Management Thread | The Song Remains the Same Edition

[PuckMunchkin]

The goal should be get to wildcard -> 3-4 seed consistent playoff team-> improve to become a contender.

I think the difficulty is probably the same as going from rebuild -> out of rebuild -> wild card -> 3-4 seed consistent playoff team -> contender.

We obviously disagree on this.

To me the difference with the rebuild is that you start at ground level, and with our current situation you start underground.

For both cases, you 'll need to draft well and need to get the right FA and make good trades. What you need to do doesn't change. You can argue oh if we rebuild we'll have more cap and assets. You only have assets if you draft well and trade well. If you can draft well and trade well then you will still have assets and even though there are less compared to a rebuild environment, there are less holes to fill comparatively as well.

You cant wave off the fact that we dont have money.

To use another metaphor.

We are not in position to buy the things we need, we need to first accumulate the money.

Look at Tampa, they didn't build their team via their rebuild. They built it over a long period of time where majority of their supporting cast and core players were drafted/acquired outside of their rebuild period. Ditto with St.Louis, Washington, Pittsburg and Avs. The idea of a slow build is boring but large majority of Stanley cup winners go through a slow build with some mini re-tool in between.

Those examples you listed do not support your retool route at all.

Every one of those teams:
- tanked hard to draft their key players with a massive pick surplus
- their cap was under control
- moved on from aging players instead of signing them to shit extensions

We have yet to do any of these things.

We have 2 great but not elite pieces in EP40 and Quinn Hughes. The rest is inefficient contracts. This is not a special situation worth taking the risk of retooling. This is obviously another thing we disagree. You think what we have as a core is something really special that warrants swimming against the strea, against the natural cycle of the hard cap league.



It comes down to this:

We were always going to be awful this year and we are going to be worse next year, this gives us one resource the teams contending don't have.

Time.

 

[quat]

This is the whole point. The Rangers' amassing of assets in the typical way available to all teams probably wouldn't have worked if a superstar set to make a negligible salary for three years hadn't forced a trade to them. If I scrimped and saved all my life and became fairly comfortable then found a suitcase with a million dollars in it, I'm not an example of how anyone can become a millionaire by scrimping and saving. That doesn't mean being financially responsible is a bad idea, just that it I couldn't have achieved my current position just by being financially responsible and am therefore not a good example of what can typically be achieved that way.

It's worth considering that if they didn't get Fox and Panarin, then it's likely they stay a little longer at the bottom by another year or possibly two and gain more chances to draft solid players, along with being able to build through trades, etc.

Removing the "lucky" players just means they'd have pursued other options.

It's unusual that some posters seem to assume that the Rangers wouldn't have done anything else if they hadn't picked up those players. Fact is, they adapted to a change in circumstances and successfully transitioned back to the playoffs.

One looks at the Leafs and their signing of Tavares as an example of a poor decision around signing a high end free agent. Having good players wanting to play on your club doesn't always mean they work out.

 

[BimJenning]

It's very obviously nothing like this. Fox is far better than Hamhuis, refused to consider playing for anyone but the Rangers while Hamhuis fielded and considered other offers, and signed an ELC that could have easily fit into any cap structure.

I don't disagree with you in terms of Fox wanting to play there, or being better. I was stating though, that they put themselves in position to take advantage and take on players like Fox. I mean, Bear was only making $500K more than Fox signed for after bonuses, and as mentioned, we had to dump cap for him.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

This is the whole point. The Rangers' amassing of assets in the typical way available to all teams probably wouldn't have worked if a superstar set to make a negligible salary for three years hadn't forced a trade to them. If I scrimped and saved all my life and became fairly comfortable then found a suitcase with a million dollars in it, I'm not an example of how anyone can become a millionaire by scrimping and saving.

And again, attributing a single player as the sole source of the Rangers turnaround and then chalking it up solely to luck is what's happening. They were fortunate (or lucky) to have that one instance happen, but being in a position to act on that fortunate circumstance was through committing to a coherent plan.

That doesn't mean being financially responsible is a bad idea, just that it I couldn't have achieved my current position just by being financially responsible and am therefore not a good example of what can typically be achieved that way.

The problem is that this is what other folks (not you) are doing and why I said that the Rangers situation continues to be grossly misconstrued. People are saying that it's pointless to be financially responsible because one person found a suitcase of cash.

Again, look at what Pastor is fixating on, to the exclusion of everything else.

It’s funny because, even if you removed Fox from NYR’s defence, they likely still have an average or even above-average defence because of solid drafting/asset management in Miller, Lindgren, Trouba, Schneider, etc. Just wait until Fox gets injured; I’m sure they will do just fine.

The Rangers in general are pretty good. Like, where did Shesterkin come from, again? Oh, he was drafted by the Rangers? Like other members of their team?

And they were able to make deals/signings because they didn't devote a gross percentage of the salary cap to bottom six plugs/contract buyouts? YOU DON'T SAY.

And lest we forget, the Canucks had a golden opportunity to acquire a local, potential top pairing defenceman in Theodore. Benning appeared to have preferred Sbisa. Fart noises ensued

Eh, the examples I cited were about how NY was so 'lucky' to have a guy (who was f***ing born there) want to be traded there. Yet the Canucks historically have been unable to acquire BC-born stars (Mitchell, Hamhuis and Morrison prolly the only real examples of such and I'd hardly say they were 'superstars.')

 

[Hodgy]

I think part of the problem with the comparison to a NYR rebuild, or really any team's rebuild, is that each team's rebuild is relatively unique. You can't really point to any rebuilt team and try to take their blueprints and implement them for your team's rebuild. It just won't work because that blueprint will invariably have some unique events that just won't be available to you. But other unique events may be open to you. So as others have stated the key really is to target futures over a period of time and try to be as flexible as possible from a cap perspective so that you can take advantage of whatever "unique" opportunities may be available to you. Our management teams over the past ten years or whatever have utterly failed to do this. Its why everyone is so frustrated here.

But I think people are missing the point when they are debating whether we could or couldn't implement the exact rebuild another team implemented. The answer is always going to be "no". But it missed the point. We should be looking at the general process of successful rebuilt teams and try to implement that process, not necessarily the unique events.

 

[me2]

Vancouver Canucks can easy follow the NYR model. We just need the city to step up, add 20 million more people and become a top 10 global megacity.

 

[Hodgy]

Vancouver Canucks can easy follow the NYR model. We just need the city to step up, add 20 million more people and become a top 10 global megacity.

Remember the other most recent successful college holdout? The one who signed in Edmonton?

 

[arttk]

We obviously disagree on this.

To me the difference with the rebuild is that you start at ground level, and with our current situation you start underground.

You cant wave off the fact that we dont have money.

To use another metaphor.

We are not in position to buy the things we need, we need to first accumulate the money.


Those examples you listed do not support your retool route at all.

Every one of those teams:
- tanked hard to draft their key players with a massive pick surplus
- their cap was under control
- moved on from aging players instead of signing them to shit extensions

We have yet to do any of these things.

We have 2 great but not elite pieces in EP40 and Quinn Hughes. The rest is inefficient contracts. This is not a special situation worth taking the risk of retooling. This is obviously another thing we disagree. You think what we have as a core is something really special that warrants swimming against the strea, against the natural cycle of the hard cap league.



It comes down to this:

We were always going to be awful this year and we are going to be worse next year, this gives us one resource the teams contending don't have.

Time.

Actually we do have money, that's the point, you guys haven't looked at this in detail. If we get rid of Myers, Garland, Boeser, buyout OEL next year, extend only Bear and Dermott to a 2M, 1.7M contract, waive Stillman. We have 30.6M in cap if Pearson is placed on LTIR.

In this config, we have 2-3 forward, 4D holes and 1 backup G to sign and 30.6M in cap to do it. Like i said before, we can simply go after 4 one dimensional D that are basically PK specialists and those guys probably cost around 2M each either in FA or probably cost anywhere from 4-5th in trade. Let's say that costs like 10M total. We can splurge a little and spend 1.5M on a backup and we will still have 18.5M to spend on 2 forwards and 1 13th forward. I think we should probably be smart and go for a 4-5M PK center and maybe 2-3M on another 3rd line caliber PK forward.

Our offense will probably not be as strong as this year but I would assume that would at least get the PK back to league average and with a more capable backup, get the goalie sv% back up to around league average.

Just doing that would get you to wildcard level without really using any asset and burning through all the available cap.

The thing about elite pieces and inefficient contract. Well we are having a high pick this year no, so there is a reasonable chance that we might get another one there. It's weird to say that only Petey and Hughes have efficient contracts considering Miller, Mik, Kuz and who knows with Demko are performing to or above their contract. You are still making assumptions that management is going to keep everyone when some of us believe that they are trying to get rid of them and are just being overly patient about it.

Next year - 12M left
Kuz - Petey - Pod
Beau - Miller - Mik
Joshua - Smith/UFA - Hog
Aman - UFA - Stud

Hughes - Bear
PK - PK
Pk - PK
Dermott

Demko
1.5backup

Year after next - 10M to spend after taking Beau money and giving it to Petey
Kuz - Petey - Pod
Miller - Smith - Mik
??? - Raty - Hog
??? - ???? -????

Hughes - <upgrade>
<Upgrade> - PK
PK - PK
????

Demko
Silovs

Year after that - no idea how much to spend
Kuz - Petey - Pod
Miller - Smith - <Mik traded and get upgrade>
<drafted> - Raty - <upgrade>
???? -???? -<drafted>

Hughes <upgraded>
<upgraded> -<needs upgrade>
<drafted> - <drafted>
????

Silovs??
????

I mean if you continue to believe that we plan to hang on to OEL, Boeser and Garland for as long as we can, yeah then we won't have the cap flex to do stuff. I think once those guys goes away, we'll have money and the existing contracts left aren't bad. The only one that might become bad is Miller and who knows if that is 3 years from now or 4 years.

 

[credulous]

In this config, we have 2-3 forward, 4D holes and 1 backup G to sign and 30.6M in cap to do it. Like i said before, we can simply go after 4 one dimensional D that are basically PK specialists and those guys probably cost around 2M each either in FA or probably cost anywhere from 4-5th in trade. Let's say that costs like 10M total. We can splurge a little and spend 1.5M on a backup and we will still have 18.5M to spend on 2 forwards and 1 13th forward. I think we should probably be smart and go for a 4-5M PK center and maybe 2-3M on another 3rd line caliber PK forward.

even if they have cap space there's nothing helpful in free agency. maybe they can get 1 or 2 useful pieces but definitely not 4 or 5. and if we're back to trades then they don't have the assets to get the actually good players that come up available. you're looking at more ethan bear/travis dermott reclamation projects

 

[VanJack]

I'm beginning to wonder if Tocchet is more of an 'interim coach' than we imagined.

I think management wanted to find out of the Canucks had the roster to actually play the kind of defensive game that Tocchet is a proponent of. Early returns aren't that encouraging.

If as expected, the Canuck roster is seriously turned over at the TDL and in the off-season, then Tocchet gets a chance to start from scratch next September, and find out if the revamped roster can cut down on its ugly defensive record.

But if the Canucks limp out of gate again, I could easily see the Canucks fourth coaching change in little more than two seasons. My guess is that Tocchet gets one season to see if he can turn it around. If not, then it's 'the next man up'.

 

[arttk]

even if they have cap space there's nothing helpful in free agency. maybe they can get 1 or 2 useful pieces but definitely not 4 or 5. and if we're back to trades then they don't have the assets to get the actually good players that come up available. you're looking at more ethan bear/travis dermott reclamation projects

We got Bear for a 5th and that's because he is one dimensional and flawed from that perspective. Like Schenn is suppose to be this rare RHD and it sounds like the peak of his value at the TDL will only be a 3rd.

So if we targetting Dman that are one dimensional, I don't think it will cost us that much assets. We can sign 1 in FA, trade for 1 using another 5th or 4th or whatever low pick. Hell we might even pick one up by taking him on as a cap dump this TDL with our LTIR money and get a pick for it. There are reports of us going for a couple of european/college FA so maybe one of them is that.

I don't think the cost would be high and that's why i've been saying all along, let's see what they do.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

I'm beginning to wonder if Tocchet is more of an 'interim coach' than we imagined.

I think management wanted to find out of the Canucks had the roster to actually play the kind of defensive game that Tocchet is a proponent of. Early returns aren't that encouraging.

If as expected, the Canuck roster is seriously turned over at the TDL and in the off-season, then Tocchet gets a chance to start from scratch next September, and find out if the revamped roster can cut down on its ugly defensive record.

But if the Canucks limp out of gate again, I could easily see the Canucks fourth coaching change in little more than two seasons. My guess is that Tocchet gets one season to see if he can turn it around. If not, then it's 'the next man up'.

You think the owner would want to pay for ANOTHER coach?

And honestly, it doesn't even matter who is behind the bench. When your coach says he has to re-train the players on how to defend, something that should be basic to any NHL player, then there really isn't any hope for significant improvements from this group. Unless the Canucks upgrade like 4 of the 6-7 Dmen that play this season, as well as add a few defensively responsible forwards, it doesn't matter who is coaching this team.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I'm beginning to wonder if Tocchet is more of an 'interim coach' than we imagined.

I think management wanted to find out of the Canucks had the roster to actually play the kind of defensive game that Tocchet is a proponent of. Early returns aren't that encouraging.

If as expected, the Canuck roster is seriously turned over at the TDL and in the off-season, then Tocchet gets a chance to start from scratch next September, and find out if the revamped roster can cut down on its ugly defensive record.

But if the Canucks limp out of gate again, I could easily see the Canucks fourth coaching change in little more than two seasons. My guess is that Tocchet gets one season to see if he can turn it around. If not, then it's 'the next man up'.

Tocchet is here for the long haul...They didnt hand over $2.75M x 3 (on a guaranteed contract) for him to be an 'interim coach'.

I get the sense that he was getting offers (he turned down the Dallas coaching job in the off season), so thats a reason why they wanted to get him locked up now.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I don't disagree with you in terms of Fox wanting to play there, or being better. I was stating though, that they put themselves in position to take advantage and take on players like Fox. I mean, Bear was only making $500K more than Fox signed for after bonuses, and as mentioned, we had to dump cap for him.

Fox required 925k in cap and a 2nd and 3rd round pick. Any team in the NHL could have acquired him easily.

 

[Gurn]

Actually we do have money, that's the point, you guys haven't looked at this in detail. If we get rid of Myers, Garland, Boeser, buyout OEL next year, extend only Bear and Dermott to a 2M, 1.7M contract, waive Stillman. We have 30.6M in cap if Pearson is placed on LTIR.

IF.
wow, that's a big if !

 

[arttk]

IF.
wow, that's a big if !

Well yeah that’s why I have saying let’s see what they do.
I’ve said repeatedly that if they don’t do it then they have failed.

I am surprised that going through the math that we can technically afford Garland but I do hope we get rid of him and get some assets back.

 

[rypper]

Tocchet is under contract for two more years after this one. So next season and then he's in that lame duck spot we love to put coaches in.

 

[quat]

Vancouver Canucks can easy follow the NYR model. We just need the city to step up, add 20 million more people and become a top 10 global megacity.

Sounds easier than fixing the Canucks

 

[Javaman]

Actually we do have money, that's the point, you guys haven't looked at this in detail. If we get rid of Myers, Garland, Boeser, buyout OEL next year, extend only Bear and Dermott to a 2M, 1.7M contract, waive Stillman. We have 30.6M in cap if Pearson is placed on LTIR.

In this config, we have 2-3 forward, 4D holes and 1 backup G to sign and 30.6M in cap to do it. Like i said before, we can simply go after 4 one dimensional D that are basically PK specialists and those guys probably cost around 2M each either in FA or probably cost anywhere from 4-5th in trade. Let's say that costs like 10M total. We can splurge a little and spend 1.5M on a backup and we will still have 18.5M to spend on 2 forwards and 1 13th forward. I think we should probably be smart and go for a 4-5M PK center and maybe 2-3M on another 3rd line caliber PK forward.

Our offense will probably not be as strong as this year but I would assume that would at least get the PK back to league average and with a more capable backup, get the goalie sv% back up to around league average.

Just doing that would get you to wildcard level without really using any asset and burning through all the available cap.

The thing about elite pieces and inefficient contract. Well we are having a high pick this year no, so there is a reasonable chance that we might get another one there. It's weird to say that only Petey and Hughes have efficient contracts considering Miller, Mik, Kuz and who knows with Demko are performing to or above their contract. You are still making assumptions that management is going to keep everyone when some of us believe that they are trying to get rid of them and are just being overly patient about it.

Next year - 12M left
Kuz - Petey - Pod
Beau - Miller - Mik
Joshua - Smith/UFA - Hog
Aman - UFA - Stud

Hughes - Bear
PK - PK
Pk - PK
Dermott

Demko
1.5backup

Year after next - 10M to spend after taking Beau money and giving it to Petey
Kuz - Petey - Pod
Miller - Smith - Mik
??? - Raty - Hog
??? - ???? -????

Hughes - <upgrade>
<Upgrade> - PK
PK - PK
????

Demko
Silovs

Year after that - no idea how much to spend
Kuz - Petey - Pod
Miller - Smith - <Mik traded and get upgrade>
<drafted> - Raty - <upgrade>
???? -???? -<drafted>

Hughes <upgraded>
<upgraded> -<needs upgrade>
<drafted> - <drafted>
????

Silovs??
????

I mean if you continue to believe that we plan to hang on to OEL, Boeser and Garland for as long as we can, yeah then we won't have the cap flex to do stuff. I think once those guys goes away, we'll have money and the existing contracts left aren't bad. The only one that might become bad is Miller and who knows if that is 3 years from now or 4 years.

Sorry to nitpick, but can you explain why you think Bear, a RD, would agree to a contract below his QO when all signs point the the cap increasing significantly in the coming years?

I think there are some other, significant flaws in the scenario you're presenting, but this is the question I'm most interested in having you answer.

 

[Vector]

Sorry to nitpick, but can you explain why you think Bear, a RD, would agree to a contract below his QO when all signs point the the cap increasing significantly in the coming years?

Not to nitpick your nitpick but use cap increase is being called into question given that Balley Sports’ owner will likely file for bankruptcy and leave the NHL without those payments.

 

[arttk]

Sorry to nitpick, but can you explain why you think Bear, a RD, would agree to a contract below his QO when all signs point the the cap increasing significantly in the coming years?

I think there are some other, significant flaws in the scenario you're presenting, but this is the question I'm most interested in having you answer.

I was looking at his cap hit for us instead of his actual non retained cap when mapping things out. To be honest I think we could pay him 2.5-2.7M and we would still have cap.

 

[Javaman]

Not to nitpick your nitpick but use cap increase is being called into question given that Balley Sports’ owner will likely file for bankruptcy and leave the NHL without those payments.

Fair enough. But my underlying question remains.

Edit: he provided an answer, lol

Further edit: to the best of my knowledge, the Bally situation hasn't changed the projections ... yet. Bear's agent is going to base demands on the current projection, I'd imagine.

 

[Brookbank]

This is the whole point. The Rangers' amassing of assets in the typical way available to all teams probably wouldn't have worked if a superstar set to make a negligible salary for three years hadn't forced a trade to them. If I scrimped and saved all my life and became fairly comfortable then found a suitcase with a million dollars in it, I'm not an example of how anyone can become a millionaire by scrimping and saving. That doesn't mean being financially responsible is a bad idea, just that it I couldn't have achieved my current position just by being financially responsible and am therefore not a good example of what can typically be achieved that way.

Adam Fox pulled a Lindros twice and nobody cares or talks about it. Why shouldn't Bedard.

But yes. I agree with your point

 

[Javaman]

I was looking at his cap hit for us instead of his actual non retained cap when mapping things out. To be honest I think we could pay him 2.5-2.7M and we would still have cap.

Which leads to the next criticism of your scenario....

According to capfriendly, the Canucks have about $3M in available cap space for next season with 6 roster spots to fill. There's no way you can re-sign Bear and Dermott with that. Blithely asserting that the Canucks will simply trade away a tranche of inefficient contracts seems like the most wishful sort of thinking there is.

 

[arttk]

Which leads to the next criticism of your scenario....

According to capfriendly, the Canucks have about $3M in available cap space for next season with 6 roster spots to fill. There's no way you can re-sign Bear and Dermott with that. Blithely asserting that the Canucks will simply trade away a tranche of inefficient contracts seems like the most wishful sort of thinking there is.

Did you miss the part of getting rid of Myers, Boeser, Garland and buying out OEL, burying Stillman and putting Pearson on LTIR?