 2nd line is not a long term solution because Miller probably only has 3-4 years left but hey that's what this draft's high pick is for. There should be a long term solution for the 3rd line with Raty and Pod and Hog so there's that. The biggest problem area for this team is the D which is a giant question mark because nobody has any f***ing clue how management will address it and how are we going to have a continuous pipeline of talent to feed into the team.

For the rebuild crowd, I presume they see Miller old(er), D sucks and too many inefficient contract in OEL and Miller (even though he is not inefficient yet), and big money spent on Petey and therefore we won't have enough cap to sign people and you need young players on ELC or cheap bridge contracts to compete so therefore we should blow everything up.

The problem with that argument I see is, Miller is not inefficient money yet so he is still a net positive contributor and we actually have no idea when he will decline and what state he will decline to. OEL if bought out will give us like 2 years of cap alleviation just in time for the cap to go back up to offset the cap cost. Petey will cost mega bucks but having a top prospect come in on ELC from this draft will offset that cost. So all those "problems" are really giant problems. The only thing is, can management create a pipeline of cheap players by tapping into college/amateur free agents and drafting well to give us that cheap help to make this team competitive. And can management use the freed up cap and assets to assemble a good D. If they can't address the D and the pipeline then this team is going to be stuck and will require drastic blowup.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Fact is, would you guys ever advocate a rebuild that doesn't end up with an elite player? Like if the team trades everyone away and goes on a scorch earth rebuild that lasts for like 6 years and at the end of the 6 year, we still don't have a 1D, 1C and 1G. Will anybody be like, yeah that was a great rebuild guys, we're done, we have the prospects and picks, we can stop the rebuild now and try to compete, oh f*** no.

My response to the response wasn't directed anyone in particular fwiw but reading this I did have another point to make.

I would take this scenario if it meant our depth was absolutely stacked and we could make hockey deals from a position of leverage. Now, obviously would it be disappointing? Yes. You don't go scorched earth for anything less than 1st OA. But IIRC it's like a ~50% chance you finish last and draft 3rd OA, thanks to GM's getting pissy all of a sudden about the Oilers and the NHL caving.

I don't think rebuilds are easy and no GM is going to bat 1.000 ever - even in a rebuild. Hell, the lottery is even against you now. But if your scouting can carry the load and you can get them as many bullets in the chamber as possible you can diversify your prospect portfolio.

So yes and no in it's own convoluted way - so long as I'm not misinterpreting your point. Depth does carry weight over top-end talent in the game of hockey.

 

[mriswith]

It’s wild that the guy being arrogant that his opinion is the truth is using the pom definition of rebuild….the definition that only pom used to subscribed to.

Getting core players is the easiest part of the job. Especially when you’re bad.

The venn diagram of people who think like that and people who don't understand the cap or its implications is a circle.

We are observing that no amount of spoonfeeding can solve an inability to understand what it means to be in a cap league.

 

[arttk]

No one’s denying that finishing low in the standings and hitting on top 5 picks isn’t crucial to a rebuild. It’s that the doing so accidentally is not a real rebuild. Look at the Canucks fans like yourself who say that the core is in place and only a quick re-tool is needed, what’s the issue everyone agrees with? No depth on the roster, no depth in the system, limited cap flexibility, bad contracts that just forced them to move on from their 30-40 goal scoring center and team captain.

People whine about goaltending when Demko went out, that’s the damn issue. If Demko or EP or Hughes are out this team turns into garbage.

Guess what a planned rebuild helps with compared to an unplanned one? Depth!! Some of those magic bean draft picks work out as cheap depth when you have a surplus of them every year for 3-4 straight years. Not to mention being in a better cap position and having greater draft pick capital to make more Ethan Bear, Nate Schmidt, John Marino and JT Miller type trades instead of being forced into Dickinson-Stillman trades.

But sure, let’s keep pretending like this isn’t the pre-McDavid Oilers we all used to make fun of.

Only thing missing all these years was an Oil Change documentary for the added comedy.

Like i said nobody is arguing this is a rebuild, this is a retool where we are accidentally crashing so hard we are getting a top pick.

Here are some of your points.

No depth -
we have as good as a 1st line as any team with Petey and Kuz. 2nd line is Miller + Mik. You can argue that uhh that doesn't look so good but numbers are numbers and having a 100+70 pt guy on the 1st line and 70-80ish point + 50pt guy on the 2nd line is as good as any team in this league. it's true we don't have enough center depth but I presume that will be addressed with Raty, that high pick and maybe 1 more FA pickup.

I agree that our D is absolute shit right now and there is zero depth there and I don't know how/if they can fix it. That's why I've been saying, well let's wait and see what they do on that front. Do I think we need to blow everything up so we have like 3-4 more D? You only really need to hit on one guy and suddenly you realize oh, things aren't as bad as it seems.

I feel like you guys have this weird delusion that good teams can just randomly call up like 4-5 guys from the minors when in reality most of them only have like 1-2 good callups in any given season.

Limited cap flex -
If we can't get rid of Boeser, Garland, Myers and OEL, then yeah we are f***ed. But at the same time, if you are arguing we should rebuild, then these guys will need to be traded away anyways. You can't argue that oh we can't trade those guys away so therefore we have no cap flex and turn around and say, oh since we are rebuilding, we should trade them away. Do you think us switching over to rebuild mode will magically make those guys more tradeable or something? The condition to trade them, like taking bad money bad or whatever probably are the same regardless of what state we are in. And if we end up trading them away, that should free up a whole lot of cap for us to divert them to Petey's new contract and other players, hopefully D.

Injuries -
Uhh there aren't that many teams that can do good losing their best players. Like take Makar and Mackinnon out of the Avs and they are going to struggle. The teams that can actually withstand losing star players to injuries are teams that play a strong team defensive game and guess what this management is trying to get to?

This team is bad right now for a lot of reasons, like there are some things that should be fixable, like coaching. Some things that are really hard to fix from our vantage point, like the D because we have no clue who is available and for what price. But I feel like you guys look at the team today and make assumptions that a)we won't be able to add anymore impact players over time b) we will continue to holdon to all the crappy ones, and because of those reasons, we just need to blow it up.

It's like shouldn't the 1st step be, get rid of all the crap, see what we can get with the freed up cap and assets, and improve the way the team plays first before blowing shit up.

 

[4Twenty]

The venn diagram of people who think like that and people who don't understand the cap or its implications is a circle.

We are observing that no amount of spoonfeeding can solve an inability to understand what it means to be in a cap league.

It’s like they were sleeping through “…but 3 calder nominees”

 

[Gurn]

re
re
re
completely weird argument/discussion to begin with.
Everybody has their own opinion of
rebuild
retool
refurbish
ya da ya da.

TLDR?
re/re is an opinion thing, not a fact thing, so everybody is right.

 

[credulous]

Right now we have a 1st line that is really good if Tocchet is done with beating defense into Kuz and a 2nd line that has Miller driving it. The 2nd line is not a long term solution because Miller probably only has 3-4 years left but hey that's what this draft's high pick is for. There should be a long term solution for the 3rd line with Raty and Pod and Hog so there's that. The biggest problem area for this team is the D which is a giant question mark because nobody has any f***ing clue how management will address it and how are we going to have a continuous pipeline of talent to feed into the team.

i mean you're just saying this team is fine and good and doesn't need major changes. first line check second line check third line check (next year when raty and hoglander are nhlers)

if anything at all goes wrong though the canucks have no backup plan and no assets to execute a backup plan. that's why they need to rebuild

 

[arttk]

i mean you're just saying this team is fine and good and doesn't need major changes. first line check second line check third line check (next year when raty and hoglander are nhlers)

if anything at all goes wrong though the canucks have no backup plan and no assets to execute a backup plan. that's why they need to rebuild

I am saying we need to get rid of essentially 6-8 players if not more and the D needs to be completely revamped.

I don’t know how anyone would read that and assume i think this team is fine.

 

[quat]

I don't see any issue with continually going all in on this proven, winning roster. After all , next year will certainly be different.

 

[arttk]

I don't see any issue with continually going all in on this proven, winning roster. After all , next year will certainly be different.

Me: we need to change like at min 1/3rd of the team by next season

You guys: sounds like you think we should be going all in with the same roster

Sounds like you can’t comprehend shit

 

[hookshott]

Right we are currently not at the stage where we can take advantage of those opportunities but at the same time I don't really see the need to rebuild in order to be able to take advantage of those opportunities.

Like I think we are in agreement that there are a lot of players that just needs to go and I think even management is working on that as well. Garland, Myers, Boeser, OEL and the LTIR bunch. So regarding capspace, I think once we get rid of those players, we will have the cap to take advantage.

In terms of having the asset to make those moves, well I think there should be some asset coming back for SOME of those players. The reason why I don't think we need to rebuild is because I am still optimistic and also why I advocate for wait and see, that we will get more assets than what we anticipate at the start of the season. We got a 1st, Beauvillier and Raty for Bo, great. We will get something back for Schenn it seems and maybe we'll make another trade or two before the TDL. I think there are enough high quality assets there to really restock which would enable us to make more trades to fill holes.

I think for every pick that we nail, it fills a hole which allows us to take a pick and make that available to trade. Like for example, yeah trade 2 2nds for a D kinda sucks but if we nailed on a bunch of picks, then we can afford to take those hits. Fill a roster spot with a FA (That finnish D) and now you have one less trade you need to make.

I don't know, i just don't feel there is a drastic need to really burn this shit down and rebuild from scratch.

Garland will not be moved....he is on a reasonable contract (4.95m) and is playing fine for Tocchet. He could not be replaced for 4.95 so foolish to trade him.

 

[me2]

I am saying we need to get rid of essentially 6-8 players if not more and the D needs to be completely revamped.

It's OK, you can say they need to rebuild the D.

 

[arttk]

It's OK, you can say they need to rebuild the D.

Yeah they need to rebuild the D.

 

[credulous]

I am saying we need to get rid of essentially 6-8 players if not more and the D needs to be completely revamped.

I don’t know how anyone would read that and assume i think this team is fine.

okay and i don't think it's realistic to do this without going through some kind of rebuild

you're talking about somehow acquiring 6-8 good players including a third line c from the following assets: boeser, garland, beauvillier, myers, oel, raty, hoglander, lekkerimaki, dermott, one extra first, one extra 4th, one missing 2nd, one missing 5th

i think adding that kind of volume of players at least some of whom need to be very good will require way more assets than that

 

[arttk]

okay and i don't think it's realistic to do this without going through some kind of rebuild

you're talking about somehow acquiring 6-8 good players including a third line c from the following assets: boeser, garland, beauvillier, myers, oel, raty, hoglander, lekkerimaki, dermott, one extra first, one extra 4th, one missing 2nd, one missing 5th

i think adding that kind of volume of players at least some of whom need to be very good will require way more assets than that

I am not counting Lekkerimaki at all, I am
assuming bust until he shows something. I also don’t think they will let Raty be on the team next season unless he goes nuclear in the preseason.

We are not missing this years 2nd, only the 4th and 5th. I honestly don’t know if they will be able to fill so many spots so that’s why I’ve been saying all along I am willing to wait till the off-season and see. If anything I am curious to see what they will do.